# data[].attributes.body
Screen printing tshirts

# data[].attributes.body
Font designed off the back of Oh No Blaze Face

# data[].attributes.body
All profits will be doubled by New Health Project and donated to charities helping to save our ocean's.

£54

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charity Hoodie | New Health Project Clothing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All profits will be doubled by New Health Project and donated to charities helping to save our ocean’s.

# data[].attributes.body
60% of profits go to charity - £19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This design is inspired by the incredible #alonetogether art project collaboration, created by artists Tasha Whittle and Billy Colours, in collaboration with 'The Horsfall Creative collective. The project culminated in an exhibition in 2019 which explored young people’s sense of being alone and being together.

# data[].attributes.body
100% profits go to charity - £25 - total

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All profits from sales of this t-shirt will go to women’s menopause charities - who are doing great work highlighting this time in women’s lives and the challenges we start to face.

Designed by Jane Evans - this fun and eye catching design is printed in the UK, using environmentally friendly methods onto 100% organic cotton.

# data[].attributes.body
25% going to charity - £19.95 - total

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charity Fundraising T-Shirt - Adult Unisex - 25% of sales to UNICEF appeal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Charity Classic Style T-shirt Designed by 9 Year Old Nicholas Lubas Design and StyleLogo is handcrafted and pressed onto classic style T-shirt 180 GSM. High quality t-shirt.Specification100% cotton - Reactive Dyed material - Enzyme washed for extra soft feel and for reduced shrinkage. Crew neck style with tapered neck and shoulder seam.

# data[].attributes.body
Intro to screen printing workshop

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qvRf0hsKDAtsCTSWmJO_nyFCFB1V6t_xxwQqZBW2ZPk/edit

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j5LRQdSvAG_bnX2b7RqLH1sfGodjR7yH8rsrabEyc9A/edit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Black and white version

# data[].attributes.body
Another concept illustration for clothing

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.animalaid.org.uk/urgent-ban-on-fur-and-foie-gras-imports-under-threat-write-to-your-mp/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Anti Snaring Campaign has commissioned a major review of all the available data ever produced on snaring. The review concludes that the only way to stop extremely high levels of non-target capture, illegal...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urgent: Ban on fur and foie gras imports under threat - write to your MP - Animal Aid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the Queen's Speech (10 May 2022), Animal Aid fears that pledges made in the government's 'Animal Plan for Animal Welfare', such as a ban on the import of fur and foie gras, may be dropped.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Eco, Vegan-Friendly Clothing Brands You Need to Know About | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By now, you may have heard about the toll that raising animals for food is taking on our environment.

But what about animal-derived clothing and accessories?

These inspiring fashion brands know that leather, fur, exotic skins, and other animal-derived material contribute to a multifaceted environmental crisis, so they're making responsible choices by creating their fashionable wares with recycled, cruelty-free, and sustainable materials.

The vegan fashion revolution will continue to influence designers as they see the beautiful possibilities of recycled plastic bottles, cork, wood, industrial waste, rubber, and other materials. Mark our words: Ethical, eco-conscious fashion is the wave of the future.

WAMA makes underwear from hemp for its sustainability, softness, and antibacterial nature. So far, the company estimates that it's saved 283,277 days' worth of drinking water and 297,560 hours of LED bulb energy.

SUSI Studio makes absolutely lovely cruelty-free footwear from recycled rubber and other sustainable materials.

This company's chic fanny packs are handcrafted from either 100 percent organic cotton or Eco-fi, a high-quality fiber created from post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. Talk about freeing women and the planet of their baggage.

Every step of the way, Native Shoes ensures that its production processes are clean and green, with its low-emission manufacturing process and recyclable-material packaging. The best part? Its products are 100 percent animal-friendly.

Insecta uses recycled rubber and plastic bottles, vintage clothing, and vegan leather to create its eco-friendly, vegan shoes.

ROMBAUT is the Brad Pitt of kicks. The company is noted for its lack of toxicity and animal-derived materials-and uses new material innovations made from stone, tree bark, natural rubber, cotton cellulose, and coconut fiber. Next level-we know.

This Aussie brand's tees are made with vegan ink and in a factory in Bali where salaries are three to five times more than the average for a tailor on the island. Get the limited-edition PETA x In the Soulshine tee from the PETA Catalog today!

Della makes beautiful, one-of-a-kind apparel that also supplies jobs, education, and skills training to the women and men of Hohoe, Ghana-and the company does it without harming animals.

Materials such as recycled soda and water bottles as well as recycled polyester and cotton blends diverted from waste streams are used in this unisex clothing line.

This eco-conscious brand appeals to fashionistas everywhere with its on-trend designs and high-quality fabrics, made partially from recycled vintage clothing. Find great vegan looks like this summery dress:

Alabama Chanin is a vegan-friendly lifestyle company producing well-designed and thoughtfully made goods for people and homes. It uses 100 percent organic cotton fabric-sourced sustainably from seed to fabric-along with repurposed and reclaimed materials in its designs.

Loomstate is a vegan-friendly brand that's committed to using 100 percent certified organic cotton in its designs in order to keep the environment clean, its farmers healthy, and its customers comfortable.

Wawwa strives to make its garments climate neutral. This means that they're made using energy only from renewable sources, avoiding excessive CO ₂ emissions during their production. The company is a certified social enterprise, and its clothing is 100 percent organic and certified vegan by PETA.

Doshi was founded in order to offer smart, fashionable, and high-quality vegan products to people who have ethical, religious, or environmental beliefs that lead them to seek cruelty-free items. The company does its best to find factories that purchase recycled base material and minimize the use of chemicals and solvents in the manufacturing of its materials.

When selecting fabrics, Wully Outerwear gravitates toward those that provide top performance and have a minimal ecological impact. Its local production limits its carbon footprint, and its commitment to reducing CO ₂ emissions further supports its efforts to protect wildlife. The company constantly strives to make its production, products, and packaging as green as they can be.

This luxury vegan shoe brand's spring 2017 collection features 100 percent recycled polyurethane lining materials, and all its shoe soles are made from 70 percent recycled rubber resin.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BesHo5gn85x/?taken-by=beyondskin

This vegan company focuses on recycling the waste from its own facility. Every material that can be reused, which is about 68 percent of the total amount, goes back through the industrial process.

All Westland jewelry is cast in 100 percent recycled metal, which comes from postconsumer products, such as already existing jewelry, electronics, and hardware. The company uses only recycled or fair-trade diamonds and gemstones, is a 100 percent vegan brand, and uses socially responsible production methods.

This clever company uses upcycled Ultrasuede made from recycled industrial waste from a television factory in Japan. As the company says, "The process takes the polyester waste from the making of the screen and creates a non-woven material that is water-resistant, crack-proof and color fast." Genius!

Delikate Rayne continually strives to uncover inventive, cruelty-free, and sustainable textiles and use them to create pieces that change preconceived ideas about what animal-free garments should look like. The company carefully selects and sources vegan leather that's eco-friendly and PVC-free. It uses a sustainable PU (polyurethane), which is a much safer alternative not only for humans but also for the environment.

Pixie Mood bags include an inner liner made out of recycled water bottles, helping to prevent fish and other animals from living in polluted waters.

Bourgeois Boheme ensures that all its brand-exclusive styles are ethically made-using the best innovative, eco-friendly, and vegan materials-by its handpicked artisans in Portugal.

The company continually strives to minimize its environmental footprint as much as possible while maintaining the durability, quality, comfort, and style of its footwear.

Miomojo's designers continually work to improve the standard of their materials, while maintaining their commitment to remaining sustainable, cruelty-free, beautiful, and affordable. Their products are recycled, PVC-free, formaldehyde-free, cruelty-free, and 100 percent poison-free, and they use no heavy metals.

This online shopping marketplace focuses on eco-conscious brands that often incorporate vegan and recycled materials into their designs.

This vegan shoe brand uses recycled and sustainable uppers as well as reclaimed wooden soles. It aims to create shoes with a "'cradle to cradle' life cycle.

This brand specializes in hand-crafted purses made from salvaged materials. The purse fabrics are made from salvaged filter cloth from beer manufacturing plants, and the handles are salvaged climbing rope gathered from local gyms.

This high-end luxury brand, founded by animal rights activist Stella McCartney, describes its ethos on its website: "We use as much recycled plastic as possible. All our handbags are lined with polyester that comes from recycled plastic water bottles-we have also used a Recycled Microfiber that was made from recycled plastic water bottles."

The linings of Gunas purses are made from recycled polyester. The brand also incorporates upcycled upholstery fabrics, vintage materials, and recycled metals for its logo hardware.

You can shop for clothes on this brand's website by "ingredient" or style. Ingredients include eucalyptus, recycled cotton, recycled plastic, vegetable dye, hemp, and organic cotton. We love it.

Tokyo Bags makes all its bags vegan with sustainable materials such as faux leather, cork, rubber, and canvas. The company uses 100% recycled paper packaging and soy-based ink to reduce its environmental impact even further.

The Dharma Store is spreading the vegan lifestyle message, one graphic tee at a time. It uses water-based and eco-friendly inks for its diverse designs, and all products ship in recyclable or fully biodegradable packaging. Can you say compassionate and comfy?

Tearojoy makes stewardship of nature and consideration for future generations top priorities by creating vegan bags, wallets, and other accessories using sustainable upcycled or recycled materials such as cork, denim, and husks. It also makes vegan leather wallets with anti-theft RFID blocking technology.

Visit our How to Wear Vegan Feature to learn more about how easy it is to dress compassionately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eco, Vegan-Friendly Clothing Brands You Need to Know About | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By now, you may have heard about the toll that raising animals for food is taking on our environment. But what about animal-derived clothing and accessories? These inspiring fashion brands know that leather, fur, exotic skins, and other animal-derived material contribute to a multifaceted environmental crisis, so they're making responsible choices by creating their fashionable wares with recycled, cruelty-free, and sustainable materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.body
Colours:
black and white
Font:
Ohno Bloodfashion (main)
Rama Gothic E (secondary)

# data[].attributes.body
- Make sure all our work is cohesive and on brand
- Statement for newspaper
- Arrange printing as well as costs and materials
- How are we going to present the final artefact? (Sale, show, etc)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today we are talking about an important topic closely related to sustainable fashion: cruelty free (or vegan) fashion. We will answer the most frequently asked questions, but if after reading the article you still have questions, please contact us, and we will be happy to answer your questions.

Check some of our most favourite cruelty free products for women:

What is Cruelty Free Fashion?

Cruelty free fashion does not use animal-based materials and we al know this. But not everyone knows, including vegans, that to define cruelty free fashion it is not enough to just buy products made with alternatives to animal-based materials.

Let's start with the basics - by cruelty free fashion we mean: clothing, shoes, bags, gloves, hats, belts, scarves, sunglasses, socks and ties.

Leaving aside for a moment bio materials (cotton, hemp, linen, rubber), usually alternatives to animal-based materials are synthetic, i.e. made in the laboratory with raw materials from oil industry waste. See polyurethane, polyester, microfiber.

Synthetic materials that are highly contaminating and therefore harmful to fauna and flora. Just think of industrial spills into water, into the atmosphere or more simply the release of microplastics from clothes we wash at home.

This is why we constantly say it is not enough to avoid purchasing animal-based materials to define our choice as "cruelty free" because buying a product made with these synthetic materials, and without any textile certification that is was produced with a small carbon footprint, is absolutely not a sustainable, ethical nor cruelty free choice.

Buying cruelty free fashion is a choice that can make a difference in the animal world as long as these products are also environmentally friendly. The use of animal-based materials is very widespread in fashion, although in recent years thanks to the great awareness campaigns launched by animal welfare associations, many fashion brands are switching to cruelty free in response to increasing customer demand.

Cruelty free fashion is often a marketing move, other times an ethical choice. But we're fine with it anyway. The important thing is to minimize the use of these materials:

We have listed them in order of importance and now we will explain why. Collecting feathers is terrible for the level of cruelty: they are torn out while the bird is alive, then they grow back, and they are torn again. The animal is then "raped" by man throughout his life.

Furs are undoubtedly cruel in every respect and contribute to the death of millions of animals every year. We need only to think of the intensive breeding of foxes and minks, but also rabbits and dogs.

Silk - although silkworms are considered "inferior" to other living creatures - is another of those materials to be abolished given the live extraction by boiling the silkworm.

Leather is less gory than the 3 materials mentioned above. We could consider it on a par with furs since we are talking about the same thing, but in this case we have to take note of the difference: the leather used to make bags, shoes, accessories, clothing, comes mostly from the zootechnical (food) industry where it is considered as a waste product.

This means that if it wasn't used in fashion it would be burned in incinerators. At this point it is clear that burning it would certainly be counterproductive for the environment.

Wool is a bit like skin, mostly coming from farms dedicated to the food industry. Animals bred need to be sheared to survive so, although it is by no means a cruelty free material, it is undoubtedly the lesser of two evils compared to other materials mentioned.

As it is particularly difficult to recognize cruelty free fashion from the eco-friendly or ethical fashion, at Slow Nature we are here to help you better understand the various textile certifications and teach you how to recognize green textiles: a key aspect when it comes to sustainable fashion.

.

When Can We Call Fashion "Cruelty free?"

Fashion can be called cruelty free when it is made with alternatives to animal-based materials and at the same time has textile certifications guaranteeing this. The 4 most famous international labels (certifications) are:
Discover More About Textile Certifications
PETA certification is named after the international animal rights organization itself. Animal Free Fashion and FurFree are two distinct projects sponsored by the association Anti Vivisection League (AVL). VeganOK takes its name from the same network dedicated to the vegan world. Although it is still very widespread in the food sector, little is seen in fashion.

These certifications, at least Animal Free and PETA, also evaluate the environmental impact of a company's production but maintain a form of self-certification. Fashion brands apply for them, send the documents requested by the organisations (materials, suppliers, production methods, chemical substances used, etc.), which will then be examined and the brand's request is possibly accepted.

Certified brands do not have to be 100% cruelty free, but they can only affix the certification label to products that reflect the requirements of the certification.

The environmental impact of these products is then assessed according to the materials and chemicals used. It is not a particularly effective verification system but it is still a good sign organisations are interested and understand that it is just not enough to exclude those 4/5 materials to protect the animal world but that a more is needed to reduce the environmental impact throughout the textile production chain.

We hope that these checks can be "tightened up" more and more, forcing fashion companies into what we call eco-sustainable textile innovation.

When we talk about cruelty free at the moment you should ideally choose bio-based materials for our clothing or accessories, i.e. materials that are biodegradable or compostable, natural textile fibers or synthetic materials of recycled origin. With plastic, for example, there is so much of it around that you can't imagine wasting or burning it. We would ideally collect it and reuse it at time after time, as if it were a primary resource.

Sure, we should stop producing new plastic but we hope that this "dream" will come true as soon as possible.

At the moment, however, we have several choices. What we call alternative materials to those of animal origin and which are also eco-friendly (low environmental impact):

Piñatex (pineapple)

Vegea (wine)

Appleskin (apple)

Ligneah (wood)

Fruitleather (mango)

Econyl

Newlife

Recyclable material

Organic cotton

Cavas/linen

Cork/wood

Natural rubber

Discover More About Eco-Friendly Fabrics
We have imitation fabrics derived from food waste (pineapple, apple, wine, mango). These materials are new innovations, but it is difficult to judge which is better than others as we have little statistical data offered by the manufacturers and no concrete scientific research that can demonstrate what the companies say.

We can play it safe with natural fibres like organic cotton, hemp, linen, rubber, wood and cork, which have a low carbon footprints and are considered socially responsible. But that is not always the case and we have to be careful. We have to be careful with the labels and get to know the brands that make the products.

Cruelty Free Fashion Online and in Shops

As a market that is still underdeveloped and sought after, several fashion brands have started going in this direction. Many are beginning this adventure by abandoning furs and then gradually replacing all animal-based materials. At least this should be the ultimate goal.

Though there are several brands that have adhered to these initiatives, it is still difficult to find products with these labels in stores. On the contrary, it is very easy to find them online.

We hope they can quickly appear "traditional" stores but this will depend on consumer demand. The greater the demand for certified cruelty free fashion, the greater the chances that fashion brands will change production.

Why Cruelty Free Fashion is Important

We believe that the answer to this question can be found in every line of this article: cruelty free fashion is important to protect the animal kingdom.

In recent years we have killed most of the animals in the wild, not to mention those on intensive farms. The textile industry is largely responsible for these tragic events, but unlike the food industry, fashion could well do without them. In the today's society, we are able to develop alternatives to animal-based materials thanks to science.

We are all growing more aware today, but not all of us are able to change our shopping habits.

Would you like to buy vegan products? Slow Nature is the right place to come as we offer an exclusive cruelty free fashion selection on our website.

or
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Leave a comment

Also in Sustainable Fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today we are talking about an important topic closely related to sustainable fashion: cruelty free (or vegan) fashion. We will answer the most frequently asked questions, but if after reading the article you still have questions, please contact us, and we will be happy to answer your questions.

# data[].attributes.headline
How leather, fur and down is harvested and used 

# data[].attributes.subject
How leather, fur and down is harvested and used 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fashion industry causes pain and suffering to millions of animals all over the world including for fur, leather, wool, silk and down. Whatever the material, cruelty is involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Dumb Animals: Lynx's Campaign Against the Fur Industry * V&A Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Protest against the environmental impact and impact on species of the fashion industry is a recurring theme in Fashioned from Nature. Groups such as Lynx were key to changing the industry.

'It takes up to 40 dumb animals' poster, Jeremy Pemberton (b. 1948, art director), Alan Page (b. 1951, copywriter) and David Bailey (b.1938, photographer) for Lynx, Originally issued by Greenpeace, 1984, Britain, 1986-7. V&A: E.3041-1991 © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

In collaboration with art director Jeremy Pemberton, fashion photographer David Bailey shot this striking poster in 1984, featuring the lower body of a woman in short black skirt, tights and high-heeled shoes, dragging behind her a fur coat that has left a trail of bright red blood in its wake. The attention-grabbing slogan by copywriter Alan Page directly accuses fur-wearers, going beyond the usual narrative of the pain inflicted on animals. The work was commissioned in protest against the fur trade by anti-fur organisation Lynx in 1984 and was part of a campaign for Greenpeace. A TV commercial of the same theme with music by Vangelis was produced in the following year, which was even more arresting than the poster. It showed models in fur coats striking poses down the catwalk while splashing blood onto their audience, similarly leaving a broad trail of blood on the runway.

Lynx co-founder, Lynne Kentish, who wished to professionalise the animal rights movement recalls: ' it was all a bit shabby up to then. No one was putting professional-looking campaign stuff out. ' Mark Glover, also a co-founder of Lynx, believed that the campaign had a phenomenal impact as one of the very first to adopt a consumer-facing strategy. The reach of the fur trade was much greater than it is today. Glover made the case by explaining that every Debenhams store had a fur department and many towns and cities had fur shops in the '80s; it was the 'Dumb Animals' campaign that persuaded people to change their perception of fur from something glamourous to something grotesque and immoral.

The hard-hitting visuals of both the poster and video are impossible to ignore. Riding the wave of the high publicity of the 'Dumb Animals' campaign, Linda McCartney subsequently shot the 'Rich Bitch, Poor Bitch' poster for Lynx in 1989 (V&A: E.3038-1991). In spite of their success in raising awareness, the sexist undertone of these campaigns generated controversy.

Such controversy paved the way for a media commotion: anti-fur and pro-fur groups defended their beliefs while publicly condemning each other. More than a decade after the campaign was launched, it continued to be referenced in popular media by both groups. A health article in the Independent in 1998 titled ' Get warm for winter and don't be a dumb animal ' argues that fur coats are lifesavers that could potentially save 40,000 more people from winter mortality in Britain. Meanwhile, more and more organisations such as PETA, ARME, BBC Earth, National Geographics and other independent filmmakers have produced a succession of documentaries exposing the brutal reality of the fur industry, calling for an end to the fur trade.

'Stop the Bloody Fur Trade' poster, Lynx, Britain. V&A: E.3239-1991. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

Nonetheless, there was a 70% increase in fur sales from 2000 to 2010, over $14 billion worldwide, and the UK alone had a 40% increase in just one year (2010). Fur companies like the Copenhagen-based Saga Furs, which alone held more than 65% of the global market share in mink and fox in the 2000s, have continuously sponsored fashion students and small fashion houses from the UK, Sweden, France and Italy, to China, Japan and Korea. In doing so, they entice and train emerging fashion talents to develop a career skewed towards using fur in their collections. Pro-fur organisations like the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA), the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF), and America's Fur Commission (AFC) have proceeded to defend fur as the more environmentally-friendly option in comparison with faux fur, which has been on the rise in both luxury and high street fashion in recent years. Faux fur is usually made from non-renewable and non-biodegradable materials such as coal, petroleum and limestone. The extraction, fraction and conversion of these materials during the manufacturing process are energy intensive and release harmful chemicals into the water, risking both flora and fauna.

More than three decades after the industry-shaking 'Dumb Animals' campaign, the fight against fur proves to be an ongoing, yet hopeful one. Less than two months after the opening of Fashioned from Nature, Westminster has started debates on banning fur imports to the UK, sparking a new wave of anti-fur protest. Earlier this year, luxury designer brands including Versace, Gucci, Burberry, and Mulberry announced they would be going fur free. If the making and wearing of fur can no longer be justified in today's world and faux fur is simultaneously being criticised for its harm, perhaps, we can count on emerging designers to develop more sustainable alternatives, like the ones shown in Fashioned from Nature.
With the closing date of Fashioned from Nature approaching, the next post will look at the favourite inspired-by-nature garments of staff from across the museum. This post was edited on 20 September 2021 to acknowledge the contribution of Alan Page (writer) and Jeremy Pemberton (Art Director/Creative Director).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dumb Animals: Lynx's Campaign Against the Fur Industry * V&A Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protest against the environmental impact and impact on species of the fashion industry is a recurring theme in Fashioned from Nature. Groups such as Lynx were key to changing the industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
22 Shameless Fashion Brands Still Using Fur in 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, buying and wearing fur clothes is cruel and unnecessary. Every year, millions of animals are killed to produce fur globally. While a lot of fashion brands decided to go fur-free, many keep using fur to create clothing.

The mass-farming of fur is not only unethical but has also destructive effects on human health and ecosystems. Animals are enslaved, exploited, subjected to torturous treatments, and exposed to hazardous chemicals.

Brutal farming, trapping, and skinning of animals still occur too often to produce fur for fashion. This is very cruel and shocking, especially when so many ethical and sustainable alternatives are available.

Animal fur is one of the oldest forms of clothing and is viewed as warm and luxurious in fashion. It's made of animal furry hide and used to make clothing such as coats, jackets, capes, parkas, vests, and boleros.

The most common animals that are slaughtered for their fur are foxes, rabbits, seals, sables, beavers, coyotes, wolves, minks, possums, raccoons, even cats, and dogs.

No welfare standards can make fur production ethical. Removing animal skins to make fashion is unethical.

Luckily, many animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( PETA) mobilize fashion designers, brands, and celebrities to boycott fur clothes.

"Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way."
- PETA

"Fur? I am out of that. I don't want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn't feel right."

Many well-known fashion brands and designers have stopped using real fur completely. Some of them are Versace, Furla, Armani, Calvin Klein, Gucci, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Shrimps, and Vivienne Westwood.

- Donatella Francesca Versace, Versace Chief Creative Officer

Even several high-street brands don't use animal fur anymore, including Topshop, Zara, Gap, French Connection, AllSaints, Hobbs, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, House of Fraser, Ted Baker, H&M and Whistles.

Animal cruelty shouldn't exist in any modern and civilized society. Real fur is no longer modern. It's on the way out and has been for years. It's a dying industry that goes as far as briding fashion students to feature animal skins in their collections.

The fashion industry can be innovative and creative without harming animals. The barbaric treatment of animals by the fur industry needs to stop.

Approximately 245 mink farms in 22 states across the United States produce about 3.1 million pelts annually, according to the Fur Commission.

"85% of the fur industry's skins come from animals raised in battery cages in fur farms, where animals are deprived of the quality of life."
Animals on fur farms live their entire lives confined, trapped, and caged. They are even beaten, electrocuted, or skinned alive.

China is still the world's largest exporter of fur. And Chinese fur farms aren't as heavily regulated as they should be.

- Animals Australia, a leading animal protection organization

The manufacturing of fur clothes also requires very hazardous substances, including acids, bleaches, and toxic dyes, used to prevent putrefaction up to unsafe levels.

Fur farming is responsible for the most common form of water pollution in the United States, according to the Humane Society. Millions of pounds of feces are produced annually and animal wastes contain high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.

The fur industry is greedy and cruel. It resorts to unethical and unsustainable production methods to make fur as cheap as possible and maintain high profits.

Hopefully, the future of fashion is going to be fur-free. More clothing brands and retailers need to commit to more responsible and ethical sourcing policies.

A cultural shift happening in our society and with it, the rise of conscious consumerism. Humane fabrics are in high demand and the ethical fashion movement is growing.

As a consumer, you have the power to drive change in the industry. Stop buying and wearing fur clothes. Avoid companies that still use animal products or by-products for clothing.

Here are 22 revolting fashion brands that still use real animal fur:

1. Alexander McQueen

2. Alexander Wang

3. Altuzarra

4. Arthur Galan

5. Balenciaga

6. Canada Goose

7. Chloe

8. Dior

9. Fendi

10. Giambattista Valli

11. Hermes

12. J. Mendel

13. Karl Lagerfeld

14. Lisa Ho

15. Louis Vuitton

16. Marc Jacobs

17. Marni

18. Prada

19. Roberto Cavalli

20. Salvatore Ferragamo

21. Valentino

22. Yves Saint Laurent

There are too many fashion brands that use animal fur to list them all. It's shockingly disgusting that clothing brands still engage in such barbaric practices for vanity and profits.
As consumers, we should be aware of how the impact of our purchasing decisions, how and where the products we buy are being made. With a bit of research, we can prevent the terrible abuse going on in farms and factories around the world.

Luckily, more fashion designers and brands are adopting ethical and sustainable practices. They use ethically made and environmentally friendly materials to create beautiful and functional apparel.

Let's support companies that don't exploit animals at all. It's the more ethical choice for animals and environmental protection.

All animals want to live a good life just like we do. It's easy to say that we should ban fur but it's not an easy issue to solve. People are still relying on fur farms to earn enough money for them and their families, especially in developing countries.
-
Panaprium is proud to be 100% independent with no sponsorship and free of any influence. Products are carefully handpicked from brands we trust and support. If you buy something through our link, we may earn a commission.
-
Progress has been made but it's not nearly enough. Luckily, more publications such as Vogue, Marie Claire, The Guardian, Glamour, and Eluxe now cover ethical and sustainable fashion.

Let's hope for a better textile and apparel industry in the coming years, a fashion world that moves away from mindless consumerism and protects the environment, where all humans and animals are cared for.

Alex Assoune (MS) is a global health and environmental advocate. He founded Panaprium to inspire others with conscious living, ethical, and sustainable fashion. Alex has worked in many countries to address social and environmental issues. He speaks three languages and holds two Master of Science degrees in Engineering from SIGMA and IFPEN schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
22 Shameless Fashion Brands Still Using Fur in 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, buying and wearing fur clothes is cruel and unnecessary. Every year, millions of animals are killed to produce fur globally. While a lot of fashion brands decided to go fur-free, many keep using fur to create clothing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blood Fashion Term

Blood Fashion: The term coined for Fashion that is made of abuse and animal suffering in the name of Ego, greed and profits. Just like Blood diamond, Blood pearls,Blood lions....No more Blood industries should ever be tolerated. Time to evolve!

Special Thanks and Credit to Mitzi Ocean: <The world

coordinator& correspondent for IAFC > For this term that depicts so well what it is all about. Please use those hashtags for your next Anti-Fur posts, pictures and videos:

#BloodFashion #EndBloodFashion #BanBloodFashion
BLOOD FASHION PROJECT:
10 years after we had launched our clip and song :
" Skinned Alive", we teamed up with the amazing rapper and activist Scott SCS - Hip Hop / Non-profit Rhymes for Good for making a new version , called " Blood Fashion "! A lso featuring the great singer Amanda Jane. Thank you so much for giving their beautiful voice to the voiceless. Special thanks to Cynthia Anne for her amazing contribution and to the Berkeley Animal Rights Center activists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y79F2tRXW2o

*CREDITS: Cinematographer: Kevin Curro Motion Graphics/VFX: DesignerDesmond Recording & Mixing Engineer: Jonathan Moe Songwriters: SCS, Jane Halevy, Amanda Jane Photographer/Videographer: Cynthia Anne Recording Engineer: Jonathan "J. Moe" Moe Video Editor: Cole Seidl Audio recorded in Secret Studios (SF) Video shot primarily in Golden Gate Park (SF)*

Above Picture by the photographer: Ronen Machlev - Model: Gala Kogan - Make up Artist: Jane Halevy.

"Blood Fashion" Fur: The real price of fur has nothing to do with the item price. The real price of fur has been paid by the animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Blood Fashion: The term coined for Fashion that is made of abuse and animal suffering in the name of Ego, greed and profits. Just like Blood diamond, Blood pearls,Blood lions....No more Blood industries should ever be tolerated. Time to evolve!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey guys i had an idea for the project let me know what you think or if you have ideas you’d rather do- so basically we would design kind of a streetwear type clothing brand with the designs on the clothes relating to animal rights (anti hunting &fur) and then a percentage of profits would go to animal rights charities etc, i feel like this would play to our strengths as graphics/illustration with the designs on clothing & branding- let me know what you think or if u guys have any ideas of what we could do

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How the Animal Rights Movement Developed Over Time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Concern for animal suffering is not new or modern. The ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures advocate a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons. The ideology behind the animal rights movement has evolved over millennia, but many animal activists point to the 1975 publication of Australian philosopher Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals" as the catalyst for the modern American animal rights initiative. This timeline highlights some of the major events in the fight against animal cruelty.

Early Events and Legislation

1635: First known animal protection legislation passes, in Ireland, "An Act against plowing by the tayle, and pulling the wool off living sheep."

1641: The Massachusetts colony's Body of Liberties includes regulations against "Tirranny or Crueltie" toward animals.

1687: Japan reintroduces a ban on eating meat and killing animals.

1780: English philosopher Jeremy Bentham argues for better treatment of animals.

19th Century

1822: British Parliament passes "Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle."

1824: The first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is founded in England by Richard Martin, Arthur Broome, and William Wilberforce.

1835: The first Cruelty to Animal Act is passed in Britain.

1866: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( ASPCA) is founded by New Yorker Henry Bergh.

1875: The National Anti-Vivisection Society is established in Britain by Frances Power Cobbe.

1892: English social reformer Henry Stephens Salt publishes "Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress."

20th Century

1906: Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle," an excoriating look into the cruelty and appalling conditions of the Chicago meatpacking industry, is published.

1944: English animal rights advocate Donald Watson founded the Vegan Society in Britain.

1975: "Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals" by philosopher Peter Singer is published.

1979: Animal Legal Defense Fund is established, and the National Anti-Vivisection Society establishes World Lab Animal Day on April 24, which has since evolved into World Laboratory Animal Week.

1981: The Farm Animal Reform Movement is officially founded.

1983: TheFarm Animal Rights Movement establishes World Day for Farmed Animals on October 2; "The Case for Animal Rights," by philosopher Tom Regan is published.

1985: The first annual Great American MeatOut is organized by the Farm Animal Reform Movement.

1986: Fur Free Friday, an annual nationwide fur protest on the day after Thanksgiving, begins; the Farm Sanctuary is founded.

1989: Avon stops testing its products on animals; In Defense of Animals launches their campaign against Proctor & Gamble's animal testing.

1990: Revlon stops testing its products on animals.

1992: Animal Enterprise Protection Act is passed.

1994: Tyke the elephant goes on a rampage, killing her trainer and escaping from the circus before being gunned down by police.

1995: Erica Meier founded Compassion Over Killing.

1996: Vegetarian activist and former cattle rancher Howard Lyman appears on Oprah Winfrey's talk show, leading to a defamation lawsuit filed by Texas Cattlemen.

1997: PETA releases an undercover video showing animal abuse by Huntingdon Life Sciences.

21st Century

2002: Dominion by Matthew Scully is published; McDonald's settles a class-action lawsuit over their non-vegetarian french fries.

2004: Clothing chain Forever 21 promises to stop selling fur.

2005: The U.S. Congress pulls funding for inspections of horse meat.

2006: The "SHAC 7" are convicted under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act; Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is passed, and an investigation by the Humane Society of the U.S. reveals that items labeled as "faux" fur at Burlington Coat Factory are made of real fur.

2013: The documentary "Blackfish" reaches a mass audience, causing widespread public criticism of SeaWorld.

2014: India bans cosmetic testing on animals, the first Asian country to do so.

2015-2016: SeaWorld announces it will end its controversial orca shows and breeding program.

2017: The Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives votes 27 -25 in favor of re-opening horse slaughter plants in the U.S.

2018: Nabisco changes its 116-year-old package design for Animal Crackers. The new box is cage-free; Sens. John Kennedy, R-La., and Catherine Cortez, D-Nev., introduce the Welfare of Our Furry Friends Act (WOOFF) to prohibit airlines from storing animals in overhead compartments after the death of Kokito, a French bulldog, during a United Airlines flight from Houston to New York.

2019: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mammals to test the toxicity of chemicals; California becomes the first U.S. state to ban the sale and manufacture of new fur items; Cat declawing is banned in New York State.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Animal Rights Movement Developed Over Time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here is a timeline of the modern Animal Rights Movement, including major milestones, setbacks, and accomplishments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Is Dogfighting?

Although it is a felony offense in all 50 states (plus D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands), organized dogfighting still takes place in many parts of the country. Historical accounts date as far back as the 1750s, with professional fighting pits proliferating in the 1860s.

As with any other illegal underground activity, it is impossible to determine how many people may be involved in dogfighting. Estimates based on fight reports in underground dogfighting publications, and on animals entering shelters bearing evidence of fighting, suggest that the number of people involved in dogfighting in the U.S. is in the tens of thousands. While organized dogfighting activity seemed to decline in the 1990s, many law enforcement and animal control officials feel that it has rebounded in recent years, with the Internet making it easier than ever for dogfighters to exchange information about animals and fights.

Why Do People Get Involved in Dogfighting?

There are many reasons people are drawn to dogfighting. The most basic is greed. Major dogfight raids have resulted in seizures of more than $500,000, and it is not unusual for $20,000 - $30,000 to change hands in a single fight. Stud fees and the sale of pups from promising bloodlines can also bring in thousands of dollars.

For others, the attraction lies in using the animals as an extension of themselves to fight their battles for them and to demonstrate their strength and prowess. However, when a dog loses, this can cause the owner of the dog to lose not only money, but status, and may lead to brutal actions against the dog.

For others, the appeal simply seems to come from the sadistic enjoyment of a brutal spectacle.

Which Dogs Are Used in Dogfighting?

For professional and hobbyist dogfighters, the sale of pups from parents who have won several fights is a major part of their activity. Underground dogfighting publications and websites are commonly used to advertise pups or the availability of breeding stock. Although there are many breeds of dogs used for fighting worldwide-including the Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, the Tosa Inu and the Presa Canario-the dog of choice for fighting in the United States is the American Pit Bull Terrier. Occasionally other breeds and mixes are reportedly used in street fights or as "bait" dogs used by some to train dogfighting victims.

This does not mean that the pit bull is unsuitable as a family pet. It is important to remember that any dog can behave aggressively, depending on the context, his genetic background and his upbringing and environment. When a dog is treated well, properly trained and thoroughly socialized during puppyhood and matched with the right kind of owner and household, he's likely to develop into a well-behaved companion and cherished member of the family.

How Are Dogfighting Victims Raised and Trained?

Dogs used for fighting must be kept isolated from other dogs, so they spend most of their lives on short, heavy chains, often just out of reach of other dogs. They are usually unsocialized to other dogs and to most people. However, many professional fighters invest much time and money in conditioning their animals. They are often given quality nutrition and basic veterinary care. The dogs are exercised under controlled conditions, such as on a treadmill.

The conditioning of dogfighting victims may also make use of a variety of legal and illegal drugs, including anabolic steroids to enhance muscle mass and encourage aggressiveness. Narcotic drugs may also be used to increase the dogs' aggression, increase reactivity and mask pain or fear during a fight.

What Happens in a Dogfight?

Fights can take place in a variety of locations and at any time. They may be impromptu street fights in a back alley, or carefully planned and staged enterprises in a location specifically designed and maintained for the purpose. Usually the fight takes place in a pit that is between 14 and 20 feet square, with sides that may be made of plywood, hay bales, chain link or anything else that can contain the animals. The flooring may be dirt, wood, carpet or sawdust.

In a more organized fight, the dogs will be weighed to make sure they are approximately the same weight. Handlers will often wash and examine the opponent's dog to remove any toxic substances that may have been placed on the fur in an attempt to deter or harm the opposing dog. At the start of a fight, the dogs are released from opposite corners and usually meet in the middle, wrestling to get a hold on the opponent. If they do, the dogs grab and shake to inflict maximal damage. Handlers are not permitted to touch the dogs except when told to do so by the referee.

Fights can last just a few minutes or several hours. Both animals may suffer injuries, including puncture wounds, lacerations, blood loss, crushing injuries and broken bones. Although fights are not usually to the death, many dogs succumb to their injuries later.

Unless they have had a good history of past performance or come from valuable bloodlines, losing dogs are often discarded, killed or simply left with their injuries untreated. If the losing dog is perceived to be a particular embarrassment to the reputation or status of its owner, it may be executed in a particularly brutal fashion as part of the "entertainment."

What Are the Laws Related to Dogfighting?

As of 2008, dogfighting is a felony in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In most states, the possession of dogs for the purpose of fighting is also a felony offense. Being a spectator at a dogfight is also illegal in all states. Laws and penalties vary widely by state.

On the federal side, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 prohibits certain animal fighting-related activities when they have involved more than one state or interstate mail services, including the U.S. Postal Service. In 2007, Congress passed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act with strong bipartisan support. The Act amended the Animal Welfare Act and provides felony penalties for interstate commerce, import and export relating to commerce in dogs abused for profit, roosters who are forced to fight and cockfighting paraphernalia. Each violation can result in up to three years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

In 2014, the crucial elements of the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act were signed into law as part of the Farm Bill. This provision makes attending an animal fight anywhere in the U.S. a federal offense, and imposes additional penalties for bringing a child under 16 to an animal fight.

If Dogfighting Is So Widespread, Why Don't More Cases Come to Light?

Dogfighting is a violent and highly secretive enterprise that is extremely difficult for law enforcement and investigative professionals to infiltrate. A dogfight investigation requires many of the same skills and resources as a major undercover narcotics investigation, and challenges the resources of any agency that seeks to respond to it.

An additional complication is that the evidence likely to be seized in a raid includes the dogs-living creatures who must be taken care of and maintained while the judicial process unfolds. Most prosecutors would be happy to take on every dogfighting case they could, but they are limited by the human and animal care resources available to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What happens in a dog fight? What are the laws related to it, and how can we stop it? Get the answers to these and other questions here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Inside the illegal world of organised dogfighting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the illegal world of organised dogfighting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A BBC investigation into dogfighting discovered an illegal trade stretching from Eastern Europe to Wales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Britain’s most endangered animal species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Britain’s most endangered animal species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some once-common native species are disappearing from the British countryside – our guide looks at 10 of the most endangered animal species in the UK that have suffered acute declines in recent years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Species List | Endangered, Vulnerable, and Threatened Animals | WWF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Species List | Endangered, Vulnerable, and Threatened Animals | WWF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WWF is committed to saving endangered species. Learn more about the species we are working to protecting from becoming endangered or extinct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Big game hunting for trophies is cruel, harmful and unsustainable. Trophy hunting rare animals, such as Cecil the lion, for bragging rights is irresponsible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Largest Animal Welfare Charity in the UK | RSPCA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Largest Animal Welfare Charity in the UK | RSPCA - RSPCA - rspca.org.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We specialise in animal rescue & furthering the welfare cause for all animals. Click to learn more about & support the UK’s leading animal welfare charity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year, more than 110 million animals-including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds-are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them-they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.

Animal Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Center poll found that 52 percent of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. 5,6 The majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease ... poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research." ⁷

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way.

For example, according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." ⁸ This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We have moved away from studying human disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. ... The problem is that it hasn't worked, and it's time we stopped dancing around the problem. ... We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans." ⁹

The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans. ¹⁰ In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work." ¹¹

These are not anomalies. The National Institutes of Health has stated, "Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more." ¹²

Research published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that universities commonly exaggerate findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories and "often promote research that has uncertain relevance to human health and do not provide key facts or acknowledge important limitations." ¹³ One study of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories often omit crucial information and that "the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented." ¹⁴ Because experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies, other scientists and the public do not have ready access to information on the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation.

Funding and Accountability

Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who-knowingly or unknowingly-fund animal experimentation. One of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such as NIH. Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted nearly $42 billion for research and development. 15,16 In addition, many charities--including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and countless others-use donations to fund experiments on animals. One-third of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society involve animal experimentation. ¹⁷

Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal experimentation, it is nearly impossible for the public to obtain current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are being carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. State open-records laws and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain documents and information from state institutions, government agencies, and other federally funded facilities, but private companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. In many cases, institutions that are subject to open-records laws fight vigorously to withhold information about animal experimentation from the public. ¹⁸

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories but are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 19,20 Many laboratories that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with pain relief or veterinary care, to search for and consider alternatives to animal use, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is largely unregulated. ²¹

As for the more than 11,000 facilities that the USDA does regulate (of which more than 1,200 are designated for "research"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations. ²² Reports have repeatedly concluded that even the minimal standards set forth by the AWA are not being met by these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to carry out their mandate. A 1995 report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "found that the activities of the IACUCs did not always meet the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not be performed on laboratory animals." ²³ In 2000, a USDA survey of the agency's laboratory inspectors revealed serious problems in numerous areas, including "the search for alternatives [and] review of painful procedures." ²⁴ A September 2005 audit report issued by the OIG found ongoing "problems with the search for alternative research, veterinary care, review of painful procedures, and the researchers' use of animals." ²⁵ In December 2014, an OIG report documented continuing problems with laboratories failing to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA's weak enforcement actions failing to deter future violations. The audit highlighted that from 2009 to 2011, USDA inspectors cited 531 experimentation facilities for 1,379 violations stemming from the IACUCs' failure to adequately review and monitor the use of animals. The audit also determined that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators by an average of 86 percent, even in cases involving animal deaths and egregious violations. ²⁶

Research co-authored by PETA documented that, on average, animal experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 percent of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. institutions. A whopping 98.6 percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also made up of animal experimenters. The authors observed that the dominant role played by animal experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving animal experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight system." ²⁷ Even when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law. When valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to use such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

A high-profile study published in the prestigious BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) documenting the ineffectiveness and waste of experimentation on animals concluded that "if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced." ²⁸

Research with human volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on human cells and tissues are critical to the advancement of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animal research methods are available and have been shown time and again to be more accurate than crude animal experiments. ²⁹ However, this modern research requires a different outlook, one that is creative and compassionate and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Human health and well-being can also be promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public is becoming more aware and more vocal about the cruelty and inadequacy of the current research system and is demanding that tax dollars and charitable donations not be used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Animal Testing

PETA created " Without Consent"-an interactive timeline featuring almost 200 stories of animal experiments from the past century-to open people's eyes to the long history of suffering that's been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit " Without Consent " to learn more about harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.
Without Consent
You Can Help Stop Animal Testing

Virtually all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Your lawmakers needs to know that you don't want your money used to pay for animal experiments.

Urge your members of Congress to endorse PETA's Research Modernization Deal, which provides a roadmap for modernizing U.S. investment in research by ending funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in effective research that's relevant to humans.
Take Action Not a U.S. Resident? Take Action Here
Animal Testing Facts and Figures

Almost 1 million animals are held captive in laboratories or used in experiments (excluding rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used in agricultural experiments), plus an estimated 110 million mice and rats

69 million animals used in experiments as reported by CCAC-certified institutions*

115,818 animals subjected to "severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals"

*The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is a "national peer-review organization" that is funded by the Canadian government but has no regulatory capacity. Only institutions that receive public funds are required to be certified by the CCAC, and the figures reported by the organization reflect only this subset of facilities. Most private research facilities are not certified by the CCAC, and their animal use is not accounted for in the CCAC's figures.

76 million procedures on animals

Of those procedures, 110,400 were assessed to be "severe," including "long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 Apr. 2021.
²Larry Carbone, " Estimating Mouse and Rat Use in American Laboratories by Extrapolation From Animal Welfare Act-Regulated Species," Scientific Reports 11, 493 (2021).
³Canadian Council on Animal Care, " CCAC 2021 Animal Data Report," 2022
⁴U.K. Government, " Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2022," Home Office, 13 July 2023.
⁵Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, " Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Research Center, 16 Aug. 2018
⁶Peter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, " Let the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
⁷Daniel G. Hackam, M.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., " Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human," The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
⁸Marlene Simmons et al., " Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions," Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
⁹Rich McManus, "Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Research," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
¹⁰Jarrod Bailey, " An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, " Is It Time to Give Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Health, " About New Therapeutic Uses," National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 9 Oct. 2019.
¹³Steve Woloshin, M.D., M.S., et al., " Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?" Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-8.
¹⁴Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, " Media Reporting on Research Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed," The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-80.
¹⁵Diana E. Pankevich et al., " International Animal Research Regulations: Impact on Neuroscience Research," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, " Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et al.
¹⁸Deborah Ziff, " On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Research Records," Wisconsin State Journal 5 Apr. 2010.
¹⁹U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
²⁰Justin Goodman et al., " Trends in Animal Use at US Research Facilities," Journal of Medical Ethics 0(2015): 1-3.
²¹The Associated Press, "Animal Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Care: Search."
²³U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, " USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit report, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et al., " Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, " Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., " Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The facts on animal testing are clear: Researchers in U.S. laboratories kill more than 110 million animals in wasteful and unreliable experiments each year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
totemism, system of belief in which humans are said to have kinship or a mystical relationship with a spirit-being, such as an animal or plant. The entity, or totem, is thought to interact with a given kin group or an individual and to serve as their emblem or symbol.

The term totemism has been used to characterize a cluster of traits in the religion and in the social organization of many peoples. Totemism is manifested in various forms and types in different contexts and is most often found among populations whose traditional economies relied on hunting and gathering, mixed farming with hunting and gathering, or emphasized the raising of cattle.

The term totem is derived from the Ojibwa word ototeman, meaning "one's brother-sister kin." The grammatical root, ote, signifies a blood relationship between brothers and sisters who have the same mother and who may not marry each other. In English, the word totem was introduced in 1791 by a British merchant and translator who gave it a false meaning in the belief that it designated the guardian spirit of an individual, who appeared in the form of an animal-an idea that the Ojibwa clans did indeed portray by their wearing of animal skins. It was reported at the end of the 18th century that the Ojibwa named their clans after those animals that live in the area in which they live and appear to be either friendly or fearful. The first accurate report about totemism in North America was written by a Methodist missionary, Peter Jones, himself an Ojibwa, who died in 1856 and whose report was published posthumously. According to Jones, the Great Spirit had given toodaims ("totems") to the Ojibwa clans, and because of this act, it should never be forgotten that members of the group are related to one another and on this account may not marry among themselves.

The nature of totemism

Totemism is a complex of varied ideas and ways of behaviour based on a worldview drawn from nature. There are ideological, mystical, emotional, reverential, and genealogical relationships of social groups or specific persons with animals or natural objects, the so-called totems.

It is necessary to differentiate between group and individual totemism. These forms share some basic characteristics, but they occur with different emphases and in different specific forms. For instance, people generally view the totem as a companion, relative, protector, progenitor, or helper, ascribe to it superhuman powers and abilities, and offer it some combination of respect, veneration, awe, and fear. Most cultures use special names and emblems to refer to the totem, and those it sponsors engage in partial identification with the totem or symbolic assimilation to it. There is usually a prohibition or taboo against killing, eating, or touching the totem.

Although totems are often the focus of ritual behaviour, it is generally agreed that totemism is not a religion. Totemism can certainly include religious elements in varying degrees, just as it can appear conjoined with magic. Totemism is frequently mixed with different kinds of other beliefs, such as ancestor worship, ideas of the soul, or animism. Such mixtures have historically made the understanding of particular totemistic forms difficult.

Group totemism

Social or collective totemism is the most widely disseminated form of this belief system. It typically includes one or more of several features, such as the mystic association of animal and plant species, natural phenomena, or created objects with unilineally related groups ( lineages, clans, tribes, moieties, phratries) or with local groups and families; the hereditary transmission of the totems (patrilineal or matrilineal); group and personal names that are based either directly or indirectly on the totem; the use of totemistic emblems and symbols; taboos and prohibitions that may apply to the species itself or can be limited to parts of animals and plants (partial taboos instead of partial totems); and a connection with a large number of animals and natural objects (multiplex totems) within which a distinction can be made between principal totems and subsidiary ones (linked totems).

Group totems are generally associated or coordinated on the basis of analogies or on the basis of myth or ritual. Just why particular animals or natural things-which sometimes possess no economic worth for the communities concerned-were originally selected as totems is often based on eventful and decisive moments in a people's past. Folk traditions regarding the nature of totems and the origin of the societies in question are informative, especially with regard to the group's cultural presuppositions. For example, a group that holds that it is derived directly or indirectly from a given totem may have a tradition in which its progenitor was an animal or plant that could also appear as a human being. In such belief systems, groups of people and species of animals and plants can thus have progenitors in common. In other cases, there are traditions that the human progenitor of a kin group had certain favourable or unfavourable experiences with an animal or natural object and then ordered that his descendants respect the whole species of that animal.

Group totemism was traditionally common among peoples in Africa, India, Oceania (especially in Melanesia), North America, and parts of South America. These peoples include, among others, the Australian Aborigines, the African Pygmies, and various Native American peoples-most notably the Northwest Coast Indians (predominantly fishermen), California Indians, and Northeast Indians. Moreover, group totemism is represented in a distinctive form among the Ugrians and west Siberians (hunters and fishermen who also breed reindeer) as well as among tribes of herdsmen in north and Central Asia.

Individual totemism

Individual totemism is expressed in an intimate relationship of friendship and protection between a person and a particular animal or a natural object (sometimes between a person and a species of animal); the natural object can grant special power to its owner. Frequently connected with individual totemism are definite ideas about the human soul (or souls) and conceptions derived from them, such as the idea of an alter ego and nagualism-from the Spanish form of the Aztec word naualli, "something hidden or veiled"-which means that a kind of simultaneous existence is assumed between an animal or a natural object and a person; i.e., a mutual, close bond of life and fate exists in such a way that in case of the injury, sickness, or death of one partner, the same fate would befall the other member of the relationship. Consequently, such totems became most strongly tabooed; above all, they were connected with family or group leaders, chiefs, medicine men, shamans, and other socially significant persons.

Studies of shamanism indicate that individual totemism may have predated group totemism, as a group's protective spirits were sometimes derived from the totems of specific individuals. To some extent, there also exists a tendency to pass on an individual totem as hereditary or to make taboo the entire species of animal to which the individual totem belongs.

Individual totemism is widely disseminated. It is found not only among tribes of hunters and harvesters but also among farmers and herdsmen. Individual totemism is especially emphasized among the Australian Aborigines and the American Indians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
totemism, system of belief in which humans are said to have kinship or a mystical relationship with a spirit-being, such as an animal or plant. The entity, or totem, is thought to interact with a given kin group or an individual and to serve as their emblem or symbol.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
animism | Definition, Meaning, Symbol, & Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animism | Definition, Meaning, Symbol, & Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animism, belief in innumerable spiritual beings concerned with human affairs and capable of helping or harming human interests. Animistic beliefs were first competently surveyed by Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in his work Primitive Culture (1871), to which is owed the continued currency of the term anim…

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How often do hunting accidents happen in France?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The president of the national hunting group la Fédération nationale des chasseurs has said "zero risk [hunting] does not exist" after two people were seriously injured by bullets shot by hunters last week.

Near Rennes, a 67-year-old man was hit by a ricocheting bullet while driving a car on a dual carriageway on October 30, and remains in a critical condition in hospital.

The hunter has been charged with causing "unintentional injuries while hunting".

In Haute-Savoie, a 29-year-old man was shot in the chest on October 28 while walking on a hiking path with his mother. His injuries are not thought to be life threatening.

Speaking to Sud Radio yesterday (November 1) Willy Schraen said: "Obviously these dramatic incidents have come at a very bad time and close together and I apologise.

"There are very few accidents of this nature each year. They are very rare."

He added that it was not possible to stop hunting accidents altogether. In an interview with BFMTV on October 29 he said: "I would absolutely like to get close to zero [accidents]... but we are humans and we all make mistakes."

Green politicians have said this is grounds to ban or reduce hunting in France. Deputy Mayor in Paris, David Belliard tweeted: "There is a simple solution - no hunting, no deaths."

Senator for Europe Ecologie - Les Verts (EELV), Guillaume Gontard, said: "Maybe this is the best argument for days with no hunting, and protection from armed human beings."

On October 29, presidential candidate for EELV, Yannick Jadot, told BFMTV that hunting should be banned at the weekend and during school holidays, an idea Mr Schraen called "stupid".

He said: "In the past 20 years [hunters] have reduced the number of deadly and non-deadly accidents by four."

How often do hunting accidents happen in France?

Since 2000, there have been 3,325 hunting accidents in France, of which 421 were fatal, figures from l'Office français de la biodiversité and la Fédération nationale de la chasse show.

This is equivalent to 158 accidents per year, with 20 deaths.

Since 2000, the number of accidents has gone down 40% and the number of deaths 70%, figures from L'Office français de la biodiversité show.

In nine out of 10 of cases, it is hunters themselves who were the victims of accidents, and in 30% of cases, accidents were self-inflicted.

Most accidents occurred during big game hunts, such as for wild boar.

These figures do not include incidents that have caused injury or death to domestic animals, or instances where bullets have entered homes or cars.

There are currently strict rules for hunters, which aim to reduce accidents.

These include a ban on bullets being fired at human-height or through bushes and hedges, towards roads, paths, residences, electric transport lines, and railway lines.

Guns must also be loaded and unloaded in a vehicle and can only be loaded before the hunter is about to shoot.

However, there are no laws around consuming alcohol during hunts, although if an accident does occur the hunter responsible may be asked to take a breathalyser test, and a positive result could be considered an aggravating factor.

Related articles
45,600 sign petition for two hunt-free days in France Debate over wild boar hunts in France after one runs into public pool Hunting: Thousands march in France to defend 'rural way of life'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How often do hunting accidents happen in France?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The president of the national hunting group la Fédération nationale des chasseurs has said "zero risk [hunting] does not exist" after two people were seriously injured by bullets shot by hunters last week. Near Rennes, a 67-year-old man was hit by a ricocheting bullet while driving a car on a dual carriageway on October 30, and remains in a critical condition in hospital.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Judeo-Christian faith

The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states:

"Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Thus, the biblical concept of God's dominion over man and man's dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals ( Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10):

"A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness ( Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone ( Broom, 2003).

There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10):

"... but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates."

Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6):

* "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." and "If a bird's nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young."

In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15):

* "Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" and

* "The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?"

In Wade's (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas' theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (" imago Dei"). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit ( Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as " speciesist". He explains this as the "a rbitrary favouring of one species' interests over another". The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas's (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes ( Wade, 2004).

Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism

Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being ( Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things ( Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example:

"Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal."

Ch'eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide ( Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India's ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, "non-injury" or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said ( Vaswani, 2003):

* "It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing."

According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value.

Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering.

The Islamic religion

The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah's will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu'ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur'an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man's needs ( Sura 16, verses 5 to 8):

"(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know."

The Qur'an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man ( Sura 2, verse 29):

"(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth."

Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur'an (1997) highlights animals' submission to Allah's Power ( Sura 16, verse 79):

"Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What Each Major Religion Says About Animal Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal rights and religion overlap in more ways than are currently spoken about or reported on. Here are what the most practiced religions say regarding animals rights.

Animal rights and religion overlap in more ways than are currently spoken about or reported on. Here are what the most practiced religions say regarding animals rights.

Each religion values animals differently. While some people view animals as sacred based on the religion they follow, others merely see them as a source for food. Additionally, each religion has evolved over time and is practiced differently across cultures and countries.

Buddhism

Buddhism is to be a religion that practices and promotes peace for both human and non-human animals. Some even argue that Buddhism animal welfare because compassion for all living beings is highly integrated in the beliefs of Buddhism.

Just as Christianity and Judaism have the Ten Commandments, Buddhism has the Five Precepts. The First Precept, do not kill or harm others, is highly debated over as it relates to animal suffering. Who was the Buddha referring to when using "others" in the The First Precept? Should this precept only apply to humans? Or should it apply to all sentient beings?

All Buddhists seek to be in line with the teachings of the Buddha, but there are different interpretations of this religion around the world. It is common for Buddhists to follow a plant-based diet, however, not all do.

Many modern-day Buddhists that eating meat from supermarkets or restaurants is considered ethical as the animals were not killed specifically for to eat, a stipulation the Buddha required of monks begging for food.

In the teachings of Buddhism, the act of eating meat and killing animals for meat are seen as separate, thus making meat eating acceptable in the eyes of many Buddhists. If they are merely scavenging at the supermarket to ensure meat does not go to waste, not actively taking the life of an animal, Buddhists see this as rational. Of course, many do not agree with this perspective.
The Buddha said in the Dhammapada:
"All beings tremble before danger. All fear death. When you consider this, you will not kill or cause someone else to kill. All beings fear before danger. Life is dear to all."

Compassion is sought after by all who practice Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhists try to do as little harm as possible to animals, avoid any jobs in connection with the killing of animals, respect animals and humans equally, and believe that both humans and non-human animals are capable of reaching Nirvana, the highest state of well-being.

Christianity

Christianity is practiced by billions of people, and is the most popular religion in the Americas, Europe, and the southern half of Africa. Animal rights and welfare are heavily over by Christians, especially in the United States and England.
Genesis 1:26 to 28:
"Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Christian vegetarianism is becoming more popular as people learn where their food comes from. Christian vegetarians align biblical values with their eating, as they do not want to take part in cruelty toward animals. to The Christian Vegetarian Association, "those who consume the products of factory farms are sponsoring violence."

Christianity is based on one God, and Christians believe in serving their God in everything they do, including eating. Many believe that animals were put on Earth by God to serve man, while others believe animals are sentient, intelligent beings who deserve to be treated with respect.

Hinduism

Due to the mixture of religious ideas, there is not one single Hindu view on animal rights, much like other religions.

Hindu teachings hold the belief that all living creatures have a soul, and that they are a part of the supreme soul. Therefore, all living creatures - both human and non-human - are respected similar to Buddhist traditions.

While Hinduism calls for proper and respectful treatment of all living beings, animals are sacrificed in religious ceremonies. A great deal of importance is placed on how the animals are treated leading up to the sacrifice, as the proper treatment of animals is considered as a Hindu moves toward salvation, their ultimate goal.

Cows in particular are greatly revered by Hindus because the cow is associated with Aditi, the mother of all gods in Hindu scriptures. Additionally, cows provide more than they take.

"The cow, they say, produces five things - milk, cheese, butter (or ghee), urine and dung. The first three are eaten and used in worship of the Hindu gods, while the last two can be used in religious devotion or in penance or burned for fuel."

In India, where 80 percent of the population practices Hinduism, the act of killing a cow is banned due to how sacred they are. Hindus do not eat any beef products.

With the overall premise to be kind to all creatures with a soul, Hinduism holds animal rights to a high degree, although animals are sacrificed for religious purposes.

Islam

Muslims believe that animals exist for the benefit of human beings, but also that they should be treated with kindness and compassion.

"It is God who provided for you all manner of livestock, that you may ride on some of them and from some you may derive your food. And other uses in them for you to satisfy your heart's desires. It is on them, as on ships, that you make your journeys."

Islamic teachings do not allow Muslims to consume pork, meat from an animal that was not properly slaughtered, blood, the meat of an animal that died from electrocution, strangulation or blunt force, or any food contaminated by the above.

While most Muslims do eat meat, there are strict guidelines as to how the animal is slaughtered to be considered and not Ritual slaughter that is halal of the following:

"Muslims slaughter their livestock by slitting the animal's throat in a swift and merciful manner, reciting "In the name of God, God is Most Great" (Quran 6:118-121). The animal should not suffer in any way, and should not see the blade before slaughter. The knife must be razor sharp and free from any blood of a previous slaughter. All of the animal's blood must be drained before consumption. Meat prepared in this manner is called zabihah, or simply, halal meat."

Islamic practices intend to be kind to all animals, even as they are slaughtered, due to the strict guidelines set forth in the Qur'an to respect all animals.

Judaism

Judaism places a large amount of stress on the proper treatment of animals because they are seen as a part of God's creation. The Jewish tradition clearly that it is forbidden to be cruel to animals. Humans must avoid tsa'ar ba'alei chayim - causing pain to any living creature.

Observant Jews only eat meat that comes from an approved slaughter process, . Much like the process in Islamic tradition to render meat halal, animal rights activists find shechita to be egregiously cruel to animals, while Jews believe the opposite.

"Since the desire of procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Torah commands that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner, by piercing it, or by cutting off a limb while the animal is still alive."

The shechita slaughtering method is designed to kill an animal with one single stroke of the knife, killing the animal instantly so they do not feel any pain. If done correctly, the meat becomes kosher.

Judaism is primarily concerned with the essential needs of humans, and sets forth that if animals are treated properly, they can be sacrificed for human need.

Conclusion

Major religions around the world believe, to varying degrees, that animals should be treated with compassion and respect. In the countries and cultures where these religions are practiced, and animals are to be treated with respect, animals are still used as a food source and sacrificed for religious purposes.

Mohandas Gandhi said, "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man."

As time passes and religious traditions continue to evolve, will we see animals' lives being spared in furtherance of animal rights within a religious capacity?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Each Major Religion Says About Animal Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal rights and religion overlap in more ways than are currently spoken about or reported on. Here are what the most practiced religions say regarding animals rights. Animal rights and religion overlap in more ways than are currently spoken about or reported on. Here are what the most practiced religions say regarding animals rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Economic History of the Fur Trade: 1670 to 1870

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ann M. Carlos, University of Colorado
Frank D. Lewis, Queen's University

Introduction

A commercial fur trade in North America grew out of the early contact between Indians and European fisherman who were netting cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and on the Bay of Gaspé near Quebec. Indians would trade the pelts of small animals, such as mink, for knives and other iron-based products, or for textiles. Exchange at first was haphazard and it was only in the late sixteenth century, when the wearing of beaver hats became fashionable, that firms were established who dealt exclusively in furs. High quality pelts are available only where winters are severe, so the trade took place predominantly in the regions we now know as Canada, although some activity took place further south along the Mississippi River and in the Rocky Mountains. There was also a market in deer skins that predominated in the Appalachians.

The first firms to participate in the fur trade were French, and under French rule the trade spread along the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers, and down the Mississippi. In the seventeenth century, following the Dutch, the English developed a trade through Albany. Then in 1670, a charter was granted by the British crown to the Hudson's Bay Company, which began operating from posts along the coast of Hudson Bay (see Figure 1). For roughly the next hundred years, this northern region saw competition of varying intensity between the French and the English. With the conquest of New France in 1763, the French trade shifted to Scottish merchants operating out of Montreal. After the negotiation of Jay's Treaty (1794), the northern border was defined and trade along the Mississippi passed to the American Fur Company under John Jacob Astor. In 1821, the northern participants merged under the name of the Hudson's Bay Company, and for many decades this merged company continued to trade in furs. Finally, in the 1990s, under pressure from animal rights groups, the Hudson's Bay Company, which in the twentieth century had become a large Canadian retailer, ended the fur component of its operation.

Figure 1
Hudson's Bay Company Hinterlands

Source: Ray (1987, plate 60)

The fur trade was based on pelts destined either for the luxury clothing market or for the felting industries, of which hatting was the most important. This was a transatlantic trade. The animals were trapped and exchanged for goods in North America, and the pelts were transported to Europe for processing and final sale. As a result, forces operating on the demand side of the market in Europe and on the supply side in North America determined prices and volumes; while intermediaries, who linked the two geographically separated areas, determined how the trade was conducted.

The Demand for Fur: Hats, Pelts and Prices

However much hats may be considered an accessory today, they were for centuries a mandatory part of everyday dress, for both men and women. Of course styles changed, and, in response to the vagaries of fashion and politics, hats took on various forms and shapes, from the high-crowned, broad-brimmed hat of the first two Stuarts to the conically-shaped, plainer hat of the Puritans. The Restoration of Charles II of England in 1660 and the Glorious Revolution in 1689 brought their own changes in style (Clarke, 1982, chapter 1). What remained a constant was the material from which hats were made - wool felt. The wool came from various animals, but towards the end of the fifteenth century beaver wool began to be predominate. Over time, beaver hats became increasingly popular eventually dominating the market. Only in the nineteenth century did silk replace beaver in high-fashion men's hats.

Wool Felt

Furs have long been classified as either fancy or staple. Fancy furs are those demanded for the beauty and luster of their pelt. These furs - mink, fox, otter - are fashioned by furriers into garments or robes. Staple furs are sought for their wool. All staple furs have a double coating of hair with long, stiff, smooth hairs called guard hairs which protect the shorter, softer hair, called wool, that grows next to the animal skin. Only the wool can be felted. Each of the shorter hairs is barbed and once the barbs at the ends of the hair are open, the wool can be compressed into a solid piece of material called felt. The prime staple fur has been beaver, although muskrat and rabbit have also been used.

Wool felt was used for over two centuries to make high-fashion hats. Felt is stronger than a woven material. It will not tear or unravel in a straight line; it is more resistant to water, and it will hold its shape even if it gets wet. These characteristics made felt the prime material for hatters especially when fashion called for hats with large brims. The highest quality hats would be made fully from beaver wool, whereas lower quality hats included inferior wool, such as rabbit.

Felt Making

The transformation of beaver skins into felt and then hats was a highly skilled activity. The process required first that the beaver wool be separated from the guard hairs and the skin, and that some of the wool have open barbs, since felt required some open-barbed wool in the mixture. Felt dates back to the nomads of Central Asia, who are said to have invented the process of felting and made their tents from this light but durable material. Although the art of felting disappeared from much of western Europe during the first millennium, felt-making survived in Russia, Sweden, and Asia Minor. As a result of the Medieval Crusades, felting was reintroduced through the Mediterranean into France (Crean, 1962).

In Russia, the felting industry was based on the European beaver ( castor fiber). Given their long tradition of working with beaver pelts, the Russians had perfected the art of combing out the short barbed hairs from among the longer guard hairs, a technology that they safeguarded. As a consequence, the early felting trades in England and France had to rely on beaver wool imported from Russia, although they also used domestic supplies of wool from other animals, such rabbit, sheep and goat. But by the end of the seventeenth century, Russian supplies were drying up, reflecting the serious depletion of the European beaver population.

Coincident with the decline in European beaver stocks was the emergence of a North American trade. North American beaver ( castor canadensis) was imported through agents in the English, French and Dutch colonies. Although many of the pelts were shipped to Russia for initial processing, the growth of the beaver market in England and France led to the development of local technologies, and more knowledge of the art of combing. Separating the beaver wool from the felt was only the first step in the felting process. It was also necessary that some of the barbs on the short hairs be raised or open. On the animal these hairs were naturally covered with keratin to prevent the barbs from opening, thus to make felt, the keratin had to be stripped from at least some of the hairs. The process was difficult to refine and entailed considerable experimentation by felt-makers. For instance, one felt maker "bundled [the skins] in a sack of linen and boiled [them] for twelve hours in water containing several fatty substances and nitric acid" (Crean, 1962, p. 381). Although such processes removed the keratin, they did so at the price of a lower quality wool.

The opening of the North American trade not only increased the supply of skins for the felting industry, it also provided a subset of skins whose guard hairs had already been removed and the keratin broken down. Beaver pelts imported from North America were classified as either parchment beaver ( castor sec - dry beaver), or coat beaver ( castor gras - greasy beaver). Parchment beaver were from freshly caught animals, whose skins were simply dried before being presented for trade. Coat beaver were skins that had been worn by the Indians for a year or more. With wear, the guard hairs fell out and the pelt became oily and more pliable. In addition, the keratin covering the shorter hairs broke down. By the middle of the seventeenth century, hatters and felt-makers came to learn that parchment and coat beaver could be combined to produce a strong, smooth, pliable, top-quality waterproof material.

Until the 1720s, beaver felt was produced with relatively fixed proportions of coat and parchment skins, which led to periodic shortages of one or the other type of pelt. The constraint was relaxed when carotting was developed, a chemical process by which parchment skins were transformed into a type of coat beaver. The original carrotting formula consisted of salts of mercury diluted in nitric acid, which was brushed on the pelts. The use of mercury was a big advance, but it also had serious health consequences for hatters and felters, who were forced to breathe the mercury vapor for extended periods. The expression "mad as a hatter" dates from this period, as the vapor attacked the nervous systems of these workers.

The Prices of Parchment and Coat Beaver

Drawn from the accounts of the Hudson's Bay Company, Table 1 presents some eighteenth century prices of parchment and coat beaver pelts. From 1713 to 1726, before the carotting process had become established, coat beaver generally fetched a higher price than parchment beaver, averaging 6.6 shillings per pelt as compared to 5.5 shillings. Once carotting was widely used, however, the prices were reversed, and from 1730 to 1770 parchment exceeded coat in almost every year. The same general pattern is seen in the Paris data, although there the reversal was delayed, suggesting slower diffusion in France of the carotting technology. As Crean (1962, p. 382) notes, Nollet's L'Art de faire des chapeaux included the exact formula, but it was not published until 1765.

A weighted average of parchment and coat prices in London reveals three episodes. From 1713 to 1722 prices were quite stable, fluctuating within the narrow band of 5.0 and 5.5 shillings per pelt. During the period, 1723 to 1745, prices moved sharply higher and remained in the range of 7 to 9 shillings. The years 1746 to 1763 saw another big increase to over 12 shillings per pelt. There are far fewer prices available for Paris, but we do know that in the period 1739 to 1753 the trend was also sharply higher with prices more than doubling.

Table 1
Price of Beaver Pelts in Britain: 1713-1763
(shillings per skin)

Year

Parchment

Coat

Average a

Year

Parchment

Coat Averagea

1738

8.95

6.47

8.32

a A weighted average of the prices of parchment, coat and half parchment beaver pelts. Weights are based on the trade in these types of furs at Fort Albany. Prices of the individual types of pelts are not available for the years, 1727 to 1735.

Source: Carlos and Lewis, 1999.

The Demand for Beaver Hats

The main cause of the rising beaver pelt prices in England and France was the increasing demand for beaver hats, which included hats made exclusively with beaver wool and referred to as "beaver hats," and those hats containing a combination of beaver and a lower cost wool, such as rabbit. These were called "felt hats." Unfortunately, aggregate consumption series for the eighteenth century Europe are not available. We do, however, have Gregory King's contemporary work for England which provides a good starting point. In a table entitled "Annual Consumption of Apparell, anno 1688," King calculated that consumption of all types of hats was about 3.3 million, or nearly one hat per person. King also included a second category, caps of all sorts, for which he estimated consumption at 1.6 million (Harte, 1991, p. 293). This means that as early as 1700, the potential market for hats in England alone was nearly 5 million per year. Over the next century, the rising demand for beaver pelts was a result of a number factors including population growth, a greater export market, a shift toward beaver hats from hats made of other materials, and a shift from caps to hats.

The British export data indicate that demand for beaver hats was growing not just in England, but in Europe as well. In 1700 a modest 69,500 beaver hats were exported from England and almost the same number of felt hats; but by 1760, slightly over 500,000 beaver hats and 370,000 felt halts were shipped from English ports (Lawson, 1943, app. I). In total, over the seventy years to 1770, 21 million beaver and felt hats were exported from England. In addition to the final product, England exported the raw material, beaver pelts. In 1760, £15,000 in beaver pelts were exported along with a range of other furs. The hats and the pelts tended to go to different parts of Europe. Raw pelts were shipped mainly to northern Europe, including Germany, Flanders, Holland and Russia; whereas hats went to the southern European markets of Spain and Portugal. In 1750, Germany imported 16,500 beaver hats, while Spain imported 110,000 and Portugal 175,000 (Lawson, 1943, appendices F & G). Over the first six decades of the eighteenth century, these markets grew dramatically, such that the value of beaver hat sales to Portugal alone was £89,000 in 1756-1760, representing about 300,000 hats or two-thirds of the entire export trade.

European Intermediaries in the Fur Trade

By the eighteenth century, the demand for furs in Europe was being met mainly by exports from North America with intermediaries playing an essential role. The American trade, which moved along the main water systems, was organized largely through chartered companies. At the far north, operating out of Hudson Bay, was the Hudson's Bay Company, chartered in 1670. The Compagnie d'Occident, founded in 1718, was the most successful of a series of monopoly French companies. It operated through the St. Lawrence River and in the region of the eastern Great Lakes. There was also an English trade through Albany and New York, and a French trade down the Mississippi.

The Hudson's Bay Company and the Compagnie d'Occident, although similar in title, had very different internal structures. The English trade was organized along hierarchical lines with salaried managers, whereas the French monopoly issued licenses ( congés) or leased out the use of its posts. The structure of the English company allowed for more control from the London head office, but required systems that could monitor the managers of the trading posts (Carlos and Nicholas, 1990). The leasing and licensing arrangements of the French made monitoring unnecessary, but led to a system where the center had little influence over the conduct of the trade.

The French and English were distinguished as well by how they interacted with the Natives. The Hudson's Bay Company established posts around the Bay and waited for the Indians, often middlemen, to come to them. The French, by contrast, moved into the interior, directly trading with the Indians who harvested the furs. The French arrangement was more conducive to expansion, and by the end of the seventeenth century, they had moved beyond the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers into the western Great Lakes region (see Figure 1). Later they established posts in the heart of the Hudson Bay hinterland. In addition, the French explored the river systems to the south, setting up a post at the mouth of the Mississippi. As noted earlier, after Jay's Treaty was signed, the French were replaced in the Mississippi region by U.S. interests which later formed the American Fur Company (Haeger, 1991).

The English takeover of New France at the end of the French and Indian Wars in 1763 did not, at first, fundamentally change the structure of the trade. Rather, French management was replaced by Scottish and English merchants operating in Montreal. But, within a decade, the Montreal trade was reorganized into partnerships between merchants in Montreal and traders who wintered in the interior. The most important of these arrangements led to the formation of the Northwest Company, which for the first two decades of the nineteenth century, competed with the Hudson's Bay Company (Carlos and Hoffman, 1986). By the early decades of the nineteenth century, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Northwest Company, and the American Fur Company had, combined, a system of trading posts across North America, including posts in Oregon and British Columbia and on the Mackenzie River. In 1821, the Northwest Company and the Hudson's Bay Company merged under the name of the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson's Bay Company then ran the trade as a monopsony until the late 1840s when it began facing serious competition from trappers to the south. The Company's role in the northwest changed again with the Canadian Confederation in 1867. Over the next decades treaties were signed with many of the northern tribes forever changing the old fur trade order in Canada.

The Supply of Furs: The Harvesting of Beaver and Depletion

During the eighteenth century, the changing technology of felt production and the growing demand for felt hats were met by attempts to increase the supply of furs, especially the supply of beaver pelts. Any permanent increase, however, was ultimately dependent on the animal resource base. How that base changed over time must be a matter of speculation since no animal counts exist from that period; nevertheless, the evidence we do have points to a scenario in which over-harvesting, at least in some years, gave rise to serious depletion of the beaver and possibly other animals such as marten that were also being traded. Why the beaver were over-harvested was closely related to the prices Natives were receiving, but important as well was the nature of Native property rights to the resource.

Harvests in the Fort Albany and York Factory Regions

That beaver populations along the Eastern seaboard regions of North America were depleted as the fur trade advanced is widely accepted. In fact the search for new sources of supply further west, including the region of Hudson Bay, has been attributed in part to dwindling beaver stocks in areas where the fur trade had been long established. Although there has been little discussion of the impact that the Hudson's Bay Company and the French, who traded in the region of Hudson Bay, were having on the beaver stock, the remarkably complete records of the Hudson's Bay Company provide the basis for reasonable inferences about depletion. From 1700 there is an uninterrupted annual series of fur returns at Fort Albany; the fur returns from York Factory begin in 1716 (see Figure 1).

The beaver returns at Fort Albany and York Factory for the period 1700 to 1770 are described in Figure 2. At Fort Albany the number of beaver skins over the period 1700 to 1720 averaged roughly 19,000, with wide year-to-year fluctuations; the range was about 15,000 to 30,000. After 1720 and until the late 1740s average returns declined by about 5,000 skins, and remained within the somewhat narrower range of roughly 10,000 to 20,000 skins. The period of relative stability was broken in the final years of the 1740s. In 1748 and 1749, returns increased to an average of nearly 23,000. Following these unusually strong years, the trade fell precipitously so that in 1756 fewer than 6,000 beaver pelts were received. There was a brief recovery in the early 1760s but by the end decade trade had fallen below even the mid-1750s levels. In 1770, Fort Albany took in just 3,600 beaver pelts. This pattern - unusually large returns in the late 1740s and low returns thereafter - indicates that the beaver in the Fort Albany region were being seriously depleted.

Figure 2
Beaver Traded at Fort Albany and York Factory 1700 - 1770

Source: Carlos and Lewis, 1993.

The beaver returns at York Factory from 1716 to 1770, also described in Figure 2, have some of the key features of the Fort Albany data. After some low returns early on (from 1716 to 1720), the number of beaver pelts increased to an average of 35,000. There were extraordinary returns in 1730 and 1731, when the average was 55,600 skins, but beaver receipts then stabilized at about 31,000 over the remainder of the decade. The first break in the pattern came in the early 1740s shortly after the French established several trading posts in the area. Surprisingly perhaps, given the increased competition, trade in beaver pelts at the Hudson's Bay Company post increased to an average of 34,300, this over the period 1740 to 1743. Indeed, the 1742 return of 38,791 skins was the largest since the French had established any posts in the region. The returns in 1745 were also strong, but after that year the trade in beaver pelts began a decline that continued through to 1770. Average returns over the rest of the decade were 25,000; the average during the 1750s was 18,000, and just 15,500 in the 1760s. The pattern of beaver returns at York Factory - high returns in the early 1740s followed by a large decline - strongly suggests that, as in the Fort Albany hinterland, the beaver population had been greatly reduced.

The overall carrying capacity of any region, or the size of the animal stock, depends on the nature of the terrain and the underlying biological determinants such as birth and death rates. A standard relationship between the annual harvest and the animal population is the Lotka-Volterra logistic, commonly used in natural resource models to relate the natural growth of a population to the size of that population:
F(X) = aX - bX², a, b > 0 (1)

where X is the population, F(X) is the natural growth in the population, a is the maximum proportional growth rate of the population, and b = a/X, where X is the upper limit to population size. The population dynamics of the species exploited depends on the harvest each period:

DX = aX - bX²- H (2)

where DX is the annual change in the population and H is the harvest. The choice of parameter a and maximum population X is central to the population estimates and have been based largely on estimates from the beaver ecology literature and Ontario provincial field reports of beaver densities (Carlos and Lewis, 1993).

Simulations based on equation 2 suggest that, until the 1730s, beaver populations remained at levels roughly consistent with maximum sustained yield management, sometimes referred to as the biological optimum. But after the 1730s there was a decline in beaver stocks to about half the maximum sustained yield levels. The cause of the depletion was closely related to what was happening in Europe. There, buoyant demand for felt hats and dwindling local fur supplies resulted in much higher prices for beaver pelts. These higher prices, in conjunction with the resulting competition from the French in the Hudson Bay region, led the Hudson's Bay Company to offer much better terms to Natives who came to their trading posts (Carlos and Lewis, 1999).

Figure 3 reports a price index for furs at Fort Albany and at York Factory. The index represents a measure of what Natives received in European goods for their furs. At Fort Albany, fur prices were close to 70 from 1713 to 1731, but in 1732, in response to higher European fur prices and the entry of la Vérendrye, an important French trader, the price jumped to 81. After that year, prices continued to rise. The pattern at York Factory was similar. Although prices were high in the early years when the post was being established, beginning in 1724 the price settled down to about 70. At York Factory, the jump in price came in 1738, which was the year la Vérendrye set up a trading post in the York Factory hinterland. Prices then continued to increase. It was these higher fur prices that led to over-harvesting and, ultimately, a decline in beaver stocks.

Figure 3
Price Index for Furs: Fort Albany and York Factory, 1713 - 1770

Source: Carlos and Lewis, 2001.

Property Rights Regimes

An increase in price paid to Native hunters did not have to lead to a decline in the animal stocks, because Indians could have chosen to limit their harvesting. Why they did not was closely related their system of property rights. One can classify property rights along a spectrum with, at one end, open access, where anyone can hunt or fish, and at the other, complete private property, where a sole owner has full control over the resource. Between, there are a range of property rights regimes with access controlled by a community or a government, and where individual members of the group do not necessarily have private property rights. Open access creates a situation where there is less incentive to conserve, because animals not harvested by a particular hunter will be available to other hunters in the future. Thus the closer is a system to open access the more likely it is that the resource will be depleted.

Across aboriginal societies in North America, one finds a range of property rights regimes. Native Americans did have a concept of trespass and of property, but individual and family rights to resources were not absolute. Sometimes referred to as the Good Samaritan principle (McManus, 1972), outsiders were not permitted to harvest furs on another's territory for trade, but they were allowed to hunt game and even beaver for food. Combined with this limitation to private property was an Ethic of Generosity that included liberal gift-giving where any visitor to one's encampment was to be supplied with food and shelter.

Why a social norm such as gift-giving or the related Good Samaritan principle emerged was due to the nature of the aboriginal environment. The primary objective of aboriginal societies was survival. Hunting was risky, and so rules were put in place that would reduce the risk of starvation. As Berkes et al.(1989, p. 153) notes, for such societies: "all resources are subject to the overriding principle that no one can prevent a person from obtaining what he needs for his family's survival." Such actions were reciprocal and especially in the sub-arctic world were an insurance mechanism. These norms, however, also reduced the incentive to conserve the beaver and other animals that were part of the fur trade. The combination of these norms and the increasing price paid to Native traders led to the large harvests in the 1740s and ultimately depletion of the animal stock.

The Trade in European Goods

Indians were the primary agents in the North American commercial fur trade. It was they who hunted the animals, and transported and traded the pelts or skins to European intermediaries. The exchange was a voluntary. In return for their furs, Indians obtained both access to an iron technology to improve production and access to a wide range of new consumer goods. It is important to recognize, however, that although the European goods were new to aboriginals, the concept of exchange was not. The archaeological evidence indicates an extensive trade between Native tribes in the north and south of North America prior to European contact.

The extraordinary records of the Hudson's Bay Company allow us to form a clear picture of what Indians were buying. Table 2 lists the goods received by Natives at York Factory, which was by far the largest of the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts. As is evident from the table, the commercial trade was more than in beads and baubles or even guns and alcohol; rather Native traders were receiving a wide range of products that improved their ability to meet their subsistence requirements and allowed them to raise their living standards. The items have been grouped by use. The producer goods category was dominated by firearms, including guns, shot and powder, but also includes knives, awls and twine. The Natives traded for guns of different lengths. The 3-foot gun was used mainly for waterfowl and in heavily forested areas where game could be shot at close range. The 4-foot gun was more accurate and suitable for open spaces. In addition, the 4-foot gun could play a role in warfare. Maintaining guns in the harsh sub-arctic environment was a serious problem, and ultimately, the Hudson's Bay Company was forced to send gunsmiths to its trading posts to assess quality and help with repairs. Kettles and blankets were the main items in the "household goods" category. These goods probably became necessities to the Natives who adopted them. Then there were the luxury goods, which have been divided into two broad categories: "tobacco and alcohol," and "other luxuries," dominated by cloth of various kinds (Carlos and Lewis, 2001; 2002).

Table 2
Value of Goods Received at York Factory in 1740 (made beaver)

We have much less information about the French trade. The French are reported to have exchanged similar items, although given their higher transport costs, both the furs received and the goods traded tended to be higher in value relative to weight. The Europeans, it might be noted, supplied no food to the trade in the eighteenth century. In fact, Indians helped provision the posts with fish and fowl. This role of food purveyor grew in the nineteenth century as groups known as the "home guard Cree" came to live around the posts; as well, pemmican, supplied by Natives, became an important source of nourishment for Europeans involved in the buffalo hunts.

The value of the goods listed in Table 2 is expressed in terms of the unit of account, the made beaver, which the Hudson's Bay Company used to record its transactions and determine the rate of exchange between furs and European goods. The price of a prime beaver pelt was 1 made beaver, and every other type of fur and good was assigned a price based on that unit. For example, a marten (a type of mink) was a made beaver, a blanket was 7 made beaver, a gallon of brandy, 4 made beaver, and a yard of cloth, 3? made beaver. These were the official prices at York Factory. Thus Indians, who traded at these prices, received, for example, a gallon of brandy for four prime beaver pelts, two yards of cloth for seven beaver pelts, and a blanket for 21 marten pelts. This was barter trade in that no currency was used; and although the official prices implied certain rates of exchange between furs and goods, Hudson's Bay Company factors were encouraged to trade at rates more favorable to the Company. The actual rates, however, depended on market conditions in Europe and, most importantly, the extent of French competition in Canada. Figure 3 illustrates the rise in the price of furs at York Factory and Fort Albany in response to higher beaver prices in London and Paris, as well as to a greater French presence in the region (Carlos and Lewis, 1999). The increase in price also reflects the bargaining ability of Native traders during periods of direct competition between the English and French and later the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company. At such times, the Native traders would play both parties off against each other (Ray and Freeman, 1978).

The records of the Hudson's Bay Company provide us with a unique window to the trading process, including the bargaining ability of Native traders, which is evident in the range of commodities received. Natives only bought goods they wanted. Clear from the Company records is that it was the Natives who largely determined the nature and quality of those goods. As well the records tell us how income from the trade was being allocated. The breakdown differed by post and varied over time; but, for example, in 1740 at York Factory, the distribution was: producer goods - 44 percent; household goods - 9 percent; alcohol and tobacco - 24 percent; and other luxuries - 23 percent. An important implication of the trade data is that, like many Europeans and most American colonists, Native Americans were taking part in the consumer revolution of the eighteenth century (de Vries, 1993; Shammas, 1993). In addition to necessities, they were consuming a remarkable variety of luxury products. Cloth, including baize, duffel, flannel, and gartering, was by far the largest class, but they also purchased beads, combs, looking glasses, rings, shirts, and vermillion among a much longer list. Because these items were heterogeneous in nature, the Hudson's Bay Company's head office went to great lengths to satisfy the specific tastes of Native consumers. Attempts were also made, not always successfully, to introduce new products (Carlos and Lewis, 2002).

Perhaps surprising, given the emphasis that has been placed on it in the historical literature, was the comparatively small role of alcohol in the trade. At York Factory, Native traders received in 1740 a total of 494 gallons of brandy and "strong water," which had a value of 1,976 made beaver. More than twice this amount was spent on tobacco in that year, nearly five times was spent on firearms, twice was spent on cloth, and more was spent on blankets and kettles than on alcohol. Thus, brandy, although a significant item of trade, was by no means a dominant one. In addition, alcohol could hardly have created serious social problems during this period. The amount received would have allowed for no more than ten two-ounce drinks per year for the adult Native population living in the region.

The Labor Supply of Natives

Another important question can be addressed using the trade data. Were Natives "lazy and improvident" as they have been described by some contemporaries, or were they "industrious" like the American colonists and many Europeans? Central to answering this question is how Native groups responded to the price of furs, which began rising in the 1730s. Much of the literature argues that Indian trappers reduced their effort in response to higher fur prices; that is, they had backward-bending supply curves of labor. The view is that Natives had a fixed demand for European goods that, at higher fur prices, could be met with fewer furs, and hence less effort. Although widely cited, this argument does not stand up. Not only were higher fur prices accompanied by larger total harvests of furs in the region, but the pattern of Native expenditure also points to a scenario of greater effort. From the late 1730s to the 1760s, as the price of furs rose, the share of expenditure on luxury goods increased dramatically (see Figure 4). Thus Natives were not content simply to accept their good fortune by working less; rather they seized the opportunity provided to them by the strong fur market by increasing their effort in the commercial sector, thereby dramatically augmenting the purchases of those goods, namely the luxuries, that could raise their living standards.

Figure 4
Native Expenditure Shares at York Factory 1716 - 1770

Source: Carlos and Lewis, 2001.

A Note on the Non-commercial Sector

As important as the fur trade was to Native Americans in the sub-arctic regions of Canada, commerce with the Europeans comprised just one, relatively small, part of their overall economy. Exact figures are not available, but the traditional sectors; hunting, gathering, food preparation and, to some extent, agriculture must have accounted for at least 75 to 80 percent of Native labor during these decades. Nevertheless, despite the limited time spent in commercial activity, the fur trade had a profound effect on the nature of the Native economy and Native society. The introduction of European producer goods, such as guns, and household goods, mainly kettles and blankets, changed the way Native Americans achieved subsistence; and the European luxury goods expanded the range of products that allowed them to move beyond subsistence. Most importantly, the fur trade connected Natives to Europeans in ways that affected how and how much they chose to work, where they chose to live, and how they exploited the resources on which the trade and their survival was based.

References

Berkes, Fikret, David Feeny, Bonnie J. McCay, and James M. Acheson. "The Benefits of the Commons." Nature 340 (July 13, 1989): 91-93.

Braund, Kathryn E. Holland. Deerskins and Duffels: The Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993.

Carlos, Ann M., and Elizabeth Hoffman. "The North American Fur Trade: Bargaining to a Joint Profit Maximum under Incomplete Information, 1804-1821." Journal of Economic History 46, no. 4 (1986): 967-86.

Carlos, Ann M., and Frank D. Lewis. "Indians, the Beaver and the Bay: The Economics of Depletion in the Lands of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1700-1763." Journal of Economic History 53, no. 3 (1993): 465-94.

Carlos, Ann M., and Frank D. Lewis. "Property Rights, Competition and Depletion in the Eighteenth-Century Canadian Fur Trade: The Role of the European Market." Canadian Journal of Economics 32, no. 3 (1999): 705-28.

Carlos, Ann M., and Frank D. Lewis. "Property Rights and Competition in the Depletion of the Beaver: Native Americans and the Hudson's Bay Company." In The Other Side of the Frontier: Economic Explorations in Native American History, edited by Linda Barrington, 131-149. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.

Carlos, Ann M., and Frank D. Lewis. "Trade, Consumption, and the Native Economy: Lessons from York Factory, Hudson Bay." Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001): 465-94.

Carlos, Ann M., and Frank D. Lewis. "Marketing in the Land of Hudson Bay: Indian Consumers and the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-1770." Enterprise and Society 2 (2002): 285-317.

Carlos, Ann and Nicholas, Stephen. "Agency Problems in Early Chartered Companies: The Case of the Hudson's Bay Company." Journal of Economic History 50, no. 4 (1990): 853-75.

Clarke, Fiona. Hats. London: Batsford, 1982.

Crean, J. F. "Hats and the Fur Trade." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 28, no. 3 (1962): 373-386.

Corner, David. "The Tyranny of Fashion: The Case of the Felt-Hatting Trade in the Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries." Textile History 22, no.2 (1991): 153-178.

de Vries, Jan. "Between Purchasing Power and the World of Goods: Understanding the Household Economy in Early Modern Europe." In Consumption and the World of Goods, edited by John Brewer and Roy Porter, 85-132. London: Routledge, 1993.

Ginsburg Madeleine. The Hat: Trends and Traditions. London: Studio Editions, 1990.

Haeger, John D. John Jacob Astor: Business and Finance in the Early Republic. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991.

Harte, N.B. "The Economics of Clothing in the Late Seventeenth Century." Textile History 22, no. 2 (1991): 277-296.

Heidenreich, Conrad E., and Arthur J. Ray. The Early Fur Trade: A Study in Cultural Interaction. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976.

Helm, Jane, ed. Handbook of North American Indians 6, Subarctic. Washington: Smithsonian, 1981.

Innis, Harold. The Fur Trade in Canada (revised edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956.

Krech III, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: Norton, 1999.

Lawson, Murray G. Fur: A Study in English Mercantilism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1943.

McManus, John. "An Economic Analysis of Indian Behavior in the North American Fur Trade." Journal of Economic History 32, no.1 (1972): 36-53.

Ray, Arthur J. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Hunters, Trappers and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.

Ray, Arthur J. and Donald Freeman. "Give Us Good Measure": An Economic Analysis of Relations between the Indians and the Hudson's Bay Company before 1763. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.

Ray, Arthur J. "Bayside Trade, 1720-1780." In Historical Atlas of Canada 1, edited by R. Cole Harris, plate 60. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Rich, E. E. Hudson's Bay Company, 1670 - 1870. 2 vols. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1960.

Rich, E.E. "Trade Habits and Economic Motivation among the Indians of North America." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26, no. 1 (1960): 35-53.

Shammas, Carole. "Changes in English and Anglo-American Consumption from 1550-1800." In Consumption and the World of Goods, edited by John Brewer and Roy Porter, 177-205. London: Routledge, 1993.

Wien, Thomas. "Selling Beaver Skins in North America and Europe, 1720-1760: The Uses of Fur-Trade Imperialism." Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, New Series 1 (1990): 293-317.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Economic History of the Fur Trade: 1670 to 1870

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A commercial fur trade in North America grew out of the early contact between Indians and European fisherman who were netting cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and on the Bay of Gaspé near Quebec. Indians would trade the pelts of small animals, such as mink, for knives and other iron-based products, or for textiles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Animal Rights Movement: History And Facts About Animal Rights - Faunalytics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most people would agree that a dog has more sentience than a kitchen table. However, under the eyes of most contemporary legal systems, the two are essentially indistinguishable. While the words "animal rights" can be polarizing, at its core the movement is about gaining legal and public respect for the other species we share this planet with.

Not to be confused with welfare, which entrenches the concept that animals ought to be used for human purposes, the issue at the core of animal rights boils down to the difference between being a who and a what; a someone and a something. Are animals resources for human benefit? Or are they sensitive beings who have emotions and preferences and awareness of themselves? The animal rights movement strives to create a more equitable world in which animals are treated with more kindness, understanding and respect.

Do Animals Have Rights?

The question of whether animals have rights is complex. On the one hand, in most countries around the world, there are no laws protecting the rights of animals, or laws that acknowledge the existence of these rights. Therefore it cannot be said that animals have legally recognized or protected rights.

However another way of looking at the existence of animal rights is to suggest that animals have inherent value, which is independent of their value to humans.

In today's world, there is widespread agreement that human beings possess inherent value, even though this value may not always be applied equally, which is the result of racism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression. Generally speaking, however, inherent value is what renders a being worthy of moral consideration. The inherent value of human beings is calculated according to cognitive and emotional qualities such as our possession of self-awareness, the ability to make conscious decisions and act upon personal preferences, and the fact that we are actively invested in the quality of our own lives. Together, these qualities render us as "subjects of a life" - meaning we possess an active inner world along with an awareness of the external. This awareness renders us particularly vulnerable to harm; since it matters to us when we are harmed. Thanks to the qualities of our consciousness, human beings possess naturally-occurring rights that are legally enshrined in many countries, with the underlying understanding that it is wrong to harm someone who is aware and therefore suffers because of the harm caused.

In Western thought, it was long believed that animals weren't sufficiently aware to notice if they were harmed, that harm simply wouldn't matter to them. Understandings have changed in recent decades. A wealth of established scientific discoveries and anecdotal evidence indicating that certain species are also subjects of a life - meaning they possess the qualities of consciousness human rights protect - show that other species have inherent value and therefore also possess naturally-occurring rights. In this factoring, it is not up to humans to bestow rights onto animals, but simply to recognize and respect these existing rights, through moral and legal frameworks.

When legal animal rights are discussed, it is not suggested that any other-than-human animal be given all the same rights as human beings, such as the right to an education or to vote in elections. Instead, the rights referred to tend to be the basic rights of freedom from confinement, freedom from bodily injury, and freedom to pursue their lives as they wish.

Why are Animal Rights Important?

Animals are increasingly understood as suffering from psychological, emotional, and physical pain. For example, orcas can suffer from depression and boredom in aquariums, leading to the use of antidepressant drugs. Animals in zoos frequently display stereotypic behaviors, which signify underlying psychological distress and are unseen in wild populations. The more that is learned about the myriad ways our behavior, lifestyles and attitudes negatively impact animals, the greater our moral obligation towards them becomes.

Besides the fact that animals can suffer, the sheer scale of animal exploitation is another reason animal rights are urgently needed. It is estimated that roughly 200 million animals are killed for human consumptionevery day, with wealthy nations such as Australia, the United States and Europe leading the way with the highest consumption of meat per capita. The U.S. is also responsible for the rise of industrial animal agriculture, in which animals are forced to endure lifetimes of heartbreaking abuse.

What are the Goals of the Animal Rights Movement?

The ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to place animals "beyond use" of human beings, putting an end to exploitative industries and practices including laboratory testing, whaling, and puppy mills.

There are many approaches to achieving these goals. Grassroots advocacy, involving public demonstrations, as well as documentaries and other educational tools have long been deployed as methods of raising public awareness of the suffering endured by animals at human hands, as well as familiarizing the public with the concept of animal rights.

Innovative legal approaches have been explored as well. The Nonhuman Rights Project advocates for nonhuman personhood, which is a way to circumvent the legal definition of animals as being property, which denies them legal standing. A nonhuman person, however, may be represented in court via a guardian ad litem in order to fight for justice on their behalf.

Another tactic for achieving the goals of the animal rights movement is to advocate for veganism, which is a lifestyle that eliminates consumption of any product derived from animals - including milk, eggs, and insect-derived products like honey. Vegans also avoid clothing derived from animals such as leather, fur and silk. Through widespread adoption of vegan values, the demand for animal products can be reduced, enabling a clearer path to acceptance of animal rights both in popular opinion as well as the reduction in financial incentives to exploit animals.

When Did the Animal Rights Movement Begin?

In some form or another, the concept of animal rights has been around for thousands of years. In Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, the concept of ahiṃsā, meaning non-violence, is a central principle. Jainism stresses non-cruelty towards animals, prohibiting adherents from working at a zoo, cutting trees, or using any fabrics, including silk, which are produced through harming other living beings.

Within Europe and North America, there were many precursors of the modern-day animal rights movement. The first animal cruelty legislation was passed in 1635, which prohibited tearing wool off of living sheep. In 1822, Richard Martin, known as "Humanity Dick", passed Martin's Act aimed at preventing cruelty towards cattle. Martin went on to be one of the founding members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the world's first animal welfare charity, in 1824.

The first explicit reference to the concept of animal rights came from Henry Stephens Salt, who's book Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress rallied against the idea of prejudice against animals. Salt's urging of a recognition for "the common bond of humanity that unites all living beings into one universal brotherhood" echoed ancient religious traditions such as Jainism.

Who Started the Animal Rights Movement?

The animal rights movement was not begun by any one person, though there were certain seminal figures. Although women comprise the majority of animal rights activists and are less likely to support animal exploitation than men, the majority of the credit for starting the animal rights movement is, unfortunately, given to white men. Richard Ryder is among the well-known figures in modern times, having coined the term speciesism in 1970 to describe human chauvinism towards other species. In 1975, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation was highly influential and lauded, yet he credited some of his views to the comparatively little-known author Ruth Harrison, whose 1964 book Animal Machines documented conditions on factory farms.

What Laws Protect Animal Rights?

Because the legal rights of animals are generally not recognized, federal and state laws in the United States pertain to welfare instead of rights. These laws regard animals as property and deal with "unnecessary" harm to animals, thereby allowing for a great deal of suffering which is deemed "necessary" or justifiable.

Existing laws routinely fail to provide animals with adequate protection. In many cases, the underlying motivation for animal cruelty legislation is exclusively human interest. U.S. federal laws regarding animal protection include the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), enacted in 1966 out of concern for cats and dogs used in laboratory research, though its contemporary mandate includes a wider realm of animal exploitation issues including animals in entertainment and captive breeding. However the AWA excludes hunting, fishing and trapping, slaughter of animals, retail pet stores, and others from its jurisdiction. The AWA is far from being an anti-cruelty law; for example, it regulates - meaning, does not render illegal - the practise of vivisection, which is surgery conducted on a living animal during research. In laboratories, the AWA does not protect animals from harm during the course of research, nor does it prohibit their use. Incredibly, the definition of "animals" in the AWA excludes mice, birds, rats and agricultural animals - who are the most heavily exploited animals across the country, within laboratories and industrial agriculture operations.

Other federal laws pertaining to animals include the Endangered Species Act, which maintains a list of species around the world who are threatened or endangered and outlines procedures as well as penalties for their inappropriate use. The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act bans intentional cruelty onto animals, though it excludes animals in agriculture including slaughter, as well as hunting, fishing, trapping, medical research, pest control and other abuses.

Facts About Animal Rights

1. In the U.S., every circus that uses animals has been cited by the Animal Welfare Act for violations.

2. The California Orca Protection Act prohibits keeping orcas captive throughout the state. In Canada, a nationwide ban on cetacean captivity was also passed.

3. Joaquin Phoenix used his speech at the Oscars to talk about animal rights.

Animal Rights Barriers to Success

Financial incentives form a significant barrier to animal rights, since it is through their consideration as property that animals' exploitation is enabled. Animal business is big business. In the United States alone, the pet industry topped $221.1 billion in 2015; the live animal trade accounted for $3.5 billion in 2016; in 2020, animal agriculture is forecasted to bring in $185.8 billion in cash receipts. Companies may go to great lengths to protect profits, and have lobbied successfully for legislation such as ag-gag laws which conceal the unsavory conditions within their facilities in order to continue operating unencumbered by negative public perception or stricter anti-cruelty regulation.

Dependence on animal products is another barrier to the success of the movement. Animal products can be found throughout modern Western societies and in places people may least expect. For example, parts of pigs are found in everyday objects such as concrete, paint, soap, collagen injections, and even bullets.

Cultural beliefs about animals form yet another barrier to the success of the movement. For example, patriarchal conceptions of manhood assert that in order to be a strong, virile man, one must eat large quantities of meat, especially red meat such as steak. Sport hunting and fishing, and other similar "conquest"-type activities, lie at the heart of hegemonic manhood identities that are at odds with animal rights.

Threats

Globalization Affecting the Movement

Within neoliberal capitalism, animals are considered commodities. So-called advancements in technology, such as CAFOs, along with increased connectivity and market reach perpetuated by globalization can be linked with drastically increased numbers of animals exploited, coupled with tumbling standards of welfare. Government officials in the UK have openly expressed resistance to " US-style farming", which would see an influx of CAFO operations in the country. CAFOs have already spread to many other countries, such as India, China and Japan. Ultimately, globalization tends to entrench the use of animals, leaving little to no room for discourse regarding rights or even increased welfare protections.

While globalization brings increased connection between individuals and organizations within the animal rights movement itself, there are some concerns related to how these networks are fostered. Organizations based in North America and Europe that conduct international outreach efforts and resource deployment can, at times, engage in behavioral patterns that entrench ongong legacies of colonialism. Ways beyond these problems include hiring locally, placing people of color in leadership roles and taking the local context into account within campaigning strategies.

Science

Scientific approaches can reflect the logic and biases of human exceptionalism within the selection of questions to be investigated, experimental design and interpretations of findings.

One example of such a bias is that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty what an other-than-human animal is thinking or feeling, and that they therefore cannot be proven as thinking or feeling at all. This assumption is frequently used to justify the ongoing exploitation of animals. The burden of proof is foisted onto those humans who oppose this assumption and onto the animals themselves, requiring that they communicate, unequivocally and in human language, that they are in fact subjects of a life - that is, that they experience emotions, possess desires, and so on. However, some argue that the burden of proof should rest upon those skeptical of animals being subjects of a life. And in light of the abundant concrete and anecdotal evidence of animals' inner lives, proving otherwise would actually be impossible.

Co-option

Animal exploitation industries have largely co-opted the concepts ofanimal welfare and humane treatment, in order to continue exploiting animals. While these ideals may have originally been intended to protect animals from harm, industries have successfully managed to apply these words to product labels and processes in order to assuage consumers while hiding the underbelly of industrial agriculture. Now, wherever these words are present, they more indicate animal abuse than anything else.

What is Needed for the Success of Animal Rights?

For animal rights to become legally recognized in Western culture, there needs to be a broad cultural shift across many sectors. People will need to understand and accept that animals are thinking, feeling beings who are not put on this earth for humanity's use. Speciesism must fade away, along with outdated scientific and philosophical ideas that animals are nothing more than mindless automatons. Patriarchal conceptions of manhood must be dismantled. Forward-thinking legislators must set precedents that pave the way for legal rights.

Fortunately, there is movement towards a more equitable world for animals; for example, plant-based diets are becoming increasingly popular; bans on fur are being enacted; and laboratories are turning towards alternatives to animals.

Conclusion

There is still a long road ahead before the animal rights movement achieves the ultimate goal of legally enshrining rights for other-than-human animals. Fortunately, progress is being made in Western countries and around the world, though it may be incremental. As people come to understand more about animals and the suffering they endure at human hands, hopefully the change will only accelerate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Animal Rights Movement: History And Facts About Animal Rights - Faunalytics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explores the history of the animal rights movement, and looks at why animal rights are an important aspect of social justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

You must follow the rules for hunting and shooting wildlife including:

what you can hunt or shoot

when you can do it

what equipment you can use

You can be fined or jailed for hunting illegally or causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

You must have permission from the land owner.

Firearms and shotgun certificates

You must get a certificate to use a shotgun, rifle or other firearm.

You don't need a certificate for:

air rifles up to 12ft lb in power

air pistols up to 6ft lb in power

You can't use:

bows or crossbows

explosives (other than the legal ammunition for a firearm)

Managing wildlife and controlling pests

There are different rules about what you can do to manage wildlife on your land or control pests on your property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Animal Rights, Imperialism and Indigenous Hunting | Indian Country Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Rights, Imperialism and Indigenous Hunting | Indian Country Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Keesta had thrown the harpoon, and the whale had accepted it, had grabbed and held onto the harpoon according to the agreement they had made through prayers and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, more than 100 million animals are raised and killed for their fur. Over 95% of fur sold globally, comes from farmed animals, such as mink, foxes, raccoon dogs, rabbits and chinchillas. On fur factory farms, animals spend their entire lives in cramped battery cages, deprived of the ability to engage in natural behaviours.

Keeping wide-ranging predatory animals in small cages causes severe animal welfare problems - such as self-mutilation and infected wounds.

Unlike other farmed species, animals bred for fur are essentially wild animals, which have undergone only a very limited domestication process.

The active selection of animals on fur farms is mainly focused on fur quality and very little on tameness and adaptability to captive environments.

The recommendations (2001) of the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) state correspondingly:

' In comparison with other farm animals, species farmed for their fur have been subjected to relatively little active selection except with respect to fur characteristics.'

The confinement in tiny battery cages on fur farms prevents animals from expressing their basic natural behaviours, such as running and hunting for food. The stress of the caging conditions and fear of humans cause animals kept for fur to exhibit a high number of stress-related welfare problems.

Numerous scientific reports have indicated that severe health problems are inherent to fur production and that animals on all fur farms have been found to exhibit physical and behavioral abnormalities as:

'...infected wounds, missing limbs from biting incidents, eye infections, bent feet, mouth deformities, self-mutilation, cannibalism of dead siblings or offspring and other stress-related stereotypical behaviour.'

Stereotypical behavior, as a result of stress, occurs on all fur farms and is expressed as pacing along the cage wall, repetitive circling or nodding of the head.

To preserve the pelts, animals on fur farms are killed by inhumane methods, such as gassing and head-to-tail electrocution.

Fox and raccoon dogs are generally electrocuted through the mouth and anus; a method with potential to inflict severe pain and distress on the animal.

Mink are semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath. They are therefore prone to hypoxia, which means they can suffer significantly during gassing.

'Killing mink with CO2 should be avoided, and humane methods developed.' (SCAHAW, 2001)

Laws to prohibit the breeding and killing of animals for fur is becoming increasingly widespread in Europe. Over 15 European countries have introduced legislation to ban or phase out fur farming, including the UK (2000), The Netherlands (2023), Serbia (2019), Czech Republic (2019), Norway (2025) and Belgium (2019). In these countries animal welfare concerns have been given priority over the fur industry's interests.

Slovakia next country to close down fur farms

BRATISLAVA, 17 OCTOBER 2019 - Today the Slovak National Council approved a ban on fur production tha

Bulgarian politicians propose bill to end fur farming

SOFIA, 28 SEPTEMBER 2019 - Early this month, a bill was introduced in the Bulgarian Parliament to am

Make Fur History exhibition hosted in Montenegro

MONTENEGRO, 10 JULY 2019 - Yesterday, the opening of the Make Fur History exhibition took place at t

Ireland approves a ban on fur farming

IRELAND, 3 JULY 2019 - Ireland is set to become the 15th country in the European union to ban fur fa

Horrific conditions on French mink fur farm in Eure-et-Loire exposed

FRANCE, 2 JULY 2019 - Shocking new footage reveals horrific conditions on a French mink fur farm in

Make Fur History exhibition at the Bosnian Parliament calls for urgent end to fur farming

SARAJEVO, 5 APRIL 2019 - Today, international experts and lawmakers gather in the Bosnian Parliame

BANK

Fur Free Alliance

IBAN NL41 TRIO 0391013866

SWIFT/BIC Code: TRIONL2U

TRIODOS Bank NV

Utrechtseweg 44, 3700 AB, Zeist, The Netherlands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, more than 100 million animals are raised and killed for their fur. Over 95% of fur sold globally, comes from farmed animals, such as mink, foxes, raccoon dogs, rabbits and chinchillas. On fur factory farms, animals spend their entire lives in cramped battery cages, deprived of the ability to engage in natural behaviours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are foxes vermin?

No other native British mammal divides opinion as deeply as the red fox. We believe the evidence does not support the criticism of this iconic British species. While foxes are of course predators - they kill other animals for food - their impact on livestock is exaggerated, and can be reduced with good farming practices.

The threat of the 'fox in the chicken coop' can be remedied with a secure electric fence. While sheep farmers may curse foxes for the loss of their lambs, in reality studies have shown that poor farming practices, disease and bad weather are far more likely to lead to lamb deaths. A 2000 study in Scotland found that around just 1% of lamb losses could be directly attributed to foxes.

On the other hand, by feeding on rabbits, a 2003 study estimated that rural foxes save British crop farmers around £7m per year.

The other victims of hunting

The animal being hunted is the ultimate victim of hunting with hounds, but there are others.

Hunts regularly breed more puppies than are required for the hunting pack. Only the most promising are selected, often through the tradition of cub hunting, during which the riders surround an area containing fox cubs and send the hounds in to learn how to kill them. We also have recent evidence of fox cubs being thrown to the hounds at a hunt kennels, to teach the dogs that they should kill these animals.

Once dogs have entered the pack they are culled if they fail to thrive as pack animals, if they become ill and unable to keep up with the pack, when they become too old to hunt with the pack, or when they become surplus to hunt requirements. The average hunt dog lives much less than the normal life expectancy for a dog of the breed.

Fox hunting also relies on terriers to chase foxes underground. This so-called terrier work leads to painful injuries to both the dogs and the foxes.

Badgers are Victims of Hunting too

During the hunting season individuals, often terrier men will be out early in the morning prior to a hunt meet, blocking up badger setts. This is to stop the quarry, usually a fox from escaping down the hole and ruining the chase. If a fox does escape into a badger sett during the hunt, then often digging out will take place. Digging out is where members of the hunt, usually terrier men, dig out the fox so the chase to continue. Not only is this cruel but it is also illegal as badger setts are protected by law.

If you are out in the countryside and witness anybody attempting to block a badger sett please dial 999 if the crime is in progress. On discovering a blocked badger sett call 101 and report to the Badger Trust.

You can also report any suspected crime to our Animal Crimewatch. This is a confidential supporter funded hotline where you can report cruelty to animals in the name of 'sport' by telephone, email or using the online form.

The League Against Cruel Sports is proud to be a part of the Badger Persecution Priority Group.

Hunt havoc

Hunts can cause havoc in the countryside when the pack of hounds picks up the scent of a fox. It is common for the hunting dogs to maraud through farms, disturb and kill livestock or pets, and often be seen crossing major roads and railway lines - all of which helps to prove that the pack is not following a pre-laid 'trail', which the hunts claim they are doing. Anyone suffering from hunt havoc can contact our Animal Crimewatch team.

Does fox hunting still happen? Protecting the ban

Hunting wild mammals with dogs for sport was banned in Scotland in 2002 and England and Wales in 2004. These are fantastic achievements! However, the battle to stamp out hunting in the UK is not yet won as these bans have not been properly enforced, the attempts to eliminate or weaken them continue, and hunting is still legal in Northern Ireland.

There were two attempts by the Government to weaken the Hunting Act, most recently in July 2015. The League was at the forefront of the campaign to ensure that this attempt to bring back hunting by the back door did not succeed.

In September 2016 we teamed up with respected explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes to educate MPs attending the Conservative Party conference about the realities of hunting, resulting in Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom to drop mention of repeal from her speech.

As a key player in the hard-fought battle to get hunting with dogs banned in the first place, the League Against Cruel Sports is working hard to ensure the Hunting Act 2004 in England and Wales, and the Wild Mammals Protection (Scotland) Act 2002 in Scotland are properly enforced and strengthened to remove any exemptions. We are also working to achieve a ban on hunting with dogs in Northern Ireland, which remains the only jurisdiction in the UK where it is still legal.

After 95 years of campaigning to both bring about and enforce a hunting ban with hounds for sport, we remain ever-vigilant in defence of the ban and will tirelessly campaign to both secure and strengthen it.

How can I help stop fox hunting?

Contact your MP and ask them to urge their party to keep and strengthen the fox hunting ban.

Join one of our supporter groups to help us raise awareness that fox hunting still takes place.

Up and down the country landowners and managers are allowing 'trail' hunting to take place. Contact them today and demand they stop being complicit in fox hunting, by banning trail hunting and all other hunting related activities.

Find out more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fox hunting is a traditional 'sport' in which hunters follow a pack of hunting dogs aiming to pick up the scent of a fox, chase it & kill it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://devoncountysabs.wordpress.com/category/hit-reports/