# data[].attributes.body
I would like to stand up to people who disagrees with the fact that animals are meant to be treated like objects. I know animals can't voice in their ideas but I'll be the one who's doing the talking.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to do ocean pollution because I would like to make a difference with what's happening inside the ocean and how I can start a chain reaction towards people is my goal.

# data[].attributes.body
Overfishing
Ocean Littering
Coral Bleaching
The Food Chain
Polar Ice Caps Melting

# data[].attributes.body
Isn't bias, shares both sides of information, hiding nothing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why do I think Gender Equality's important?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why do I think Gender Equality's important?

# data[].attributes.body
I know that in some places in the world, boys are the top priority and girls just stay at home do the laundry, sweep the floor. Not all women should be treated like second class citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School , a safe, up-to-date and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle and High School.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is wrong that we are treating animals like second class citizens. For us to abuse them is wrong. Imagine if we are being abused by

# data[].attributes.body
Stray animals
Animal abusing
Not being able have the rights they are meant to have.

# data[].attributes.body
It is bias, and also does not share the whole entire story.

# data[].attributes.body
When a company comes up with a new product and they find bunnies,

# data[].attributes.body
Alot of boys think they are better than girls at things. Women aren't allowed to go to school. Receive education. And I think it is unacceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
Trying to sell someone a product or a system. basically persuading or convincing someone to do blah blah blah

# data[].attributes.body
Trying to make someone laugh or just for the sake of fun.

# data[].attributes.body
Trying to maybe sell someone for example, Ariana Grande's No Tears Left To Cry was publicised by Spotify.

# data[].attributes.body
Using an agressive way of convincing someone to do something. For example, if you don't eat medicine, you will die.

# data[].attributes.body
Raw Information is something like a video taped by a car camera or a video phone isn't filtered. Which may not be appropriate for others to see.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is true, of course, that most trainers, assistant trainers, jockeys, drivers, caretakers, and veterinarians care a great deal about their horses and would never intentionally harm them. But so what? How many abused horses is too many? Saying that there are exceptions to the rule of decent horse care is no answer to PETA or to the Times. The real story here is not that Steve Asmussen may be an outlier. It is that so many in the sport know that he is not. The story is not that this news is a surprise but that it took so long to emerge. You can blame PETA-you can always blame PETA-but for what, exactly?

The alleged behavior goes on, decade after decade, because the industry is unwilling to police itself. Because state regulators are feckless and because there is no uniformity among racing jurisdictions. Because the people who develop performance-enhancing drugs are almost always one step ahead of the officials developing tests for those drugs. Because veterinarians give their horses too many drugs too often. And because too many still within the sport equate real reform with a bad-for-marketing acknowledgement of how bad things are. Well, guess what. We are here. There is no longer a man behind a curtain.

Now the traditionalists-and by that I mean the well-meaning folks who have brought horse racing in America to the precipice of collapse-are mortified to know that this story will have legs (sorry) through the Triple Crown season. This is so because PETA didn't just drop the video on the world: Its officials also brought litigation, in both federal and state court, and that in turn has aroused from their perpetual torpor racing regulators in New York and Kentucky. The story of thoroughbred racing in 2014 will forever be linked the story from PETA and the Times. It's up to the industry to make something good from that.

The Finish Line

How about telling the truth? It can finally set this industry free. Instead of pretending this problem of abuse does not exist, or claiming that the problem is under control, the sport can take the bold leap it will need to take to get to the other side-the side where animal activists aren't picketing racetracks. That will mean more money for enhanced drug tests. It will mean legislative efforts to better regulate trainers and veterinarians. It will mean swifter and stricter punishment for offenders. It will mean an end to the insider's code of silence.

"If you see something, say something" ought to be horse racing's newest rule. Wouldn't that help? Everyone in horse racing, at least everyone I know or know of, already pretty much knows what's on the tape. Anyone who has ever spent time in a shed row or on a backstretch knows that this sort of stuff goes on, in some barns but not others, by some trainers and not others, in the shadows of the sport. That it was allegedly this trainer, at these tracks, was great marketing by PETA. But that doesn't mean the story isn't real or that it can easily be dismissed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is true, of course, that most trainers, assistant trainers, jockeys, drivers, caretakers, and veterinarians care a great deal about their horses and would never intentionally harm them. But so what? How many abused horses is too many? Saying that there are exceptions to the rule of decent horse care is no answer to PETA or to the Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Challenge of Improving Animal Welfare of Hong Kong. Numbers of animals eaten, worn, traded, kept, abandoned, euthanased, imported and exported by Hong Kong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
7 December 2017
Contact:
Manilal Valliyate; [email protected]

Sachin Bangera; [email protected]
Professional Panel Provides Expert Opinions That Annihilate Maharashtra Government's Attempt to Justify Cruel Bullock Cart Races
Mumbai - Today, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India released the professional assessment of a team of independent experts in bovine and equine veterinary anatomy, histology, physiology, animal behaviour, and welfare. The assessment counters a recent attempt by the Maharashtra government to float the ludicrous proposition that the running capacity of various breeds of bullocks is similar to that of horses, with the aim of convincing the court that bullock cart racing is humane, should be legalised, and somehow suits the bullocks' physiological make-up. With the support of scientific references, the independent experts testified that forcing bullocks to race is inherently cruel, because the animals aren't anatomically adapted to do so - as was already acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in 2014.

The testimony, which can be read here, is signed by prominent veterinarians, professors, and scientists in the country. The signatories include former and officiating vice chancellors, deans, department heads, professors, and scientists with specialisations in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and surgery. They represent prominent Indian veterinary institutions, including the Indian Veterinary Research Institute-Izatnagar, the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology-Pantnagar, UP Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Viswavidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan-Mathura, the colleges of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University-Mannuthy and Pookode, Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences-Hisar, the College of Veterinary and Animal Science at Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences-Bikaner, and the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, in the US. They also encompass bovine and equine experts from The Remount and Veterinary Corps, the Madhya Pradesh Department of Animal Husbandry, and the Bihar Animal and Fisheries Resources Department.

"The science of bovine anatomy is indisputable," says PETA India CEO and expert cattle veterinarian Dr Manilal Valliyate. "Bullocks aren't suited to running - it's a deeply stressful, physically taxing, and dangerous exercise for them. PETA India is calling on the Maharashtra government to uphold the Supreme Court ban on cruel bullock cart racing and spare these sensitive animals acute physical and mental pain."

PETA India - whose motto reads, in part, that "animals are not ours to use for entertainment" - points out that the testimony highlights the many anatomical differences between bulls and horses, such as bulls' heavy physiques, short legs, and hooves that are ideal for walking and their locomotory capacity, which is less evolved and sophisticated than that of horses. Unlike horses, bulls lack an efficient thermoregulatory and respiratory physiology as well as guttural pouches, which protect the brain from overheating during exercise. And bulls don't run because they want to - they run because they're afraid or in pain.

On 13 November, the Supreme Court of India admitted a petition filed by PETA India to strike down the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 - which allows bullock cart races in Maharashtra - and issued a notice seeking a reply from the state government within four weeks. Recently, in response to a public interest litigation filed by Ajay Marathe, in which PETA filed an intervention application, the High Court of Bombay stayed the operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017, and passed an order stating that it's bound by the observations and views of the 2014 Supreme Court judgment that banned bullock cart races across the country.

In 2013, following investigations of bullock cart races under Supreme Court-imposed regulations in Maharashtra, PETA released a detailed report and shocking video footage documenting the systemic and severe abuse of bullocks in direct violation of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The report states that participants deprived bullocks of food, water, and shade; forcibly and painfully yanked them by nose ropes, causing their noses to bleed; and physically abused them in order to force them to run - even when exhausted - by biting and twisting their tails, striking them, and rubbing irritants into their mouths.

For more information, please visit PETAIndia.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts Submit Testimony Against Bull Racing Cruelty: A Bull is Not a Horse With Horns - Media Centre - PETA India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
7 December 2017 Contact: Manilal Valliyate; [email protected] Sachin Bangera; [email protected] Professional Panel Provides Expert Opinions That Annihilate Maharashtra Government's Attempt to Justify Cruel Bullock Cart Races Mumbai - Today, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India released the professional assessment of a team of independent experts in bovine and equine veterinary anatomy, histology, physiology, animal behaviour, and welfare.

# data[].attributes.body
BHSPT. Bobo joined Lo Wu in 2014 to work for her teaching qualification. Whilst here, she has represented Hong Kong in the endurance WEG in France and passed her teaching test. Bobo teaches in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

# data[].attributes.body
Angelina has been an instructor at Lo Wu for many years and has enormous experience.  She teaches in English and Cantonese and particularly enjoys teaching young riders as well as enthusiastic adults.

# data[].attributes.body
Horse Riding Organiser

# data[].attributes.body
Beavers, minks, foxes etc. Are the main target in the Fur Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beavers
Beavers are extremely gentle, family-oriented animals who mate for life and remain lifelong friends with their offspring. The second-largest rodent in the world, the beaver can live 19 years, reach 60 pounds, and grow up to 4 feet long. Baby beavers, or "kits," are usually born to hard-working, loving parents who have been together for many years. Female beavers are especially busy as they care for their young while looking after their rambunctious "teenagers."

Beavers are master architects-their complicated, well-built lodges can stand for years. These "busy beavers" take pride in their work and are constantly concerned with repairs to their homes. Beavers' activity helps keep stream beds healthy and in good repair, and beavers are a keystone species in an ecosystem because they create wetlands that are used by many other species.

When startled or frightened, a swimming beaver will rapidly dive while forcefully slapping the water with his or her broad tail. This creates a loud sound, audible over large distances above and below water, which serves as a warning to other beavers in the area. Once a beaver has made this danger signal, all nearby beavers will dive and may not reemerge for some time. At one point in time, these industrious, clever animals were hunted and trapped nearly to extinction. Beavers today are still in constant danger of being caught in traps.

The body-gripping traps used to capture and kill beavers cause these sensitive animals immeasurable suffering. In many cases, Conibear (body-gripping) traps fail to catch the animals quickly or on target. If the traps do not kill the beavers immediately, they can slowly drown, suffering for up to 20 minutes. Death by drowning is extremely cruel-the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) condemns it in its 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia.

Chinchillas
Chinchillas are shy, intelligent animals who eat vegetables and fruits and can live up to 15 years in the wild. Social "chatterboxes," these sensitive nocturnal animals can spend all night long "talking" to one another. Fastidiously clean, they require frequent dust baths to care for their extremely dense fur. These "fluff fests" also provide invaluable moments of comfort and entertainment-moments that are denied caged chinchillas who are cruelly "farmed" for their fur.

Originally found only in South America in communities of up to 100 members, chinchillas are now bred by fur farmers or pet store distributors who then sell them as "pets" to often ill-informed people. Captive chinchillas live for around 15 years, but some have been known to live up to 20 years or more. Chinchillas are naturally skittish. They also have delicate bones and generally dislike being held.

Chinchillas express themselves with a variety of vocalizations, including barks, chirps, and squeaks. They can make calm, loving chirps for potential mates as well as loud, aggressive barks when spooked. Active and inquisitive by nature, chinchillas need to exercise and satisfy their curiosity-two activities that are denied them on fur farms.

The demand for chinchilla fur has resulted in their near extinction. On a fur farm in Midland, Michigan, PETA investigators observed that chinchillas were suffering from painful seizures after being electrocuted or having their necks broken while they were still conscious.
Dogs and Cats
"Man's best friend" killed for fur? It's not just a bad dream. PETA's recent undercover investigation into the Chinese dog and cat fur trade revealed what the industry is so desperate to hide. Even our veteran investigators were horrified at what they found: Millions of dogs and cats in China are bludgeoned, hanged, bled to death, and strangled with wire nooses so that their fur can be turned into trim and trinkets.

Dog and cat fur is often deliberately mislabeled as fur from other species and is exported to countries throughout the world to be sold to unsuspecting consumers. China supplies more than half of the finished fur garments imported for sale in the U.S. So, if you're buying fur, there's no way to tell exactly whose skin you're wearing.
Seals
For thousands of years, harp seals have migrated from Greenland down the coast of Canada, stopping each spring to give birth on the ice floes. Female harp seals give birth to one pup each year.

Seal pups are born with silky white fur, which they molt around two weeks of age. Mothers and pups form a very strong bond and recognize each other by sound and smell. Female seals nurse their pups for a few days before going out to sea to feed, leaving the pup in a nursery group or a protected area for three to five days. When the mothers return, they call their pup with a distinctive bark that the pup will answer.

Thousands of the mothers return from feeding to find that their pup has been murdered during the Canadian seal slaughter. During this slaughter, tens of thousands of seals are bludgeoned and skinned so that their fur can be turned into fur coats.

Bears
For nearly two centuries, Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has waged a war on black bears, subsidizing the slaughter of hundreds of these animals in Canada and using their pelts to make headpieces for The Queen's Guards.

Bears are cruelly killed for their hides; they are either shot during hunts or ensnared, sometimes for days, in painful traps. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources reports that during hunts, as many as one bear in seven is not killed immediately after being shot, and some escape wounded, often dying later from blood loss, gangrene, or starvation.

Mother bears who are killed leave behind orphaned cubs who are completely dependent on them for food during their first 17 months. When left alone in the wilderness, the cubs often cannot survive. In many areas, there are few restrictions against shooting mother bears with nursing cubs, leading to the destruction of entire families.

It is common for bears to be hunted at bait sites. Food is left regularly for hungry bears so that they will become accustomed to going to the same spot to find food. Hunters then hide in tree stands and shoot at the bears who come looking for their regular meal.

Although the MoD has acknowledged that it is time for a change, it has delayed taking any action. It is inexcusable that the same army which is capable of building some of the most sophisticated equipment and machinery in the world claims it is unable to find a synthetic replacement for bearskins after almost three decades of "searching" and despite the wide availability of luxurious synthetic materials. Meanwhile, it is money from buyers such as the British Army that keeps hunters making profits from killing these animals. Bears aren't crops to be "harvested"; they are individuals who live in families and feel pain and terror when shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beavers Beavers are extremely gentle, family-oriented animals who mate for life and remain lifelong friends with their offspring. The second-largest rodent in the world, the beaver can live 19 years, reach 60 pounds, and grow up to 4 feet long. Baby beavers, or "kits," are usually born to hard-working, loving parents who have been together for many years.

# data[].attributes.body
Saffron will be using seals as her main target for her exhibition main idea

# data[].attributes.body
I will be focusing on minks, like how they are targeted by poachers who kill them just for their fur. PETA facts. One of them was so traumatised by the machine's whirring and sounds, she chewed a hole between the metal bars, causing her mouth to bleed. Because the minks were so distressed, some of them were found dead in their cages. Now, all kinds of animals like them are getting killed just for their fur, it it really that worth it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heartbreaking: Minks and Foxes Gassed for Their Fur

# data[].attributes.body
Star:Used a big variety of different sources for my issue
Wish: Use more of the MTR grid

# data[].attributes.body
Star: I have a lot of work and it's clear that I've referenced all of my research.
Wish: Synthesise my research

# data[].attributes.body
Fur Trade Facts. Each year, more than 1 billion rabbits and 50 million other animals -- including foxes, seals, mink and dogs -- are raised on fur farms or trapped in the wild and killed for their pelts. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M9iDPZlYThcS2XDY0nCbCrzjSrW2vNHLTR6IckDlABs/edit

# data[].attributes.body
There are fifty-eight percent of mink farms are in Europe. On average, 50 million individual minks in Fur Industries are being killed just in the name of fashion. Each year, more than 1 billion rabbits and 50 million other animals -- including foxes, seals, mink and dogs -- are raised on fur farms or trapped in the wild and killed for their pelts. Because much of the fur is imported from China and other countries with poor regulation, it is often mislabeled as "faux."

# data[].attributes.body
I know that I am interested in fashion but at first I had no idea how I should incorporate animals and fashion. But furs that are from animals are for fashion. Why are the furs being taken from the animals' own body? Just in the name of fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/lawh3/tbb4tkky4529

# data[].attributes.headline
Change: How is it changing? How have fur farming evolved?

# data[].attributes.subject
Change: How is it changing? How have fur farming evolved?

# data[].attributes.body
From catching animals from the wild to breeding/raising animals healthy and strong just to be killed. Before, there was a need to kill animals for the sake of protection. Now, humans have developed great materials to keep us warm like spandex, wool, satin, silk etc. We don't need to kill an innocent animal's life for something that isn't necessary. We are taking something that doesn't belong to us and that we should rightfully return it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Function: How does it work? How does fur farming operate/system?

# data[].attributes.subject
Function: How does it work? How does fur farming operate/system?

# data[].attributes.body
Fur farming is like raising a breed for fur specifically. Animals caught from the wild is considered as "wild fur". It does not fall under fur farming. Most of the fur farms in the world is in Europe. There are 6,000+ fur farms in Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fox farming: facts, figures, statistics | Truth About Fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about fox farming history and modern practices of how foxes are raised. Statistics for Canada and USA are 6500 animals (pelts).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Industry on the Rise

Since the beginning of human existence in the cold regions of the world, fur has been an appealing and practical societal commodity. Fur gathering for many early trappers, especially in the United States, began as a successful and relatively simple business venture aimed at supplying a continuous demand for fur products. Fur has since transcended from being a good necessary for the survival of human societies, to a luxury product in a small niche market where industrial profits are subject to change due to an inconsistent demand. (Fur Commission USA, 2011).

As fur became less essential to the wellbeing of the human population and attained more of a luxury good status, protests for the rights of fur-bearing animals became increasingly popular. These protests reached their peak of activity in the 1980s and 1990s, and were lead by prominent animal rights activist organizations (Peterson, 2010, II. Animal Rights Organizations and the Future of Fur, para. 1). Intensive campaigns attempted to shut down worldwide fur production by asserting claims of animal cruelty and abuse on fur farms. These campaigns were also aimed at curbing society's demand for fur by using media scare tactics involving paint-throwing, displays of humans in cages, and graphic images. While the fur industry experienced a substantial decrease in product demand during the 1980s and 1990s as a direct result of these campaigns, once again fur production is beginning to establish itself as a lucrative industry in today's market (Peterson, 2010, II. Animal Rights Organizations and the Future of Fur, para. 1).

To combat the annual differences in product demand, the US fur industry implemented concentrated fur-bearing animal farming operations in an effort to consolidate resources. The number of functional mink fur farms fell from 1,116 in 1982, to only 268 farms in 2011 (Fur Commission USA, 2011, Production Statistics, fig. 1). According to Simon Ward (2010), the communications director of an organization of fur farmers called Fur Commission USA, the decrease in the number of fur farms has not dramatically slowed pelt production (p. 1). In 2011, 268 mink farms produced 3,091 pelts for consumption comparably to the 4,085 produced in 1982 when over four times as many farms were in operation (Fur Commission USA, 2011, Production Statistics, fig. 1). The monetary value of fur produced in 2011 overshadowed the value of pelts produced in 1982 as well; total industry earnings from 1982 to 2011 skyrocketed from $118.1 million to a reported $291.5 million in the United States alone (Fur Commission USA, 2011, Production Statistics, fig. 1). Noticeable trends in demand and product price illustrate a market growing from just a few years ago. According to Fur Commission USA (2013), the world retail of fur has increased by 44% in the past ten years (para. 1). Just recently in February 2013, headlines in the fur industry community reported the highest record sale prices ever met (Fur Commission USA, 2013).

The once crippled American fur industry has seemingly resurrected and established itself as a growing and potentially viable trade for many fur farmers once again. Trends in fur product demand do not show any sort of decline in the immediate future. Even though plastic and plant fiber faux fur alternatives have been developed for warmth, real fur is still a popular consumer good (Fur Commission USA, 2013, para. 4). Though these trends are seemingly beneficial to fur producers, the techniques some farmers implement to produce their good remains a controversial debate topic. Increased demand coupled with growing interest into this once marked taboo market suggests that current industry practices should be considered for review to enhance the long-term quality of fur produced by farmers, and to ensure the safety and welfare of farms and animals alike.

Mink: The American Fur Industry Staple

American mink (Neovision vision) is one of the most prevalently farmed species in the American fur industry. Mink are non-domestic, active, nocturnal, semiaquatic mammals of the weasel family, typically ranging from 18-30 inches in length (including a long tail), and weigh about 5 pounds (mink. n.d., Encyclopedia Britannica, para. 2). Their coat conformation is dense, thick, and coloration generally consists of shades of black, blue, white, or brown. Their potential for various coat colorations, coupled with litter sizes of 2-8 kits (young mink offspring) capable of reaching maturity at only 6-8 months of age, makes American mink an attractive species for cultivation by fur farmers (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013, para. 4).

Like many industrial enterprises, mink farming boils down to dollars and cents for the producer. The current practices implemented on these farms remain in place to minimize the farm's operating costs in order to maximize producer profits (Born Free USA, 2009, pp. 6-7). Unfortunately these practices often operate under conditions unnatural to mink, and are not always conducive to providing mink with adequate welfare, thus causing unneeded stress on the animals (Mason et al., 2001, p. 35). Current mink fur farms generally house mink singly in individual wire mesh cages, measuring approximately 1 foot wide, 1 foot high, and 3 feet deep, that contain a water nipple and sometimes a nesting box (Mason et al., 2001, p. 35). The application of this single-housing lifestyle on fur farms can deny the animal of social interactions necessary for the preservation of the captive animal's wellbeing, especially during early development (Hovland et al., 2011, pp.110-111).

Captive mink also benefit from stimulation through objects replicating structures they would naturally interact with in the wild, but farm housing generally lacks such novel furnishings. Water baths provide mink with stimulation similar to their instinctual semiaquatic foraging behavior (Mason et al., 2001, p. 35). In a study performed by Vinke, Van Den, and Spruijt (2004), captive mink were found to work hard for access to a swimming pool once it was removed from their enclosure. Removal of the bath by the experimenters caused short-term stress indicated by scratching and scrabbling behaviors (pp. 158-159).

Under-stimulated mink in captivity display higher levels of cortisol, a steroid released naturally in response to stress, and will actively seek out stimulation (Svendsen et al., 2013, p. 172). Due to the lack of interactive furnishings, mink have been documented to perform activities involving self-mutilation such as fur-chewing and tail-biting as a means to relieve stress (Svendsen et al., 2013, p. 173). Not only is this physically harmful to the mink, but also detrimental to the quality of the fur produced, and therefore detrimental to farm profits. Another indication of stress is the performance of stereotypical behaviors that are defined as repetitive and unnatural behaviors commonly exhibited in under-stimulated animals in captivity. Hansen et al. (2009) described these behavioral stereotypies observed in farmed mink as "pacing along the cage sidewall, complex movement, patterns in the cage including somersaults, rolling, jumping up and down or stationary forms where the body is lifted vertically, head-twirling or licking on the wire mesh" (p. 177). Stereotypies, as seen with fur-farmed mink in individual housing, are often potent indicators of poor animal welfare (Born Free USA, 2009, p. 5).

Not only does stress impact the mink psychologically, stress also affects mink physiologically, especially during pregnancy. Prenatal stress can result in a lowered birth weight, a skewed sex-ratio, abnormalities in reproductive and maternal behaviors, and overall decreased reproductive success (Braastad et al., 1998, p. 178). Reproductive ability, or fecundity, of mink is also impacted by the breeding practices taking place on farms. The majority of mink farms operate alone, and thus there is a limited exchange of mink between fur farms. Without mink exchange, farmers opt into rebreeding mink with the best coat characteristics, inevitably leading to inbreeding between genetically related mink (Demontis, et al., 2011, p. 437). In a study performed by Demontis et al. (2011), breeding two genetically related mink, inbreeding, was found to decrease fecundity in farmed mink (p.439). With reduced fecundity, liter size is small and mink offspring are weak, both of which are characteristics that are not economically efficient for producers. If females do not propagate large, healthy litter sizes, less mink are produced, less mink reach maturity, and therefore the number of pelts and profits generated by the farm is lessened (Ward, 2010, p. 1).

Upon reaching maturity, mink are slaughtered on the farm and pelts are skinned from the carcass. Slaughter techniques generally include cervical dislocation, anal electrocution, and asphyxiation by carbon monoxide. All these slaughter techniques are unregulated by the government, done by the farmers themselves, and allow for preservation of the mink pelt. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommends the use of these methods for slaughtering, and insists these techniques are relatively stress-free and painless to the mink when performed properly (Born Free USA, 2009, pp. 8-9). However, producers are not always legally obligated to follow these recommendations set forth by the AVMA. In an effort to save time and money, some producers deviate from these guidelines and implement slaughter techniques that do not strictly adhere to these recommendations. When this occurs, the slaughtering process can become drawn-out, painful, and highly stressful for the mink (Born Free USA, 2009, pp. 19-21).

All of the practices implemented on mink farms are aimed at generating the most revenue for the farmer. These techniques often go against basic biological functions of the animals and thus can have damaging effects on currently farmed pelts and to those farmed in the future (Mason, et al., 2001, p.35). The reason these practices are allowed to continue can be traced back to an overarching issue that is unwittingly permitting the continuation of poor mink welfare.

Policy Pitfalls

The continuous inadmissible practices occurring on negligent mink farms across the country is due largely to the nearly complete lack of federal regulation of the farms themselves. The Dog and Cat Fur Protection Act directly prohibits the production and sale of pelts from Felis catus and Canis familiaris (domestic cats and dogs) in the USA. That same act also explicitly prohibits the import and export of cat and dog pelts and items containing cat/dog fur in the United States (Federal Trade Commission, 2000, para. 8). This example of governance offers some regulation in terms of the production and sale of fur from two specific species, and it is the only statute of its kind. Other laws in existence regulate the acquisition of certain fur-bearing animals from the wild, however, all of those statutes apply to "wild" fur-bearing animals and none apply to animals already being raised on fur farms (Peterson, 2010, IV. US Federal Regulation of the Fur Industry).

The Animal Welfare Act (1966) explicitly addresses the overall well-being of certain categories of animals. The role of this particular policy is to "govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors" (p.12). Though at first glance the statute seems all-encompassing, the Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes food and fiber animals from its parameters (Cohen, 2006, para. 2). Mink and other animals raised on fur farms are outside of the realm of this statute and an analogous policy specifically for fur farms is not in existence.

Another statute addressing the treatment of production animals is the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (1978) which states:

[T]he the following...methods are hereby found humane: in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. (§1902. Humane methods)

The policy clearly addresses the methods farmers must adhere to when humanely euthanizing livestock for slaughter; fur-bearing animals such as the mink do not fall under the USDA's "livestock" that are sheltered under this policy. No existing policy akin to The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (1978) is currently regulating the slaughtering of animals on fur farms. As stated previously, the methods in which mink are killed on fur farms are based on a set of guidelines given by the AVMA. However, these guidelines are simply recommendations on how best to euthanize mink before skinning, and producers are not legally obligated to strictly adhere to these suggestions. Since producers do not need to always follow these guidelines, those who deviate cannot be lawfully held accountable for their actions (Born Free USA, 2009, 12-13).

All regulations directly involving the governing of the mink fur industry are in place strictly to benefit the consumer of mink fur-containing products. The Fur Labeling Act requires proper labeling of all products containing fur, and the animals from which the fur is derived. Producers of those goods are legally obligated to properly identify the fur contained in their product, but not how the fur was cultivated and obtained (Peterson, 2010, sec. IV. US Federal Regulation of the Fur Industry). In no way does this statute provide management benefits to the mink used to produce these goods, but it is one of the very few federal statutes that addresses the fur industry.

Mending Mink Farm Husbandry

To combat the problems associated with mink farming, certain aspects of the production process as well as the regulation process of these farms must be altered to create a more efficient, humane, and sustainable method of mink fur production. Animal husbandry is the management of production animals in an agricultural setting and encompasses the overall practices associated with managing the animal(s) involved. The reduced animal welfare that is prevalent on fur farms is as a direct result of poor animal husbandry practices meant to maximize producer profit. Inadequate animal husbandry can be harmful to the physiological and/or the psychological well-being of the animal and in certain instances, can create long-term problems for the producer. Current industrial mink farming practices are detrimental to animal welfare and farm economics and must be corrected through tighter governmental regulation and improved husbandry techniques.

According to Hanninen, Ahola, Pyykonen, Korhoen, and Mononen (December 2008) the worldwide production of farmed mink turns out 50 million pelts per year. However, when considering the amount of breeding mink and those individuals that die before they make it to market, the authors assert that the population of farmed mink becomes more likened to a total of 60 million mink per year (p. 1809). The goal of a farmer is to be the most productive for the least amount of input cost in order to generate the greatest possible profit. Productivity of a mink fur farm is measured by the number of kits produced per breeding female and the survival rate of those kits to market (Ward, 2010, pp. 2-3). Adjustments made to husbandry practices used by farmers can have substantially beneficial returns for mink farms. By embracing a few humane techniques that take into consideration the natural biology of the mink they are raising, farmers can create happier, healthier, therefore, more viable mink.

To improve the welfare of fur-farmed mink, and in turn increase economic gains for the farmer, changes in farm husbandry is critical. Applying family housing systems with stimulating furnishings will provide mink with a less stressful environment and the ability to grow and develop normal, non-stereotypic behaviors. In a study performed by Hanninen et al. (February 2008), juvenile mink were placed in either family or paired housing and their behavioral and physiological responses were observed. The results from their study concluded that juvenile mink housed in familial groups were less stressed based on adrenal cortex function and adrenal size (pp. 392-394). Hansen and Damgaard (2009) also performed an experiment attempting to improve observable mink welfare through stimulation by a running wheel. The experimenters found when mink were given access to a running wheel, all the individuals in the study group actively used it, were willing to exert work in order to use it, and use of the wheel prevented the development of stereotypies (p. 81). A recent study conducted by Svendsen, Palme, and Malmkvist (2013) discovered that individuals found to perform fur-chewing activities actively interacted with a novel object when given to them more so than compared to the non-fur-chewing mink who did not use the object (p.176). All three of these studies support the idea that providing mink with access to social interaction and or stimulating objects will better their welfare. Allowing mink access to novel objects like a running wheel, or an even simpler water bath structure, will provide mink with a stress-relieving activity capable of decreasing the incidence of destructive stereotypies and self-mutilating activities like fur-biting and tail-chewing.

Stress reduction through improved housing will positively influence mink welfare, fecundity, and the production of normal-sized litters of healthy kits, which can correlate to increased economic gains made by the farm. Though group and paired housing techniques open mink up to possible fur damage through playing or fighting with cagemates, if mink are grouped in systems that house compatible mink together, pelt damage should be minimized (Hanninen et al, December 2008, p. 1809). By placing mink in group systems and reducing stress levels, mink may be less likely to develop stereotypies and fur or tail-chewing that can severely damage pelt quality.

Another method to improve fecundity other than reducing external stressors is the utilization of mink exchange programs between farms. By exchanging mink with favorable coat characteristics between farms, the genetic pool is not limited to only those mink present on the farm and inbreeding can be minimized. This in turn should increase the overall success of reproductive programs on farms and thereby increase farm profits (Demontis et al., 2011, pp.437-439).

Beyond the Farm

The practices taking place on mink farms are continually permitted because of the lack of governmental regulation. To ensure optimal human and animal safety on these farms, statutes must be enacted. By taking policies already in place and expanding them to encompass the fur industry, the producers on the farms can be held lawfully accountable for their actions. As previously discussed, The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (1978) is a federal statute already in place that governs the humane slaughter of livestock animals produced in the food animal production industry (p. 1). The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (1978) could easily be extended to include other non-livestock animals raised in large-scale production schemes by humans, e.g. mink. This amendment could universalize a mandatory humane methodology of euthanizing the mink for all producers, and a failure to do so by farms can result in lawful retribution. As for the welfare of the mink on the farms before they are slaughtered, regulations must also be enacted. A mandate akin to The Animal Welfare Act (1966) could be imposed to regulate cage size, access to simulative resources found in the mink's natural habitat (like aquatic structures), and breeding programs. Enforceable infrastructure will establish a mandatory baseline welfare status for the mink and if that status is unmet by the producer, legal action can be lawfully executed.

In recent years, sustainability and the knowledge of where our products come from has gained increasing importance in the decision making of consumers. Today, one can simply see in supermarkets that food products often come with labels describing what the good is made of, where it was made, and sometimes the process of how it was created (as is the case with "organic" food labels). Labels such as these can be adopted by the mink fur industry in an effort to appeal to a product-conscious consumer base. This marketing tactic may then create a larger demand for humanely cultivated fur, increase the consumption of fur-containing goods, and therefore generating greater profits for responsible fur farmers. Already there are several labels in place that have these goals in mind. The the Origin Assured label (OA), recognizes fur farms working under specific standards of fur production. With the information provided by this label, consumers can learn where their product comes from, and the practices the farmers have implemented into their production of their good (Origin Assured, n.d.). Currently, the OA label is very limited in the span of its coverage. Expansion and increased awareness of labels like OA can lead to increased support of sustainable practices and remove the blame and guilt from the consumer by allowing them to purchase responsibly.

Consumers of fur products have the potential to express unhappiness when it comes to their purse strings. By setting regulation and applying labels to all fur-containing clothing, consumers can buy fur products in good faith knowing even the fur trim on their favorite jacket came from responsible, hardworking farmers. Under these stipulations, responsible fur production by farmers generates not only a valuable commodity, but a marketable one as well. According the Origin Assured (n.d.) initiative, "[t]he OA™ mark thus enables consumers, designers and retailers to make informed choices with confidence" (How it Works, para. 6). When talking to one long time consumer of fur products, Ellen Rimmer, she found the idea buying from farms practicing good welfare techniques attractive: "I wish I knew about [the OA label] earlier. A lot of the young girls at my office love the furs coming out this season. Beautiful vests, maybe a headband...I'll make sure we're all buying humane fur this holiday season." Consumers, looking to be fashion forward without experiencing the guilt associated with purchasing goods manufactured inhumanely, will find solitude in the idea of their fur being humanely reared by conscientious farmers.

Farming for the Future

Since its inception, the mink farming industry has faced fluctuating demands as a result of fashion trends and consumer knowledge of mink farming practices. Despite periods of low consumer demand, the market for mink fur products has persisted and the industry has continually produced mink pelts for public consumption (Fur Commission USA, 2013). As long as there exists a demand for fur pelts, mink farming is going to continue to thrive and given current trends, elimination of that market is impossible. Through lack of governmental regulation, mink farming has become a system of imputing minimal costs to produce pelts, and sell them for the most profit without strict policies to govern the farming process. This in turn has resulted in a nearly universal standard of poor mink welfare seen on fur farms as well as unaccountability of farms for their actions (Born Free USA, 2009).

In a growing market, it is essential to operate efficiently and sustainably in order to consistently meet consumer demand. By imposing regulations and improving key farm husbandry practices, overall mink welfare can be improved. Regulating, altering, and improving mink slaughter, breeding, and housing systems has the potential not only to improve the quality of life for the animals on the farm, but also to benefit the farmers economically through a potentially larger profit margin. The fabrication of "humane" mink products will appeal to a wider range of consumers, thus providing mink producers with a greater consumer base to supply to, and the potential to make even greater economic gains. Reconstituting the production system will yield a more sustainable mink farming industry, that is beneficial to producers, consumers, and animals alike, and create a secure future for mink fur farming industry.

References

Braastad, B. (1998). Effects of prenatal stress on behaviour of offspring of laboratory and farmed mammals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61(2), 159-180. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00188-9

Born Free USA. (2009). Cruelty uncaged: fur farming in North America. Retrieved fromhttp://www.compassionateconsumer.org/donations/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=16_6&products_id=139

Cohen, H. (2006). The animal welfare act. Journal of Animal Law, 2, 13-26. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus2journalanimallaw13.htm#top

Demontis, D., Larsen, P., Bækgaard, H., Sønderup, M., Hansen, B., Nielsen, V., Loeschcke, V., Zalewski, A., Zalewska, H., Pertoldi, C. (2011). Inbreeding affects fecundity of American mink (Neovison vison) in Danish farm mink. Animal Genetics, 42 (4), 437-439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02155.x

Federal Trade Commission. (2000). The Dog and Cat Protection Act. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/fedreg/001228-fur.htm

Fur Commission USA. (2011). Production statistics. Retrieved from http://www.furcommission.com/farming/production/

Fur Commission USA. (2013). IFTF: Global retail sales increase by $600 million. Retrieved from http://www.furcommission.com/iftf-global-retail-sales-increase-by-600-million/

Hanninen, S., Mononen, J., Harjunpää, S., Pyykonen, T., Sepponen, J., Ahola, L. (February 2008). Effects of family housing on some behavioural and physiological parameters of juvenile farmed mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109 (2-4), 384-395. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.002

Hanninen, S., Ahola, L., Pyykonen, T., Korhoen, T., Mononen, J. (December 2008). Group housing in row cages: an alternative housing system for juvenile mink. Animal, 2 (12), 1809-1817. DOI: 10.1017/S175173110800311X

Hansen, S. & Damgaard, B. (2009). Running in a running wheel substitutes for stereotypies in mink (Mustela vison) but does it improve their welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118 (1-2), 76-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.025

Hovland, A., Akre, A., Flø, A., Bakken, M., Koistinen, T., Mason, G. (2011). Two's company? Solitary vixens' motivations for seeking social contact. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 135 (1-2), 110-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.005

Mason, J., Cooper, J., Clarebrough, C. (2001). Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature, 410, 35-36. DOI: 10.1038/35065157

Origin Assured. (n.d.). The initiative. Retrieved from http://www.originassured.com/index.php/site_wide/

Peterson, L. (2010). Detailed discussion of fur animals and fur production. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusfur.htm

Svendsen, P., Palme, R., Malmkvist, J. (2013). Novelty exploration, baseline cortisol level in fur-chewing mink with different intensities of stereotypic behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147 (1-2), 172-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.05.011.

The Animal Welfare Act. (1966). Retrieved from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/awa_info.shtml

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. (1978). Retrieved from http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/humane-methods-slaughter-act

Vinke, C., Van Den, R., Spruijt, B. (2004). Anticipatory activity and stereotypical behaviour in American mink (Mustela vison) in three housing systems differing in the amount of enrichments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 89 (1-2), 145-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.06.002

Ward, S. (2010, 12 23). US Mink: The state of the industry. Retrieved from http://old.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999cv.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mink Fur Farming: Adapting an industry on the rise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the beginning of human existence in the cold regions of the world, fur has been an appealing and practical societal commodity. Fur gathering for many early trappers, especially in the United States, began as a successful and relatively simple business venture aimed at supplying a continuous demand for fur products.

# data[].attributes.body
PETA information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by PETA

OK, so admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fashionista, but even I know that Prada is a big deal in the fashion world. Like, the biggest deal there is. So this is just beyond incredible.

Amazing clothes-no fur. Love you Ms. Prada.

Not even 24 hours after a PETA Europe member disrupted the Prada fashion show at Milan Fashion Week, and less than a month since PETA reps showed this video to Prada execs in Milan, the mood has swung 180 degrees and founder Miuccia Prada received a bouquet of roses from PETA Europe this morning. The sudden about-face happened because, for the first time in decades-yes, I mean literally decades-there wasn't a single fur item in Prada's fall/winter collection. And check this: Miuccia Prada herself said that she is "bored" with real fur. It seems that Prada has finally realized what we've been saying for years, that designing with fur is unimaginative as hell, not to mention cruel.

Prada's new line is called "Fake Classic"-I love it. Check out this incredible orange faux-fur coat. I guess this is what "Fake Classic" means.

Prada's announcement is making headlines worldwide, but my favorite one so far is from a huge paper in Australia: "Animal liberationists scored a victory today when Milan's style matron, Miuccia Prada, proclaimed she was bored with fur." Are we on a roll or what? We finished up last year with heavyweights Kenneth Cole, J.Crew, Ann Taylor, and Ralph Lauren going fur free, started this year off with a bang with the Marc Bouwer show, and now this amazing news from Prada.

It all just makes Burberry seem that much more out of touch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OK, so admittedly I'm not the world's biggest fashionista, but even I know that Prada is a big deal in the fashion world. Like, the biggest deal there is. So this is just beyond incredible. Amazing clothes-no fur. Love you Ms. Prada.

# data[].attributes.body
Many chicken that we eat are being injected with a type of chemical that makes the animal grow 3 times faster than nature intended, so what we eat is full of chemicals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to Statistics Canada, more than 2.5 million animals are farmed for their fur each year. The vast majority of these are mink and fox, both of which are non-domesticated, with all of their wild instincts intact.

Fur farming, like any other form of factory farming, is hell on earth for animals.

Mink have a natural territory of up to 2,500 acres; foxes can require even more space. Despite this, both animals spend their short, miserable lives trapped in tiny wire cages stacked together in long sheds, where they eat, sleep, urinate and defecate. Their movement is so severely restricted (the average mink has less floor space than two sheets of paper) that they are unable to run, hunt, hide, or socialize. Studies have shown that because mink are semi-aquatic, they suffer greatly when denied access to water. Foxes suffer similarly when denied the ability to dig and seek cover, which the tiny wire cages also disallow.

Some of the common physical consequences of these unnatural living conditions include frostbite, deformed limbs, infectious diseases, and ulcers. Sadly, but not surprisingly, farmed animals also routinely develop psychological conditions, including social deprivation, learned helplessness, continuous fear, and behavioural abnormalities (repetitive pacing, circling, head-bobbing, self mutilation) at a rate of up to 85%. Inbreeding for specific colour traits has also led to severe genetic abnormalities including deafness, "screw-neck," and compromised immune systems.

The fur industry routinely claims that it is in the best interest of the farmers to treat their animals humanely, as it is integral to the "quality" of the fur. But "high quality" fur has never been shown to reflect on the health or well-being of a farmed animal - only that they were killed shortly after their first winter coat arrives, at about seven months of age. In order to avoid damaging the fur, animals are killed by gassing, neck-breaking, or anal electrocution.

The Fur Institute of Canada explains that "Canadian fur farmers also operate under provincial and territorial legislation and Codes of Practice covering animal welfare. The Recommended Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals include mink and ranched fox, and were developed by Agriculture Canada in collaboration with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies".

Don't let the rhetoric fool you. There are few laws regulating the keeping, handling or killing of cage-raised fur-bearing animals in Canada. Most regulations are entirely voluntary and simply reflect the standard practices used to make the most possible profit off of each animal with the least possible amount of input and care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to Statistics Canada, more than 2.5 million animals are farmed for their fur each year. The vast majority of these are mink and fox, both of which are non-domesticated, with all of their wild instincts intact. Fur farming, like any other form of factory farming, is hell on earth for animals.

# data[].attributes.body
According to statistics canada, more than 2.5 million animals are killed each year for fur, just for fur

Where are all the fox farms? well the foxes have a whole factory reserved for themselves!

# data[].attributes.headline
Designers who doesn't use fur for their company

# data[].attributes.subject
Designers who doesn't use fur for their company

# data[].attributes.body
John Galliano. A chance meeting with PETA's senior vice president, Dan Mathews, while swimming in the Saint Tropez sea with Penélope Cruz, led to a change of heart from John Galliano.

DKNY.

Versace.

Michael Kors.

Gucci.

Giorgio Armani.

Tommy Hilfiger.

Stella McCartney.

# data[].attributes.body
An animal's life for a piece of clothing? No way!

Wear your own skin, not theirs

# data[].attributes.body
A company who used to use fur for clothing, though they've banned it last year, 2017 October.

# data[].attributes.body
Organisation for anti fur informati

# data[].attributes.body
one arm out with the finger hearts then spell on our arms "an animal's life for a piece of clothing? No way!

# data[].attributes.body
fur@hkff.org

# data[].attributes.headline
Perspective: What are the points of views? How does the different people in that field working think of this problem?

# data[].attributes.subject
Perspective: What are the points of views? How does the different people in that field working think of this problem?

# data[].attributes.body
The protester's view: The protesters are the ones who disagree with the people who gas animals for their fur and it's mostly because it's first cruel, abusive and very unfair.

The worker's view: They don't have a choice, to be able to make money, other jobs don't really accept them so they maybe forced to work there, whether they like it or not. So it's safe to say that they don't exactly have a clear perspective of this situation.

The fashion designers:
They don't care, as long as they are making a quick buck. All of the animals that are dying under their wrath. They. Don't. Care.

# data[].attributes.body
What do you know about fur farming?
It's very disappointing that humans are that cruel, killing animals for fur.