# data[].attributes.body
no money, no vet in UK for animals
became a business
how to care for your animals

how has the cost of medical health for animals impact the ability of pet owners to provide welfare for their animals.

how many is present in the animal owning

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on the socio-economic status, the type of animal cruelty slightly changes.

Abusive treatment of animals usually results from our relationships with other humans, Animal cruelty is a social phenomenon.

Gender: male students were nearly four times more likely than females to report abusing animals as a child or adolescents.

Age: Types of animals differ by adults and teenagers who abuse animals.

Adult (male): may feel as if they must protect their families and property and maintain the safety of the neighbourhood, and dogs are likely to be perceived as a greater threat than cats.

Teenagers: are more likely to commit an “expressive” form of cruelty in which the actual mistreatment is the sought-after goal, not retaliation against animal owners. They beat the animal which is more appealing because it provides direct contact, and cats are smaller than dogs and thus easier to abuse in this manner.

Socio-economic status: Those whose fathers failed to complete high school had rates of animal cruelty twice that of students with more educated fathers. Mothers’ education was unrelated to the perpetration of animal cruelty as a child. The more often boys were physically punished by their fathers, the more likely they were to commit animal cruelty.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on the socio-economic status, the type of animal cruelty slightly changes.

Abusive treatment of animals usually results from our relationships with other humans, Animal cruelty is a social phenomenon.

Gender: male students were nearly four times more likely than females to report abusing animals as a child or adolescents.

Age: Types of animals differ by adults and teenagers who abuse animals.

Adult (male): may feel as if they must protect their families and property and maintain the safety of the neighborhood, and dogs are likely to be perceived as a greater threat than cats.

Teenagers: more likely to commit an “expressive” form of cruelty in which the actual mistreatment is the sought-after goal, not retaliation against animal owners. They beat the animal which is more appealing because it provides direct contact, and cats are smaller than dogs and thus easier to abuse in this manner.

Socio-economic status: Whose fathers failed to complete high school had rates of animal cruelty twice that of students with more educated fathers. Mothers’ education was unrelated to the perpetration of animal cruelty as a child. The more often boys were physically punished by their fathers, the more likely they were to commit animal cruelty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human and Non-Human relationships with animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Natural and Human Impacts on Wildlife - NatureWorks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans are now responsible for causing changes in the environment that hurt animals and plant species. We take up more space on Earth for our homes and cities. We pollute habitats. We illegally hunt and kill animals. We bring exotic species into habitats. All of these activities take resources and h…

# data[].attributes.headline
Human induced extinction of animal species

# data[].attributes.subject
Human induced extinction of animal species

# data[].attributes.body
Humans are now responsible for causing changes in the environment that hurt animals and plant species. We take up more space on Earth for our homes and cities. We pollute habitats. We illegally hunt and kill animals. We bring exotic species into habitats. All of these activities take resources and habitats away from plants and animals.

Human activity often changes or destroys the habitats that plants and animals need to survive. Because human populations are growing so fast animals and plants are disappearing 1000 times faster than they have in the past 65 million years. Scientists estimate that in the 21st century 100 species will become extinct every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

This article was most recently revised and updated by

dodo, ( Raphus cucullatus), extinct flightless bird of Mauritius (an island of the Indian Ocean), one of the three species that constituted the family Raphidae, usually placed with pigeons in the order Columbiformes but sometimes separated as an order (Raphiformes). The other two species, also found on islands of the Indian Ocean, were the solitaires ( Raphus solitarius of Réunion and Pezophaps solitaria of Rodrigues). The birds were first seen by Portuguese sailors about 1507 and were exterminated by humans and their introduced animals. The dodo was extinct by 1681, the Réunion solitaire by 1746, and the Rodrigues solitaire by about 1790. The dodo is frequently cited as one of the most well-known examples of human-induced extinction and also serves as a symbol of obsolescence with respect to human technological progress.

The dodo, bigger than a turkey, weighed about 23 kg (about 50 pounds). It had blue-gray plumage, a big head, a 23-cm (9-inch) blackish bill with reddish sheath forming the hooked tip, small useless wings, stout yellow legs, and a tuft of curly feathers high on its rear end. The Réunion solitaire may have been a white version of the dodo. The brownish Rodrigues solitaire was taller and more slender, with smaller head, short bill lacking the heavy hook, and wings with knobs. All that remains of the dodo is a head and foot at Oxford, a foot in the British Museum, a head in Copenhagen, and skeletons, more or less complete, in various museums of Europe, the United States, and Mauritius. Many bones of solitaires have also been preserved.

The dodo's prominent role in bringing attention to the extinction of species, coupled with advances in genetics that could allow for its resurrection ( de-extinction), have led scientists to consider the possibility of bringing the dodo back. The sequencing of the dodo genome by geneticists in 2016 reinvigorated this discussion as well as the ethical debate of using de-extinction techniques to alter natural history.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica John P. Rafferty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
dodo, (Raphus cucullatus), extinct flightless bird of Mauritius (an island of the Indian Ocean), one of the three species that constituted the family Raphidae, usually placed with pigeons in the order Columbiformes but sometimes separated as an order (Raphiformes).

# data[].attributes.headline
Relationship between natural environment and animals

# data[].attributes.subject
Relationship between natural environment and animals

# data[].attributes.body
Abiotic components of an animal's environment include a huge range of characteristics, examples of which include:

Temperature

Humidity

Oxygen

Wind

Soil composition

Day length

Elevation

Biotic components of an animal's environment include such things as:

Plant matter

Predators

Parasites

Competitors

Individuals of the same species

Animals Get Energy From the Environment

Animals require energy to support the processes of life: movement, foraging, digestion, reproduction, growth, and work. Organisms can be categorized into one of the following groups:

Autotroph—an organism that obtains energy from sunlight (in the case of green plants) or inorganic compounds (in the case of sulfur bacteria)

Heterotroph—an organism that uses organic materials as a source of energy

Animals are heterotrophs, obtaining their energy from the ingestion of other organisms. When resources are scarce or environmental conditions limit the ability of animals to obtain food or go about their normal activities, animals' metabolic activity may decrease to conserve energy until better conditions prevail.

A component of an organism's environment, such as a nutrient, that is in short supply and therefore limits the organism's ability to reproduce in greater numbers is referred to as a limiting factor of the environment.

The different types of metabolic dormancy or responses include:

Torpor—a time of decreased metabolism and reduced body temperature in daily activity cycles

Hibernation—a time of decreased metabolism and reduced body temperature that may last weeks or months

Winter sleep—periods of inactivity during which body temperature does not fall substantially and from which animals can be awakened and become active quickly

Aestivation—a period of inactivity in animals that must sustain extended periods of drying

Environmental characteristics (temperature, moisture, food availability, and so on) vary over time and location so animals have adapted to a certain range of values for each characteristic.

The range of an environmental characteristic to which an animal is adapted is called its tolerance range for that characteristic. Within an animal's tolerance range is an optimal range of values at which the animal is most successful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To understanding individual animals, and in turn populations of animals, you must first understand the relationship they have with their environment.

Animal Habitats

The environment in which an animal lives is referred to as its habitat. A habitat includes both biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components of the animal's environment.

Abiotic components of an animal's environment include a huge range of characteristics, examples of which include:

Biotic components of an animal's environment include such things as:

Animals Get Energy From the Environment

Animals require energy to support the processes of life: movement, foraging, digestion, reproduction, growth, and work. Organisms can be categorized into one of the following groups:

Autotroph-an organism that obtains energy from sunlight (in the case of green plants) or inorganic compounds (in the case of sulfur bacteria)

Heterotroph-an organism that uses organic materials as a source of energy

Animals are heterotrophs, obtaining their energy from the ingestion of other organisms. When resources are scarce or environmental conditions limit the ability of animals to obtain food or go about their normal activities, animals' metabolic activity may decrease to conserve energy until better conditions prevail.

A component of an organism's environment, such as a nutrient, that is in short supply and therefore limits the organism's ability to reproduce in greater numbers is referred to as a limiting factor of the environment.

The different types of metabolic dormancy or responses include:

Torpor-a time of decreased metabolism and reduced body temperature in daily activity cycles

Hibernation-a time of decreased metabolism and reduced body temperature that may last weeks or months

Winter sleep-periods of inactivity during which body temperature does not fall substantially and from which animals can be awakened and become active quickly

Aestivation-a period of inactivity in animals that must sustain extended periods of drying

Environmental characteristics (temperature, moisture, food availability, and so on) vary over time and location so animals have adapted to a certain range of values for each characteristic.

The range of an environmental characteristic to which an animal is adapted is called its tolerance range for that characteristic. Within an animal's tolerance range is an optimal range of values at which the animal is most successful.

Animals Become Acclimated to Survive

Sometimes, in response to a prolonged change in environmental characteristic, an animal's physiology adjusts to accommodate the change in its environment, and in doing so, its tolerance range shifts. This shift in tolerance range is called acclimation.

For example, sheep in cold, damp climates grow thicker winter coats. And, a study of lizards showed that those acclimated to warm weather could maintain a faster speed than lizards not acclimated to those conditions. Likewise, the digestive systems of white-tailed deer adjust to the available food supply in winter versus summer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Animals Are Shaped by Their Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To understanding individual animals, and in turn populations of animals, you must first understand the relationship they have with their environment. The environment in which an animal lives is referred to as its habitat. A habitat includes both biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components of the animal's environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For those living in the United States, there is a good chance that waking up each morning includes small paws walking across the bed or a cold, wet nose to the hand. According to a 2017-18 National Pet Owners Survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association (APPA), 68 percent of US households own a pet; this equates to 84.6 million homes. And, while dogs and cats remain the most popular choices, horses, birds, fish, reptiles, and other animals are on the charts, too.

Americans cherish their pets. The APPA estimates that in the United States, $72.1 billion will be spent on pet expenditures this year (up from $69.5 billion in 2017). These expenses include food, supplies, over-the-counter medicine, veterinary care, live animal purchases, and other services.

It is not just about spending habits. The ways in which pets interact with their owners on a daily basis show what pivotal positions they hold, and how today, people treat their pets the way they might treat another person. The New York Times reports that 70 percent of pet owners say they sometimes sleep with their pets, 65 percent buy Christmas gifts for their pets, 23 percent cook special meals for their pets, and 40 percent of married women with pets say they get more emotional support from their pets than from their spouses.

In the beginning

This bond between pets and their owners was not always so similar to the relationships humans have with each other. According to Bayer, a life science company, the human-animal bond has evolved for more than 15,000 years, and it began as a working relationship. Animals provided protection and service to people; this could have been while hunting, farming, or performing other tasks necessary for day-to-day life. Dogs would track and herd. Cats usually lived outside, and would hunt and kill rodents that, otherwise, could spread disease and damage food or other materials.

Animals also served people during wartime. The United States Army Medical Department Journal (AMDJ) mentions cavalry horses, sentry dogs, carrier pigeons, and even mascots as common historical military roles for animals. According to AMDJ, these animals not only provided protection; they also could offer stress relief and a sense of pride to their human counterparts.

Pets, humans, and their health together

It is easy to overlook the human-animal bond as a one-way street. Pets need their owners to meet their basic needs of food, water, shelter, and welfare. But, humans can gain a different kind of wellbeing from their companion animals. Research shows that pets can lower blood pressure, reduce stress, raise blood oxytocin levels, and, in some cases, may reduce direct pain. According to Bayer, people living with dogs are 15 percent less likely to die from heart disease.

Pets also can offer benefits for other human health challenges. The elderly respond well to companion animals. According to Bayer, diseases like depression, coronary conditions, and dementia can be exacerbated by loneliness. By interacting with companion animals, elderly people can experience positive mental and physical effects. Similar results can occur in children during emotional, cognitive, social, and behavioral development.

Today's working and production animals

The human-animal bond can be observed in a variety of settings. Working animals, especially, are known for their relationships with their human handlers. Emotional support, therapy, and service animals provide comfort, offer security, and perform daily tasks to help their owners through life. Animals can be an important part of the healing process for people who experience abuse or trauma including veterans who have served during wartime.

TOP: A sailor rests his head on Tirpitzi, a pig who was a mascot on HMS Glasgow during WWI. MIDDLE: At A carrier pigeon communication school in Namur, Belgium, a dispatch dog is fitted with a pigeon basket for transporting carrier pigeons to the front line. BOTTOM: A vet tends to a wounded horse hit by shrapnel in France. It is estimated that eight million horses alone died during the conflict as a result of shellfire, as well as terrible weather and appalling living conditions.

Animals can provide other services, too. Some farmers station peacocks to watch over their land and livestock. Law enforcement depends on canines to track and capture suspects and identify bombs and narcotics. The US Navy's combat dolphins detect underwater mines and the presence of enemy swimmers, while the Marines have used mules in a variety of missions by transporting weapons, ammunition, and other supplies through difficult terrains.

The human-animal bond also is observed in production animal populations. Farmers, ranchers, caretakers, and veterinarians develop bonds with the livestock under their care. This bond, while different, is just as strong, and is tied directly to the human capacity for empathy; it allows them to provide the animals with the best quality of life.

Human-animal bond in the future

As the human-animal bond has evolved throughout time, it makes sense to think that it will continue to develop as the relationships people share with different animals also change. The health benefits of owning companion animals and interacting with different types of working animals are making major impacts in the lives of many people.

As this bond continues to strengthen, newer areas of health focus, such as grieving the loss of a companion animal, will continue to gain traction. The same is true for production animals. As veterinarians and researchers continue to learn more about animal welfare and health standards, and as the agricultural industry shifts, new research and protocols will be instituted that optimize these relationships between humans and livestock.

This is especially true within the context of One Health, a concept that describes the wellness of humans, animals, and the environment as permanently tied together. While much of the past and current conversation regarding One Health centers on zoonotic disease and animal reservoirs, smaller companion animals and the role they play in physical, mental, and societal health is becoming more topical. As scientists continue to gain more knowledge about the health benefits of the human-animal bond, that bond may continue to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For those living in the United States, there is a good chance that waking up each morning includes small paws walking across the bed or a cold, wet nose to the hand. According to a 2017-18 National Pet Owners Survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association (APPA), 68 percent of US households own a pet; this equates to 84.6 million homes.

# data[].attributes.body
So from my research I think its clear to see what the main issue is here. Animal cruelty (specifically throughout the livestock sector) plays a huge part in the climate crisis. With the generation of 14.5% of the greenhouse gasses, it's clear to see what the problem is and where it lies. It's something that we, as the 'little people' can have little impact on. Protests and campaigns can raise awareness, yet we see no change. Perhaps that is something myself and my group could explore more and how we can make a more impactful way of reaching out to this massive and cruel industry.

# data[].attributes.body
"it's not just carbon dioxide that's the problem: gases including methane and nitrous oxide, also produced in significant quantities, are released through various sources including animal waste and fertiliser use. Livestock farming produces 37% and 65% of our global methane and nitrous oxide emissions respectively 3. Both gases are much more potent than carbon dioxide."

FACTORY FARMING ENDANGERS THE NATURAL WORLD, THREATENING THE SURVIVAL OF MANY ANIMALS AND PLANTS.

"Factory farming can create a range of pollution problems, fragmenting and even destroying natural habitats. This can drive out or even kill the animals and plants that inhabit them. The range of wastes from factory farms can be particularly problematic, leaking into water courses and, in the worst cases, leaving vast "dead zones", where few species can survive. Some of the nitrogen will also become gaseous, turning into ammonia, for instance, which creates problems such as water acidification and ozone layer depletion."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental damage | Compassion in World Farming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Factory farming is a dirty business, contaminating the natural world and damaging diverse ecosystems.

# data[].attributes.body
We all know that the farming industry is one of the worst out there, yet it continues to thrive with little effort to change their ways. Here are some of the major points of animal cruelty amongst the livestock industry:

1. Limited living space

Animals are exploited in farms, cramming them together with little space to move and live a happy and fulfilling lives, as well as encourage normal behaviours such as nesting and foraging. Cramming animals as well as stopping them from acting out their normal behaviours can inflict injuries inflicted by both each other and themselves.

1. Mutilation

In order to stop these injuries, the animals are often mutilated, having teeth clipped, tails docked and beaks trimmed, all of which is usually performed without pain relief.

1. Fast Growth is Key

In order to keep up with demand, animals are selectively bred in order to yield more meat. This can put animals at risk of developing often-painful physiological problems. Weakened bones, infections and lameness all occur.

# data[].attributes.body
Agriculture and livestock is a major force in the climate issue and 'nature destruction'. Farming has drastically changed over the years and takes a more intensive approach. With large numbers of livestock living in over-packed conditions and producing concentrated waste as well as being fed grain that was grown on soil with artificial fertilisers.

These animals produce Nitrous oxide as a result, which is a key greenhouse gas with a warming effect 300 times greater than CO2". With the need for animal produce still growing, we are starting to break the safe boundary for sustaining human life on earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A guest blog by Emma Slawinski, our Director of Advocacy and Policy.
This week sees the beginning of COP26, the UN-led climate change meeting where 196 countries come together to negotiate and agree action to halt, mitigate and adapt for climate change. Climate change is fundamentally altering our planet with extreme weather events now feeling commonplace, changing sea levels, and ecosystems beginning to fail.

We have a climate and nature crisis on our hands

But it cannot be seen in isolation, or worse, reduced down to a conversation about carbon emissions. We have a climate AND nature crisis on our hands, up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, with many already on the brink. We're already breaching many of the conditions scientists say are vital to sustaining human life on earth - known as planetary boundaries.

As well as climate change, the use of agricultural fertilizers has dangerously altered the natural levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in our land, sea and atmosphere (known as biogeochemical flows) and the loss of biodiversity and animal extinctions threatens the ecosystem we rely on to survive. Indeed these two areas are identified as greater risks than climate change by the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

The changing climate and impacts on the natural world, whilst issues of the utmost importance, are only symptoms. As the leaders of the world come together in Glasgow, they must address the root causes of climate change and nature destruction.

The welfare of animals is not on the agenda for COP26

The billions of sentient creatures with whom we share the world are absent from these discussions. Many might see no problem with this; why would animals be relevant to these discussions on human-made problems needing urgent intergovernmental attention? But leaving animal issues out of these discussions is a major misstep; our relationship with animals is both a cause, a major impact point, and a potential solution to the climate and nature crisis.

Agriculture, and in particular intensive livestock farming, is a major driver of climate change and nature destruction. Intensive farming's model of large numbers of animals, living together in crowded conditions, producing concentrated waste, and being fed grain grown on soil supported by artificial fertilizers is putting our ability to meet the Paris climate targets at serious risk.

Nitrous oxide, given off by animal manure and artificial fertiliser, is a key greenhouse gas with a warming effect 300 times greater than carbon dioxide. The role of agriculture in radically changing the nitrogen cycle is widely recognised as a key way in which we're breaking the safe boundaries for sustaining human life on earth.

Support our campaign: Protect the UK's farm animal welfare standards.

Animals are majorly impacted by the environmental changes

Reducing the number of animals being farmed globally - and the amount of meat, eggs and dairy being consumed - should be a key focus of any discussion on climate change. COP would be a perfect opportunity for the member governments to challenge each other to set targets for reduction. The topic of livestock reduction is totally absent in all but the most general terms around 'sustainable agriculture'.

Animals are majorly impacted by the changes in the environment caused by human activity. Alongside the alarming figures around the extinction of species, we see individual suffering writ large in the destruction of habitats, water scarcity and extreme weather events.

The fires raging in the Amazon, California, Canada and Australia all caused significant loss of animal as well as human lives. And at a domestic level in the UK, we at the RSPCA are increasingly asked for our guidance in helping to keep pets cool, prevent footpad burning on dog walks and how to support dehydrated animals in unprecedented temperatures.

However, changing our relationships with the animals around us could present vital solutions to the climate and nature crisis. Extensive and regenerative farming models, in which fewer animals graze on pasture, fertilizing the soil naturally and working in harmony with nature can sequester carbon, preventing it from being released into the atmosphere, and reverse climate change.

We want to see an end to intensive farming

Choosing to reduce the number of farmed animals even further by embracing alternative proteins and plant-based diets could be "the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use," according to Joseph Poore, the leading researcher for Oxford University's 2018 report into livestock farming and the environment.

While intergovernmental cooperation is crucial to tackling what has been called 'the defining crisis of our time', we all, as individuals, have choices to make and a part to play. Indeed, as COP gets underway, the Government's own chief scientific advisor Sir Patrick Vallance has joined nearly 40 government scientific advisors around the world to call for 'significant behavioural transformation' such as cutting meat consumption and flying less.

He advised that individuals should cut consumption of animal products by 35% by 2050 and criticised the government for not addressing these vital issues in its recent net zero strategy. We at the RSPCA want to see an end to intensive farming and all its impacts on the environment and animal welfare and are campaigning for an 'eat less, eat better' approach to animal products.

While animal issues are only given a passing mention in the COP agenda, they cannot and should not be ignored. We're calling on the leaders meeting in Glasgow to recognise that the way we live alongside animals, from wildlife to farmed animals, pets to working animals, is critical to solving the issues that are ravaging our planet.

Individuals can do their bit but only governments, working together, can lead the scale of change that is needed. We cannot hope to truly transform our relationship with the planet if we ignore the billions of creatures we share it with.

Read more: CO2 crisis shows it's time we rethink our throwaway meat consumption.

Stay in the know

Subscribe to our newsletter to find out more about how we're standing up for animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why COP26 must address animal issues - RSPCA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A guest blog by Emma Slawinski, our Director of Advocacy and Policy. This week sees the beginning of COP26, the UN-led climate change meeting where 196 countries come together to negotiate and agree action to halt, mitigate and adapt for climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview Scientific consensus shows that animal agriculture is responsible for at least 16.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and causes...

# data[].attributes.body
Raising livestock for meat eggs and milk generates 14.5% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is the 2nd largest contributor to emissions and overtakes all transportation combined.
As well as high levels of emissions produced, livestock uses 70% of agricultural land and is the leading cause of biodiversity loss, deforestation and water pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal agriculture is choking the ​Earth and making us sick. We must act now | James Cameron and Suzy Amis Cameron

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Film-maker James Cameron and environmentalist Suzy Amis Cameron writes that to preserve America's majestic national parks, clean air and water for future generations leaders must be pressed to address food's environmental impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 2:43•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/national/united-kingdom/

# data[].attributes.headline
What Is Animal Welfare and Why Is It Important?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Is Animal Welfare and Why Is It Important?

# data[].attributes.body
Animal welfare refers to the quality of life experienced by an animal and encompasses how well the animal is coping with his or her current situation and surroundings.

World Animal Protection believes animal welfare is affected by the relationships human beings have with animals and it is our duty to ensure all animals are treated humanely, responsibly, and with respect.

This includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, such as the Five Domains. Animal welfare should be at the forefront of every human action involving animals.

What are the Five Domains of animal welfare?

Nutrition – factors that involve the animal’s access to sufficient, balanced, varied, and clean food and water.

Environment – factors that enable comfort through temperature, substrate, space, air, odour, noise, and predictability.

Health – factors that enable good health through the absence of disease, injury, impairment with a good fitness level.

Behaviour – factors that provide varied, novel, and engaging environmental challenges through sensory inputs, exploration, foraging, bonding, playing, retreating, and others.

Mental State – by presenting positive situations in the previous four functional domains, the mental state of the animal should benefit from predominantly positive states, such as pleasure, comfort, or vitality while reducing negative states such as fear, frustration, hunger, pain, or boredom.

Why is animal welfare important?

Animal welfare is important because there are so many animals around the world suffering from being used for entertainment, food, medicine, fashion, scientific advancement, and as exotic pets. Every animal deserves to have a good life where they enjoy the benefits of the Five Domains.

How does World Animal Protection work to improve animal welfare?

World Animal Protection has a multi-pronged approach to improving the lives of animals. Our programs include protecting animals in the wild and creating a better quality of life for animals in farming.

Around the world, we work with corporations to implement robust animal welfare policies ending the use of wild animals for entertainment and the exotic pet trade. We also encourage people to reduce the amount of cruelly produced factory-farmed meat they eat and work with meat suppliers to implement higher animal welfare practices, eliminating some of the worst cruelties farmed animals face today.

https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.nz/news/animal-welfare-and-why-important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is animal welfare and why is it important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World Animal Protection is an animal welfare organisation. Let's break down what that means.

# data[].attributes.body
https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/methodology

# data[].attributes.body
The Animal Protection Index (API) ranks 50 countries around the world according to their animal welfare policy and legislation. This project is unique to World Animal Protection and support our lobbying efforts to promote stronger laws to better protect animals. World Animal Protection hopes the API is a useful resource for anyone willing to be an advocate for animals.

Our research partners

The research for the API was conducted by World Animal Protection, with input from various partners from NGOs and academia for specific country reports. For the first edition of the API, published in 2014, the research was conducted in partnership with the law firm DLA Piper.

Methodology
Each of the 50 countries part of the Animal Protection Index (API) is assessed according to 10 indicators, grouped into 4 goals, which address key animal welfare issues found around the world.

Read the detailed methodology below which provides further information about the themes and individual indicators included, as well as the scoring system applied.

# data[].attributes.body
What are animal rights? Essentially, this is the belief that all animals should be granted the same basic level of compassion as human beings. The assumption is that animals are not merely possessions — they are living, breathing creatures that can feel pain. Recognizing this is one of the most basic tenets of animal rights. The more we learn about how animals think and feel pain, the more we can work on protecting them and treating them humanely.

Some groups of people involved in the animal rights movement, like vegans, go even further by denouncing all animal by-products, including leather and dairy. They argue that even if animals are given first-class treatment all of their lives and killed humanely, they shouldn’t have their lives ended by humans. These individuals are generally against these practices:

Experimenting or testing medicines and cosmetics on animals

Using animals for hard manual labor

Breeding and killing animals for food or clothing

Hunting

Selective breeding for purposes other than the animal’s welfare

Zoos and animals used in entertainment

https://theswiftest.com/animal-rights-index/

Organizations That Promote Animal Rights

There are many groups around the world that advocate on behalf of animal rights and welfare.

The following are animal welfare organizations that aim to secure the rights of animals:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: This nonprofit organization, created in 1866, lobbies for animal welfare legislation in the United States.

The Humane Society of the United States: This group’s main campaigns have been targeting factory farming, fur farming, wildlife abuse, puppy mills, and animal blood sports.

American Humane: This organization is known for monitoring animal welfare on movie, television, and broadcast sets.

International Fund for Animal Welfare: This animal rights group (one of the largest in the world) has led campaigns to end commercial seal hunting, counter poaching, protect critical elephant habitats, and more.

World Animal Protection: This global nonprofit helps promote animal welfare by humanely managing stray dog populations, helping animals during disasters, and working with farmers to improve the lives of farm animals.

Humane Society International: This is an international organization that has addressed animal rights issues like illegal wildlife trade, endangered species threats, and the slaughter of marine mammals.

PETA: An international organization the promotes the humane treatment of all animals. PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated on by Matthew H. Nash

Animal rights laws vary greatly around the world. Animal rights activists argue that animals are sentient beings that deserve a life free from suffering. From recognition of animal sentience to fur-farming bans, many countries are taking a stand against animal cruelty any way they can. There are also other considerations that can impact animal health and welfare, such as pesticide use and meat consumption.

We gathered statistics from key international data sources in order to create this comprehensive "Animal Rights Index" which helps identify which countries are the best and worst for animal rights in 2021.

20 Countries With the Best Animal Rights

Based on our research on animal rights data in 65 different countries, these are the twenty countries with the best animal rights laws and regulations along with their animal welfare rating scores:

1. Luxembourg: 519.68

2. United Kingdom: 506.36

3. Austria: 501.73

4. Czechia: 498.66

5. Belgium: 488.86

6. Croatia: 486.36

7. Sweden: 478.10

8. Netherlands: 470.43

9. Bulgaria: 464.66

10. Switzerland: 463.18

11. Greece: 459.45

12. Denmark: 458.98

13. Romania: 458.00

14. Germany: 456.86

15. Poland: 454.39

16. Estonia: 453.80

17. Finland: 453.50

18. New Zealand: 452.47

19. France: 450.11

20. Ireland: 449.97

These European countries scored highly mainly because they all have animal cruelty laws as well as regulations recognizing that animals are sentient and can suffer pain. They also have full fur-farming bans or partial bans on farming certain animals for fur.

20 Countries With the Worst Animal Rights

The following are the twenty countries with the worst animal welfare regulations and their animal welfare scores:

1. China: 12.46

2. Vietnam: 45.24

3. Iran: 71.40

4. Azerbaijan: 73.07

5. Belarus: 105.65

6. Algeria: 124.13

7. Mali: 165.88

8. Ethiopia: 176.02

9. Russia: 207.96

10. Egypt: 219.39

11. Argentina: 227.00

12. Niger: 229.52

13. Morocco: 234.19

14. Colombia: 235.43

15. Uruguay: 239.09

16. Myanmar: 242.29

17. Saudi Arabia: 253.53

18. Ukraine: 256.00

19. Kenya: 275.26

20. Zimbabwe: 288.53

These countries have very few, if any, animal cruelty laws on the books. Most do not recognize that animals feel pain or are sentient beings. They also have smaller percentages of protected areas set aside for wildlife and often have high rates of meat consumption.

Surprisingly, the United States ranks 39 th on the list. While the country does have a history of strong animal rights and anti-cruelty laws, excessive meat consumption, lack of fur-farming restrictions, relatively low protected areas and the fact that animal sentience is not recognized at the federal level push it down the list. Many Americans own pets and consider them a part of their families, but they often don't make the connection between household pets and animals used for food, resources, and the general wildlife. Humanitarians maintain that all animals deserve the same considerations for their well-being, whether they are pets, livestock, or wild animals.

Why Animal Rights Matter

What are animal rights? Essentially, this is the belief that all animals should be granted the same basic level of compassion as human beings. The assumption is that animals are not merely possessions - they are living, breathing creatures that can feel pain. Recognizing this is one of the most basic tenets of animal rights. The more we learn about how animals think and feel pain, the more we can work on protecting them and treating them humanely.

Some groups of people involved in the animal rights movement, like vegans, go even further by denouncing all animal by-products, including leather and dairy. They argue that even if animals are given first-class treatment all of their lives and killed humanely, they shouldn't have their lives ended by humans. These individuals are generally against these practices:

Experimenting or testing medicines and cosmetics on animals

Using animals for hard manual labor

Breeding and killing animals for food or clothing

Hunting

Selective breeding for purposes other than the animal's welfare

Zoos and animals used in entertainment

Interactive Animal Rights Data

Please note: You can scroll horizontally to see all the data. The titles of each column allows you to sort the data based on that one metric.

Recognition of Animal Sentience

Recognition of Animal Suffering

Any Laws Against Animal Cruelty

Support for the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare

Fur-Farming Ban

Meat Consumption per Capita in Kilograms

Percentage of Protected Areas

Kgs of Pesticide / Hectare of Cropland

Environmental Performance Index Score

Total Score

Organizations That Promote Animal Rights

There are many groups around the world that advocate on behalf of animal rights and welfare.

The following are animal welfare organizations that aim to secure the rights of animals:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: This nonprofit organization, created in 1866, lobbies for animal welfare legislation in the United States.

The Humane Society of the United States: This group's main campaigns have been targeting factory farming, fur farming, wildlife abuse, puppy mills, and animal blood sports.

American Humane: This organization is known for monitoring animal welfare on movie, television, and broadcast sets.

International Fund for Animal Welfare: This animal rights group (one of the largest in the world) has led campaigns to end commercial seal hunting, counter poaching, protect critical elephant habitats, and more.

World Animal Protection: This global nonprofit helps promote animal welfare by humanely managing stray dog populations, helping animals during disasters, and working with farmers to improve the lives of farm animals.

Humane Society International: This is an international organization that has addressed animal rights issues like illegal wildlife trade, endangered species threats, and the slaughter of marine mammals.

PETA: An international organization the promotes the humane treatment of all animals. PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Data Sources

Why The Swiftest Believes In The Importance Animal Rights

At The Swiftest we believe that animals are sentient beings and deserve the right to live a happy and healthy life free from abuse or unnecessary suffering. I am personally a lifelong pet owner from dogs, cats, fish, parrots, you name it and I probably had it. Around 1,000 dogs and cats are euthanized in the USA every day and many of these euthanizations could have been prevented if the owner simply had pet insurance. If you get the right policy for your animal everything from sudden and catastrophic to even wellness treatments can be covered improving the length and quality of your furry-friends life.

The Swiftest is a free insurance comparison service currently focused on pet, travel, and life insurance. We have spent months researching the best dog insurance policies in each U.S. state. You can learn more about your state by clicking on the links below.

Alabama (AL) | Alaska (AK) | Arizona (AZ) | Arkansas (AR) | California (CA) | Colorado (CO) | Connecticut (CT) | Delaware (DE) | Florida (FL) | Georgia (GA) | Hawaii (HI) | Idaho (ID) | Illinois (IL) | Indiana (IN) | Iowa (IA) | Kansas (KS) | Kentucky (KY) | Louisiana (LA) | Maine (ME) | Maryland (MD) | Massachusetts (MA) | Michigan (MI) | Minnesota (MN) | Mississippi (MS) | Missouri (MO) | Montana (MT) | Nebraska (NE) | Nevada (NV) | New Hampshire (NH) | New Jersey (NJ) | New Mexico (NM) | New York (NY) | North Carolina (NC) | North Dakota (ND) | Ohio (OH) | Oklahoma (OK) | Oregon (OR) | Pennsylvania (PA) | Rhode Island (RI) | South Carolina (SC) | South Dakota (SD) | Tennessee (TN) | Texas (TX) | Utah (UT) | Vermont (VT) | Virginia (VA) | Washington (WA) | West Virginia (WV) | Wisconsin (WI) | Wyoming (WY)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
67 Best & Worst Countries For Animal Rights (2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated on by Matthew H. Nash Animal rights laws vary greatly around the world. Animal rights activists argue that animals are sentient beings that deserve a life free from suffering. From recognition of animal sentience to fur-farming bans, many countries are taking a stand against animal cruelty any way they can.

# data[].attributes.body
Social and Cultural Factors Related to Animal Cruelty

This research has employed a psychopathological explanatory model, assuming that animal abuse is an indicator or symptom of some mental defect or personality disorder (Beirne, 1999).

Abusive treatment of animals usually results from our relationships with other humans.

Animal cruelty is a social phenomenon.

Gender

In my study of 267 college undergraduates, male students were nearly four times more likely than females to report abusing animals as a child or adolescents. Slightly more than one-third of males (34.5%), but just fewer than 10% of females (9.3%), reported that they had been cruel to animals.

Age

Arluke & Luke (1997) found that adult perpetrators were more likely to harm dogs and to do so by shooting. Teens, on the other hand, were more likely to abuse cats, and the most common method was beating them.

These differences, in part, reflect different age statuses in society. Adult (male) perpetrators may feel as if they must protect their families and property and maintain the safety of the neighbourhood, and dogs are likely to be perceived as a greater threat than cats. Adults also have greater access to firearms. Minors, on the other hand, maybe more likely to commit an “expressive” form of cruelty in which the actual mistreatment is the sought-after goal, not retaliation against animal owners. In these circumstances, beating the animal is more appealing because it provides direct contact, and cats are smaller than dogs and thus easier to abuse in this manner.

Socio-economic Status

Respondents whose fathers failed to complete high school had rates of animal cruelty twice that of students with more educated fathers. Mothers’ education was unrelated to the perpetration of animal cruelty as a child.

These data suggest that mothers’ occupational status may be an indicator of the overall socioeconomic status of the family. Mothers in blue-collar jobs are more likely to be from lower-class families where animal cruelty may be more common.

In my college student sample, the more often boys were physically punished by their fathers, the more likely they were to commit animal cruelty.

Conclusion

The time has come for sociologists to acknowledge the significant and extensive role that nonhuman animals play in the lives of humans. Beyond that, it is important that human treatment of animals be investigated not just for what it can teach us about human interaction, but because animals are moral beings whose lives have intrinsic worth, apart from our relationship to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Reported complaints were correlated with socioeconomic scores. There was a lower median socioeconomic score in our study group compared to the entire Queensland state, indicating that alleged canine welfare concerns were more likely to be reported in areas with inhabitants of low socioeconomic status. The status was also low if the complaint was about a crossbred rather than a purebred dog.

For instance, councils of relatively higher socioeconomic regions are recommended to place more emphasis on enforcing that people do not leave dogs in a hot vehicle unattended. Councils of relatively lower socioeconomic regions can highlight information for owners on the basic needs of dogs (e.g., the amount of water and food consumption). Another important implication of this study is that it provides information regarding the correlation of socioeconomic backgrounds and the preference for dog types, which could help develop more tailored educational programs that target different populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, University of Queensland, White House Building (8134), Gatton Campus, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4076, Australia

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 28 June 2019 / Revised: 30 August 2019 / Accepted: 18 September 2019 / Published: 23 September 2019

Simple Summary

The role of the socioeconomic status of dog owners in canine welfare concerns is not fully understood. We conducted a retrospective study of 107,597 canine welfare complaints attended by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland from 2008 to 2018. We explored the relationship between the owner's socioeconomic status and reported (rather than confirmed) complaints about welfare of dogs. The socioeconomic status of the owner was estimated from the postcode of where the alleged welfare issue occurred, using government statistics for Socio-Economic Indexes of different regions of Australia. Reported complaints were correlated with socioeconomic scores. There was a lower median socioeconomic score in our study group compared to the entire Queensland state, indicating that alleged canine welfare concerns were more likely to be reported in areas with inhabitants of low socioeconomic status. The status was also low if the complaint was about a crossbred rather than a purebred dog. Among the purebred dogs, complaints involving working dogs, terriers, and utility breeds were associated with the lowest socioeconomic scores. The following complaints were associated with low socioeconomic status: cruelty, insufficient food and/or water, a dog not being exercised, a dog being confined/tethered, failure to provide shelter or treatment, overcrowding, a dog being in poor condition or living in poor conditions. Increased status was observed in alleged cases of a dog being left in a hot car unattended.

1. Introduction

Dogs (Canis familiaris) share intimate relationships with humans as they are one of the most popular pets in our society [ 1]. According to the 2016 statistics, 3,555,000 Australian households (38.5%) own at least one dog, accounting for 4,759,700 dogs in Australia [ 1]. In the household, owners may develop a strong attachment to their dogs and vice versa, which creates a mutually beneficial relationship [ 2, 3]. For instance, dog ownership apparently reduces owners' physiological and psychological stresses [ 3, 4], as well as providing a safe haven for their dogs [ 5]. However, the human-dog relationship does not always provide mutual benefits and sometimes may even break down [ 6].

Animal cruelty refers to any morally or legally unacceptable behaviour which causes animals to experience physiological, psychological, and/or behavioural discomfort [ 7, 8]. Animal welfare concerns are reported in different forms and in different species, and dogs are one of the most commonly reported victims [ 9]. Concerns may involve violence [ 10, 11], injuries caused by their involvement in the sporting industry [ 12, 13], abandonment [ 14, 15], inappropriate surgical procedures [ 16], and neglecting care of the dog [ 9, 17]. Not only do these issues compromise the welfare of dogs, some of these welfare concerns (e.g., intentional abuse and dog fighting) have been recognised as sentinels of other social issues [ 6, 9], in particular domestic violence [ 18, 19, 20] and sexual assaults [ 21]. Some have also been reported to be a precursor of antisocial behaviours among young people [ 7, 22, 23].

To address these cruelty issues, animal protection legislation has been enacted worldwide [ 8, 9, 24]. In Queensland, Australia, animals are protected by Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (ACPA) [ 8]. This state-based legislation empowers the State to appoint inspectors, some of whom are employed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Queensland (RSPCA Qld), who investigate potential breaches of the Act and enforce compliance with the Act [ 8]. There are two main offences under the ACPA: failure to fulfil 'duty of care' responsibilities and cruelty. There are a number of other specified offences. The Act recognises that a person who has charge of an animal owes that animal a duty of care. Failure to provide such care is the basis of the "breach of duty of care" offence. This offence covers such actions as not providing sufficient food, water, exercise, veterinary care, and suitable living conditions. It is not only the owner that has a duty of care towards an animal; anyone who is even temporarily in charge of an animal has this responsibility. The second major offence is "animal cruelty" and according to Section 18 of the ACPA cruelty describes any action that causes unjustifiable and unnecessary physical and mental discomfort to animals, inappropriate confinement or transport, unreasonable injuries and inhumane death [ 8]. A cruel act can be committed by anyone towards an animal, whether it is their own animal, another domestic animal or even a wild animal [ 8]. It is important to note, that under the ACPA, it is not necessary for a person to have the intention of being cruel for the offence to be proven in Queensland. If an action carried out by a person causes pain and suffering and the action was intentional, the person may be charged with cruelty. The intention to carry out the action must be proved but not the intention to be cruel. If a lack of action deprives an animal of its fundamental needs, then the person who has a duty of care towards the animal may be charged with a breach of their duty of care or cruelty depending on the circumstances. Intention may be considered during sentencing however [ 8]. Other offences under the Act include unreasonable abandonment or release, the carrying out of prohibited surgical procedures (e.g., tail docking, ear cropping, debarking, etc.); being involved in, or having items used for, a prohibited event, such as dog or cock fighting; and allowing an animal to injure or kill another animal [ 8].

Potential cases are reported to RSPCA Qld through various means. RSPCA Qld has a "Cruelty Complaints" telephone number manned 24 h a day, seven days a week and complaints also come in through emails. These complaints are primarily made by members of the public but a few are also made by veterinarians and veterinary nurses, council officers, and other government and non-government employees visiting a location as part of their duties. Animals surrendered to the RSPCA or that come in as strays may be investigated by RSPCA Qld inspectors if cruelty or neglect is suspected. All cases reported by sources mentioned above were the focus of this study.

Apart from aiding law enforcement, identification of risk factors associated with animal welfare concerns would be beneficial in the development of awareness and in education of the general public. Risk factors include dogs' breed or breed group [ 12, 15, 25, 26, 27], dogs' ages [ 15, 28], behaviours [ 15, 26], owners' characteristics [ 15], and the complainant's socioeconomic status [ 6, 20, 22, 29]. Among all these risk factors, the role of household socioeconomic level in crimes and animal welfare concerns is not yet well understood [ 6, 20, 22]. It has been proposed that socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with the frequency of crimes, domestic violence, and neglecting and abusing animals [ 6, 22, 29, 30, 31]. However, a tautologous relationship has also been postulated, because a dog owner's socioeconomic status may affect his or her ability to provide for all aspects of good welfare.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationships between socioeconomic status, dog breeds, and different types of dog welfare complaints. The socioeconomic status was quantified using a socioeconomic score derived from the postcode of where the alleged welfare issue occurred and government statistics for Socio-Economic Indexes of different postcode regions of Australia. We hypothesized that owners from relatively poor socioeconomic postcode regions would be more likely to be the subject of complaints about an absence of key resources for dogs, such as insufficient food, water, living space or veterinary care, lack of shelter, and poor living conditions. We also hypothesized that complaints concerning owners from poor socioeconomic regions would relate more to dog fighting, because of a known potential association with low socioeconomic status [ 32]. Finally, some research suggests that low socioeconomic status people are less likely to travel with their dogs, and therefore it is possible that low socioeconomic status is less likely to relate to dogs being left in a hot vehicle [ 33]. This is the third report in a series relating to the analysis of RSPCA Qld canine welfare complaint data [see also 27,28].

2. Materials and Methods

From July 2008 to June 2018, RSPCA Qld received 129,036 canine welfare complaints. Some involving more than one dog were recorded as multiple complaints sharing the same case number, while others were recorded as one complaint with multiple animals. To avoid sample bias due to multiple entries, we only retained the first complaint of case numbers with multiple entries, discarding 21,439 entries as a result. There remained 107,597 canine welfare complaints for this retrospective study. The data analysis was originally undertaken on the entire dataset and then repeated with the reduced number. Finding the complaint distribution and demographics to be similar, we opted for the reduced dataset to avoid pseudoreplication. Animal welfare complaints that fell within the geographical zone of responsibility of RSPCA Qld (determined by a Memorandum of Understanding between RSPCA Qld and Biosecurity Queensland, the Government Department tasked with the administration of ACPA) were investigated by RSPCA Qld inspectors. All other complaints were referred by RSPCA Qld to Biosecurity Queensland to be investigated by their inspectors. All complaints received by RSPCA Qld were included in this study, regardless of which authority investigated them.

All complaints were recorded in ShelterBuddy ® (RSPCA, Queensland, Australia), the RSPCA Qld database. The following information was requested from the reporter of each incident at the time of taking the complaint: the number of dogs involved and their age, breed(s) (if known), the "complaint code(s)", suburb, postcode and date. All cases were investigated either by RSPCA Qld inspectors (n = 100,432) or Biosecurity Qld inspectors (n = 7165). It is recognized that some of the calls, once investigated, were found not to relate to a breach of the ACPA or to a genuine welfare concern. However, the outcome data for complaints were not analysed in this research, which focused solely on the complaint calls received by RSPCA Qld.

Dogs were classified according to two broad age ranges, dog and puppy, based on reporters' interpretation. It was important to recognise that the information recorded from the complainant may be inaccurate or inaccurately interpreted, e.g., a small dog is commonly referred to as a puppy in Queensland. Records regarding breed and the number of dogs involved were based on either complainants' initial reports or comments from trained inspectors, again recognising inaccuracies with identification of the breed. The "complaint code" was selected by the staff member receiving the call or email from a drop-down menu of 18 possible complaints ( Appendix A) [ 28]. Multiple "complaint codes" were able to be selected for each case according to the description of what was alleged to have happened to the dog(s), and each was treated as a separate code for analysis.

2.1. Socioeconomic Scores

Australia is spatially divided into regions by postcodes; our dataset included the postcode of the location of the dog being reported, which was taken as a proxy measure for the socioeconomic status of the owner. We also reviewed the Australian government's Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) developed in 2011 [ 34], which rank postcode regions in Australia by the socioeconomic level of inhabitants. Four indices are assigned to each area to describe the local socioeconomic status: (1) the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, (2) the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage, (3) the Index of Economic Resources, and (4) the Index of Education and Occupation. Each index is ranked by decile, percentile, and score. Among these four indices, the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) correlates well with the other three and is suitable for comparing the entire range of areas, and was therefore considered the most appropriate descriptor of the socioeconomic level of inhabitants of each postcode [ 34]. The IRSAD score is a weighted combination of selected indicators of advantage and disadvantage: household income, availability of internet connection, educational level, occupation, employment rate, property, mortgage, and health. Nationwide, the score is standardized with a mean of 1000 and a standard deviation of 100, with a mean, median and standard deviation in Queensland of 999, 1014 and 65 respectively. An area receives a score of 1000 if all of the above indicators are equal to the national average; the score for an area increases or decreases if the indicators are greater or less than the national average, respectively [ 34]. The index is positively associated with socio-economic advantage and negatively associated with socio-economic disadvantage, thus a region with a high IRSAD score is more likely to have people with high socioeconomic levels dwelling within it [ 34].

2.2. Dog Breeds

Any breed in our dataset that was recognized by the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) [ 35], New Zealand Kennel Club (NZKC) [ 36], American Kennel Club (AMKC) [ 37], or United Kennel Club (UKC) [ 38] was considered a recognized breed (RB) (see Appendix B list of recognized breeds). Any other reported breed in our data was considered an unrecognised breed (UB), including all crossbred dogs without any identified breed. If more than one dominant breed was listed, the first mentioned was used. For instance, Great Dane × Bull Arab was categorized as Great Dane ( Appendix B).

To achieve a secondary representation of breed recognition, RB breeds were amalgamated into the following seven breed groups based on the breed inclusion categories of the ANKC: toys, terriers, gundogs, hounds, working dogs, utility, and non-sporting. Breeds not listed by the ANKC but recognised by the NZKC, AMKC, or UKC were categorized into one of the seven groups based on the description of each kennel club. Some breeds (e.g., Australian Koolie and Bull Arab) were listed by the council registration, it being an obligation of all dog owners in Queensland to register their dogs with the local council. As a result, they were on the breed list ( Appendix B), however they were not recognised as breeds by any major kennel club worldwide. Therefore, these breeds were categorized as unrecognized breeds, UB. If the breed description was left blank, the dogs' breed was considered unknown (n = 15,576/107,597), and these complaints were excluded from any data analysis related to breed factors. Our previous study suggested that, compared to specific breeds, breed groups and the dichotomization into RB and UB provided better agreements between the public and the trained RSPCA inspectors, and were therefore used for genotype identification in a public reporting system [ 27]. Therefore, this study used breed groups and RB/UB dichotomization rather than specific breeds for statistical analyses.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data was analysed using the statistical package Minitab ® 17.3.1. (Minitab, LLC., State College, PA, USA). The distributions of IRSAD scores of both our entire study group and the RB/UB differentiation were not normal. Box-Cox and John transformations were used, but the assumption of normal distribution of residuals still could not be met. Therefore, a one-sample sign test was used to compare the median IRSAD scores between owners of dogs involved in an alleged incident in our dataset and the entire Queensland population as recorded by SEIFA. A Mann-Whitney test was conducted to compare the IRSAD scores of postcodes where there had been reports of RB and those of UB. As for the IRSAD scores of owners of dogs of the different breed groups, normality was assessed by visual inspection of residual plots. All complaints were independent but the assumption of equal variance could not be met based on the Bartlett's test (p = 0.018). Consequently, Welch's ANOVA followed by the Games-Howell pairwise comparisons were used to compare IRSAD scores between dogs of the different breed groups.

To determine factors influencing complaint codes, the IRSAD score, dog's age (dog or puppy), and breeds (UB or RB) were entered into eleven binary logistic regression models as fixed factors, using non-linear logit models with an alpha value for variables to enter the model of 0.15 [ 39]. Complaint codes were entered into the model as outcomes. Each case was independent from each other, and little multicollinearity was observed for all independent variables, with the variance inflation factors being less than 5. The linearity of the independent variable (the IRSAD score for the postcode of the dog) and the log-odds was assessed by plotting the independent variable and the log-odds fitted with a linear regression line. The assumption of linearity was considered met when the P value of a straight-line regression was less than 0.05. Eight complaint codes-Abandonment, Baiting/poisoning, Causing a captive animal to be injured/killed by dog, Dog fighting or other prohibited offence, Emergency relief, Keeping or using an animal for blooding/coursing a dog, Prohibition order breached, and Tail docking or other surgical procedure-did not fulfill the linearity assumption. Therefore, to fulfill the linearity assumption, Causing a captive animal to be injured/killed by dog, Dog fighting or other prohibited offence, Keeping or using an animal for blooding/coursing a dog, and Knowingly allowing an animal to kill/injure another were combined and categorized as a new code-Dog fighting. Baiting/poisoning, Cruelty, Prohibition order breached, and Tail docking or other surgical procedure were combined and categorized as a new code-Cruel act. Abandonment did not meet the linearity assumption statistically, but the graph was linear by observation, so the code was still used to construct a stepwise forward binary logistic model. Finally, the IRSAD score was removed from the regression model of Emergency relief because it did not meet the linearity assumption and the code was rarely cited in the past decade (0.01%, n = 8) [ 28]. Eleven stepwise forward binary logistic regression models were constructed to examine how different fixed factors (IRSAD score, dog's age and breeds) correlated with different outcomes (9 complaint codes and 2 combined complaint codes). Separate models were constructed for each code with the same input variable. In this paper, we focused on the relationship of IRSAD scores with complaint codes and breed factors. The relationship of other variables with the complaint codes have been reported separately [ 27, 28].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The median IRSAD score of owners being reported (median = 975) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that recorded for the population of Queensland (median = 1,014), and the Q1 and Q3 values were less ( Table 1). Owners of reported UB dogs had significantly lower IRSAD scores (median = 970) than those reported owning RB dogs (median = 981) (p <0.001) ( Table 2). Mean IRSAD scores for the postcodes of the different breed groups reported were significantly different (p <0.001) ( Table 3), with gundogs (994 ± 63.0) being the highest, followed by toy (986 ± 64.3) and hound (984 ± 63.7), then non-sporting (980 ± 64.6) and working dogs (977 ± 63.0), terriers (977 ± 62.7) and utility dogs (976 ± 62.2).

3.2. Complaint Codes

The IRSAD scores of postcodes of dogs who were or were not reported for each complaint code significantly differed for the nine regression models ( Table 4). The odds ratio (OR) was defined as a one unit increase in the IRSAD score leading to a corresponding x-fold decrease or increase in the odds of the cited event. The following codes were associated with dogs from postcodes with low IRSAD scores: cruel act (OR = 0.9994, p < 0.001), insufficient food and/or water (OR = 0.9981 p < 0.001), no exercise/confined/tethered (OR = 0.9979, p < 0.001), no shelter (OR = 0.9990, p <0.001), no treatment (OR = 0.9986, p < 0.001), overcrowding (OR = 0.9982, p = 0.002), poor dog condition (OR = 0.9974, p < 0.001) and poor living conditions (OR = 0.9996, p = 0.002). A single code was associated with dogs in postcodes with a high IRSAD score, hot animal in a car (OR = 1.0067, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

4.1. Socioeconomic Status of Dog Owners

A better understanding of relationships between the socioeconomic status of dog owners and specific welfare issues could help to elucidate the reasons for the issues, as well as helping to target specific sectors of the population for education about dog welfare. Compared to the median IRSAD score across the entire Queensland state, our study group had significantly lower IRSAD scores, indicating that the reported dogs were in postcodes with inhabitants at a lower socioeconomic level. It is possible that dog owners generally come from postcodes with inhabitants at low socioeconomic status, but because not all welfare issues were more frequently reported in lower socioeconomic regions and one was more frequent in higher socioeconomic regions, we consider that there may be an important relationship between welfare issues and socioeconomic status.

The score differences contributed by the variables appear small, and the odds ratios for IRSAD scores in the regression model were close to one. This is probably because the distribution of IRSAD scores across different regions in Queensland is narrow, with an interquartile range of 71.1 and a standard deviation of just 64.8, compared with a range of 558. Also, our dataset only covers the coastal area of Queensland which is relatively homogenous in terms of the socioeconomic level of inhabitants. The difference between our median score and that in Queensland, 38.3, represents about 59% of one SD in that region. Since about 68% of values lie within 1 SD of the mean, it can be seen that the differences in IRSAD scores in the variables tested in this study are meaningful and reflect the range in values from a significant proportion of the total Queensland population, about 40% (68% × 59%). Such a small difference is important because it should enable us to predict differences in commonly reported dog welfare concerns across populations and regions in a large and relatively homogenous area. The majority of previous studies have focused on socioeconomics and animal abuse [ 20, 22, 29]. The relationship between socioeconomic level and other welfare concerns in relation to canines [ 6] has received little research attention. This study may bridge this gap by determining some of the factors that relate to specific welfare concerns.

A key feature of the IRSAD score is that it might positively relate to the financial circumstances of the owner, notwithstanding the previously mentioned concern that the owner may not be represented by the status of the entire postcode, since it includes the % of people whose annual household income is < AUS $20,799 and whose rent is less than AUS $166/week [ 34]. This could indicate some constraints on the part of the owner in providing for the welfare of his or her dog, such as provision of adequate food, shelter, or other resources. This is discussed later in relation to individual complaint codes. The IRSAD score is also positively associated with the inhabitants' educational level, a key component being whether the members of the household progressed past year 11 in school, assuming they were over 15 years of age. This could affect whether the owner has sufficient knowledge to care for his or her dog, providing suitable nutrition, for example. Important detractors in the IRSAD include unemployment and the percentage of employed people classified as "labourers" living in that postcode [ 34]. This could relate to whether the owner has sufficient financial resources to care for his or her dog. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the IRSAD score relates to the entire postcode, which may include substantial variation within and between regions. Clearly the circumstance of the owner or owners may be different to that of other inhabitants in the postcode in question.

Broad correlations between socioeconomic status and human behaviour towards animals have been noted previously [ 6, 40, 41]. People with high socioeconomic levels are more likely to advocate for animal welfare and to volunteer for animals [ 40], whereas those with lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be involved in animal neglect and abuse [ 6]. Our findings are in agreement with these previous conclusions.

It is also important to remember that in this study we analyzed only reported data, i.e., alleged welfare issues, which may not all reflect actual cases. It is known that complainants will report a neighbour out of spite, misread a situation, or report actions which may not actually represent a breach of the ACPA. The negative correlation between the socioeconomic status of the dog's owner and the risk of most reported welfare issues may also be explained by the fact that individuals may be more prepared or likely to report welfare issues in low socioeconomic postcodes. Since household income, home ownership, and full-time employment were reported to negatively correlate with dog ownership, it is less likely that the higher number of reports in low socioeconomic regions is because people from low socioeconomic regions own more dogs [ 42]. However, the same study reported living in rural locations was associated with higher odds of owning a dog [ 42], and we found a tendency for low socioeconomic regions to overlap non-urban regions [ 43]. Therefore, the socioeconomic level and dwelling in rural regions may both increase the possibility of being reported; yet we could not validate these hypotheses as the IRSAD score is a generalization of postcode regions ignoring the within postcode variation. However, inconclusive results were reported in another study, that found that ones' personal and household income levels were not associated with the propensity of being reported for animal cruelty [ 44].

4.2. Breed

Not only can socioeconomic level of dog owners be related to animal welfare concerns, it can also be linked with breed factors. Reported cases involving UB dogs were potentially related to owners being socioeconomically disadvantaged compared with cases involving RB dogs. Similar results of breeds' predisposition to welfare concerns and socioeconomic levels were observed when we examined the RB dogs. Reported cases involving utility breeds, terriers, and working dogs were associated with the three least socioeconomically advantaged groups. Utility breeds, terriers, and working dogs were also more commonly reported for canine welfare concerns [ 27]. Although this study involved only reported but not confirmed cases, these results potentially support previous studies suggesting that people with lower income have higher risks of mistreating animals [ 20, 22], which might be further associated with specific dog breeds, and linked to some breed-specific complaints [ 27]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the differences in socioeconomic scores among different breed groups were statistically significant but small, and there may be some inaccuracies and biases when breeds were reported. Therefore, over-interpretation should be avoided.

4.3. Complaint Types

There were clear correlations between the socioeconomic level and complaint type being reported. For example, allegedly committing cruel acts was associated with lower socioeconomic level.

Previous research focusing on crime and animal cruelty has found negative relationships between the socioeconomic level and tendencies to commit crime, including being cruel to dogs and cats [ 22, 45]. However, a study comparing animal cruelty between rural and urban regions found that rural residents mostly targeted cats rather than dogs [ 10], and another study investigating community demographics of animal cruelty reports found no differences among urban, town, and rural residents in the likelihood of being reported for animal cruelty [ 43].

Except for canine abuse, most complaints for which the owner was from a low socioeconomic background were neglect related. The aforementioned explanation is that people with lower socioeconomic backgrounds may lack the ability (e.g., money, space, or transportation) to manage animal care and welfare [ 6]. Moreover, this finding is in line with a previous study that people of lower socioeconomic status tended to moralize transgressions that did not cause obvious harm to animals [ 46, 47]. Less affluent people may therefore be more likely to view an animal welfare compromise that is not overtly cruel as a moral but not a legal issue [ 6, 46, 47]. Consequently, there is a risk that people with lower socioeconomic backgrounds may tend to neglect the fundamental needs of their dogs, including failing to provide appropriate nutrients, adequate living conditions, and medical treatments, which increases the chance of them being reported. In this respect, the first of our hypotheses was supported, that complainants from relatively poor socioeconomic postcode regions would be more likely to complain about an absence of key resources for dogs. This may relate to the factors included in the IRSAD score that are relevant to educational level. The IRSAD score of different postcodes across Australia is highly correlated with the Index of Education and Occupation score, with a Spearman's rank correlation of 0.85 [ 34]. This indicates a potential relationship between the low levels of education and neglect-related canine welfare concerns, either because people who are less educated do not consider deprivation as an act of neglect, or they are simply lacking in knowledge about the welfare and care of dogs [ 6, 29].

Among these neglect-related complaints, the finding associated with insufficient (medical) treatments seems contradictory to our previous study [ 27]. This study reveals that insufficient veterinary treatments were less commonly reported in regions of lower socioeconomic status, which is supported by the fact that household income limits owners' access or willingness to provide veterinary care [ 48, 49]. In addition, UB dogs were more commonly reported in lower socioeconomic regions. Consequently, it would be expected that UB dogs would be the subject of more complaints about poor veterinary care. However, according to our previous study, RB but not UB dogs were more likely to be reported with insufficient veterinary treatments [ 27]. The potential predisposition of RB dogs to a complaint about lack of veterinary care may be influenced not only by owners' socioeconomic status, but also by other factors. These factors may include morality [ 10], attitudes to the welfare of breeding dogs [ 50], human-animal bond [ 49], and registration rate [ 51], which can outweigh or confound the effects of socioeconomic level. For instance, people who are affluent but have less moral conviction may prefer to purchase an RB dog from a breeder rather than adopting an UB dog from a shelter, and the owners with less moral conviction may be less likely to bring their sick dogs to a veterinary clinic [ 49]. Besides, the potentially low registration rate of UB dogs [ 27] may encourage owners to abandon their dogs when medical care is required, leading to a reduced but inaccurate prevalence of UB dogs being reported for lack of treatment. However, these hypotheses cannot be confirmed in this study as they were all reported not confirmed cases.

Another inconclusive finding was that the difference in socioeconomic levels between reported cases citing and not citing abandonment was small. Dog ownership is positively correlated to household income [ 30, 42, 52]. However, it has been suggested that people with lower household income are less likely to relinquish their dogs, for financial reasons [ 14]. Therefore, it has been argued that other variables, including problematic behaviours [ 15, 53, 54], nature of the dog [ 15, 22, 53], human factors [ 53, 55], and the human-dog bond [ 14, 56] may also play important roles in determining the benefits of dog ownership. This finding again supports the previous assumption that other factors also critically influence some complaint types.

Similarly, we hypothesized that complaints about 'blood sports', such as 'Knowingly allowing an animal to kill / injure another' and 'Dog fighting or other prohibited offence' would be associated with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, the IRSAD score did not significantly differ between reported cases cited and not cited with this code. Previous research exploring financial aspects of dog-fighting in the UK has pointed out that this kind of 'blood sporting' was more popular among working-class men, as a way of life and an alternative expression of masculinity [ 32]. Nevertheless, a small proportion of middle-class people might also be involved as business owners or as a hobby [ 32], and thus increase the average socioeconomic scores. In addition, only a small number of cases were reported involving those alleged complaints, with even fewer being confirmed [ 28]; thereby, it might not be enough to test for statistically significant differences with validity.

Although most complaints were related to socioeconomic disadvantaged people, one complaint type was reported more commonly among more socioeconomically advantaged people. Those with relatively higher socioeconomic levels were more likely to be reported leaving their dogs unattended in a hot car. This finding partially supports the previous study that people with higher socioeconomic level, mainly living in urban areas, are more likely to own cars and take their dogs for outdoor activities [ 41], and thus have a greater chance of leaving their dogs alone in a car. In high socioeconomic regions and in high density urban regions it would be more likely that owners are reported when they left their dogs in a vehicle in a busy public area.

Although this study reports unconfirmed dog welfare complaints, the results reflect the major welfare concerns in dog populations in higher or lower socioeconomic background. Considering the relevance of different complaint reasons and different socioeconomic levels, intervention strategies for the prevention of animal neglect or cruelty should be directed differently in high and low socioeconomic regions. Studies of confirmed welfare issues are required. Interventions are recommended to be taken in lower socioeconomic areas to explore whether the high number of reports is driven by actual offenses or by higher public awareness. These results can also be used to increase public awareness and promote public education. For instance, councils of relatively higher socioeconomic regions are recommended to place more emphasis on enforcing that people do not leave dogs in a hot vehicle unattended. Councils of relatively lower socioeconomic regions can highlight information for owners on the basic needs of dogs (e.g., the amount of water and food consumption). Another important implication of this study is that it provides information regarding the correlation of socioeconomic backgrounds and the preference for dog types, which could help develop more tailored educational programs that target different populations.

4.4. Limitations and Need for Future Research

Several limitations were identified in this study. First, the dataset consisted of cases reported but not confirmed, so results only reflect a likelihood of correlations between socioeconomics and different types of welfare concerns in dogs. Besides, the socioeconomic data was acquired by linking to the postcodes where an alleged welfare concern occurred (used as a proxy for the owners' postcode), which appeared to be a generalization and might be an ecological fallacy. Therefore, the results should be cautiously interpreted. Future study could try to obtain a more direct measure of socioeconomic status, for example, the household income of each individual. Second, total numbers of residents in each post code are not accurately known. Therefore, we cannot calculate the exact prevalence of each welfare issue in different areas. If the prevalence in certain regions is particularly high, then sampling bias may occur. Third, breed recognition was based on comments made by complainants or trained inspectors, which may not be accurate. Finally, the data was obtained from populations within Queensland, and thus wider geographical generalization should be made cautiously.

5. Conclusions

This dataset was analyzed based on reported but not confirmed cases of canine welfare concerns, so the results reflect the tendency rather than fact. Results correlate the socioeconomic level with different dog breeds. The relationships between socioeconomic levels and different complaint types are also identified. Reported dogs of unrecognizable breeds came from postcodes with lower socioeconomic status to those reporting dogs of recognizable breeds. Among RB dogs, reports concerning utility breeds, terriers, and working dogs were more common than dogs reported in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, but it is not clear to what extent these breed groups are more prevalent in these areas. People living in lower socioeconomic regions were more likely to be reported to be involved in canine welfare concerns, especially neglect-related complaints, and abusing dogs. In contrast, people living in higher socioeconomic areas were more alleged to leave their dogs unattended in a hot vehicle. This study provides detailed information which may help in the development of tailored strategies for different populations to combat welfare concerns in dogs. However, the differences of socioeconomic level were relatively small so the results should be interpreted cautiously. Finally, more risk factors and their roles in different complaint types should also be identified in order to give a better picture of canine welfare concerns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Socioeconomic Influences on Reports of Canine Welfare Concerns to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Queensland, Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human-dog relationships are an important contributor to the welfare of dogs, but little is known about the importance of socioeconomic status of the dogs’ owners. We conducted a retrospective study of canine welfare complaints, using Australian government statistics on the socioeconomic status of the inhabitants at the location of the alleged welfare issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Human and Non-Human relationships with animals

# data[].attributes.subject
Human and Non-Human relationships with animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
INTRODUCTION

Laws criminalizing animal abuse should apply to the agricultural industry. When we exempt the agricultural industry from these laws, factory farms increase production to unnaturally high levels. This increased production causes devastating environmental effects, such as climate change, water shortages, and the loss of topsoil. In light of these effects, the law needs to do much more to regulate the agricultural industry, and the first step should be to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals. This would force the industry to slow down production to more natural levels that are much less harmful to the environment.

I. FACTORY FARMS INCREASE PRODUCTION TO UNNATURALLY HIGH LEVELS

The agricultural industry has been incredibly successful at convincing legislatures and agencies to exempt farmers from regulation. These exemptions have an intuitive appeal because we envision a smalltime, sunscorched farmer putting on his mud boots before sunrise to go milk the cows and check on his fields, just as numerous generations did before him. This type of farmer hardly seems like someone we need to regulate, so it is no wonder that society has chosen to exempt his activities. The problem, of course, is that the real beneficiaries of these exemptions are factory farms--the Wal-Marts of farming-- that run animals through assembly lines in an ongoing effort to maximize production. Most smalltime farmers are already treating their animals well and therefore do not need an exemption from animal cruelty laws. For centuries before "free-range" became a marketing ploy, that was simply how it was done, and farmers took pride in caring for their animals.

Factory farms hire lobbyists and participate in agency rulemaking because they have by far the most to gain from an unregulated industry. Unlike smalltime farmers, factory farms often fail to treat their animals with even minimal amounts of care. They are notorious for cramming far too many animals into far too little space. Indeed, factory farms are often called confined animal feeding operations. In The Emotional Lives of Animals, Mark Bekoff notes that a friend of his in the industry describes the thought process as follows: "How many chickens can you get in a cage with Vaseline and a shoehorn?" To make matter worse, animals such as chickens are territorial: when you throw too many of them into the same small cage, they are likely to attack each other. Rather than provide birds with additional space, factory farms often debeak birds--an incredibly painful process that is done without the aid of any anesthetic. In this way, one cruel practice leads to another, and production continues to increase.

Regulation scares factory farms because their practices undoubtedly violate any definition of cruelty to animals. It is impossible to treat animals humanely in a business that refuses to consider the interests of animals. As Mark Bittman recently said in the New York Times, factory farms are only in the business of "[g]rowing meat" because "it's hard to use the word 'raising' when applied to animals in factory farms." Without an exemption from animal cruelty laws, factory farms might have to provide their animals with adequate space, medical care, and humane handling. If they have to treat animals as the sentient beings that they are, production will surely decrease--a result that factory farms are unwilling to accept.

II. UNNATURALLY HIGH PRODUCTION LEVELS HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

While factory farms are keen on keeping production levels as high as possible, the rest of society would be much better off if we found ways to decrease production at these plants. Although increased production usually benefits the economy, it is problematic in an industry--such as factory farming--that externalizes many of its costs and contributes to numerous environmental problems that affect human health and welfare. The unnaturally high production rates of factory farms have devastating effects on the environment, including hastening climate change, creating water quality and quantity problems, and destroying topsoil.

Livestock on factory farms currently play an enormous role in the climate change crisis. A recent United Nations study found that livestock account for eighteen percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison, all of the cars, trucks, airplanes, and other modes of fossilbased transportation combined only account for thirteen percent of the world's emissions. Much of the livestock pollution comes from methane--a greenhouse gas (emitted directly by cows and sheep) that is at least twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Just looking at methane alone, the 100 million or so cattle in the United States produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as an equal number of cars. Factory farms also create significant carbon dioxide emissions (as well as other air pollution) by shipping large quantities of feed and meat products back and forth across the country. In addition, factory farms are responsible for mass deforestation for pasture land and to grow feed for agricultural animals. *149 Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change because it releases the carbon dioxide that is stored in standing trees. While politicians debate over what to do to reduce car emissions, the agribusiness lobby has so far quelled any debate over increased regulation of their industry, even though regulating factory farms would go much further towards averting the climate change crisis.

Factory farms also pose a major threat to the most crucial natural resource of all--water. In recent years, many scientists have recognized that we are currently facing a severe shortage of usable water. The United Nations has deemed the situation a worldwide "water crisis," and the western United States is one area that is quickly running out of water. Factory farms are contributing to this water crisis in numerous ways. To begin, their contribution to climate change also contributes to the water crisis, since warmer global temperatures lead to lower lake and river levels. In addition, factory farms feed their livestock vast quantities of corn, soy, alfalfa, and other crops that take enormous amounts of water to grow. In the United States, crop irrigation accounts for over eighty percent of the consumptive use of freshwater, and in many arid western states, the level increases to around ninety percent. Although some of those crops feed humans, a staggering amount (including between sixty and seventy percent of all corn and soybeans grown in the United States) feed livestock. When farmers only had a small amount of livestock--many of which could graze on grass--much of this feed was unnecessary. On factory farms, however, livestock are crammed into cement bunkers, where grazing on grass is impossible and where there are so many of them that they demand an enormous amount of feed (and all of the water needed to grow that feed). As with greenhouse gas emissions, these facts fail to enter the political debate, and politicians propose drastic measures--such as building pipelines to bring water from the Great Lakes to the southwest--rather than regulating factory farms.

Factory farms have similarly negative effects on water quality. Agriculture is the leading contributor to water quality impairment in the United States, and the meat industry is often the worst of the worst. Raising unnaturally high numbers of animals in confined areas creates a large quantity of waste that is often not treated properly before it enters our nation's waterways. For instance, in United States v. Sinskey, a meat-packing plant's decision to double the number of hogs it raised--and thereby create more waste than their wastewater treatment plant could handle--necessarily resulted in criminal violations of the Clean Water Act. Sinskey involved one of the rare instances where a factory farm was caught for its environmental violations. More frequently, the dumping of untreated--or improperly treated--waste goes undetected, to the detriment of our waterways and human health.

Factory farms are also destroying topsoil. As Tom Paulson recently reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the erosion of topsoil--at rates more than ten times the replacement rate--is "a global crisis" that threatens "the shallow skin of nutrient-rich matter that sustains most of our food and appears to play a critical role in supporting life on Earth." According to Harvey Blatt in America's Environmental Report Card, "a few inches of dirt is all that separates us from mass starvation." Factory farms are thinning this precious layer of topsoil by demanding vast quantities of certain crops (like corn and soy) that can be used as feed for their livestock. To meet this demand, farmers often clear additional fields and use tilling techniques that erode topsoil. Millions of acres of land are farmed every year just to feed the livestock at factory farms, and, as a result, every year these fields are left with less topsoil.

III. CRIMINALIZING CRUELTY TO AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS WILL HELP PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

Factory farming as we know it--and its devastating environmental effects--would not be possible if we were to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals. That is why this multi-billion-dollar industry spends so many resources lobbying legislatures and agencies to leave their practices unregulated. As soon as government steps in and requires factory farms to treat their animals appropriately--for instance, by providing each animal with adequate space to roam--these farms will not be able to raise nearly as many animals. Production will thus decrease, which will mitigate the environmental damage wrought by factory farms. Fewer agricultural animals will necessarily translate to less methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, less water consumption and pollution, and less erosion of topsoil. These and other environmental benefits all flow directly from decreasing production on factory farms.

Critics of the idea of criminalizing cruelty to agricultural animals are sure to point out that decreased production will raise the cost of meat. For instance, free-range, grass-fed beef currently costs more than beef from factory farms. Of course, many consumers are willing to pay the extra money, especially since grass-fed beef is a more healthful choice (in part because it is often organic since grass grows quite well without fertilizers and pesticides, despite the beliefs of millions of lawn manicurists). Nevertheless, what about those who do not (or cannot) pay more for their meat? The answer in this case (and arguably with regard to organic, sustainably produced goods in general) is that any increase in price merely reflects the true cost of these products. Meat from factory farms is currently a highly subsidized product with an artificially low price. The billions of dollars in annual subsidies for corn, soy, and other crops that are used primarily as animal feed are essentially subsidies for factory farms because they decrease the cost of animal feed. The meat-packing industry (as well as the feed industry that supports it) also externalizes enormous environmental costs. Economists call these costs externalities because they are improperly excluded from an industry's assessment of its costs and the price it charges for its products. Companies like Tyson Foods and Cargill never pay for their contributions to the climate change, water, and topsoil crises. Nor do they pay for the pain they cause their animals by raising them in some of the most inhumane conditions imaginable. Economists call this situation a market failure. To *151 remedy this failure, the prices of meat products need to increase to reflect their true costs.

In addition to the direct environmental benefits that flow from criminalizing cruelty to agricultural animals, regulating factory farms in this way would also have more subtle environmental benefits. In particular, it would signal a move to a more ecologically sound view of the world. The current mistreatment of animals in factory farms is symbolic of the way humans interact with much of the natural world--namely, seeing everything as a resource for human use. This mindset is at the root of the destruction of wilderness areas and old growth forests, the extinction of countless species, the near depletion of much of the world's fisheries, the crises in climate change, water, and topsoil, and many other environmental catastrophes that will haunt future generations. If we can move beyond the idea that animals are nothing more than resources for human consumption--if we can force factory farms to treat animals humanely--then we will be moving in the right direction toward a more humble view of our place in the natural world, and our environment will benefit greatly.

CONCLUSION

Factory farms have devastating environmental effects, and we need to do much more to regulate this industry. The first step should be to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals to slow down production and thereby decrease the environmental destruction wrought by factory farms. The animals will thank us, and it will create a much better future for humans as well.

[FN a1] J.D. Candidate May 2008, University of Michigan Law School; Master of Studies in Environmental Law 2005, Vermont Law School.

[FN d1]Suggested citation: Kyle H. Landis-Marinello, Comment, The Environmental Effects of Cruelty to Agricultural Animals, 106 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 147 (2008), http:// www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol106/landis-marinello.pdf.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmental Effects of Cruelty to Agricultural Animals | Animal Legal & Historical Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laws criminalizing animal abuse should apply to the agricultural industry. When we exempt the agricultural industry from these laws, factory farms increase production to unnaturally high levels. This increased production causes devastating environmental effects, such as climate change, water shortages, and the loss of topsoil.

# data[].attributes.body
Gap, expending + including more holistic ways
human-non human relationshiops

Donna Harraway
human + animal collaboration

educating population, awareness

diff forms of hula-animal collaboration

farmers - caring (farmers working classes)
vs home animals as pets (upper classes)

Industrial rev - horse are luxury, means of transportation

series : sweet tooth

connect to climate change, relationships  with animals changes way
connect to consumption and
conservation, doesn't include humans, move indigenous communities, sustainable hunting, ways parks are being run, how to make it more human centred or include social aspects of caring and looking after animals

biodiversity, effect on climate

+search for outcomes - physical/campaigns/social aspect...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are living in the age of waste. Is design the answer to leaving our throwaway culture behind?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An innovative sensory installation in our courtyard by British artist Michael Pinsky.

# data[].attributes.body
Age (anti-ageism)

# data[].attributes.body
Disability(anti-ableism)

# data[].attributes.body
Religious or non-religious belief (religious tolerance)

# data[].attributes.body
Class (socio-economic equality)

# data[].attributes.body
ANIMAL CRUELTY

# data[].attributes.body
There is not sorted datas of animals death of environment pollution. Maybe I need to collect the information and disposal the data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maps and Data

2021 Globe at Night Campaigns

Globe at Night has been collecting data about the night sky since 2006. All of that data is available to download in a variety of formats, and also can be explored in our interactive map. Links to previous years' data is available below. We are just getting started with this year's campaign, but you can explore the data from 2021 as it comes in.

Globe at Night - Sky Brightness Monitoring Network (GaN-MN)

The GaN-MN project, an extension of the original Globe at Night project, is a global night sky brightness monitoring network using a commercially available meter (SQM-LE by Unihedron) for long-term monitoring of the light pollution conditions in different places around the world.

Previous Globe at Night Campaigns

Globe at Night data is made available under Open Database License whose full text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/. Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents License whose text can be found http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/

** Files generated by Dennis L. Ward, © Copyright 2007 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Globe at Night has been collecting data about the night sky since 2006. All of that data is available to download in a variety of formats, and also can be explored in our interactive map. Links to previous years' data is available below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Light Pollution - Artificial Sky Brightness - Science On a Sphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the purpose of this atlas, we set the level of artificial brightness under which a sky can be considered "pristine" at 1% of the natural background. The dark gray level (1 to 2%) sets the point where attention should be given to protect a site from a future increase in light pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
Cross-cultural awareness can be increased through education by many countries either don't offer that education, or focus their resources on other fields.
In these documents, we can see that the European and asian countries invest a lot of their GDP in their students, and this is proven fruitful with high learning outcomes from their students. This not only ensures the country has promising students but leaders, representatives ... that have the capacity to be open minded and aware of the worlds around them. They also have the tools to leave their country and use their education.

Another way anyone could freely access information about other communities and therefore, increase their cross-cultural awareness is through the internet. In the document above, we can see that again the countries where people have most access to the internet are the same as above, North America, Asia and Europe.

# data[].attributes.body
https://ourworldindata.org/quality-of-education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The past couple years have been grim for air quality and, rightfully, some citizens are fighting back against policies that endanger all of us.

For instance, California and a coalition of other states are suing the Trump administration over its move to prevent the state from setting stricter emissions rules. In Indonesia, a few dozen activists in the capital city of Jakarta are suing the government over the choking air that citizens are forced to breathe. They say that simply existing in a city should not cut years from residents' lifespans. Last year, the Dutch Supreme Court and a court in France issued rulings that sided with those fighting for cleaner air.

If individuals, cities and companies can face charges for knowingly producing toxic air that reduces humans' quality of life, then the accused parties should be indicted on one more charge: animal cruelty.

Air pollution remains a leading cause of mortality around the globe - even more than malnutrition, alcohol use and physical inactivity, according to data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Global Burden of Disease project.

In the Arctic, unprecedented wildfires pollute the air and pose severe health risks due to their noxious blend of gaseous chemicals and particulate matter, as they spread across Siberia, Greenland and Alaska. In the hotter climates like California, the fire season is lasting longer and becoming more erratic. Meanwhile, fires blaze in Australia, killing or impacting an estimated 1 billion wild animals.

A death warrant for wild animals

The increasing threat of wildfires should prompt calls for our justice systems to take a more accurate count of all the victims, both human and nonhuman.

When the arsonist Brandon McGlover was charged in 2018 with deliberately starting wildfires in Riverside, California, the animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (my former employer) presented an interesting request. PETA called on prosecutors to add " cruelty to animals " to the list of charges against McGlover, declaring in a news statement that "anyone who deliberately sets fires is signing a death warrant for wild animals, who often have no chance of escape."

PETA's suggestion sets a template that could be applied to other legal cases in which individuals, companies or even countries are being held responsible for inflicting environmental harm on human citizens. For most humans and other animals, however, one headline-grabbing wildfire is likely not what diminishes their quality of life the most. Rather, it's the daily struggle of trying to breathe in places where air quality is so regularly compromised, it's often assessed by how many cigarettes per day to which it equates.
Keep animals safe, too: Our dog Penny is family - not cargo. Animals die when airlines treat them like objects.
Hanoi, Vietnam, the city where I live, is afflicted seasonally with air pollution. In response to alarming air quality index readings, many cities now issue public warnings about keeping children and the elderly indoors, advising residents to close windows or limit physical activity. Those warnings are not of any use for pigeons, squirrels and other animals, who have no refuge from toxic air. Being confined indoors next to an air purifier may feel like living in an iron lung, but it's still a better fate than being a bird, who has no choice but to remain outdoors.

Not all victims are human

Nonhuman animals are the unheard victims of air pollution, yet their exposure to contaminated air is much greater than our own.

The National Audubon Society reports that birds are " exposed to more airborne particles - or particulate matter - than humans because birds have a higher breathing rate and spend more time in the open air." Extra fine particles, particularly those less than 2.5 microns in diameter - often the smallest particle size that human face masks are designed to catch - are small enough to burrow into the deepest branches of birds' lungs.
Paying the price for climate change: I wasn't prepared for bushfires this menacing. Even now, Australia doesn't have a plan.
The pollution that human and nonhuman animals inhale accumulates in their tissues, causing damage to their organs that weakens their immune systems and makes them more vulnerable to many diseases. In the most egregious cases of air pollution, the health impacts that animals suffer are even visible to the naked eye.

In a 2017 paper, two graduate-level researchers from the University of Chicago assessed more than 1,000 wild birds who flew over Rust Belt states over the past 135 years. The researchers measured how much black carbon - or soot - accumulated in the birds' feathers during the year. When increased usage of coal and other fossil fuels caused air pollution levels to spike - for instance, during the manufacturing boom of World War II - birds whose feathers and bellies would normally be white or yellow were stained jet black from routinely flying through the dark particulate matter.

Imagine the public outcry if humans' faces started becoming visibly stained from air pollution simply by going outside.
Ryan Huling, an animal advocate from California, is a writer with Sentient Media and formerly a director at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He is a consultant for intergovernmental agencies on sustainable foods and lives in Hanoi, Vietnam.
In many developed countries, no new laws necessarily need to be passed in order to protect the victims of air pollution; justice systems simply need to expand their interpretations of the laws to also protect nonhuman animals.

If a teenager were to snatch up a wild bird, lock the bird in an airtight box and relentlessly pump in toxic chemicals, that teenager would rightly face accusations of animal cruelty. The difference between this hypothetical scenario and widespread air pollution is of degree, not of kind. If humans are serious about delivering justice to all victims of air pollution, then cities, companies and individuals who degrade our air should face the animal cruelty charges that they have earned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air pollution is animal cruelty. Time to hold polluters responsible for all their victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The past couple years have been grim for air quality and, rightfully, some citizens are fighting back against policies that endanger all of us. For instance, California and a coalition of other states are suing the Trump administration over its move to prevent the state from setting stricter emissions rules.

# data[].attributes.body
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?end=2020&locations=EU&start=2020&view=map&year=2020

# data[].attributes.body
education

# data[].attributes.body
https://discovercorps.com/blog/cultural-sensitivity-awareness/

https://uk.nttdata.com/insights/blog/embracing-cultural-differences-and-promoting-intercultural-awareness-and-competence

# data[].attributes.body
pollution

# data[].attributes.body
cross-cultural awareness

# data[].attributes.body
animal cruelty

# data[].attributes.body
Waste battery

# data[].attributes.body
classification according to skills, personality, gender, money, wealth, connections

# data[].attributes.body
Forest, rainforest
Forest fire / land pollution

# data[].attributes.body
Upcycling - to raise the quality
Recycling - to keep it on the same level
Downcycling - lowering the quality

donations
charity shops

# data[].attributes.body
traffic congestion

# data[].attributes.body
Rare animal
Animals that are difficult to survive because the environment pollution

# data[].attributes.body
food quality/quantity

food change due to exportations
food raririty

fishing
diets , pescatarians, vegetarians, vegan...

insects to replace meat ?

# data[].attributes.body
Light pollution

# data[].attributes.body
Noice pollution

# data[].attributes.body
1984, George Orwell

# data[].attributes.body
altered carbon
the 100
Divergent series

# data[].attributes.body
Natural scenic areas

# data[].attributes.body
Industrial refuse/waste/rubish

# data[].attributes.body
Industrial wastewater

# data[].attributes.body
accessibility to resources

# data[].attributes.body
climate change

# data[].attributes.body
Science and technology

# data[].attributes.body
deforestation

# data[].attributes.body
low birth rate

# data[].attributes.body
Culture, tourist industry

# data[].attributes.body
generational issues

# data[].attributes.body
community