# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The dog meat trade is one of the most serious animal welfare issues in Asia. Soi Dog Foundation is working in several countries to end this inhumane and barbaric practice.

The availability of dog meat is widespread in Asia, where the welfare concern is enormous due to the large numbers of dogs being stolen from owners. They are taken from the streets or, in Korea, sourced from farms, transported long distances and inhumanely slaughtered.

The conditions under which dogs are farmed, transported, and slaughtered are inhumane and barbaric. The dogs are not humanely killed; most undergo immense suffering from being packed into crates, often for hours without food and water, resulting in many being injured or suffocating to death. Often they are force-fed liquid rice down tubes into their stomachs, sometimes leading to asphyxiation. It is not unusual for dogs to be burnt alive to remove their fur or thrown into large vats of boiling water for the same purpose. In some areas it is believed that the pain inflicted on dogs before death increases the flow of adrenaline, which can make the meat taste better.

Soi Dog has been successful in effectively ending Thailand's dog meat trade and is actively expanding its efforts to neighbouring countries where little is being done to address the issue. In Thailand, our undercover investigators continue to monitor for signs of the trade re-emerging. Soi Dog has cared for thousands of dogs rescued from the dog meat trade and found loving homes for them.

In Vietnam, where approximately five million dogs are slaughtered each year for human consumption, Soi Dog is working with the national government and Vietnam Television, the national television broadcaster, to raise public awareness of the severe cruelty of the dog meat industry and the human health risks it poses. In addition, and in partnership with Vietnamese law enforcement agencies and the Department of Animal Health (DAH), Soi Dog is working to increase enforcement of laws which prohibit the industry.

Tests have been carried out on several hundred dogs post-slaughter by the Vietnamese Government and results have been verified by the US CDC. These showed that over 3% of dogs tested positive to rabies, putting both handlers and consumers at risk. Together with the DAH, we will commence a survey of all slaughter houses and establishments serving dog meat in the city to gather evidence of the need to shut down the industry on health grounds.

In September 2018, the Hanoi municipality in Vietnam announced that it will ban dog meat sales in the city centre by 2021. To help with this, in 2019 we launched a petition to ask the Formula 1 group for their influence to encourage the authorities there to bring an end to the trade, once and for all.who, At that time, Hanoi had been added to their Grand Prix calendar, Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic saw the postponement and eventual cancellation of the event. We are now directly petitioning for the Vietnamese government to bring the ban into effect. You can add your voice to this petition here.

In Cambodia, we are supporting a campaign to expose and put to an end the trade there. With our support, 'End Dog Meat Trade Cambodia' are working to reduce the demand for dog meat with a social media marketing campaign and are continuing the research carried out by independent organisations to document and map out the dog meat restaurants, slaughterhouses, and supply routes in Cambodia. In 2020, authorities in Siem Reap announced a ban on dog meat in the city, proving that progress is being made and that our campaign is having an effect.

In China, Soi Dog has provided substantial financial assistance to activists working on the ground to rescue, medically treat, and care for hundreds of dogs saved from the country's dog meat trade and the notorious Yulin dog meat festival.

We are delighted to see that the Taiwanese Government have now banned the consumption of dog meat. Senior ministers from Taiwan visited the Soi Dog centre along with Genlin (Mr.Hiroshi Horiike), the founder of World Dog Alliance who was instrumental in bringing the ban about.

In South Korea, Soi Dog has worked for several years supporting local activists and meeting with politicians to have new laws enacted to end the dog meat trade. We have financed the erection of large billboards and graphic advertisements on the sides of buses passing close to dog meat markets . This has now led to the banning of all slaughtering of dogs in markets in the capital Seoul, including the infamous Moran dog meat market. In addition, we have financed the rescue of over 100 dogs abandoned by farmers on the site of a former market and, in 2021, partnered with Animal Rescue Korea (ARK 119) to support their efforts in closing down more dog farms in Buncheon. Efforts to rehome the rescued dogs continue to this day.

A dog is a dog is the key message Soi Dog is promoting in South Korea - a challenge to the myth that 'meat dogs' are different to pet dogs. Some people believe that 'meat dogs' don't have a soul, or the same feelings as pet dogs. They're the same people who drive demand for dog meat.

By turning public opinion against dog meat consumption and the farming of dogs, and by keeping up pressure on law-makers to make the industry illegal, we hope to see the dog meat trade in South Korea shut down for good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Asian dog meat trade is one of the largest animal welfare concerns in the world and a barbaric practice that Soi Dog Foundation is working hard to end. It is not about culture or tradition, but about horrendous cruelty purely for financial gain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Naturally, many animal lovers and pet owners who hear about this devastating festival wonder how it can be allowed to continue, numerous animal welafare groups ask the same thing and are working to bring the festival and the entire dog meat trade to an end.

Ahead of this year's Yulin Dog Meat Festival, PEOPLE talked to Kelly O'Meara. She is the vice president of companion animals and engagement at Humane Society International - one of the animal welfare organizations working to stop the Yulin Dog Meat Festival.

After 20 years at HSI, many of them spent to "to lead the HSI dog meat campaign, and the dog and cat welfare program globally," O'Meara has experience shutting down dog meat farms, saving animals from the Yulin Dog Meat Festival and working to win legal victories for companion animals the world over.

She told PEOPLE about what animal lovers need to know about the Yulin Dog Meat Festival - like that it's a relatively new invention - and how anyone can help bring the event to a humane and safe end. Here is what O'Meara has to say about how to best help HSI's fight to stop the dog meat trade.
What are some common misconceptions about the dog meat trade?

1. Many believe that dog meat is a staple meat for the poorer communities to eat for protein, but dog meat is usually more expensive than other meats and is more of a delicacy in most countries that consume it.

2. In South Korea, there is a strong misconception that the dogs raised for their meat on dog meat farms are somehow different from the dogs that share their homes as companion animals. Through our numerous dog meat farm closures (14 total to date), we have been able to diminish this belief among Koreans by showing them that every type of dog can be found on these farms, including Chihuahuas, golden retrievers to great Pyrenees, and they all suffer the same horrible conditions found on these farms. And, we have helped show that the most common dog breeds used for their meat, Tosas and Jindos, are in fact loving and friendly dogs, just as capable of being beloved family members as any other breed of dog.

3. Contrary to popular belief, most people in China, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia do not eat dog meat and many dislike the idea of dog meat consumption, especially among the younger generations.

How long as the trade existed?
In countries like China, dog meat consumption has existed for many generations, possibly centuries. While in South Korea, the trade only began in the last century. What has changed in most of the countries where the trade exists is its shift from something local or "backyard," to a much larger, commercial scale. So, now millions of animals fall victim to this cruel industry.
What is the Yulin Dog Meat Festival?
The Yulin Dog Meat Festival is a dog meat-based event held annually in Yulin, China during the summer solstice days, normally starting June 21. The Yulin Dog Meat Festival is not a traditional event by any means; it was invented as recently as 2010 by dog traders trying to boost flagging dog meat sales and to attract tourists. Before the festival started, Yulin had no history of mass dog slaughter and consumption.
How are China's dogs affected by this festival?
Thousands of dogs are taken from the streets or even stolen from their homes/yards to supply the demand for this festival, and the dog meat trade in general throughout China. It is estimated that between 10-20 million dogs/cats are captured, transported and slaughtered annually in China for the trade. The Yulin dog meat festival has gained significant international attention and condemnation which has helped to highlight the terrible plight of the dogs/cats caught up in this very cruel trade. While HSI has worked on ending the Yulin Dog Meat Festival (which has drastically diminished in recent years from 15,000 dogs killed to an estimated 3,000 now), we also focus on fighting the dog/cat meat trade throughout China and other parts of Asia year round, since the trade operates all times of the year and well beyond just the Yulin festival.
What work is being done to end this festival?
The Chinese government and specifically, the Yulin local government have been bombarded with negative, international attention and a global spotlight during the weeks and even months leading up to the Yulin Dog Meat Festival over the last five years. Many global petitions, including HSI's, as well as massive media coverage from around the world has helped tremendously in putting the needed pressure to stop the festival. It has certainly worked in diminishing the festival to something much smaller in recent years, and fewer animals suffer today due to this global movement against the festival.

The position of authorities in Yulin has also changed, as they have realized the fierce domestic and international opposition to the event. Authorities have moved in recent years to tighten the net on the trade in the city despite fierce pushback from dog traders, making it harder for traders to truck in dogs/cats for the event, and even deterring their sale at the markets directly.
How can people who live out side the country help with this fight?
Sign HSI's petition and other petitions against Yulin and make your voice heard. The larger the number of people that sign onto the petitions, the stronger the push to end the Festival. The petitions are powerful and have worked in reaching the Chinese authorities.
Are dogs rescued from the dog meat trade ever available for adoption?
In China, most of the dogs rescued from the dog meat trade are sent to reputable, local shelters throughout the nation for their care and eventual adoption. It is possible to adopt directly from these groups. On occasion, dogs rescued from the Chinese trade are sent to the US and Canada for adoption through local shelter partners in the respective countries. This is currently always the case for the dogs that HSI rescues during our dog meat farm closures in South Korea. All of the dogs rescued from the meat farms are sent to the U.S., U.K. and Canada and are placed with our shelter partners for their adoption.
What is HSI doing to combat the dog meat trade?
HSI runs anti-dog meat campaigns in four of the prominent dog meat consumption countries in Asia, including China, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia. We have direct programs on the ground in each of the countries, and our approach in each country is based upon the local situation and culture. We work with local partner groups to address the dog meat trade issue, such as in China and South Korea, and in international coalitions in Indonesia and Vietnam. Our campaigns focus on increasing awareness of the issue nationally and internationally to change hearts and minds and gain support for our campaign to end the trade. We do have hands on rescue involved in much of our campaign work as well, such as in South Korea, where we work with dog meat farmers to shut down their farms, rescue the dogs, and transition the farmers to a new, humane livelihood. We create model programs that can guide local and national governments on ending the trade in their countries, as well as push for a legal ban on the trade in these countries.
How can others help HSI?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know about the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, and How You Can Help End It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Naturally, many animal lovers and pet owners who hear about this devastating festival wonder how it can be allowed to continue, numerous animal welafare groups ask the same thing and are working to bring the festival and the entire dog meat trade to an end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While slaughtering dogs and eating their meat may horrify Americans, it's a longstanding custom in South Korea and other Asian nations. Most South Koreans don't eat dog meat, though a minority do. Young South Koreans are abandoning the tradition, even as animal rights groups campaign to end it.

Generations of Americans have loved dogs and been moved to tears over them - think of Old Yeller, Lassie, Marley, the movie A Dog's Purpose, and Seymour from the Futurama episode Jurassic Bark.

South Koreans, however, historically regarded dogs as edible farm animals, not loving indoor companions. Dogs were more plentiful than cattle, which were scarce and valued for farm labor such as pulling carts or plowing fields.

That lingering view affects how South Koreans consider dogs today, as the country grapples with its practice of raising dogs for meat and dog meat consumption itself.

About 2.5 million dogs are raised in South Korean dog farms each year. About 1 million are killed and eaten. The rest are used for breeding with many dogs dying because of the farms' high mortality rate, according to Humane Society International, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates for animal protection worldwide.

The South Korean mindset toward dogs began changing in the 1980s and '90s as the nation grew wealthier and Western influence increased. Younger Koreans began advocating for abolishment of dog farms. Some are acquiring dogs as pets.

These developments counter a long history, which suggests Koreans have been eating dogs for more than a thousand years. They were a familiar food source during the near-starvation years of Japan's brutal occupation of Korea, World War II, and the Korean War.

These days, South Koreans who eat dog meat eat much of it during boknal, the hottest days of the year, in July and August. Some believe consuming it revives energy or virility sapped by the heat. They consider dog meat in bosintang stew or the drink gaesoju as "a soup form of Gatorade," according to American food writer Joe McPherson in a 2015 UPI interview.

About 70 percent of South Korea's 51.5 million population disapprove of eating dogs, according to a July 2017 survey cited by Humane Society International. While the number of dog farms has been reduced, nearly 17,000 remain in South Korea, a country slightly larger than Indiana.

However, the number of South Koreans surveyed who say they would not eat dog meat is growing. Yet some, bowing to history, say the practice should not be completely outlawed.

Confusing laws let dog farms operate

The term gray area appears frequently when researching South Korean laws on dogs and dog meat. Dogs are not classified as livestock under South Korea's 1962 Livestock Processing Act, which means their slaughter is not regulated.

However, dogs are recognized as food by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which says any edible product (except drugs) can be called food.

A Food Sanitation Law in 1984 prohibited restaurants from selling food considered "disgusting, repugnant, unhealthy or unsanitary." Dogs were cited among specific examples, but the law was not enforced.

In 1991, the Korean National Assembly passed an Animal Protection Law forbidding the killing of non-livestock animals "in a way which is cruel or provokes disgust without proper, rational reason."" It also prohibited inflicting unnecessary pain or injury. The intent was to end cruel slaughter of dogs and cats. The law, however, was criticized as too vague and was rarely enforced.

The South Korean legal discord over dog meat is akin to confusing U.S. views on marijuana. As a Lewis & Clark Law School study notes, though "recreational use of marijuana is effectively legal in some states," federal law continues to classify it as a controlled substance.

South Korean lawmakers have tried to close regulatory gaps without success. Even subsequent amendments to laws prohibiting cruel killing are seldom enforced.

The result is South Korean dog farms continue to operate. The most common dog breed raised for food is called nureongi - Korean for "yellow dog." They have short, yellow fur, are considered mid-sized, and are seldom adopted as pets. However, many other breeds have been found in dog farms, says Humane Society International.

Sports events put focus on dogs

Dogs-as-food has never been a secret, but the world started paying serious attention to South Korea in 1988, when the Winter Olympics were held in Seoul. The South Korean government asked restaurants to downplay serving dog meat. Westerners protested the treatment of dogs then, and again leading up to the 2002 FIFA World Cup, held in South Korea and Japan.

French actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was vilified in South Korea after criticizing the practice in a 2001 interview:
"Cows are grown to be eaten; dogs are not. I accept that many people eat beef, but a cultured country does not allow its people to eat dogs."

Attention was renewed in 2018 with the Winter Olympics in South Korea's Gangwon Province. American skier Gus Kenworthy became a high-profile advocate when he adopted a puppy from a dog farm. On Instagram Kenworthy wrote:
"I do agree that it's not my place to impose western ideals on the people here. The way these animals are being treated, however, is completely inhumane and culture should never be a scapegoat for cruelty."
Brutal living conditions, horrifying deaths

Visitors to South Korean dog farms routinely describe them as cruel and inhumane. Dogs are crammed in wire cages, never cleaned, and fed the worst kind of food, including meat from dead dogs and feces.

USA TODAY journalists covering the 2018 Olympics wrote:
"The grim surroundings of the farm pains the senses. The first thing to be noticed is the sound, the pitiful whines and yelps of about 300 animals being kept in filthy cages until their execution."
More: Inside the grim scene of a Korean dog meat farm, just miles from the Winter Olympics

Dogs in South Korea are usually killed by electrocution. Humane Society International says electrocuted dogs are soaked with water and shocked with an electric rod. The process can take 2 to 3 minutes or more. Other countries use more brutal methods.

U.S. didn't officially outlaw killing dogs for food until 2018

Until 2018 in the U.S., it was extremely rare, but legal, in 44 states to kill dogs and cats for food. President Trump signed the Dog and Cat Meat Prohibition Act on Dec. 20, which makes it a federal offense to slaughter, trade, import or export dogs and cats for human consumption. Native American tribes are exempted for religious rituals.

Supporters of the U.S. act say it bolsters efforts for international bans on killing dogs and cats for food around the world, including South Korea.

In the meantime, South Korea's movement against dog meat and farms is gaining traction:

June 20, 2018: A member of Parliament proposes strengthening South Korea's Animal Protection Act to prohibit killing animals 'in principle,' except when slaughtered or disposed of to prevent disease.

June 21, 2018: A South Korean court rules it's illegal to kill dogs for meat. (Debate on that decision continues.)

Nov. 22, 2018: Seoul closes Taepyeong, considered the largest dog-killing operation in the country. (It had six slaughterhouses.) That closure leads to the shutdown of the Moran Market, once the largest seller of dog meat in South Korea.

Feb. 12, 2019: The mayor of Seoul says he intends to close dog slaughterhouses in the city.

Feb. 22, 2019: Humane Society International reports closing its 14th dog farm in four years.

SOURCES Humane Society International; Associated Press; koreananimals.org; Sydney Morning Herald; Rakhyun Kim, University of Auckland, New Zealand, and Utrecht University, Netherlands; Anthony Podberscek, University of Cambridge, U.K.; Claire Czajkowski, Lewis & Clark Law School, Oregon; The Korea Herald; BBC; United Press International; USA TODAY research; TOP PHOTO Sandy Hooper/USA TODAY, February 2018; GRAPHICS George Petras/USA TODAY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
South Koreans eat more than 1 million dogs each year - but that's slowly changing. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While slaughtering dogs and eating their meat may horrify Americans, it's a longstanding custom in South Korea and other Asian nations. Most South Koreans don't eat dog meat, though a minority do. Young South Koreans are abandoning the tradition, even as animal rights groups campaign to end it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Yulin "Lychee and Dog Meat" festival is an annual 10 day event where over 10,000 dogs are eaten. Cat meat, fresh lychees and liquor are also available at the festival.

The event in this remote part of southern China has proved to be very controversial in recent years, particularly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
When and where does it take place?
Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

It takes place in Yulin, a city in the Guangxi province of China, and runs from the 21 to 30 June during one of the hottest weeks of the year.
How did it start?
The first festival took place in 2009 to mark the summer solstice. Dog eating is traditional in China, and according to folklore eating the meat during the summer months brings luck and good health. Some also believe dog meat can ward off diseases and heighten men's sexual performance.
What is the controversy surrounding it?
The festival has attracted widespread negative coverage within China and internationally. Activists have reported that animals are slaughtered inhumanely using clubs in public and that hygiene practices at the festival do not fall in line with Chinese regulations. There are also complaints that dogs are brought to Yulin from across China in cramped conditions, and festival visitors have reported seeing some animals with collars, indicating they are stolen pets.

The World Health Organisation has warned that the dog trade spreads rabies and increases the risk of cholera.
Is it seen differently in China?
Eating dogs is not illegal in China. Around 10 to 20 million are killed for human consumption every year and although the festival is new the custom can be traced back at least 400 years. But attitudes are changing. Keeping dogs as pets was banned during the Cultural Revolution, but dog ownership has become popular among China's growing middle-class; there are now 62 million registered as pets. Animal activists, celebrities and younger Chinese citizens have been increasingly vocal on social media about opposing dog eating festivals and the practice in general.
Will activists get their wish and see it stopped?
The Yulin Municipal Government has repeatedly said that it is not able to stop the festival as it claims it does not exist as an official event.

But a 2017 survey revealed that in Yulin, nearly three-quarters of people don't regularly eat dog meat despite efforts by traders to promote it. A 2016 nationwide survey found that 64 per cent of Chinese citizens wanted the Yulin festival shut down and 69.5 per cent have never eaten dog meat.
Will Yulin follow Shenzhen and Zhuhai and ban the consumption of dog meat?
Lat month, China's government has called dogs "companions" and reportedly signalled a wider ban on dog meat consumption was ahead.

Dr Peter Li, HSI's China policy specialist, said that the Yulin festival was a "bloody spectacle [which] does not reflect the mood or eating habits of the majority of the Chinese people".

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

He said: "Now that the Chinese government has officially recognised dogs as companions and not livestock, we are hopeful that China will take stronger steps to hasten the end of the dog and cat meat trade for which millions of animals continue to suffer every year.

"The announcement presents cities across China with the perfect opportunity to act upon the government's words by protecting dogs and cats from the meat trade thieves and slaughterhouses."

China's ministry of agriculture noted that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's livestock list does not include dogs and said that internationally, dogs are not treated as livestock.

In April, the cities of Shenzhen and Zhuhai, were the first in China to officially ban the consumption of cat and dog meat.

The coronavirus outbreak started in Wuhan, China late last year. Covid-19 is thought to have originated in horseshoe bats and passed to humans via an intermediary species.

In response to the outbreak, China issued a temporary ban on all trade and consumption of wild animals and is considering revising legislation to make the ban permanent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Yulin Dog Meat Festival and will it get banned?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Yulin "Lychee and Dog Meat" festival is an annual 10 day event where over 10,000 dogs are eaten. Cat meat, fresh lychees and liquor are also available at the festival. The event in this remote part of southern China has proved to be very controversial in recent years, particularly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Slaughter truck packed with 68 terrified dogs headed to China's Yulin dog meat "festival" is intercepted by Chinese activists, all dogs saved

Summer solstice dog meat eating begins in Yulin

Humane Society International / China

BEIJING-Chinese animal activists in Guangxi have intercepted a dog truck outside the city of Yulin, just as the summer solstice dog meat eating gets underway. The truck was packed with 68 terrified and exhausted dogs headed for Yulin's slaughterhouses, having already endured a long journey on the highway without food or water. The activists had been urging Yulin authorities to set up more highway checkpoints to stop and confiscate dogs from inbound dog trucks, but in the absence of official action they took matters into their own hands and stopped the truck by themselves.

The 68 dogs were crammed so tightly into rusty wire cages in the suffocating heat, they could hardly move, and they were found panting and traumatised. Many of the dogs were in poor physical health with infected eyes, and several showed behaviour that indicated to the activists these were stolen pets.

Liang Jia, a Guangxi activist, said: " It was so frustrating to watch trucks of dogs arrive in Yulin when the authorities were supposed to be stopping them and confiscating the dogs. So we decided to save some dogs ourselves and waited on the highway for the next truck to arrive. When it did, we flagged it down and convinced the truck driver to hand over the dogs because they were clearly stolen pets for whom he didn't have the legally required paperwork. The dogs offered us their paw just like a pet at home, and they had healthy teeth which means someone was looking after them before they were stolen. The Yulin authorities have a responsibility to protect public health, even if they don't also care about the animals like we do. These poor dogs look sick, and thankfully now they will receive veterinary care, but who knows what diseases they could carry that would end up in the food market."
Facts about China's dog meat trade
The dogs were moved to a temporary facility to rest, recover and receive veterinary care before making the journey to a shelter supported by Humane Society International.

Dr Peter Li, China policy specialist for Humane Society International which supports the care of dogs rescued from China's meat trade, said: " These activists are typical of a new generation in China who strongly oppose the dog and cat meat trades and are prepared to take action to see it ended in places like Yulin. The truth is that most Chinese people, including those in Yulin, don't eat dogs. The suffering of these animals in Yulin is of course a tragedy, but we need to be calling for an end to this brutal trade every day across China, not just a few days in June in one city. HSI addresses the dog meat issue throughout the year and the country to advocate for an end to the dog and cat meat trades. Thankfully these 68 dogs are now safe after what must have been a terrifying ordeal, but for thousands more dogs in Yulin and millions across the country, the cruelty continues. Through dog theft, illegal trans-provincial transport and inhumane slaughter, the trade not only subjects animals to suffering but also risks public health with the potential for the spread of rabies and other zoonotic diseases. These are compelling reasons for the Chinese authorities to end this trade once and for all."

1. Most people in China don't eat dogs, in fact dog meat is only eaten infrequently by a small per cent of the Chinese population. Even in Yulin, most people (72%) don't regularly eat dog despite efforts by dog meat traders to promote it (2017 survey conducted by Chinese state-registered charities and assisted by research staff from the Yulin Municipal Government). And nationwide, a 2016 survey found that most Chinese citizens (64%) want to see an end to the Yulin festival, more than half (51.7%) think the dog meat trade should be completely banned, and the majority (69.5%) have never eaten dog meat. (Poll conducted by Chinese polling company Horizon, and commissioned by Chinese group China Animal Welfare Association in collaboration with Humane Society International and Avaaz).

2. China's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs made an official statement that dogs are companion animals and not "livestock" for eating. The announcement came as the Ministry published its final Directory of Genetic Resources of Livestock and Poultry. That same year, two major cities in China - Shenzhen and Zhuhai - banned the consumption of dog and cat meat, a decision polling shows is supported by nearly 75% of Chinese citizens. (Poll conducted April 2020 online portal which surveyed 378 million people in mainland China).

3. When the Yulin festival was first launched in 2010, as many as 15,000 dogs were killed during the core event days, but Chinese and international pressure has seen this figure reduce to around 3,000 dogs. However, many hundreds are still killed each day in the weeks leading up to the festival.

4. An estimated 30 million dogs a year are killed across Asia for their meat, some 10-20million in China alone.

ENDS

Media Contact: Wendy Higgins, director of international media: whiggins@hsi.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Slaughter truck packed with 68 terrified dogs headed to China's Yulin dog meat "festival" is intercepted by Chinese activists, all dogs saved - Humane Society International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summer solstice dog meat eating begins in Yulin Humane Society International / China BEIJING-Chinese animal activists in Guangxi have intercepted a dog truck outside the city of Yulin, just as the summer solstice dog meat eating gets underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Adopt your next pet. You may have your heart set on a puppy or a particular breed, but please don't support puppy mills by buying pets online or in stores. We guarantee that the perfect pet is waiting for you at one of the thousands of shelters or rescue groups across the country - and they're not hard to find. First, visit your local shelter. If you don't find the right pet there, visit www.petfinder.com. You can also find a dog of a particular breed by contacting a breed-rescue organization. To find breed rescue groups, do a search online: Go to www.google.com (or another search engine), enter a city or state, the name of the breed you are looking for, and the word "rescue."

2. Don't buy a puppy online or from a pet store. If you buy a puppy online or from a pet store, you are most likely supporting the puppy mill industry because these are the two ways that puppy millers sell millions of dogs each year. If you intend to buy a puppy, do your homework and read "Puppy Mill Dogs: How to Be Sure Your Next Dog Is Not From a Mill."

3. Take action against pet stores that sell dogs supplied by puppy mills. Ask pet stores to consider switching to a humane business model, one that promotes adopting instead of selling puppies from breeders. (Click here for a list of stores that have paved the way.) If the store chooses not to change, you can hold peaceful rallies to help educate the public and change store policy. To learn how, download the action kit called "Peaceful Pet Store Protest: Demonstrate Against the Sale of Pets."

4. Support legislation that regulates and reduces breeding of animals. To help change your city, county and state laws, sign up to receive alerts from Best Friends. We make it quick and easy for you to support laws in your area that fight puppy mills. Go to Best Friends' Legislative Action Center to sign up.

5. Become an expert on the subject. Get familiar with how the puppy mill industry works by looking through Best Friends' resource library. You can watch breeder video footage, read USDA documents, and learn how to research pet stores in your community. Click here to start learning.

6. Know the existing laws. Many states have laws that regulate breeders and/or retail pet sellers. To find out how your state stacks up, click here.

7. Ask government officials to pass stricter laws for pet stores and dog breeders. Write or call your city, county, state and federal officials and ask them to take these issues seriously. Read "End Puppy Mills: Write a Letter to Legislators and Newspapers" to help compose a message and contact the right people. Keep your call, letter or email brief, respectful and to the point. You may not receive a response, but know that these communications are counted and can really influence legislators.

8. Speak out in your community. Write letters to the editors of newspapers about puppy mills and breeders who keep their animals in unacceptable conditions. Note how many ads for dogs, puppies, kittens and other animals there are in the paper's classified section, while shelters overflow with unwanted pets.

9. Donate to Best Friends' puppy mill initiatives. Your donation will be used to fight puppy mills and to give former puppy mill dogs a chance to have what all dogs deserve: safety, good care, happiness and love from a family of their own.

10. Elect animal-friendly candidates. Before any election (local, state or federal), ask candidates if they would support laws regulating commercial breeders and what they would do about puppy mills in the community.

11. Report bad puppy stores. If you have bought a puppy from a store and the puppy is sick, read "Bought a Sick Pet Store Puppy: What Can You Do?."

12. Infiltrate the ads. In your newspaper's classifieds section, you've seen the numerous ads that sell puppies. To plant the idea of adopting instead, place classified ads promoting your local shelter or breed rescue group via Petfinder.com.

13. Raise awareness and/or donations. Host an awareness-raising or fundraising event in your community. To educate the public about puppy mills and/or raise awareness and funding for local rescue groups, organize a walk, conduct a bake sale or set up a table at local events and hand out information.

14. Spread the word. Educate your friends, family and coworkers - especially those looking to obtain a pet - about the cruelty of puppy mills and the joys of pet adoption. Share adoption websites, such as Petfinder.com, and breed rescue websites with people who are looking for purebred dogs.

15. Don't give up. The fight against puppy mills and bad breeders has been going on for decades. Things won't change overnight, but we are making progress and each little change helps. If you educate just one person about the horrors of puppy mills or convince just one person to adopt rather than buy a pet, you've made a difference.

Join us and take a stand against puppy mills. Life in these "factory farms" is no life at all for dogs.
Learn more about puppy mills at bestfriends.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adopt your next pet. You may have your heart set on a puppy or a particular breed, but please don't support puppy mills by buying pets online or in stores. We guarantee that the perfect pet is waiting for you at one of the thousands of shelters or rescue groups across the country - and they're not hard to find.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Petland Cares - Petland Novi, Michigan

Download our Petland App today for information on your local Petland's Available Pets and Pet Supplies. All at the tips of your fingers!

Learn the facts about where Petland gets their puppies from, how they are cared for and about our healthy and wellness guarantee. In addition, educate yourself about myths vs facts concerning Petland and the Pet Industry.

Where Americans Get Their Dogs

Take a walk down and city street or suburban sidewalk, and it's pretty easy to see - dogs are a big part of our lives. It's estimated that Americans own around 70 million dogs.

Where Petland Gets It's Puppies

We are proud of our commitment to animal welfare and quality of our pets. Learn about where puppies come from and how we are setting an excellent example for our communities.

Not seeing what you are looking for? Let's start by giving you a $200.00 off your puppy by making an appointment today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Petland Cares - Petland Novi, Michigan Download our Petland App today for information on your local Petland's Available Pets and Pet Supplies. All at the tips of your fingers! Learn the facts about where Petland gets their puppies from, how they are cared for and about our healthy and wellness guarantee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The house on Hilton Lake Road was unremarkable, a brick one-story with an under-watered lawn and a scrimshaw of patchy shrubs. It was flanked by bigger and smarter homes on a two-lane strip in Cabarrus County, 25 miles north of Charlotte, North Carolina, but nothing about it suggested to passersby that inconceivable cruelty lived at this address. It wasn't till we opened the side-yard entrance that the horror inside announced itself. A stench of complex poisons pushed out: cat piss and dog shit and mold and bleach commingled into a cloud of raw ammonia that singed the hair in our nostrils. Twenty of us - blue-shirted staffers from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); several members of their forensic camera crew; the sheriff of Cabarrus County and his deputies; and a contingent of veterinarians from a local animal hospital - tiptoed around the filth underfoot into a house caked in pet fur and waste. Damp laundry draped across every flat surface; the floor was a maze of cat crates and garbage. From somewhere in the house, we heard the howling of dogs, but they weren't in the bedrooms or the tumbledown john or the kitchen piled high with dishes.

Then we found the door that led to the basement. Down there, dozens of puppies in dust-cloaked cages stood on their hind legs and bawled. There were Yorkies and poodles and Maltese mixes, but their fur was so matted and excrement-mottled it was hard to tell which from which. Bred for profit, most of them would have been sold in pet stores or on websites by their third or fourth month of life.

HSUS staffers had gathered evidence that the breeder, Patricia Yates, was selling puppies on multiple websites without a license, and had a stack of buyer complaints lodged against her. But it took a tip from an anonymous source to alert the Sheriff's office to the scale of Yates's operation. "We'd been out there before, but had no idea it was this severe," says Lt. David Taylor, an animal-control cop who helped launch the investigation. Obtaining an arrest warrant was the least of it, though. When you bust an illegal kennel, you're suddenly swamped with sick dogs, often double what had been reported. It took Taylor a month to coordinate with HSUS - the rare non-profit with the money and equipment to house and treat puppy-mill rescues - before launching the raid on Yates's kennel.
Watch footage from inside Patricia Yates' illegal kennel.
Back up the stairs, we followed more barking to a porch bricked in by the owner. It was pitch-black inside, and the smell was a hammer. Here were the parent dogs in desperate shape: blinded by cataracts and corneal ulcers; their jaws half-gone or missing entirely after their teeth had rotted away. Some were so feeble they couldn't stand erect; their paws were urine-scalded and their wrists were deformed from squatting on wire their entire lives.

Out the back door and up a dirt trail, the worst was yet to come. A cinder-block kennel, hidden from the street, housed the bulk of this puppy-mill stock: 50 or 60 more parent dogs who'd likely never seen sunlight or spent a day outside this toxic room. They wept and bayed and spun in crazed circles as we toured the maze of cages. Some went limp as the rescuers knelt to scoop them. Each was photographed, then carried downhill to the giant rig at the curb. There, teams of vets from the Cabarrus Animal Hospital worked briskly to assess each rescue. Once triaged and tagged, they were loaded into crates on the Humane Society's mammoth truck, an 80-foot land-ship with clean-room conditions, and taken to a staging shelter. One hundred and five dogs came out of that house, many of them pregnant or in heat. I turned to John Goodwin, the director of the puppy-mills campaign for HSUS, and asked him how many puppies sold in this country - at Petland and Citipups and a thousand other pet stores - come from puppy mills as dire as this one.

"Most every pup sold in stores in America comes from this kind of suffering - or worse," he insists. "If you buy a puppy from a pet store, this is what you're paying for and nothing else: a dog raised in puppy-mill evil." The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals posts a database of pet shops for consumers to check before they buy. Input any ZIP code and you'll see the list of stores that sell pups rather than offer them for adoption. That vastly ups the chances that the dogs are from mills, not from reputable breeders. Another click shows you ghastly shots of the mills those stores buy dogs from. Those pictures weren't taken by animal-rights zealots, but by United States Department of Agriculture agents who inspect breeding kennels. Pet stores usually buy their dogs from federally licensed breeders, meaning kennels with five or more breeding females that breed a lot of pups. "Puppy mills house breeding dogs in small, wire-floored cages, separate puppies from their mothers at a very young age, and ship them hundreds of miles to pet stores around the country," says Matt Bershadker, president and CEO of the ASPCA. (Both Petland and Citipups deny they sell mill dogs, but reams of evidence and buyer complaints collected by HSUS argue otherwise.)

Yates was arrested and charged with animal cruelty. (Twelve counts were filed against her; a hearing is scheduled for February.) Yates was outraged; I heard her exclaim that "these dogs are the love of my life!" That evening, I caught up with Sára Varsa, the senior director of operations for animal rescue at HSUS. Varsa, a veteran of 50 animal-welfare raids, was quarterbacking the care of those hundred-plus dogs at a temporary shelter in a warehouse. When told what Yates had said, Varsa pointed to two poodles, both of them desperately underfed. Delicately, she lifted the male from the crate and put him, trembling, in my arms. He was blind in both eyes and had thumb-size infections where his molars used to be. "Is this how you treat the dogs you love?" said Varsa. "Is this how you raise your beautiful babies?"

* * *

Since dogs first crossed the Siberian land bridge and set foot in human encampments in North America, they have been much more than pets and companions to us - they made life tenable in this primal place. They chased off wolves and bears while we slept, caught and retrieved the game we ate, and dined on the garbage we left behind. Over the course of 10 millennia, a bond was forged between species that hunkered together for survival. (Early tribes survived subzero cold by sleeping beneath their dogs - hence the term "three-dog night.") It took most of those millennia to truly domesticate dogs - they lived largely outdoors till the 1970s, in those quaint addenda called doghouses. Once inside the door, though, they were in for good, to be loved and spoiled like toddlers. The number of pet dogs in America boomed between 1970 and today, tripling to almost 80 million. Pet-shop commerce boomed in tandem, from practically nothing in the Fifties to nearly $65 billion in 2015. Where once you adopted your pup from the neighbors, now there is a Furry Paws down the block with dozens of designer puppies in the window.

Of course, in America, we industrialize anything that turns a profit. Beginning in the 1950s, struggling pig and poultry farmers began breeding puppies for extra income. "It was a cheap and easy fix: You just converted your coops into indoor-outdoor kennels," says Bob Baker, the executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. Baker, an animal activist for 40 years and a walking encyclopedia on the commercial dog business - he's been a senior investigator for the ASPCA and the HSUS - watched the trade evolve from a mom-and-pop sideline into a multinational behemoth. "Pups cost nothing to raise, you'd sell them for $50 a head in town, and every five months you had a whole new litter - then dozens, as the puppies began breeding," he says. What followed was a 40-year explosion of puppy mills, which are defined by HSUS as commercial kennels where profit counts more than the dogs' well-being.

There are, by HSUS's estimate, about 10,000 puppy mills in America, though the organization concedes that no one knows the real number: It's an industry born and raised in shadows. The USDA only licenses a fraction of all kennels, about 2,500 of various sizes, which can range from five adult breed dogs to more than a thousand. States also license and inspect kennels, accounting for another 2,500 breed sites that aren't registered with the feds, says Kathleen Summers, the director of outreach and research for HSUS's puppy-mills campaign. "But in rural communities, there are thousands of backyard kennels selling online and evading government regulation." A breeder only needs a federal license if he or she sells the dogs sight unseen, i.e., through a middleman like a pet store or a puppy broker. But if the seller deals directly with the puppy's buyer, either selling face to face, through classified ads or, increasingly, via pop-up websites, there is little or no oversight of their business.

Three years ago, the USDA passed an amendment requiring online sellers to get federally licensed, which would submit them to annual inspections and standard-of-care rules. At the time, the department expected thousands of breeders to step forward and comply with the law; to date, less than 300 have. When asked about sellers who disregard the law, Tanya Espinosa, a USDA spokeswoman, says, "It is virtually impossible for us to monitor the Internet for breeders. . . . [We] rely heavily on the public and their complaints." Good luck with that: Open your browser, type a breed in your state and thousands of websites appear. All claim to be local, loving and humane. Far too often, they are none of the above.

"If you ask to see their property and they say, 'Let's meet in a parking lot,' you're likely dealing with a puppy-miller," says Kathy McGriff, a reputable ex-breeder of clumber spaniels who kept a close eye on her trade while she was breeding. "And if you want to write a check but they only take PayPal, you're dealing with a puppy-miller." As a rule, she says, breeders who are even the least bit evasive are millers raising dogs in deplorable places. "Reputable breeders don't deal in volume, and we only sell to people we've checked out. It's the most basic rule in our code of ethics: Never sell a puppy sight unseen."

With dog sales, as with any commodity of late, the Internet has been the great disrupter. The HSUS estimates that roughly half of the 2 million pups bred in mills are sold in stores these days; the rest are trafficked online. The number of stores that still sell puppies has cratered over the course of the past decade, as groups like HSUS, the ASPCA and CAPS (Companion Animal Protection Society) have conducted stings of high-priced stores across the country and found them packed with sick puppies from Midwest mills. "We filmed undercover, got endless tape of purebreds in terrible shape, and followed up on buyer complaints," says Deborah Howard, the founder and president of CAPS. Howard sends investigators out to infiltrate mills, exposes the stores that do business with those breeders, and coordinates with advocates across the country to ban the retail sale of puppies in big cities. "We've got reams of complaints from people with sick puppies, and they all say it was an impulse buy," says Howard. "I mean, a dog is a commitment for 15 years - at least Google-search the seller for complaints."

* * *

Given the duress in which mill pups enter the world and make their way to the stores - birthed by sick and stressed-out moms; snatched from their litters at eight weeks of age and loaded onto trucks for the hours-long drive to the next stop in the supply chain, puppy brokers; kept in a warehouse with hundreds of other pups, many of them sick with respiratory problems or infections of the eyes and ears; then again trucked with dozens of those dogs for the one- or two-day drive to distant states - it's remarkable that any of them survive the gantlet, let alone turn up well. Puppy brokers are wholesalers who buy from breeders, keep a running stock of dozens of breeds, then sell and ship the pups for a hefty markup.

The biggest of those brokers, the now-defunct Hunte Corporation, professionalized the trade in the Nineties. They bought up other brokers, made large investments in equipment, trucks and drivers, and moved thousands of dogs a month from their facility in Goodman, Missouri. "I saw tons of sick puppies - vomiting blood, blowing diarrhea - that Hunte bought in that condition from breeders," says "Pete," an undercover investigator for CAPS who worked at Hunte in 2004. "Of the 2,000 pups they'd have on-site, hundreds were in their 'hospital' getting antibiotics. A day or two later, they'd load 'em on 18-wheelers and send them, still sick, to the stores."

Per CAPS reporting, the dogs who proved too sick to sell went back on a truck to Missouri; Hunte buried the dead ones out behind its plant. In 2003, state inspectors in Missouri cited Hunte for dumping more than 1,000 pounds of dead puppies per year - the maximum allowed under Missouri law - in its back yard. Not that Missouri is an outlier in the disposal of sick and dead dogs. In Pennsylvania, two breeders shot 80 Shih Tzus and cocker spaniels rather than provide veterinary care. (Many millers prefer small breeds now; they're popular in cities, sell for top dollar, and are cheaper to feed, house and ship.) In Kansas, a breeder had to put down 1,200 dogs after failing to inoculate them for distemper.

The USDA has exactly one law to govern the care and housing of commercial dogs. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), enacted in 1966, sets down the barest standards for breeders. Dogs, per the AWA, can be kept their entire lives in crates inches bigger than their bodies. They can be denied social contact with other dogs, bred as many times as they enter heat, then killed and dumped in a ditch whenever their uterus shrivels. We have millions of dogs on our streets, put down two million of them every year - and impose no limits on the number of dogs millers can breed. In England, by contrast, you need a license to breed even a single dog - and only 5,000 were euthanized in 2015.

"There's this gross disconnect between our feelings for dogs and the way we guard them from abuse," says Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of HSUS. "The USDA has a total of 100 inspectors to inspect thousands of breeders in 50 states." But they also have to inspect every zoo, circus and lab that uses animals for research testing. "We've been petitioning them for decades to improve the law - require bigger crates for breed dogs, give them access to outdoor dog runs and much prompter vet care when they're sick - but they can't even enforce the bad law on their books," says Pacelle. An internal audit in the USDA indicated as much. Per a scathing report in 2010 by its Office of Inspector General, the department chose to prioritize "education" of breeders over punishment, "took little or no enforcement action against most violators," failed to respond to "repeat violations," and collected insufficient evidence in the few prosecutions it brought against criminal breeders.

The USDA oversees thousands of licensees nationwide with a yearly budget of about $28 million. "For perspective, the Defense Department spends the equivalent of our budget every 25 minutes," says Espinosa, the USDA spokeswoman. "Our dedicated personnel conduct roughly 10,000 unannounced inspections annually and work diligently to enforce the AWA." And what has that enforcement produced by way of penalties? Less than $4 million in fines over the past two years, a dozen or so breeders forced to turn in their licenses - and exactly none handed over for prosecution. Not the miller in Iowa who threatened to stab an inspector with a syringe and confessed that he shot a dog in the head while his girlfriend held it down. Not a fellow Iowan who threw a bag of dead puppies at an inspector. In fact, just a handful of breeders on HSUS's Horrible Hundred list - compiled every year from public records of chronic offenders - have been put out of business. And none of them have been made to answer in court for their proven mistreatment of dogs.

* * *

For weeks after the raid, I kept in touch with Sára Varsa, HSUS's rescue team director, for updates on the poodle she'd let me hold. Pollo, as the staff called him (he high-stepped like a chicken), had somehow pulled through after multiple surgeries at the Cabarrus Animal Clinic. The vet removed his right eye, which was all but useless after a long-untreated rupture; pulled his few remaining teeth; and sealed a gaping fissure in what was left of his upper jaw. Even after all that, though, Pollo bounced right up, relieved to suddenly be in less pain. "The only time he cried was when we took his little girlfriend to be seen by the vet," says Varsa, referring to the toy poodle who'd shared his cage. "They'd been together so long, they were like an old couple. He sobbed and shook while she was gone."

Heather Seifel, the clinic administrator, brought him home till she could match him with an adopter. She took him outside and set him down in her yard; he'd no clue what to do with himself on grass. That trepidation is common to mill survivors, she says, the "weirdness of 'What do I do now, now that I can finally be a dog?' "

Weeks before, I'd heard essentially the same words from a man named Wes Eden, whose family runs a boarding barn, the Lone Star Dog Ranch, near McKinney, Texas. Eden is a devotional rescuer of dogs whose methods make other advocates queasy. Each year, he saves dozens of breeding dogs by buying them, for top dollar, at puppy auctions, where millers "sell each other their trash," says Eden. There used to be dozens of places to get unwanted dogs for a price. But after HSUS staged raids in several states, the ranks of the auction sites shrank to just a handful - two of them in the state of Missouri. It was at the bigger of the two, Southwest Auction Services, that I observed Eden in action one obscenely hot Saturday in early September. A tall young man with an artisanal beard and a crown of kohl-black hair, he was bidding on French bulldogs that were battered and sick after eight or nine years of being bred. Not that they came cheap: Bulldogs are prized these days, and as long as "they've still got a couple of litters left," someone was going to bid them up, Eden says.

The auction was held in a hangar-size warehouse in the blink-and-you've-missed-it town of Wheaton, Missouri. HSUS's Goodwin and I had flown in that weekend to watch several hundred people buy and sell breed stock to one another. Everyone was white, and almost everyone middle-aged. The mood in the room was church-fair festive; the breeders chatted convivially when not engaged in the bidding. One by one, some 300 dogs were placed on a table and sold. Their crates were stacked in an uncooled space in the walled-off half of the warehouse. It was stifling back there, and the air unbreathable from the waste of unwell dogs. "I saw dogs with stomach hernias and bleeding rectums and ears rotted off from hematomas," says Eden. Each time the door opened and a dog was brought in, the stench would funnel in with her. It mixed with the aroma of pork-belly tacos that were sold in heaping bowls at the concession stand behind us and were lapped up hungrily by the crowd. From a dais, two auctioneers called out bids while touting the dogs' untapped value. "She's a 2012 model and showin' a belly; she'll work hard for you!" (One of those auctioneers - Southwest's owner, Bob Hughes - defended the dogs' health over the phone to me, saying they had "imperfections like all of us do," but had been cross-checked by Hughes' vet before he sold them. "If [the vet] thinks they're at risk of suffering, we return them to their breeder or give them to rescue groups, free of charge," he said. But neither Eden nor any of his rescue group peers have ever seen or heard of Hughes adopting out dogs. "He's certainly never offered one to me," says Eden.)

On that day, at least, the issue was moot: all 300 dogs were sold. "I spent everything I brought there - $60,000 - and cleared three tables of dogs," says Eden, who raises all his buy money from small donations online. Twenty-one dogs went off in his van for the six-hour ride back to Texas. Once back at his boarding barn, they were swiftly seen by vets; many required costly operations. All the money for those surgeries - $1,000 to fix a hernia; a couple of thousand dollars for sedation and an MRI - came from Lone Star's donors. Eden has a waiting list for every rescue, a pool of people ready to roll up their sleeves for the complex needs these dogs present. "Some of 'em have to be taught to walk and climb stairs - they've never taken a full stride in those cages," says Eden. Asked why he seeks out the oldest, saddest dogs, he says, "If they don't deserve happy endings, who does?"

But Eden, for all his fervor, is derided by groups like HSUS. They accuse outfits like his - I counted at least three at the auction - of putting blood money into the pockets of the breeders. "That 60 grand he spent will buy a lot of new breed stock - for every dog he saved, dozens will suffer," groused Goodwin. Eden concedes the point, but won't back up an inch. "Look at the faces of these dogs," he says. "How can you deny them?"

Other grassroots groups use different tactics to bring down puppy mills. Some take to social media, building Facebook pages around graphic photos and pleas to spread the word. Then there are street warriors who picket pet stores, some with stunning results. Mindi Callison, a young schoolteacher in Ames, Iowa, formed Bailing Out Benji six years ago, and has recruited countless students from Iowa State to protest with her. Callison tells me about a local pet-shop owner who "used to have dozens of pups in his window; now he sells two or three a month." At first, she got flamed by furious millers. Then, to her shock, a few quietly reached out, asking if she'd take their used-up dogs. "This year alone, they've given up almost 100, and we don't pay a cent," says Callison. They call her, she says, not out of charity, but to avoid the cost of euthanization.

* * *

For better than 50 years, the state of Missouri has been the Bermuda Triangle of dogs. The perfect landscape for breeders - small farms that weren't bought by agri-giants; vast swaths of plains between its two major cities; and a live-and-let-live ethos in flyspeck towns - it has long been the number-one state in the nation for licensed operators. It also has one of America's strictest dog laws: the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act of 2011. Enacted after a bitter, and expensive, battle over a ballot measure called Prop B, the law shines a light on the intractable problem of policing puppy-millers. When the act came in, it improved the lot of breed dogs - tripling their crate size, granting them annual vet checks, and providing money for stricter enforcement by state agents. Its rules have driven hundreds of commercial breeders out of business. There were 1,414 in 2010; now, there are 844.

With no movement in Washington to toughen federal rules, the law suggested a possible path forward: to mount ballot drives in farm states. But just five years after it took effect, Missouri's dog law seems to have lost its teeth. Prosecutions have fallen, the number of licenses pulled has tanked and egregious breeders are breaking the rules and paying little or nothing in fines. A spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Agriculture insists that "the number of [disciplinary] referrals has decreased because the majority of breeders have fallen under compliance," but the state predominates the HSUS Horrible Hundred list. In 2016, almost a third of the kennels that made the list were located in Missouri.

Six months ago, Kristin Akin bought a goldendoodle from a notorious puppy mill called Cornerstone Farms. Akin is a St. Louis mom who'd lost two small children to a rare immune disorder eight months apart. Last June, she went online to find a puppy companion for her young dog. She came across a website that sold pups from Cornerstone; it purported to be a local and loving kennel that bred show dogs and kept high standards. Akin asked about a puppy depicted wearing a pink bow. She was told, via text, to make a deposit. "It was a total impulse buy - I offered to drive right over," says Akin. "They texted, 'No, we're coming up your way tomorrow.' " The next morning, she sat in a mall parking lot; a filthy brown conversion van pulled up alongside her. A door slid open, but instead of a four-month pup, out came a cowering, full-grown dog that wouldn't look up when Akin stroked her.

Stunned, Akin took the dog home for a bath. Her legs were covered with scabs and both ears were badly infected; she had explosive diarrhea for a week. Akin kept the dog, filed a complaint with the state, and went public with her story about the breeder, Debra Ritter. "We found 11 straight years of state violations, including a bunch that were issued just before we drove out there - but zero fines paid to the [Missouri] Department of Ag," says Chris Hayes, a Fox reporter who interviewed Ritter and aired two stories in St. Louis. Ritter, in a rambling phone chat in which she name-checks the Lord and cites him for her decision to adopt 22 kids, some with special needs, denies to me that she sold sick dogs, just the "occasional" puppy with worms. She explains that she and her husband had quit jobs to become breeders so they could stay home with their kids who were chronically ill. "These animal-rights crazies say we abuse our dogs - but I don't see them adopting kids," she says.

As for the violations, those were "nuisance charges" that she resolved before the inspector drove away, she says. "We Ritters aren't perfect, but I have a great reputation for never cheating customers or causing vet bills." Not according to Yelp, which is littered with posts from people who bought her sick pups, or the Horrible Hundred list, where Cornerstone Farms made the 2015 edition. Meanwhile, the website is still posting photos of the "puppy" Ritter sold to Akin. "I had two friends contact her by text," says Akin. "They were told she was available."

What sets Ritter apart isn't her brazen conduct or a trail of heartsick buyers; the difference between her and most online sellers is you can actually find her on a map. "Websites give no clue about where a breeder's based - a lot of the time, you can't even get their name," says the HSUS's Summers. They hide behind sites like puppyspot.com, a huge Web broker that sells many breeders' dogs out of its call-center office in Florida. In 2011, a lawsuit filed in part by HSUS claimed that the company (which was then called purebredbreeders.com) used roughly 800 domain names to lure buyers into thinking they were purchasing puppies "from quality, responsible breeders." Instead, "we found puppy-millers with USDA violations," says Kimberly Ockene, an attorney for HSUS. A Florida judge dismissed it as a jointly filed suit, and a subsequent ruling forced the buyers of sick dogs to either re-file individually or drop the matter. Still, says Ockene, "we've had success in some cases. Litigation can be [an] effective tool for combating the puppy-mill problem." (A representative from puppyspot.com declined to participate in the reporting for this story.)

In short, online dog sales is the perfect crime. Courts don't care about out-of-state victims, and the feds don't even fine breeders, much less arrest them, for selling sick pups on bogus sites. Any amateur can do this out of his or her basement and make good, steady money for years. A prime example: Patricia Yates, the miller in North Carolina whose dogs were seized in the Cabarrus County raid. With no license or bona fides from a purebred club, she'd supported herself for years on the profits from her kennel. She might have gone on indefinitely were it not for Lt. Taylor, the Cabarrus County cop who brought her down. "Unfortunately, the laws aren't what they could be in this state, so all we could charge were misdemeanors," says Taylor. (Yates' attorney, Benjamin Goff, says he is weighing "a plea deal that involves no jail time for my client.") "But our target," Taylor says, "is that she never has animals again, and pays back every dime the Humane Society spent to treat those dogs and find them homes."

The HSUS expects to spend at least $100,000 on the raid, most of it for medical costs. That's actually on the low end for post-raid outlays. Yates yielded custody of her stock to HSUS, which allowed it to quickly disperse the dogs to animal-adoption groups around the state. "There are cases where we have to hold the dogs for months because they're bargaining chips for the miller - they trade them in exchange for dropped charges," says Goodwin. There's the occasional fine and suspended sentence; in rare cases, someone goes to jail. "These people should be in prison, but that won't end the problem," he says. "The only way you end it is choke its blood supply: Stop buying purebred dogs, and adopt one instead." The website Petfinder.com, a network of rescue groups, posts tens of thousands of dogs for adoption, many of them rescued pure breeds. There, you can find any breed you like - or would buy in a store that sells dogs. The difference, says Goodwin, "is these dogs are healthy," and won't cost you thousands in vet bills.

Of the 105 dogs relinquished by Yates, all but two survived. Pollo, the tiny poodle, succumbed to a stroke just a month into his new lease on life. "I hand-fed him meals and wrapped him in a blanket, but he'd been through too much," says Brenda Tortoreo, a receptionist at the Cabarrus Animal Hospital, who'd adopted him and renamed him Kip. Tortoreo, who has a pair of older dogs, adopted a second poodle from the raid. Bebe is a couple of years younger than Kip, but no less rabid for affection. For the first two weeks, she wouldn't leave the bedroom except in her owner's arms. Now, she gobbles up the other dogs' breakfasts and steals their small stuffed toys. Dragging them to her daybed, she nuzzles and turns them like the puppies she's birthed and nursed. "We love her to pieces, but cry for Kip a lot," says Tortoreo. "I'm so sad I didn't save him years ago. He got to feel some kindness for those few short weeks. I just hope, wherever he is now, he'll forgive us."
Editor's Note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated that advocates had successfully urged Petco, among other companies, to stop selling dogs for profit. In fact, Petco has never sold dogs for profit in its 51 year history. The online version of the story has been edited to reflect the correction.
* * *
UPDATED: A response from the president of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council:
In his January 3 article "The Dog Factory: Inside the Sickening World of Puppy Mills," Paul Solotaroff quotes John Goodwin of the Humane Society of the United States as saying that puppies sold in pet stores are "raised in puppy-mill evil." Additionally, Solotaroff claims the dogs collected in the raid he profiled "would have been sold in pet stores."

These claims are simply untrue. According to the federal Animal Welfare Act, pet stores can only sell dogs sourced from USDA-licensed breeders, or from breeders with four or fewer breeding females. Any pet store purchasing a dog from the illegal breeder in Mr. Solotaroff's story would be violating federal law.

We in the legitimate pet trade don't just care about animals; we care for them every day. We are horrified by the inhumane treatment of dogs at illegal, unregulated breeding operations.

It is disappointing that Mr. Solotaroff's article presented illegal and unethical activities as representative of the legitimate pet trade. We are committed to working with regulators and law enforcement to hold illegal breeders accountable and to put them out of business.

Sincerely,

Mike Bober

President & CEO

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
A response from the writer, Paul Solotaroff:
The Animal Welfare Act only regulates breeders and brokers, not the stores that buy from them. The owners of those stores can buy from anyone they like, so long as there's no local law against buying puppies from unlicensed dealers. The fact is, stores do sell dogs from "illegal dealers." To name one current example, the USDA has cited an Ohio broker licensed to sell to pet stores, who bought dozens of puppies from three different unlicensed breeders.

You speak of working with regulators to hold "illegal breeders accountable." But as USDA citations show, it's often licensed breeders who harm and neglect dogs. No need to send your staff out to beat the bushes: just refer them to the HSUS Horrible Hundred List. There, they'll find dozens of repeat offenders, "ethical" breeders with sick pups and injured and exploited breed dogs, as documented by the feds, not animal activists.

* * *
How to Help the Dogs
Solving the puppy-mill problem will be an expensive and long-term struggle. Spreading consumer awareness of the conditions in the mills is only half the battle - the other half is bringing sustained political pressure on the stores and websites that sell pups. Whether it's passing ordinances to ban the sale of pet-shop dogs, staging puppy mill raids, or pushing to toughen the national dog law, the efforts of animal-welfare groups are the best hope for dogs. Readers who wish to support their efforts can do so at the websites listed below.
The Humane Society of the United States
Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS)
Bailing Out Benji

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dog Factory: Inside the Sickening World of Puppy Mills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The house on Hilton Lake Road was unremarkable, a brick one-story with an under-watered lawn and a scrimshaw of patchy shrubs. It was flanked by bigger and smarter homes on a two-lane strip in Cabarrus County, 25 miles north of Charlotte, North Carolina, but nothing about it suggested to passersby that inconceivable cruelty lived at this address.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Puppy mills are a well-kept secret of the pet-trade industry. They supply animals to pet stores and purebred enthusiasts without any concern for the millions of animals who will die in animal shelters as a result. It's standard practice for puppy mills to keep animals in cramped, crude, and filthy conditions without proper veterinary care or socialization.

Puppy-mill kennels can consist of anything from small cages made of wood and wire mesh to tractor-trailer cabs or simply chains attached to trees, where mother dogs and puppies spend every day outdoors in the same small patch of dirt in all types of weather.

Female dogs are bred over and over until they can no longer produce puppies-at which point they are auctioned off or killed. Mothers and their litters often suffer from malnutrition, exposure, and a lack of adequate veterinary care.

Undercover investigations of puppy mills have revealed that dogs often had no bedding or protection from the cold or heat and no regular veterinary care even when they were ill. Health conditions such as crusty, oozing eyes, raging ear infections, mange that turned their skin into a mass of red scabs, and abscessed feet from the unforgiving wire floors all were ignored or inadequately treated. Investigators have observed dogs circling frantically in their small cages and pacing ceaselessly back and forth, oblivious to anything around them-their only way of coping with despair.

Since puppy mills breed dogs for quantity, not quality, genetic defects are rampant. These can include physical problems that require costly veterinary treatment as well as personality disorders that often frustrate guardians into abandoning their dogs.

With millions of unwanted dogs and cats (including purebreds) dying every year in animal shelters, there is simply no reason for animals to be bred and sold for the pet-shop trade. Without these stores, the financial incentive for puppy mills would disappear, and the suffering of these dogs would end.

You can help. It's as easy as ABC- Animal Birth Control. Always have your animal companions spayed or neutered and never buy from a breeder or pet shop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Puppy mills are a well-kept secret of the pet-trade industry. They supply animals to pet stores and purebred enthusiasts without any concern for the millions of animals who will die in animal shelters as a result. It's standard practice for puppy mills to keep animals in cramped, crude, and filthy conditions without proper veterinary care or socialization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The commercial puppy industry keeps dogs captive in cruel conditions just so they can keep making puppies. It's time for dog lovers to fight back. Watch the video and sign up to learn how you can help make a difference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Choosing to bring a new canine companion into your life is an exciting but involved decision-making process, especially when deciding where to get one. You might have concerns about "puppy mills" or "backyard breeders," and want to know how to steer clear of them. Perhaps you don't even know what these are and need more information.

As you begin your research, here are some things to consider:

Puppy mills

Puppy mills are commercial breeding facilities that mass-produce dogs (and cats in cat mills) for sale through pet stores, or directly to consumers through classified ads or the Internet. Roughly 90 percent of puppies in pet stores come from puppy mills. Many retailers who buy animals from such facilities take the wholesaler's word that the animals are happy and healthy without seeing for themselves.

In most states, these commercial breeding kennels can legally keep hundreds of dogs in cages their entire lives, for the sole purpose of continuously churning out puppies. The animals produced range from purebreds to any number of the latest "designer" mixed breeds. Cat breeding occurs under similar conditions to supply pet stores with kittens.
Animals in puppy mills are treated like cash crops

They are confined to squalid, overcrowded cages with minimal shelter from extreme weather and no choice but to sit and sleep in their own excrement.

Animals suffer from malnutrition or starvation due to inadequate or unsanitary food and water.

Sick or dying animals receive little or no veterinary care.

Adult animals are continuously bred until they can no longer produce, then destroyed or discarded.

Kittens and puppies are taken from their mothers at such an early age; many suffer from serious behavior problems.

Backyard breeders

Backyard breeders are also motivated by profit. Ads from these unscrupulous breeders fill the classifieds. Backyard breeders may appear to be the nice neighbor next door-in fact, even seemingly good-intentioned breeders may treat their breeding pairs as family pets. However, continuously breeding animals for years to produce litters for a profit still jeopardizes the animals' welfare.

Some backyard breeders may only breed their family dog once in awhile, but they often are not knowledgeable on how to breed responsibly, such as screening for genetic defects. Responsible, proper breeding entails much more than simply putting two dogs together.

Look for these red flags:

The seller has many types of purebreds or "designer" hybrid breeds being sold at less than six weeks old.

Breeders who are reluctant to show potential customers the entire premises on which animals are being bred and kept.

Breeders who don't ask a lot of questions of potential buyers.

No guarantees-responsible breeders make a commitment to take back the pet at anytime during the animal's life, no matter the reason.

Because puppy mills and backyard breeders choose profit over animal welfare, their animals typically do not receive proper veterinary care. Animals may seem healthy at first but later show issues like congenital eye and hip defects, parasites or even the deadly Parvovirus.

Taking homes away

When puppy mills and backyard breeders flood the market with animals, they reduce homes available for animals from reputable establishments, shelters and rescue groups. Every year, more than 150,000 cats and dogs enter shelters in Washington State-6 to 8 million animals enter shelters nationwide. Sadly, only about 15 percent of people with pets in the U.S. adopted them from a shelter or rescue group, leaving so many deserving pets left behind.

Help stop the suffering by taking these steps:

1. Be a responsible, informed consumer-if you do buy from a breeder, go to a reputable one who:

Will show you where the dogs spend their time and introduces you to the puppy's parents.

Explains the puppy's medical history, including vaccines, and gives you their veterinarian's contact info.

Doesn't have puppies available year-round, yet may keep a waiting list for interested people.

Asks about your family's lifestyle, why you want a dog, and your care and training plans for the puppy.

Doesn't use pressure sales tactics.

2. Adopt from a shelter or breed-specific rescue group near you-typically 25% of the animals in shelters are purebred.

3. Support laws that protect animals from puppy mill cruelty-tell your elected officials you support laws which cap the number of animals a person can own and breed, and establish care standards for exercise, housing, access to food and water and regular veterinary care.

4. Urge your local pet store to support shelters-animals are often used to draw consumers into stores. Encourage pet stores to promote shelter animals for adoption instead of replenishing their supply through questionable sources.

5. Donate pet supplies to local shelters to help those rescued from the puppy mills and many other homeless animals in need.

6. Learn more at:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Buyer Beware: The Problem with Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeders - PAWS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Choosing to bring a new canine companion into your life is an exciting but involved decision-making process, especially when deciding where to get one. You might have concerns about "puppy mills" or "backyard breeders," and want to know how to steer clear of them. Perhaps you don't even know what these are and need more [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are puppy mills and why are they bad? Get the facts on these dog breeding facilities where animal welfare is ignored to maximize profits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hemmersbach Rhino Force Anti-Poaching - Hemmersbach Rhino Force

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We undertake three distinct anti-poaching projects to protect rhinos from extinction. Our Anti-poaching rangers and Cryovault ensures the future of African rhinos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year millions of exotic animals are sold around the world, destined for people's basements and backyards. The term "exotic" doesn't have a set definition, but it usually refers to a wild animal or one that's more unusual than your standard dog or cat. The booming business in exotic pets is known as the exotic pet trade.

Some of this trade is legal, but many times animals are captured from the wild illegally to supply demand for exotic pets. The illicit sales of live animals comprises a major part of the overall illegal wildlife trade, a multibillion-dollar global black market.

Booming demand

People have kept exotic pets throughout history, but demand for unique creatures has exploded in recent years. Much of this can be attributed to the popularity of e-commerce and social media websites, which have provided a way for people to easily advertise the sale of live animals. They've also popularized exotic animals by providing a place where people can show them off. A flurry of videos posted to YouTube in 2015 of slow lorises eating rice balls in captivity, for example, went viral and led to poaching of the wide-eyed primates for the pet trade.

Where exotic pets come from

Some exotic pets are bred in captivity. Conservationists often see captive breeding as a way to save wild animals from poaching for the pet trade, and many countries allow for the export of captive-bred animals as long as the proper legal documents are obtained.

But countless animals are taken from the wild before they're sold as pets. After an animal is plucked from the wild-often in violation of the law-it might be used in a breeding operation, sold locally, smuggled out of the country, or intentionally mislabeled as captive-bred and exported legally. Researchers have discovered that people are "laundering" Indian star tortoises from Jordan, red-eyed tree frogs from Nicaragua, and many other species.

The effects of the exotic pet trade

Rampant poaching for the exotic pet trade is devastating animal populations worldwide. It has decimated numbers of Madagascar's prized radiated tortoises, for example, and led to the endangered status of African gray parrots, birds known for their impressive vocal abilities. What's more, many animals suffer during capture and transport -and even if they do end up at their final destination alive, they are often distressed-unable to eat, move, and behave as they would in the wild.

The exotic pet business also affects humans and animals not involved in the trade. Wild animals have the potential to attack their owners or spread disease, such as ebola and SARS. An outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease (END), which resulted in the deaths of 12 million birds in the U.S. in the 1970s, was traced to parrots smuggled from South America.

Efforts to combat the trade

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international agreement signed by 183 governments, has voted to ban or limit trade in many animal species sought after as pets. Many countries also prohibit domestic sales or possession of certain animals. In the U.S., laws regulating the ownership of exotic pets vary from state to state.

In addition, nonprofits around the world have been trying to shut down the exotic pet trade by educating people about the harms of owning these animals. Research conducted by the World Animal Protection, a U.K.-based nonprofit, found that the best way to deter people from owning an exotic animal is to emphasize the risks they pose to humans, not the animals themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of animals are taken from their habitats to live in homes as pets, feeding a thriving illegal trade in wildlife.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years the impact of IWT on species has reached unprecedented levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In September 2020, federal authorities in the United States busted a wildlife trafficking ring that had smuggled more than 10,000 pounds of shark fins into the country to be exported to Hong Kong. Just seven months earlier, officials seized USD 1 million worth of fins in Miami, Florida (Sharpless, 2020).

In June 2020, poachers killed at least six elephants in a single day in Ethiopia, the largest such slaughter in memory in the East African nation. The poachers immediately removed the elephants' tusks, which officials suspected are being slipped out of the country to China and Southeast Asia (Burke, 2020).

In 2019, an estimated 195,000 pangolins (the only mammals with scales) were trafficked for their scales alone. Pangolins are in high demand in countries like China and Viet Nam. Their meat is considered a delicacy and pangolin scales are used in traditional medicine and folk remedies (WWF, 2020). Eight pangolin species, according to the latest International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List reassessments, are threatened with extinction due to mostly illegal trafficking (Challender et al., 2019).

Between August 2014 and February 2015, eight mail shipments from Bolivia to China containing 186 jaguar teeth-translating into the poaching of at least 93 jaguars-were intercepted by the Bolivian authorities (Nuñez and Aliaga, 2017, p.51). Jaguar teeth are used in Asia for jewelry and medicinal purposes.

These are just a few examples of the illegal wildlife trade that has become one of the most pressing threats facing many endangered and threatened species. Fueled by an insatiable demand for consumption, status, and traditional medicine, the value of illegal wildlife trade has been estimated at between USD 7 and USD 23 billion per year, making wildlife crime one of the world's most lucrative illegal businesses, often run by sophisticated, international, and well-organized criminal networks seeking to exploit the high rewards and low risks of the trade (Global Environment Facility, 2020).

There are complex illicit trafficking structures that facilitate the killing, transport and sale of prized species, such as pangolins, rhino and elephants. Some traffickers are wealthy people with political connections that facilitate the poaching and illegal trade. Those connections often include foreign development workers-individuals uniquely positioned to support trafficking given their connections in countries where high-value species are found, their access to remote areas, and their political clout to evade border controls. Across a trafficking chain there could be anywhere from five to more than fifteen people involved (UNODC, 2020, pp. 68-69).

Every year, more species are targeted and added to the list of highly illegally traded species. Between 1999 and 2018 there were nearly 180,000 seizures from 149 countries representing almost 6,000 species (UNODC, 2020, pp. 32).

No country is untouched by these crimes, which impact biodiversity, human health, national security, and socio-economic development, while enriching organized criminal groups. The illegal trade in wildlife, which does not go through proper sanitary controls, can potentially lead to the spread of zoonoses-diseases transmitted from animals to humans, such as SARS-CoV-2 that caused the COVID-19 pandemic (UNODC, 2020, p. 19).

The History of Regulating International Wildlife Trade

Regulation of international wildlife trade began with a focus on African species and the signing in 1900 of the "Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of various species of wild animals in Africa, which are useful to Man or inoffensive" (British Parliamentary Papers, 1900). While hailed as the first international treaty on nature conservation, it never came into force.

Thirty-three years later, the "Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State" was adopted and came into force in 1936. Known as the "London Convention," its primary aim was to protect African species by prohibiting hunting, killing, and capture, and by regulating internal and international trade in their trophies (Cioc, 2009).

The London Convention eventually paved the way to a discussion on institutionalizing conservation, which led to the creation of IUCN in 1948. At its seventh General Assembly in 1960, IUCN delegates expressed concern over the threatened status of many species and urged governments to restrict imports of animals according to regulations of exporting countries. This brought to the fore the realization that countries often did not know other countries' regulations. To resolve this problem, in 1963 the IUCN General Assembly called for the creation of a new treaty to regulate international trade in wildlife (McNeely, 2003).

It took another eight years, but in 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment recommended a "conference be convened as soon as possible... to prepare and adopt a convention on export, import and transit of certain species of wild animals and plants" (US Department of State, 1973, p. 11). A final draft forwarded by the United States served as the basis for the negotiations and in 1973 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was born.

What is CITES?

CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between governments. It aims to ensure international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Efforts to regulate this trade require international cooperation to safeguard certain species from over-exploitation. CITES was conceived in the spirit of such cooperation. Today, it gives varying degrees of protection to more than 37,000 species of animals and plants, whether they are traded as live specimens, fur coats, or dried herbs. (CITES, 2018)

CITES as Key to Countering the Surging Illegal Wildlife Trade

CITES regulates both legal and illegal trade in wild species of flora and fauna. There is illegal trade associated with both prohibited and regulated trade. However, CITES was not intended to be a crime-related convention. It does not require countries to make illegal wildlife trade a criminal offence (Scanlon, 2019).

During his tenure as Secretary-General of CITES (2010-2018), John Scanlon sought to overcome the limitations of the Convention in countering illegal wildlife trade by embedding CITES into the work programmes of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization), and the World Customs Organization (WCO). These organizations are better positioned to enforce action against wildlife crime. The creation of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) in 2010 further enhanced the international cooperation needed to support national efforts to strengthen the enforcement response (UNODC, 2020).

The sixteenth meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP16), held in 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand, highlighted the threat of illegal wildlife trade. Amid findings that "illegal trade in wildlife is the fourth largest illegal global trade, behind only narcotics, counterfeiting, and human trafficking" (Benson, et al., 2013), delegates debated impacts of legal domestic trade on illegal markets, since many national ivory markets were still open at that time. Attendees also considered the role of international trade bans, and to what extent they fuel illegal wildlife trade. At a Ministerial Roundtable on Combating Transnational Organized Wildlife and Forest Crime, Ministers responded to these findings by recognizing that transnational organized wildlife and forest crime has vast and far-reaching impacts on "species, livelihoods, economies, regional security, and in some instances human lives" (CITES, 2013).

The same year, the United Nations Group of Friends on Poaching and Illicit Wildlife Trafficking, co-chaired by Gabon and Germany, promoted the first UN General Assembly resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. Resolution 69/314, adopted in July 2015, with three follow-up resolutions, recognizes CITES as the primary legal framework for regulating international trade in species of wild animals and plants and combating illicit trafficking in wildlife. Resolution 73/343 in 2019 further underscores the importance of national level action and commitment to effectively address illegal wildlife trade, urging Member States to "take decisive steps at the national level to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illegal trade in wildlife, on the supply, transit, and demand sides, including by strengthening their legislation and regulations necessary for the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and appropriate punishment of such illegal trade, as well as by strengthening enforcement and criminal justice responses."

2014: A Landmark Year for Confronting Illegal Wildlife Trade

In June 2014, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) dedicated much of its first UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) to addressing illegal wildlife trade. In the ministerial outcome document, delegates urged countries to prevent, combat, and eradicate illegal trade in wildlife. However, some stressed that, notwithstanding the value of a strong message from environment ministers on the issue, UNEP would be best placed to support ongoing initiatives, rather than launching a new platform.

In 2020, UNEP launched the Wild for Life campaign in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme, UNODC, and CITES. With illegal wildlife trade often spreading through social media platforms (Williams 2015), this campaign enlists the support of high-profile social media influencers to promote the urgency and importance of combatting wildlife trafficking (UNEP, 2020).

In 2014, the UK government launched a series of high-level conferences on illegal wildlife trade, first in London, followed by events in Botswana, Viet Nam, and again in London. The 2018 Conference especially sought to strengthen international partnerships and recognize that illegal wildlife trade is serious organised crime. The conference highlighted the need to increase collaboration across continents to tackle trafficking-associated illicit financial flows and corruption, help frontline countries coordinate enforcement efforts across trade routes, and improve understanding of the links to wider security challenges.

Has CITES Been Effective in Countering Illegal Wildlife Trade?

John Sellar, former CITES Chief of Enforcement, argues "CITES, its CoPs and its Standing Committee, are being left holding the ball far too much when it comes to addressing the thorny subject of implementation and compliance. ... not only is CITES a questionable forum to effectively discuss crime-related matters, many of those matters are wholly domestic in nature, a realm which the drafters of the Convention believed to be outside its scope" (Sellar, 2018).

It is true the scope of CITES is limited. It captures only international trade-legal and illegal-and does not have oversight over domestic activities. However, CITES can use a temporary suspension of trade -a powerful economic sanction that prompts countries to enact measures to combat and reduce illegal trade, among other actions. However, CITES has no tools to punish the criminals who have already defied those countries' governments, which decreases its effectiveness.

CITES-supported partnerships have also led to increases in seizures, though much remains within the purview of individual countries. Partnerships with other international organizations more versed in police, customs, and crimes have generated greater pressure on countries to step up in addressing illegal wildlife trade. For example, several Middle Eastern countries were "peer-pressured" to adopt laws prohibiting the keeping of big cats as pets, although the illegal trade in cheetahs and other big cats continues.

Also, a number of countries singled out in the National Ivory Action Plans (a mechanism used by the Convention to strengthen their controls of the trade in ivory and ivory markets) closed their domestic ivory markets and tightened up enforcement to avoid being shamed by CITES and its parties.

However, there are increasing calls to develop a new convention to address illegal wildlife trade. Advocates note there are many non-CITES listed species that are illegally traded. They also say CITES is already too stretched, and "a comprehensive legally binding regime for tackling wildlife crime, within the framework of international criminal law rather than trade law, is beyond the scope of CITES" (Scanlon, 2019). Scanlon further notes many transnational crimes are fueled by corruption "both domestic and international in nature, and affect CITES-listed and non-listed species. Having no agreed definition of wildlife crime can present challenges for enforcement authorities."

Many transnational crimes are fueled by corruption "both domestic and international in nature, and affect CITES-listed and non-listed species. Having no agreed definition of wildlife crime can present challenges for enforcement authorities."

John Scanlon, CITES Secretary-General 2010-2018

The Newest Challenge: CITES in the Time of COVID-19

2020 brought with it the COVID-19 pandemic, which started as an animal virus (SARS-CoV-2) that spread to humans, possibly in a wet market in China where many legally and illegally traded species were found. As calls to shut down wildlife markets and the wildlife trade proliferated, new challenges emerged for CITES.

CITES's response has been that "Matters regarding zoonotic diseases are outside of CITES's mandate, and therefore the CITES Secretariat does not have the competence to make comments regarding the recent news on the possible links between human consumption of wild animals and COVID-19" (CITES, 2020). The Secretariat further stressed the detrimental impacts of illegal trade in wildlife.

There have been calls for CITES and its Parties to address the impact of COVID-19, ranging from amending the Convention text, making changes to existing resolutions or adopting new ones, and enhancing implementation of existing partnerships or establishing new ones. One such proposal is to amend the Convention to add a new Appendix IV that would include species considered to pose a threat to public or animal health (End Wildlife Crime, 2020).

Jonathan Kolby, National Geographic Explorer (2020), notes that "even if coronavirus emerged due to the illegal wildlife trade (for which no evidence has been provided), the legal wildlife trade is just as likely to cause the next pandemic (Kolby, 2020).

But what if restricting or even prohibiting the legal wildlife trade sends that trade underground, further fueling the volume of illegal wildlife trade?

Whether this will be addressed by CITES or a new treaty remains to be seen. What is certain is the threat of more pandemics looms large and is likely to impact conservation and efforts to curb illegal wildlife trade.

What's Next?

CITES, while not perfect, has evolved with the increasing challenges facing conservation, trade, and sustainable use of wild flora and fauna. It is the only convention that can address related illegal activities. It has also established partnerships and alliances with other intergovernmental bodies to increase its effectiveness-an important lesson for other environmental conventions seeking to deepen their impacts.

In a post-COVID world, countries need to consider whether to take a "precautionary, public health-based approach, by working to end all commercial trade in wildlife (particularly birds and mammals) for consumption, and to close all such commercial markets" (Lieberman, 2020), knowing this could increase the volume of illegal wildlife trade. On the other hand, there is the potential for fear of contracting zoonotic diseases to naturally dampen the appetite for wild products.

Debate over a new treaty started well before COVID. The question in 2019 was whether CITES should still be the main place to address both legal and illegal trade or whether a new treaty was warranted to consider "wildlife crime." But now it is not just about a new treaty to combat illegal wildlife trade, but a new treaty to address "One Health," the human, veterinary, and wildlife health issues and the relationship with wildlife trade.

A new treaty, whether focused on "One Health" or "Wildlife Crime," poses several challenges, including the mandate, funding, and coordination with CITES. And whether countries sign on to a new agreement that may contain even stronger and unpalatable compliance measures remains to be seen. In a world economy crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, there may be such willingness.

The first step, however, will be to consider if CITES can further adapt to better curb illegal wildlife trade and address the challenges brought by COVID-19. So before a new treaty is considered, countries are more likely to explore what CITES can offer in the meantime.

Works Cited

British Parliamentary Papers. (1900). Convention Designed to ensure the Conservation of Various Species of Wild Animals in Africa, which are useful to Man or Inoffensive. Cd. 101 56:825-837

Benson, C., et. al. (2013). Summary of the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: 3-14 March 2013. Earth Negotiations Bulletin. https://enb.iisd.org/vol21/enb2183e.html

Burke, J. (2020, June 2). Six elephants killed in one day by poachers in Ethiopia. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/02/six-elephants-killed-in-one-day-by-poachers-in-ethiopia

Cioc, M. (2009). The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World's Migratory Animals. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

CITES. (2013). Ministers come together in Bangkok to discuss the serious nature of transnational organized wildlife and forest crime. Press release. www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20130305_ministerial.php

CITES. (2018). What is CITES? https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php

CITES. (2020). CITES Secretariat's statement in relation to COVID-19. Press release. cites.org/eng/CITES_Secretariat_statement_in_relation_to_COVID19

Challender, D. O'Neill, H. & Wills, J. (2019). IUCN Red List update highlights need for concerted conservation action for pangolins. IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group. https://www.pangolinsg.org/2019/12/23/iucn-red-list-update-highlights-need-for-concerted-conservation-action-for-pangolins/

End Wildlife Crime. (2020). https://endwildlifecrime.org

Global Environment Facility (2020). Illegal Wildlife Trade. www.thegef.org/topics/illegal-wildlife-trade

Kolby, J. (2020, May 7). To prevent the next pandemic, it's the legal wildlife trade we should worry about. National Geographic. www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/05/to-prevent-next-pandemic-focus-on-legal-wildlife-trade/

Lieberman, S. (2020, May 22). CITES, the Treaty that Regulates Trade in International Wildlife, Is Not the Answer to Preventing Another Zoonotic Pandemic. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cites-the-treaty-that-regulates-trade-in-international-wildlife-is-not-the-answer-to-preventing-another-zoonotic-pandemic/

McNeely, J. (2003). A Brief History of CITES, CITES World, 30th Anniversary Special Edition. http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/news/world/30special.pdf

Nuñez, A., & Aliaga-Rosell, E. (2017). Jaguar fangs trafficking by Chinese in Bolivia. CAT News 65:51-52.

Scanlon, J. (2019). Do we need a wildlife crime convention? Planetary Press. https://www.theplanetarypress.com/2019/02/do-we-need-a-wildlife-crime-convention/

Sellar, J. (2018). The IWT 2018 London Conference - Call-to-action or Circus? https://annamiticus.com/2018/10/30/the-iwt-2018-london-conference-call-to-action-or-circus/

Sharpless, A. (2020, September 20). Florida facilitates illicit shark fin trade without federal fin ban. South Florida Sun Sentinal. www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-shark-fin-ban-20200921-ew33c4k2c5gl5bdxr4rrcybcsm-story.html

UNEP. (2020). New partnership aims to help put a stop to illegal wildlife trade. Press release. www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/new-partnership-aims-help-put-stop-illegal-wildlife-trade

UNODC. (2020) World Wildlife Crime Report 2020. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

US Department of State. (1973). World Wildlife Conferences - Efforts to Save Endangered Species. Washington, DC; US Department of State.

Williams, T. (2015, April 20). On the Internet, Illegal Trade in Endangered Wildlife Thrives. Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/on_the_internet_illegal_trade_in_endangered_wildlife_thrives

WWF. (2020). What is a Pangolin? www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-a-pangolin

In September 2020, federal authorities in the United States busted a wildlife trafficking ring that had smuggled more than 10,000 pounds of shark fins into the country to be exported to Hong Kong. Just seven months earlier, officials seized USD 1 million worth of fins in Miami, Florida (Sharpless, 2020).

In June 2020, poachers killed at least six elephants in a single day in Ethiopia, the largest such slaughter in memory in the East African nation. The poachers immediately removed the elephants' tusks, which officials suspected are being slipped out of the country to China and Southeast Asia (Burke, 2020).

In 2019, an estimated 195,000 pangolins (the only mammals with scales) were trafficked for their scales alone. Pangolins are in high demand in countries like China and Viet Nam. Their meat is considered a delicacy and pangolin scales are used in traditional medicine and folk remedies (WWF, 2020). Eight pangolin species, according to the latest International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List reassessments, are threatened with extinction due to mostly illegal trafficking (Challender et al., 2019).

Between August 2014 and February 2015, eight mail shipments from Bolivia to China containing 186 jaguar teeth-translating into the poaching of at least 93 jaguars-were intercepted by the Bolivian authorities (Nuñez and Aliaga, 2017, p.51). Jaguar teeth are used in Asia for jewelry and medicinal purposes.

These are just a few examples of the illegal wildlife trade that has become one of the most pressing threats facing many endangered and threatened species. Fueled by an insatiable demand for consumption, status, and traditional medicine, the value of illegal wildlife trade has been estimated at between USD 7 and USD 23 billion per year, making wildlife crime one of the world's most lucrative illegal businesses, often run by sophisticated, international, and well-organized criminal networks seeking to exploit the high rewards and low risks of the trade (Global Environment Facility, 2020).

There are complex illicit trafficking structures that facilitate the killing, transport and sale of prized species, such as pangolins, rhino and elephants. Some traffickers are wealthy people with political connections that facilitate the poaching and illegal trade. Those connections often include foreign development workers-individuals uniquely positioned to support trafficking given their connections in countries where high-value species are found, their access to remote areas, and their political clout to evade border controls. Across a trafficking chain there could be anywhere from five to more than fifteen people involved (UNODC, 2020, pp. 68-69).

Every year, more species are targeted and added to the list of highly illegally traded species. Between 1999 and 2018 there were nearly 180,000 seizures from 149 countries representing almost 6,000 species (UNODC, 2020, pp. 32).

No country is untouched by these crimes, which impact biodiversity, human health, national security, and socio-economic development, while enriching organized criminal groups. The illegal trade in wildlife, which does not go through proper sanitary controls, can potentially lead to the spread of zoonoses-diseases transmitted from animals to humans, such as SARS-CoV-2 that caused the COVID-19 pandemic (UNODC, 2020, p. 19).

The History of Regulating International Wildlife Trade

Regulation of international wildlife trade began with a focus on African species and the signing in 1900 of the "Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of various species of wild animals in Africa, which are useful to Man or inoffensive" (British Parliamentary Papers, 1900). While hailed as the first international treaty on nature conservation, it never came into force.

Thirty-three years later, the "Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State" was adopted and came into force in 1936. Known as the "London Convention," its primary aim was to protect African species by prohibiting hunting, killing, and capture, and by regulating internal and international trade in their trophies (Cioc, 2009).

The London Convention eventually paved the way to a discussion on institutionalizing conservation, which led to the creation of IUCN in 1948. At its seventh General Assembly in 1960, IUCN delegates expressed concern over the threatened status of many species and urged governments to restrict imports of animals according to regulations of exporting countries. This brought to the fore the realization that countries often did not know other countries' regulations. To resolve this problem, in 1963 the IUCN General Assembly called for the creation of a new treaty to regulate international trade in wildlife (McNeely, 2003).

It took another eight years, but in 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment recommended a "conference be convened as soon as possible... to prepare and adopt a convention on export, import and transit of certain species of wild animals and plants" (US Department of State, 1973, p. 11). A final draft forwarded by the United States served as the basis for the negotiations and in 1973 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was born.

What is CITES?

CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between governments. It aims to ensure international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Efforts to regulate this trade require international cooperation to safeguard certain species from over-exploitation. CITES was conceived in the spirit of such cooperation. Today, it gives varying degrees of protection to more than 37,000 species of animals and plants, whether they are traded as live specimens, fur coats, or dried herbs. (CITES, 2018)

CITES as Key to Countering the Surging Illegal Wildlife Trade

CITES regulates both legal and illegal trade in wild species of flora and fauna. There is illegal trade associated with both prohibited and regulated trade. However, CITES was not intended to be a crime-related convention. It does not require countries to make illegal wildlife trade a criminal offence (Scanlon, 2019).

During his tenure as Secretary-General of CITES (2010-2018), John Scanlon sought to overcome the limitations of the Convention in countering illegal wildlife trade by embedding CITES into the work programmes of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization), and the World Customs Organization (WCO). These organizations are better positioned to enforce action against wildlife crime. The creation of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) in 2010 further enhanced the international cooperation needed to support national efforts to strengthen the enforcement response (UNODC, 2020).

The sixteenth meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP16), held in 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand, highlighted the threat of illegal wildlife trade. Amid findings that "illegal trade in wildlife is the fourth largest illegal global trade, behind only narcotics, counterfeiting, and human trafficking" (Benson, et al., 2013), delegates debated impacts of legal domestic trade on illegal markets, since many national ivory markets were still open at that time. Attendees also considered the role of international trade bans, and to what extent they fuel illegal wildlife trade. At a Ministerial Roundtable on Combating Transnational Organized Wildlife and Forest Crime, Ministers responded to these findings by recognizing that transnational organized wildlife and forest crime has vast and far-reaching impacts on "species, livelihoods, economies, regional security, and in some instances human lives" (CITES, 2013).

The same year, the United Nations Group of Friends on Poaching and Illicit Wildlife Trafficking, co-chaired by Gabon and Germany, promoted the first UN General Assembly resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. Resolution 69/314, adopted in July 2015, with three follow-up resolutions, recognizes CITES as the primary legal framework for regulating international trade in species of wild animals and plants and combating illicit trafficking in wildlife. Resolution 73/343 in 2019 further underscores the importance of national level action and commitment to effectively address illegal wildlife trade, urging Member States to "take decisive steps at the national level to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illegal trade in wildlife, on the supply, transit, and demand sides, including by strengthening their legislation and regulations necessary for the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and appropriate punishment of such illegal trade, as well as by strengthening enforcement and criminal justice responses."

2014: A Landmark Year for Confronting Illegal Wildlife Trade

In June 2014, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) dedicated much of its first UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) to addressing illegal wildlife trade. In the ministerial outcome document, delegates urged countries to prevent, combat, and eradicate illegal trade in wildlife. However, some stressed that, notwithstanding the value of a strong message from environment ministers on the issue, UNEP would be best placed to support ongoing initiatives, rather than launching a new platform.

In 2020, UNEP launched the Wild for Life campaign in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme, UNODC, and CITES. With illegal wildlife trade often spreading through social media platforms (Williams 2015), this campaign enlists the support of high-profile social media influencers to promote the urgency and importance of combatting wildlife trafficking (UNEP, 2020).

In 2014, the UK government launched a series of high-level conferences on illegal wildlife trade, first in London, followed by events in Botswana, Viet Nam, and again in London. The 2018 Conference especially sought to strengthen international partnerships and recognize that illegal wildlife trade is serious organised crime. The conference highlighted the need to increase collaboration across continents to tackle trafficking-associated illicit financial flows and corruption, help frontline countries coordinate enforcement efforts across trade routes, and improve understanding of the links to wider security challenges.

Has CITES Been Effective in Countering Illegal Wildlife Trade?

John Sellar, former CITES Chief of Enforcement, argues "CITES, its CoPs and its Standing Committee, are being left holding the ball far too much when it comes to addressing the thorny subject of implementation and compliance. ... not only is CITES a questionable forum to effectively discuss crime-related matters, many of those matters are wholly domestic in nature, a realm which the drafters of the Convention believed to be outside its scope" (Sellar, 2018).

It is true the scope of CITES is limited. It captures only international trade-legal and illegal-and does not have oversight over domestic activities. However, CITES can use a temporary suspension of trade -a powerful economic sanction that prompts countries to enact measures to combat and reduce illegal trade, among other actions. However, CITES has no tools to punish the criminals who have already defied those countries' governments, which decreases its effectiveness.

CITES-supported partnerships have also led to increases in seizures, though much remains within the purview of individual countries. Partnerships with other international organizations more versed in police, customs, and crimes have generated greater pressure on countries to step up in addressing illegal wildlife trade. For example, several Middle Eastern countries were "peer-pressured" to adopt laws prohibiting the keeping of big cats as pets, although the illegal trade in cheetahs and other big cats continues.

Also, a number of countries singled out in the National Ivory Action Plans (a mechanism used by the Convention to strengthen their controls of the trade in ivory and ivory markets) closed their domestic ivory markets and tightened up enforcement to avoid being shamed by CITES and its parties.

However, there are increasing calls to develop a new convention to address illegal wildlife trade. Advocates note there are many non-CITES listed species that are illegally traded. They also say CITES is already too stretched, and "a comprehensive legally binding regime for tackling wildlife crime, within the framework of international criminal law rather than trade law, is beyond the scope of CITES" (Scanlon, 2019). Scanlon further notes many transnational crimes are fueled by corruption "both domestic and international in nature, and affect CITES-listed and non-listed species. Having no agreed definition of wildlife crime can present challenges for enforcement authorities."

Many transnational crimes are fueled by corruption "both domestic and international in nature, and affect CITES-listed and non-listed species. Having no agreed definition of wildlife crime can present challenges for enforcement authorities."

John Scanlon, CITES Secretary-General 2010-2018

The Newest Challenge: CITES in the Time of COVID-19

2020 brought with it the COVID-19 pandemic, which started as an animal virus (SARS-CoV-2) that spread to humans, possibly in a wet market in China where many legally and illegally traded species were found. As calls to shut down wildlife markets and the wildlife trade proliferated, new challenges emerged for CITES.

CITES's response has been that "Matters regarding zoonotic diseases are outside of CITES's mandate, and therefore the CITES Secretariat does not have the competence to make comments regarding the recent news on the possible links between human consumption of wild animals and COVID-19" (CITES, 2020). The Secretariat further stressed the detrimental impacts of illegal trade in wildlife.

There have been calls for CITES and its Parties to address the impact of COVID-19, ranging from amending the Convention text, making changes to existing resolutions or adopting new ones, and enhancing implementation of existing partnerships or establishing new ones. One such proposal is to amend the Convention to add a new Appendix IV that would include species considered to pose a threat to public or animal health (End Wildlife Crime, 2020).

Jonathan Kolby, National Geographic Explorer (2020), notes that "even if coronavirus emerged due to the illegal wildlife trade (for which no evidence has been provided), the legal wildlife trade is just as likely to cause the next pandemic (Kolby, 2020).

But what if restricting or even prohibiting the legal wildlife trade sends that trade underground, further fueling the volume of illegal wildlife trade?

Whether this will be addressed by CITES or a new treaty remains to be seen. What is certain is the threat of more pandemics looms large and is likely to impact conservation and efforts to curb illegal wildlife trade.

What's Next?

CITES, while not perfect, has evolved with the increasing challenges facing conservation, trade, and sustainable use of wild flora and fauna. It is the only convention that can address related illegal activities. It has also established partnerships and alliances with other intergovernmental bodies to increase its effectiveness-an important lesson for other environmental conventions seeking to deepen their impacts.

In a post-COVID world, countries need to consider whether to take a "precautionary, public health-based approach, by working to end all commercial trade in wildlife (particularly birds and mammals) for consumption, and to close all such commercial markets" (Lieberman, 2020), knowing this could increase the volume of illegal wildlife trade. On the other hand, there is the potential for fear of contracting zoonotic diseases to naturally dampen the appetite for wild products.

Debate over a new treaty started well before COVID. The question in 2019 was whether CITES should still be the main place to address both legal and illegal trade or whether a new treaty was warranted to consider "wildlife crime." But now it is not just about a new treaty to combat illegal wildlife trade, but a new treaty to address "One Health," the human, veterinary, and wildlife health issues and the relationship with wildlife trade.

A new treaty, whether focused on "One Health" or "Wildlife Crime," poses several challenges, including the mandate, funding, and coordination with CITES. And whether countries sign on to a new agreement that may contain even stronger and unpalatable compliance measures remains to be seen. In a world economy crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, there may be such willingness.

The first step, however, will be to consider if CITES can further adapt to better curb illegal wildlife trade and address the challenges brought by COVID-19. So before a new treaty is considered, countries are more likely to explore what CITES can offer in the meantime.

Works Cited

British Parliamentary Papers. (1900). Convention Designed to ensure the Conservation of Various Species of Wild Animals in Africa, which are useful to Man or Inoffensive. Cd. 101 56:825-837

Benson, C., et. al. (2013). Summary of the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: 3-14 March 2013. Earth Negotiations Bulletin. https://enb.iisd.org/vol21/enb2183e.html

Burke, J. (2020, June 2). Six elephants killed in one day by poachers in Ethiopia. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/02/six-elephants-killed-in-one-day-by-poachers-in-ethiopia

Cioc, M. (2009). The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World's Migratory Animals. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

CITES. (2013). Ministers come together in Bangkok to discuss the serious nature of transnational organized wildlife and forest crime. Press release. www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20130305_ministerial.php

CITES. (2018). What is CITES? https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php

CITES. (2020). CITES Secretariat's statement in relation to COVID-19. Press release. cites.org/eng/CITES_Secretariat_statement_in_relation_to_COVID19

Challender, D. O'Neill, H. & Wills, J. (2019). IUCN Red List update highlights need for concerted conservation action for pangolins. IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group. https://www.pangolinsg.org/2019/12/23/iucn-red-list-update-highlights-need-for-concerted-conservation-action-for-pangolins/

End Wildlife Crime. (2020). https://endwildlifecrime.org

Global Environment Facility (2020). Illegal Wildlife Trade. www.thegef.org/topics/illegal-wildlife-trade

Kolby, J. (2020, May 7). To prevent the next pandemic, it's the legal wildlife trade we should worry about. National Geographic. www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/05/to-prevent-next-pandemic-focus-on-legal-wildlife-trade/

Lieberman, S. (2020, May 22). CITES, the Treaty that Regulates Trade in International Wildlife, Is Not the Answer to Preventing Another Zoonotic Pandemic. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cites-the-treaty-that-regulates-trade-in-international-wildlife-is-not-the-answer-to-preventing-another-zoonotic-pandemic/

McNeely, J. (2003). A Brief History of CITES, CITES World, 30th Anniversary Special Edition. http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/news/world/30special.pdf

Nuñez, A., & Aliaga-Rosell, E. (2017). Jaguar fangs trafficking by Chinese in Bolivia. CAT News 65:51-52.

Scanlon, J. (2019). Do we need a wildlife crime convention? Planetary Press. https://www.theplanetarypress.com/2019/02/do-we-need-a-wildlife-crime-convention/

Sellar, J. (2018). The IWT 2018 London Conference - Call-to-action or Circus? https://annamiticus.com/2018/10/30/the-iwt-2018-london-conference-call-to-action-or-circus/

Sharpless, A. (2020, September 20). Florida facilitates illicit shark fin trade without federal fin ban. South Florida Sun Sentinal. www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-shark-fin-ban-20200921-ew33c4k2c5gl5bdxr4rrcybcsm-story.html

UNEP. (2020). New partnership aims to help put a stop to illegal wildlife trade. Press release. www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/new-partnership-aims-help-put-stop-illegal-wildlife-trade

UNODC. (2020) World Wildlife Crime Report 2020. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

US Department of State. (1973). World Wildlife Conferences - Efforts to Save Endangered Species. Washington, DC; US Department of State.

Williams, T. (2015, April 20). On the Internet, Illegal Trade in Endangered Wildlife Thrives. Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/on_the_internet_illegal_trade_in_endangered_wildlife_thrives

WWF. (2020). What is a Pangolin? www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-a-pangolin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolving War on Illegal Wildlife Trade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In September 2020, federal authorities in the United States busted a wildlife trafficking ring that had smuggled more than 10,000 pounds of shark fins into the country to be exported to Hong Kong. Just seven months earlier, officials seized USD 1 million worth of fins in Miami, Florida (Sharpless, 2020).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wildlife trade is big business, with wild plants, animals, and products made from them sold around the globe, legally and illegally. It’s also a leading cause of the planet’s accelerating biodiversity crisis and resultant ecosystem collapse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is wildlife trade?

Whenever people sell or exchange wild animal and plant resources, this is wildlife trade. It can involve live animals and plants or all kinds of wild animal and plant products. Wildlife trade is easiest to track when it is from one country to another because it must be checked, and often recorded, at Customs checkpoints.

Why do people trade wildlife?

People trade wildlife for cash or exchange it for other useful objects - for example, utensils in exchange for wild animal skins. Driving the trade is the end-consumer who has a need or desire for wildlife products, whether for food, construction or clothing.

For a more detailed list of the various uses of wildlife, visit the TRAFFIC website.

What is wildlife trade worth financially?

This is a difficult estimate to make. As a guideline, TRAFFIC has calculated that wildlife products worth about 160 US billion dollars were imported around the globe each year in the early 1990s. In addition to this, there is a large and profitable illegal wildlife trade, but because it is conducted covertly no-one can judge with any accuracy what this may be worth.

What is the scale of wildlife trade?

The trade involves hundreds of millions of wild plants and animals from tens of thousands of species. To provide a glimpse of the scale of wildlife trafficking, there are records of over 100 million tonnes of fish, 1.5 million live birds and 440,000 tonnes of medicinal plants in trade in just one year.

Why is wildlife trade a problem?

Wildlife trade is by no means always a problem and most wildlife trade is legal. However, it has the potential to be very damaging. Populations of species on earth declined by an average 40% between 1970 and 2000 - and the second-biggest direct threat to species survival, after habitat destruction, is wildlife trade.

Perhaps the most obvious problem associated with wildlife trade is that it can cause overexploitation to the point where the survival of a species hangs in the balance. Historically, such overexploitation has caused extinctions or severely threatened species and, as human populations have expanded, demand for wildlife has only increased.

Recent overexploitation of wildlife for trade has affected countless species. This has been well-publicized in the cases of tigers, rhinoceroses, elephants and others, but many other species are affected.

This overexploitation should concern us all...

...because it harms human livelihoods.

Wildlife is vital to the lives of a high proportion of the world's population, often the poorest. Some rural households depend on local wild animals for their meat protein and on local trees for fuel, and both wild animals and plants provide components of traditional medicines used by the majority of people in the world. While many people in developed countries are cushioned from any effects caused by a reduced supply of a particular household item, many people in the developing world depend entirely on the continued availability of local wildlife resources.

...because it harms the balance of nature.

In addition to the impact on human livelihoods caused by the over-harvesting of animals and plants is the harm caused by overexploitation of species to the living planet in a wider way. For example, overfishing does not only affect individual fishing communities and threaten certain fish species, but causes imbalances in the whole marine system. As human life depends on the existence of a functioning planet Earth, careful and thoughtful use of wildlife species and their habitats is required to avoid not only extinctions, but serious disturbances to the complex web of life.

Particular problems are associated with illegal wildlife trade, which is usually driven by a demand for rare, protected species which need to be smuggled and/or by a desire to avoid paying duties. In illegal wildlife trade, some species involved are highly endangered, conditions of transport for live animals are likely to be worse and wildlife is more likely to have been obtained in an environmentally damaging way. The existence of illegal trade is also worrying because it undermines countries' efforts to protect their natural resources.

Wildlife trade can also cause indirect harm through:

Introducing invasive species which then prey on, or compete with, native species. Invasive species are as big a threat to the balance of nature as the direct overexploitation by humans of some species. Many invasive species have been purposely introduced by wildlife traders; examples include the American Mink, the Red-eared Terrapin and countless plant species.

Find out more about invasive species

Incidental killing of non-target species, such as dolphins and seabirds, when they are caught in fishing gear. It is estimated that over a quarter of the global marine fisheries catch is incidental, unwanted, and discarded. Incidental killing of animals also happens on land when crude traps are set (for example, for musk deer or duikers). These cause damage and death to a variety of animals besides the intended ones.

Find out more about bycatch

Finally...while wildlife trade alone is a major threat to some species, it is important to remember that its impact is frequently made worse by habitat loss and other pressures.

WWF's range of expertise ensures that the threats to the environment from wildlife trade are tackled from an informed and global standpoint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unsustainable and illegal wildlife trade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unsustainable and illegal wildlife trade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world. The pain, distress and death experienced by the animals during scientific experiments have been a debating issue for a long time. Besides the major concern of ethics, there are few more disadvantages of animal experimentation like requirement of skilled manpower, time consuming protocols and high cost. Various alternatives to animal testing were proposed to overcome the drawbacks associated with animal experiments and avoid the unethical procedures. A strategy of 3 Rs (i.e. reduction, refinement and replacement) is being applied for laboratory use of animals. Different methods and alternative organisms are applied to implement this strategy. These methods provide an alternative means for the drug and chemical testing, up to some levels. A brief account of these alternatives and advantages associated is discussed in this review with examples. An integrated application of these approaches would give an insight into minimum use of animals in scientific experiments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alternatives to animal testing: A review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world. The pain, distress and death experienced by the animals during scientific experiments have been a debating issue for a long time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world is moving toward a future dominated by sophisticated methods that use human cells, tissues and organs, 3D printing, robotics, computer models and other technologies to create approaches to testing and research that do not rely on animals. These methods are often faster, less expensive and more effective than the outdated animal experiments currently in use. Despite this, millions of guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, cats, primates, mice, rats and other animals still suffer in laboratories worldwide.

We are honored to be able to work with scientists, companies and governments to speed up this shift and eliminate the use of animals in research and testing. And 2021 has brought tremendous progress on this front: This year, five additional U.S. states ended the sale of animal-tested cosmetics, and Mexico became the first country in North America to ban the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetics. Not only do these advances mark a real shift to a more humane future through the elimination of unneeded tests for cosmetic products-it shows that there is real momentum in the movement to end the suffering of animals in laboratories.

Here are other wins achieved for animals in laboratories, both here in the U.S. and across the world in 2021:

In April, Humane Society International partnered with Hollywood filmmakers and 14 celebrities to produce a powerful stop-motion animated short film, #SaveRalph, calling for an end to cosmetic animal testing around the world. The film introduces our new spokesbunny, Ralph (voiced by Oscar-winning director Taika Waititi), being interviewed as he goes through his daily routine as a "tester" in a toxicology lab. #SaveRalph quickly went viral on social media, garnering millions of views and close to five million petition signatures globally. Most importantly, Ralph helped us to advance animal testing bans around the world.

Spurred to action by the momentum of #SaveRalph, Mexico became the first country in North America to outlaw cosmetic testing on animals. Our federal bill in Chile has also advanced to the halfway mark with unanimous support in the Chamber of Deputies; the Canadian government has committed to introducing legislation to end cosmetic testing on animals by 2023 and phase out toxicity testing on animals by 2035; and our work with regulators and other stakeholders in Brazil, South Africa and Southeast Asia have laid the groundwork for more progress in the year ahead.

In the U.S., five states passed legislation ending the sale of animal-tested cosmetics: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia. This brings the total number of states with sales bans for animal-tested cosmetics to eight, including California, Nevada and Illinois. In Brazil, an eleventh state, Acre, has banned animal testing for cosmetics.

At the federal level in the U.S., the bipartisan Humane Cosmetics Act, legislation to prohibit the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetics, was introduced in the U.S. Congress in December and has already been cosponsored by five senators and 137 representatives. The legislation was also introduced with support from the Personal Care Products Council, the trade association representing 90% of the U.S. cosmetics industry, which comes to approximately 600 member companies. In addition, 53 companies endorsed the Humane Cosmetics Act, bringing the total number of companies independently supporting the measure to 369.

Our efforts for animals in labs essentially require collaboration. Our work with the Animal-Free Safety Assessment Collaboration has allowed us to support legislative reforms and develop a state-of-the-art training course in non-animal testing and assessment. This goes a long way in helping small and medium-sized industries, regulators and other key stakeholders to trust and embrace new, animal-free approaches and legal reforms.

The European Parliament voted for a resolution asking the European Commission to draw up an action plan to phase out all animal experiments in the European Union. Adopted by 667 votes to four with the active support of HSI, the resolution asks for increased funding to non-animal methods, more training for scientists and regulatory reforms to accelerate the transition from animal models to more advanced technologies.

In Korea, HSI secured introduction of the Act on the Promotion of Development, Dissemination and Use of Alternatives to Animal Testing Methods (PAAM Act), a cross-cutting vehicle to compel federal regulatory and research ministries to prioritize a full replacement of animal use in science and accelerate efforts and funding toward this end.

HSI organized an international, multi-stakeholder workshop dedicated to the deletion of the Abnormal Toxicity Test, an obsolete animal-based safety test for biological products. Over one hundred participants, representing manufacturers and regulatory authorities from the largest vaccine-producing countries and regions, met to share their respective experiences, discuss the lingering challenges and define steps and activities to secure a global elimination of the test. In addition, HSI's activities contributed to both Brazilian and South Korean stakeholders taking concrete steps toward the deletion of the test.

We released a paper outlining how dogs are used in experiments that are funded, conducted, required or encouraged by the U.S. government along with our recommendations of what federal agencies should do to move away from and eventually eliminate the use of dogs in research and testing. Nearly 300,000 people have signed our petition to end the use of dogs in experiments in the U.S. Virginia also passed a law to give dogs and cats a chance at adoption following their time in the laboratory. Similar legislation is currently being considered in Michigan and Massachusetts.

We presented and participated in a workshop of international stakeholders devoted to substantially reducing, if not eliminating, the use of the 90-day pesticide test on dogs, currently required by regulating agencies around the globe. During the 90-day test, dogs are exposed to various levels of pesticides and then killed.

We filed a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health in response to its 2019 decision to keep 44 chimps at a New Mexico laboratory instead of moving them to Chimp Haven sanctuary as required by law. Since 2019, nine of the 44 chimps in New Mexico have died waiting for their chance to leave the lab. We also worked with members of Congress to include language in the House appropriations bill urging NIH to move government-owned chimpanzees to sanctuary.

All the success we have achieved this year to end the use of animals in research, testing and education would not have been possible without our dedicated and passionate base of supporters who refuse to accept the status quo for how animals have been treated for decades. As we look ahead to 2022, we feel fueled in our fight to bring about an end to cosmetics animal testing around the globe and to win protections for all animals used in research and testing.
Kitty Block is President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Major progress for animals in laboratories in 2021 signals a more humane future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block The world is moving toward a future dominated by sophisticated methods that use human cells, tissues and organs, 3D printing, robotics, computer models and other technologies to create approaches to testing and research that do not rely on animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans. Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments against animal testing | Cruelty Free International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monitoring Editor: TOM L. BEAUCHAMP and DAVID DeGRAZIA, Guest Editors

Abstract:

Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Keywords: animal research, medical testing, human health, human ethics, drug development, animal ethics

Introduction

Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. Nonhuman animal (hereafter "animal") experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation's efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny.

Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based, animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value. I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals.

Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation

Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions.

The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results

Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals' physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories-such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments-can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety. Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection. Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated. Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals' stress markers. These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results. Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data.

A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared. Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit.

The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients. In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans. One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation.

Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don't naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials.

Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models' ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis. These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs. Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS. The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals. Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD and inflammatory diseases, respectively.

In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including "pivotal" animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests.

Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong-poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases.

Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics

Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond. These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date.

Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that "our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease." The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents' ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed.

Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the "humanized" or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals.

In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson's disease, both in function and in pathology. Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson's disease showed disappointing results in humans. The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women.

HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths. Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken-a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research.

In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006. Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks. None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans-a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong.

As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences, experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable-and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments

As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities, as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important-and often undetected-differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail.

"Appreciation of differences" and "caution" about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms-and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information. This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.

Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources. Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans. As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments. Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals.

An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests. As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000-10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials. Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans. Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline.

An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, "would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline" if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years. Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development.

A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection. Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, "Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?" These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development.

In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment. Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise.

The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization. Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation.

Conclusion

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering. In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible-as I have argued elsewhere-that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health. When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

Biography

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

2.Systematic reviews that have been conducted generally reveal the unreliability and poor predictability of animal tests. See Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197. See also Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387. See Godlee F. How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ 2014;348:g3719. See . And see

4. See . See also

5. See note 3, Mathews 2008. See also . See . See . And see

LaFollette H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:812-18. [ 6.For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see Google Scholar]

7.See . See Institute of Medicine. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. And see

Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ, LaPorte L, et al. Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models In Warrick JE, Kauleff AV, eds. Translational Neuroscience and Its Advancement of Animal Research Ethics. New York: Nova Science; 2009:71-82 [ 8.See . See Google Scholar] . See . And see

9.Suckow MA, Weisbroth SH, Franklin CL. The Laboratory Rat. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006, at 323.

10.Flow BL, Jaques JT. Effect of room arrangement and blood sample collection sequence on serum thyroid hormone and cortisol concentrations in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 1997;36:65-8.

11. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

12. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

13.Baldwin A, Bekoff M. Too stressed to work. New Scientist 2007;194:24.

14. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

16. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

17. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

18.See . See also O' Neil BJ, Kline JA, Burkhart K, Younger J. Research fundamentals: V. The use of laboratory animal models in research. Academic Emergency Medicine 1999;6:75-82.

20.See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69-74. See also .

23.See Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models: Why did human trials fail? The Scientist 2007;21:44. See also

25. See note 24, Wang et al. 2013.

27. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

28. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

29.See . See also, generally, Wilkins HM, Bouchard RJ, Lorenzon NM, Linseman DA. Poor correlation between drug efficacies in the mutant SOD1 mouse mode versus clinical trials of ALS necessitates the development of novel animal models for sporadic motor neuron disease. In: Costa A, Villalba E, eds. Horizons in Neuroscience Research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2011:1-39.

31.. See also note 30, Traynor et al. 2006.

32.See . See also . And see commentary by Farber: Farber N. Drug development in brain injury. International Brain Injury Association; available at http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/drug-development-in-traumatic-brain-injury/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

Palfreyman MG, Charles V, Blander J. The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery. Drug Discovery World 2002. Fall:33-40 [ 36. Google Scholar] .

37. See note 2, Perel et al. 2007.

38.Harding A. More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist 2004 Sept 13; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23003/title/More-compounds-failing-Phase-I/ (last accessed 2 June 2014).

39. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

40. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo 2012.

42. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

43. See note 2, Akhtar et al. 2009.

47. See note 35, Seok et al. 2013, at 3507.

51.See . See also The mouse model: Less than perfect, still invaluable. Johns Hopkins Medicine; available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/model_organisms/201010_mouse_model.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014). See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. See note 2, Benatar 2007. See note 29, Perrin 2014 and Wilkins et al. 2011. See Cavanaugh S, Pippin J, Barnard N. Animal models of Alzheimer disease: Historical pitfalls and a path forward. ALTEX online first; 2014 Apr 10. And see .

53. See note 52, Lane, Dunnett 2008.

54. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

58. See . See also .

60.Allen A. Of mice and men: The problems with animal testing. Slate 2006 June 1; available at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014).

62. See . See also

63. See note 4, Wall, Shani 2008.

66. See note 60,Allen 2006. See also . See

68. See note 60, Allen 2006. See also note 5, Leist, Hartung 2013.

69.Food and Drug Administration. Development & approval process (drugs); available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014). See also http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

70.Drug discovery pipeline. IRSF; available at http://www.rettsyndrome.org/research-programs/programmatic-overview/drug-discovery-pipeline (last accessed 24 Sept 2014).

71. See note 60, Allen 2006.

72.Follow the yellow brick road. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2:167, at 167.

73. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra ... Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009;37(Suppl 2):45-7 [[ 74.For data on aspirin, see PubMed] Google Scholar] . See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see . See also

75. See note 67, Greek, Greek 2000.

76.Oral bioavailability of blockbuster drugs in humans and animals. PharmaInformatic. available at http://www.pharmainformatic.com/html/blockbuster_drugs.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2014).

Zurlo J. No animals harmed: Toward a paradigm shift in toxicity testing. Hastings Center Report 2012;42. Suppl:s23-6 [[ 78. PubMed] Google Scholar] .

79.There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH's support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency's budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH's budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH's funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH's extramural funding is directed into animal research; see .

DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Lives and Moral Status. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:116-23. [ 80.For a helpful discussion on animal pain, fear, and suffering, see Google Scholar]

81.See Akhtar A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:chap. 5.

Articles from Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animals still suffer and die in the testing of shampoo, mascara and other cosmetics. Look for the be cruelty-free stamp of approval the next time you shop!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in U.S. labs every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans.

While some of the experimentation conducted on animals today is required by law, most of it isn't. In fact, a number of countries have implemented bans on the testing of certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics-testing bans in the European Union, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

Millions of Animals Suffer and Die in Testing, Training, and Other Experiments

More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well as in medical training exercisesand curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities. Animals also suffer and die in classroom biology experiments and dissection, even though modern non-animal tests have repeatedly been shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals-who make up more than 99 percent of animals used in experiments-are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted.

Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits' sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.

Taxpayer and Health Charities' Dollars Fund Experiments on Animals

Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to crude, painful tests.

The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and well-meaning donors on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories, instead of supporting promising clinical, in vitro, epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that could actually benefit humans.

A Century of Suffering

Experimenters have tortured animals in laboratories throughout history. " Without Consent," PETA's interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit " Without Consent " to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

What You Can Do

Each of us can help prevent animal suffering and deaths by buying cruelty-free products, donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, requesting alternatives to animal dissection, demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations, and calling on our alma maters to stop experimenting on animals.

With the help of our members and supporters, PETA campaigns globally to expose and end the use of animals in experiments. Some of our efforts include the following:

This multifaceted approach yields scores of victories for animals imprisoned in laboratories every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right now, millions of animals are locked inside cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Illegal Dogfighting Rings Thrive in U.S. Cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The secretive and bloody industry is booming around the country, enjoying underground popularity despite being banned in all 50 states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Federal agents found pit bulls while investigating a Georgia dogfighting ring, and many were emaciated, scarred or injured. (Justice Department)

Les Meyers's dog won the fight, but victory was not enough to save him.

After the win, Meyers unleashed the unnamed pit bull one last time for a "courtesy scratch," a dogfighting ritual in which the victor attacks a vanquished opponent - or its corpse - to show its "gameness." The display, in illegal dogfighting circles, brings prestige to a handler.

Injured and exhausted, Meyers's dog refused to attack One-Eyed Willie, the pit bull he had just defeated in a gruesome 45-minute brawl.

Enraged, Meyers used a belt to hang his dog from a tree branch, choking him to death.

On Friday, Meyers was sentenced to 10 years and three months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to violate the Animal Welfare Act and illegally possessing a handgun as a felon. He was among the last of 12 defendants to be sentenced in a 2017 Georgia dogfighting case.

The national spotlight turned to the underground world of dogfighting when NFL superstar Michael Vick pleaded guilty in 2007 and 2008 to running an illegal dogfighting ring on one of his properties in southeastern Virginia. He was sentenced to 23 months in prison and paid nearly $1 million restitution to care for the dozens of dogs pulled from Bad Newz Kennels, which federal authorities said Vick had run for five years.

Congress increased the penalty to a five-year felony and broadened the scope of the offense, federal prosecutor Ethan Eddy wrote in court documents. States also responded. Since 2008, dogfighting has been a felony in all 50 states, The Washington Post reported in 2019. Law enforcement has also increasingly realized that animal cruelty often accompanies other crime, giving officers added incentive to look into reports of fighting rings.

A second chance: Twelve years ago, 47 dogs were rescued from Michael Vick's dogfighting operation and allowed to live

Meyers, 45, was the "most culpable" of the defendants involved in the 2017 fight, prosecutors said, and he got hit with the harshest punishment. The most prison time any other defendants got was 2½ years. Meyers's attorney, federal public defender Catherine Williams, said they plan to appeal the sentence but declined to comment further.

The case arose out of a dogfight with a $100 admission fee that happened on Jan. 21, 2017, in Sumter County, Ga., a rural community with a shrinking population some 30 miles east of the Alabama state line. Meyers had traveled about 100 miles from his home in Tallahassee with two dogs, the one he pitted against One-Eyed Willie and a second one he planned to sell.

Undercover video of the two-fight event showed Meyers goading his dog to keep attacking, Eddy wrote. But toward the end of the footage, "both dogs became so exhausted and injured that their ability to continue fighting began to wane."

Eventually, the designated referee declared Meyers's dog the winner. But the owner grew enraged when the dog wouldn't perform a "sadistic" coup de grace to prove the winner would have kept mauling if the fight had continued.

So Meyers took off his belt, put it around the dog's neck and tried to hang the animal from the tailgate of a nearby van, court records state. When thevan failed to support the weight, Meyers swung the pit bull by his neck, took him over to a tree and strung him up.

"It is difficult to conceive of a greater amount of suffering that a human being could inflict on a helpless animal," Eddy wrote.

Federal agents and local sheriff's deputies found the dog's body under the bumper of Meyers's Chrysler PT Cruiser when they raided the property as the second and final dogfight was about to start. After many of the participants fled, law enforcement officers found an enclosed fighting pit smeared with blood. Even though both of the female dogs set to brawl in the second fight were alive, one had suffered injuries so severe she had to be put down.

In Meyers's PT Cruiser, agents discovered a .45-caliber pistol, a skin stapler used to repair wounds, syringes, 500 milliliters of injectable sodium chloride - which can be used to replenish fluids - and dexamethasone, a prescription veterinary drug used to treat swelling and inflammation.

They also collected about $18,000 in cash after owners and spectators fled.

Armed with search warrants, federal agents raided the homes of some of the defendants. They found dozens of pit bulls in conditions "consistent with dogfighting," federal prosecutors wrote in a statement. Many were emaciated, scarred or injured. Agents also found dogfighting equipment, including veterinary steroids, a dog treadmill and a record of the animals' fights, including whether they had died.

The January 2017 dogfight had been planned for months and was part of an organized ring that included Meyers and several others. To support the business, court records state, Meyers maintained properties to house, train and condition pit bulls he then used in dogfights. He kept intravenous tubing and bags, skin staplers and veterinary drugs to inject and treat those wounded during fights.

Meyers and others also communicated extensively to set up fights, arrange animal sales, discuss dogs' fighting histories, share canine injury treatments and swap tactics for evading law enforcement.

In September 2018, more than a year after breaking up the dogfight in Sumter County, authorities raided a property in southwest Georgia where prosecutors alleged Meyers was keeping 27 pit bulls for his "animal fighting venture."

Meyers has a history of dogfighting. In 2011, he was convicted of 33 counts of animal cruelty in Leon County, Fla., federal prosecutors wrote in court documents. In that case, officers found 13 pit bulls crated inside a residence he used to run a previous operation. The dogs had no access to food, and some of the crates were splattered with blood.

Outside, authorities found another 13 dogs chained up, including two that were dead, court documents said. A veterinarian determined both had died of sepsis from untreated injuries. Some of the survivors struggled to stand, and other dogs were found to be "severely emaciated." While deputies were there, a female dog dragged herself out from a crawl space underneath the home.

"She had extensive, fresh dog fighting injuries and swelling from those, and could not stand on her own. In one of the photographs, exposed tissue below the skin can be seen through a hole," Eddy wrote.

"Her suffering was so acute that the responding veterinarian euthanized her," the prosecutor added.

Meyers served a year-long sentence in jail for those convictions.

Still, prosecutors said, the investigation following the 2017 dogfight provedMeyers was "utterly undeterred" from "this pattern of cruelty." He rebuilt a remarkably similar operation, which is why prosecutors pushed for a stiffer-than-normal sentence: six years in prison.

"Those who choose to brutalize animals for entertainment and profit must know that their criminal conduct will be severely punished," Eddy wrote.

The federal judge added four years and hit Meyers with more than a decade in prison.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A pit bull was killed after being forced to fight another dog. His owner will now spend 10 years in prison.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Placeholder while article actions load Les Meyers's dog won the fight, but victory was not enough to save him. After the win, Meyers unleashed the unnamed pit bull one last time for a "courtesy scratch," a dogfighting ritual in which the victor attacks a vanquished opponent - or its corpse - to show its "gameness."

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, thousands of dogs are abused and killed in the illegal dog fighting industry.

It's a brutal sport where two innocent animals are trained to attack and kill. Dogs are pitted against each other and forced to fight to the death. Spectators bet on who will win the bloody, ugly matches.

A fighting dog's life is full of pain from birth to death. It is hard to know the true scope of the dogfighting industry, but it is a large and profitable business. Tens of thousands of people participate in dogfighting every year. And yet most people don't know much about dogfighting. If you want to know more about dogfighting and the fight to stop it, these facts and statistics are a great place to start.

In this article we will go over:

The 13 Dogfighting Statistics & Facts

1. Fighting dogs endure horrific training routines.

2. Weaker dogs are treated as disposable targets.

3. A single dogfight can last for hours.

4. Upwards of 16,000 dogs are estimated to die every year from dogfighting in the US.

5. About 40,000 Americans are involved in dogfighting each year.

6. Dogfighting is a hobby for some but a professional sport for others.

7. Bets on dogs can reach as high as $100,000 for a single fight.

8. Dogfighting is a felony in all 50 states.

9. Punishment for dogfighting can result in hefty fines and jail time.

10. 50% of police officers have encountered dogfighting at least once in their careers.

11. Dogfighting is seen as a gateway crime.

12. Police raids can seize up to 500 dogs in one go.

13. Many rescued dogs are rehabilitated.

A Fighting Dog's Life

1. Fighting dogs endure horrific training routines.

(LCA)

Fighting dogs are usually trained from birth to be aggressive and powerful fighters. These training routines are brutal and abusive. Dogfighting breeders and trainers will often "toughen up" their dogs through beatings and forced starvation. They also put dogs through exhausting exercise routines such as chaining dogs to a treadmill for hours. Finally, trainers sic their dogs on other animals to teach them to attack, often killing the other animals in the practice.

2. Weaker dogs are used as disposable targets.

(Humane Society)

As part of their training, dogfighters often use weaker or more docile dogs as disposable targets to train their prize dogs. These dogs are sometimes called "cold" in dogfighting circles. Dogfighting breeders will save the most aggressive and powerful dogs to become fighters while the rest are treated as disposable.

3. A single dog fight can last for hours.

(The Humane Society)

Once a dog gets to the fighting ring, the fight itself usually lasts for 1-2 hours, although it can last longer. These fights are brutal and bloody. They end when one dog is killed or is too injured to continue. Even dogs who survive to the end of the fight often die shortly afterward from blood loss, infection, and lack of proper veterinary care.

4. Upwards of 16,000 dogs are estimated to die every year from dogfighting in the US.

(NHES)

Because so much dogfighting goes unreported, we don't know for sure how many dogs die from dogfighting every year. However, some animal rescue organizations estimate that at least 16,000 dogs are killed in the dogfighting industry every year.

The People Who Participate in Dog Fights

5. About 40,000 Americans are involved in dogfighting each year.

(The Humane Society)

Like the number of dog deaths, it's hard to know how many people are involved in dogfighting. Many organizations suggest about 40,000 people are involved in the US. This includes dog breeders and trainers, fight organizers, spectators, and gamblers.

6. Dogfighting is a hobby for some but a professional sport for others.

(LCA)

Most people involved in dogfighting do it for small amounts of money or purely as a hobby. It's also common for gangs to use dogfighting as entertainment, including "street fighting" out in the open. However, there are also professional dogfighters. Professional dogfighters might travel around the country from event to event. They make their money through betting or selling dogs.

7. Bets on dogs can reach as high as $100,000 for a single fight.

(CNN)

Dogfighting often goes hand-in-hand with illegal gambling. Participants bet on which dog will win a fight or how long a fight will last. Bets on dogs are often in the range of hundreds to thousands of dollars. However, in some circles, the bets get much higher. In at least one instance, a bet related to dogfighting reached $100,000.

The Fight Against Dogfighting

8. Dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states.

(FBI)

In the United States, dogfighting is prosecuted as a felony. In many states, it is also a felony to own a dog used in dogfighting or be a spectator at a dogfighting event. If dogfighting were only a misdemeanor or other low-level offense, police would not be able to devote the resources needed to break up dogfighting rings. Even now, many police departments do not have the resources to properly investigate dogfighting.

9. Punishment for dogfighting can result in hefty fines and jail time.

(NEACHA)

Although dogfighters won't spend their lives in prison, if they are convicted, they can still have serious consequences. Along with having a felony charge on their record, dogfighters can face up to 3 years in prison. They also can be forced to pay extensive fines as high as $250,000.

10. 50% of police officers have encountered dogfighting at least once in their careers.

(FBI)

Dogfighting isn't as rare as some people think. According to a study done by the FBI, about half of police officers have dealt with dogfighting at some point in their careers. Dogfighting affects many jurisdictions across the United States, both urban and rural. Although dogfighting can occur anywhere, it is more common in high-crime areas.

11. Dogfighting is considered a gateway crime.

(NEACHA)

Dogfighting is not a crime committed in isolation. Many dogfighting charges come alongside other crimes. Often, dog fights also involve illegal gambling. Illegal weapons and drug dealing also take place at dogfighting events. Those involved in dogfighting are also highly likely to be convicted of violent crimes against humans, up to and including homicide.

12. Police raids can seize up to 500 dogs in one go.

(NEACHA)

The number of dogs seized in an anti-dogfighting operation varies wildly. In some cases, up to 500 dogs have been seized at once. Although some raids seize only one dog, that is less common. The average number of dogs taken per successful raid is 35.

13. Many rescued dogs are rehabilitated.

(FBI)

Once dogs are seized in a police raid, their path forward is complex. Dogs are both victims and evidence in a legal battle against dogfighting. In the past, dogs have been held in near isolation for a year or more pending criminal charges and eventually euthanized. However, in recent years, avenues have opened up to process the dogs more quickly and humanely. Through civil forfeiture suits, organizations can often claim the dogs in just a few months. This opens the door to rehabilitation, fostering, and eventual adoption. These programs are most successful for rescued puppies who are not yet permanently scarred by their abuses. Between 2016 and 2019, about 1,000 dogs were rescued and rehabilitated from dogfighting.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dogfighting

Why is it so hard to shut down dogfighting completely?

Dogfighting is hard to contain because it is so common and so well funded. Although there are no statistics for the amount of money made in dogfighting each year, dog fighters have millions of dollars to lose if shut down and the resources to fight long legal battles. It is also difficult to prosecute those involved in dogfighting because of the challenges involved in using living creatures as evidence. Awareness, funding, and police veterinary resources all help stop dogfighting. (NEACHA)

Is it illegal to watch a dog fight?

Being a spectator in a dog fight is a crime in all 50 states, but the severity of that crime varies from state to state. In some states, it is always a felony. In other states, it is only a misdemeanor. In some states, it is only a felony for repeat offenders. (NEACHA)

Are the dogs that are seized by police euthanized?

New methods of terminating custody of dogs have led to many dogs being rescued and rehabilitated, but other dogs are still being euthanized. For many dogs, a lack of resources leads to euthanization even when rehabilitation is possible. But some dogs, especially adult dogs who have spent their whole lives suffering abuse and aggression, are beyond rehabilitation. In these cases, it is often determined that euthanization is the most humane option. (FBI)

Are only Pit Bulls used for dogfighting?

Pit Bulls are often associated with dogfighting, but many breeds of dogs are sometimes called pit Bulls, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Bulldog. All of these breeds of dogs are used in dogfighting, along with mixed-breed dogs and any other large dogs brought up for aggression. (LCA)

What are some signs that a dog is being used for fighting?

Dogs used in fighting often have cropped ears and sometimes cropped tails so that other dogs cannot bite them. They tend to be aggressive towards humans and other dogs and might be chained up with a heavy chain and collar. Fighting dogs might have visible injuries such as lacerations, puncture wounds, and torn fur and skin. (LCA)

What can I do if I suspect someone is involved in dogfighting?

If you witness signs of dogfighting, the best thing to do is report it. The Humane Society of the United States has a tip line available for reporting and offers a $5,000 reward if a dogfighter is convicted. They will work with local law enforcement to provide resources and guidance. You can also report the tip to law enforcement directly. (The Humane Society)

Conclusion

Dogfighting is a brutal and unfortunately common sport. It could involve around 40,000 humans and lead to the death of an estimated 16,000 dogs every year in the US. Dogs involved in dogfighting are abused and conditioned to be aggressive and violent. Although many involved in the dogfighting industry are convicted every year, the fight against dogfighting is still far from over.

Featured Image Credit: Zeralein99, Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Shocking Dog Fighting Statistics & Facts to Know in 2022 | Pet Keen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, thousands of dogs are abused and killed in the illegal dog fighting industry. It's a brutal sport where two innocent animals are trained to attack and kill. Dogs are pitted against each other and forced to fight to the death. Spectators bet on who will win the bloody, ugly matches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dogfighting is a felony in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, yet this barbaric and violent form of animal cruelty persists. We work year-round to help law enforcement throughout the country rescue victims of dogfighting, hold abusers accountable and hopefully end dogfighting for good. But this critical work takes expertise from multiple teams at the ASPCA and can be a lengthy process.

That's why we asked ASPCA experts from the Legal Advocacy and Investigations (LAI), Behavioral Sciences and Forensic Investigations teams to answer a few questions, to give everyone an in-depth look into a dogfighting rescue and the importance of ending this heinous form of animal abuse.

These rescues often begin with the ASPCA Investigations team and Terry Mills, Director of Blood Sports Investigations.
Q: "So, how does the ASPCA get involved in a dogfighting rescue?"
A: "The first way we get involved is when we get a complaint about what is believed to be a situation where there is dogfighting activity," explains Mills. "The investigator will review the information provided to us, then if warranted, contact local law enforcement. The second way is if law enforcement receives a complaint, and because they may not have the knowledge or experience in dogfighting investigations, they contact our team."

"Third, law enforcement may respond to a call or serve a search warrant on an unrelated matter and discover evidence or dogs suspected to be involved in a dogfighting operation, so they call us for assistance," says Mills. "Fourth, a law enforcement agency has obtained a search warrant as part of their investigation into dogfighting and request an ASPCA subject matter expert (SME). Lastly, a suspect has been arrested and charged for dogfighting violations and the prosecuting attorney requests the ASPCA provide expert witness testimony."
Q: "Once our Investigation team is called in, they begin working on and researching the case. What does that usually entail?"
A: "We work closely with law enforcement at every step of their investigation with the goal of helping them to build and strengthen their case. This includes gathering and providing information about any suspects from online sources, such as social media or other internet sites, as well as sharing intelligence that may already be known to the ASPCA from other sources," explains Mills. "Depending on how far along the investigation is, we also review evidence already obtained in order to help establish probable cause that can be used to obtain a search warrant."

"Additionally, we have attorneys who work closely with both law enforcement and prosecutors from start to finish of a case. This includes legal assistance on investigative matters, charging and prosecution, as well as obtaining legal disposition of seized animals."

Once the case is approved, Mills' team initiates the calls to the various ASPCA departments and teams to provide assistance with operations, logistics, forensic medicine and behavior, evidence collection, transportation and sheltering of the dogs.

When the ASPCA is called to provide on scene assistance, this is when Amanda Fitch, ASPCA Forensic Analyst, and her team begin their work on a case.
Q: "Tell us how Forensics gets involved in a dogfighting rescue."
A: "The Forensics team has its own specialized equipment that must be transported to the scene location(s) and the ASPCA Cruelty Recovery Center (CRC), or ASPCA-operated emergency shelter," explains Fitch. "We also have to develop a working plan that includes how many team members we will need on scene and afterward at the shelter, what their assigned duties will be and how we will accomplish these duties."

"When on the scene, the Forensic team performs three distinct functions and thus subdivides into three separate teams: the Evidence team, Veterinary Forensics team and the Live Animal Documentation (LAD) team," she continues.
Q: "What are these teams responsible for?"
A: "The Evidence team is first to enter and, working in connection with law enforcement, is responsible for documenting the scene property, documenting and handling non-animal and deceased animal evidence, and for the forensic processing of evidence," Fitch explains. "The scene documentation process begins as soon as law enforcement secures the scene and gives us authorization to enter its perimeter. The purpose of this initial documentation is to show how the property looked when we arrived so that there is a record of where items of evidence (including animals) were located prior to being moved or removed. A scene sketch or diagram is also created to allow for important measurements and to help clarify often 'busy' photographs."

Fitch continues: "To allow the Forensic Veterinarians (FVs) access to the animals as quickly as possible, the Evidence team 'clears' areas of the property so the FVs can begin their triaging process. Because the Evidence team is allowed on scene before the veterinarians, they are always equipped with radios to contact the vets should they encounter an animal in urgent need of treatment. The lead FV works closely with both the LAD team and the Evidence team to document, via notes and photographs, the condition in which the animals were found as well as any medically relevant evidence, such as medications, supplements and medical supplies."

"The LAD team consists of a photographer and two scribes. It is their responsibility to document all the live animals on scene, each of which is considered a unique item of evidence," Fitch says. "Photos and notes are taken of each dog, including where the dog was found, as well as photos for identification purposes and for identifying visible markings or injuries."
Q: "What else is happening while these teams work?"
A: "The Evidence team also assists the Investigations team in collecting evidence. If an item of interest is located, photos are taken, followed by additional close-up photos to show the details of the item," Fitch explains.

"Unfortunately, blood and burials are commonly found on dogfighting scenes. The blood, most often located on training equipment or the walls of a fighting pit, is photographed thoroughly and then tested to see if it's human or non-human blood. The excavation of deceased animals is also an unfortunate task that sometimes must be undertaken in these cases," says Fitch. "Excavation must be performed with care and precision so that no evidence, like a bullet, is lost during the process. Deceased remains, as well as other types of evidence, are then examined off-scene in a laboratory. At the ASPCA Veterinary Forensic Science Center we can perform necropsies and skeletal analysis on deceased remains to aid in prosecution efforts. We can also examine items for fingerprints, trace and other types of evidence."
Q: "What happens once you are able to start removing the animals?"
A: "After an animal is fully documented and has been given clearance for removal, they are removed from the chain or enclosure they were found in and placed into a kennel that will be transported off the property. The second scribe on the LAD team, known as the Load Master, will track the dog's movement and placement on a transport vehicle. Before departing from a scene, the Load Master's form is signed by law enforcement, indicating the release of evidence (the dogs) from law enforcement's custody," explains Fitch. "This process of tracking evidence is called a 'Chain of Custody' and is commonly utilized by law enforcement agencies for tracking evidence."

"Following the scene response, the entire Forensics team travels to either the temporary shelter set up during the rescue, or to the CRC to conduct forensic examinations and handle evidence recovered during them."

The next team to step in to help dogs during one of these rescues is the ASPCA Behavioral Sciences team (BST), led by Pamela Reid, Vice President.
Q: "Tell us about how BST becomes involved in a rescue."
A: "We work side-by-side with the Investigators, the ASPCA National Field Response (NFR) team and the FVs to first observe the animals in their environment," explains Reid. "Seeing how the dogs are housed can help us plan for the transition to the temporary shelter with the least amount of disruption as possible. We also examine their circumstances for evidence of psychological stressors, such as moms with puppies chained right next to aggressive dogs terrorizing the puppies. Once they're ready to be removed from their chains, BST provides low-stress handling to get the dogs documented and safely loaded into the transport vehicles."

"BST then conducts a standardized forensic behavior evaluation of each dog. The evaluation is designed to profile the dogs' behavior before the dogs change as a result of experiencing compassion and enrichment," says Reid. "The goal of these evaluations is to document the typical behavior of the dogs and compare it to the behavior of other dogs from confirmed organized dogfighting cases."

Reid continues: "Much of the evidence presented in dogfighting cases is circumstantial and behavior during the evaluation is simply another piece of evidence that helps to support the argument that the dogs were bred and used for dogfighting. Of course, the information we collect is then used to help plan how to best care for the dogs."
Q: "What's the most common behavior concern exhibited by these dogfighting victims?"
A: "It's not surprising that aggression toward other dogs is the most commonly seen behavior concern, but is absolutely not the case with every dog," says Reid. "Everything the dogfighter does is designed to engineer these dogs to exhibit pathologically aggressive behavior. They separate the puppies early so they have no opportunity to develop normal social behavior toward other dogs. Then, they do everything in their power to encourage the young dogs to fight with each other. These reprehensible practices can result in some incredibly damaged dogs."

"Another common behavior concern is a tendency to arouse easily. This means that the dogs can become highly excited by very mild stimulation like being petted or seeing a person sweep with a broom," explains Reid. "They become physiologically and behaviorally aroused-their eyes dilate, they pant heavily, their skin becomes flushed and they engage in behaviors that function to dissipate the arousal, such as jumping, lunging, mouthing people, grabbing objects and refusing to let go, and playing with toys to the point of exhaustion and injury. In their kennels, they often exhibit repetitive behavior, including barking, pacing, circling, jumping and leaping off the walls."

"A smaller percentage of these dogs can suffer from moderate to severe fear of anything new, including people, other animals, places, things and experiences. Because these dogs are often kept in hidden locations, they never get to experience the normal world and therefore, can be frightened by things most dogs would consider routine, like going for a walk on a leash. These dogs are typically transferred to our Behavioral Rehabilitation Center (BRC) where they specialize in treating fearful, under-socialized dogs. Our Behavior team at the CRC also works diligently to help these dogs recover from their pasts."
Q: "How does recovery look for a dog that is sent to the BRC or CRC?"
A: "They focus on intensive enrichment, socialization and training for the dogs," explains Reid. "While these dogs aren't aggressive, they often have no idea how to interact appropriately with other dogs. So the focus is on pairing them up with resilient "helper dogs" who can show them how to behave and have fun in playgroups. The high arousal dogs are taught manners and other techniques for controlling their impulsive behavior. Fearful dogs are housed in the CRC's Mini Rehab Center where they receive behavior treatment to resolve their fears or, until a space opens at the BRC, where they can get the intensive behavior modification offered to fearful dogs there."

Expert Witnesses During the Prosecution

Because our teams are experts in their field and work hands-on during the investigation process, they are often called to testify as expert witnesses during the prosecution of these dogfighting cases. All three teams work with law enforcement and the prosecutors to provide information (both written and verbal) to aid in the case.

Why Is the Work These Teams do So Important?

"Simply put, animal fighting is a crime," says Fitch. "Just like there are law enforcement officers and forensic scientists who are experts in other criminal areas, our area of expertise is in animal fighting and animal cruelty. Aside from helping to place animals in a healthy and safe environment, our work also helps in the prevention and prosecution of these and other crimes, which may be direct threats to a community."

"These dogs have been so victimized-from their upbringing to their horrific experiences just surviving in a dogfighter's yard-they are highly deserving of a second chance," says Reid. "If we weren't doing everything we can to save them, they would endure unspeakable suffering and often a barbaric death at the hands of ruthless dogfighters. For those dogs that haven't been irreparably damaged by their experiences, we owe it to them to give them a happy life as a pet with a loving family."

You can help make a difference in the lives of dogfighting victims by adding your name in support of the HEART Act!
If you suspect dogfighting or other animal abuse is happening in your community, please speak up. Find out how to report animal cruelty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ASPCA Experts Give an In-Depth Look into Dogfighting Rescues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Its National Dogfighting Awareness Day and to honor this important day, our ASPCA experts are giving us an inside, in-depth look into a dogfighting rescue. Read on to learn all about what our teams do, and how they all work together to help the victims!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Lizzy Rosenberg

Dec. 21 2021, Published 5:20 p.m. ET

Back in 2007, NFL player Michael Vick was a star athlete, an icon, and a role model to many - that is, until he was exposed for organized animal cruelty. Michael Vick's dogfighting ring was one of the biggest headlines from that year, which brought to light the unethical and unthinkable crimes committed by the Atlanta Falcons quarterback. His name has since been heavily tainted with that nasty reputation.

Article continues below advertisement

In 2019, Vick told The Washington Post that his animal rights crimes are merely a thing of the past. Water under the bridge.

"I think people have moved on. I think they've moved past it. It's been 12-plus years since it all happened, so I don't get any questions about it anymore. People don't talk about it. They don't ask me about it. Life is kind of normal. But I still have a responsibility, and that will never change."

In a follow-up interview, he told the news site in 2021 he regrets it all - mainly because the case affected his chances of getting into the Hall of Fame.

'S--t, it hurt [my chances of] going in the Hall of Fame. It's going to impact everything. But it was all self-inflicted. I was young. I didn't have no guidance. I don't use this as no excuse. I could've said, 'No.' I could've made those right decisions, like, 'This ain't for me.' That's a blemish that I will never be able to erase."

Article continues below advertisement

What to know about Michael Vick's 2007 dogfighting operation:

In 2007, the feds discovered that a Virginia property, that was confirmed to be owned by Vick himself, was being used to stage, house, and train pit bulls for fighting, according to a press release. Authorities discovered several kennels, a "rape stand" to force dogs to mate, an electric treadmill for dogs, and bloody carpeting. When the property was first searched, at least 50 live animals were recovered, and it was eventually confirmed that at least 30 pit bulls had been killed on-site.

The dogfights that were taking place on Vick's property were being sponsored by a criminal organization called Bad Newz Kennels, which had been operating since at least some time in 2002. It attracted dogs and participants from across the country, sometimes awarding grand prize winners up to thousands of dollars. But when a dog lost the fight, it often cost the pup's life, either during the fight, or as a result of fatal injuries - hence why dog fights are a brutal form of animal cruelty.

Vick initially said he hardly visited the property and had no knowledge of the criminal enterprise. He later blamed his family, per the press release, and eventually plead guilty in court. According to Marca, Vick ultimately served an 18-month sentence in prison for his unspeakable crimes towards animals.

This is Frodo. He was the last of 48 survivors rescued from Michael Vick's dogfighting operation in 2007. He passed away over the weekend at the age of 15, surrounded by so much love. He and the rest of his very brave friends helped change animal welfare forever. 15/10 for all pic.twitter.com/9EDrRs2x7N
- WeRateDogs® (@dog_rates) December 21, 2021

Recently, the last surviving pit bull from Vick's dogfighting ring passed away.

On Monday, Dec. 20, it was confirmed that Frodo, the last surviving pup from Vick's 2007 dogfighting operations, died at about 15 years old, according to People. BAD RAP, an animal welfare nonprofit, broke the news via Facebook.

"The incredible 'Vick dog' era is over. On Saturday, we had the great honor and privilege of attending the transition of the sweet, shy Frodo as his family helped him pass over to be with the rest of the dogs from the group," the post read.

"He was the last of 48 brave survivors from that game changing case. Seized and rescued in 2007, we estimate that he would've been 15 years old - and this is the important part - the last 14 years of his life were spent being pampered like a prince with the Ramirez family and dogs. Sweet Frodo - how we loved him. He was one of the bravest survivors we've ever met," it continued, mentioning several other dogs from the operations who had passed away earlier this year.

Vick supposedly worked to "rehabilitate" his image following his prison sentence, but he can't undo the mistakes he made that cost so many innocent dog's lives. That said, adopt don't shop - a pup coming from a painfully similar situation may need a loving home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Almost 15 Years Later, Here's What Happened With Michael Vick's Dogfighting Ring

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lizzy Rosenberg Dec. 21 2021, Published 5:20 p.m. ET Back in 2007, NFL player Michael Vick was a star athlete, an icon, and a role model to many - that is, until he was exposed for organized animal cruelty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was convicted on federal charges related to dogfighting in 2007, this cruel underground blood sport was thrust into the public spotlight. Vick's indictment revealed the sickening abuse of dogs who are pitted against one another and encouraged to rip each other to shreds in a fight to the death while spectators cheer and gamble on a "winner." When dogs on Vick's property were not being forced to fight, they were kept penned and chained to buried car axles. When they were no longer useful to fight organizers, they were wet down and electrocuted, hanged, beaten, drowned, shot, slammed against the ground, or killed in some other atrocious manner.

Vick's case is one among many-experts estimate that tens of thousands of people are involved in professional dogfighting, while hundreds of thousands might be participating in so-called "streetfighting," or informal dogfights. All 50 states now consider participating in dogfighting to be a felony offense.

Forced to Fight and Left to Die

The dogs who are most commonly bred for fighting are generally known as "pit bulls": Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American bulldogs, and American pit bull terriers. Dogs who are used for fighting are usually kept penned or chained (often with heavy logging chains), and many are taunted and starved in order to trigger extreme survival instincts and encourage aggression.

Some dogfighters train dogs by forcing them to tread water in pools; run on a treadmill while a caged rabbit, cat, chicken, or other terrified animal is dangled in front of them; or hang on with their jaws while dangling from a chain baited with meat. Many dogs are injected with steroids, and some dogfighters even sharpen their dogs' teeth, cut off their ears (to prevent another dog from latching on), and add roach poison to their food so that their fur might taste bad to other dogs.

Dogs who "win" fights are forced to fight again and again and are used to breed puppies for profit. One dog who was described as a particularly successful fighter generated $100,000 in stud fees in a single year. Female dogs are strapped down on "rape stands" to prevent fighting while males impregnate them. Many of the dogs who do not fight or who lose fights are used as "bait" animals.

What Happens at Dogfights

The "pit" where these bloody events take place usually consists of a dirt or carpeted floor measuring 8 to 16 square feet, surrounded by a wooden enclosure that is about 3 feet high. Dogs are taken to either end of the ring and released at the "face your dogs" command. Sticks are used to pry apart the dogs, who clamp down so fiercely that it is not uncommon for dogs to "fang" themselves (i.e., bite through their own lips). Dogs are encouraged to fight to the death, and the fight can go on for hours-until both dogs are exhausted and at least one is seriously injured or dead.

A federal prosecutor recalls a case in which one of 18 dogs found in a raid had 70 open wounds and was missing half a jaw, while another dog's body was 75 percent covered in scar tissue. A Louisiana state police officer who conducts dogfighting investigations says, "When you go to where these fights have happened, you'll find a couple of dog corpses or a pit full of blood."

The Tip of a Criminal Iceberg

Like other forms of cruelty to animals, dogfighting is often linked to other crimes, including illegal gambling, drug activity, and murder. In a Texas home, three intruders bound the wife and children of a well-known pit-bull breeder and killed him for the $100,000 that he had won at a fight. Another infamous breeder planted "directional mines" on his property in an attempt to keep people away; a land surveyor was injured when one of these devices exploded.

A detective told the New York Daily News that "you can get more drugs and guns off the street by breaking up dog rings than you would breaking up drug rings." An Ohio sheriff says that "just about every dogfighting search warrant we've done, we've found drugs."

Young children are sometimes present at dogfights. Baltimore's health department lists dogfighting as a child welfare issue on its Web site and cautions parents that "[c]hildren are exposed to exhibits of extreme brutality, illegal gambling, drugs, and guns associated with these cruel events."

What You Can Do

If you suspect that dogfighting is happening in your neighborhood, contact local law enforcement authorities.

Since dogfighters typically keep their dogs chained, you can help deter dogfighters by pushing for an anti-chaining ordinance in your community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was convicted on federal charges related to dogfighting in 2007, this cruel underground blood sport was thrust into the public spotlight. Vick's indictment revealed the sickening abuse of dogs who are pitted against one another and encouraged to rip each other to shreds in a fight to the death while spectators cheer and gamble on a "winner."