# data[].attributes.body
9:30 - 9:35
11:15 - 11:20
3:30 - 3:35

# data[].attributes.body
(an organisation we can donate to)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Campaign against animal fur - Fur for Animals

# data[].attributes.headline
Fur for animals (an organisation we can donate to) how to tell the difference between real and fake fur

# data[].attributes.subject
Fur for animals (an organisation we can donate to) how to tell the difference between real and fake fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We frequently receive reports from members of the public who think they have found real fur on sale mislabelled as fake or bearing no label at all. Often, they are not entirely sure if the fur on sale is real or fake as the imitation fur is becoming more realistic.

Please note, that we recommend speaking with the retailer in the first instance.
Here are some handy tips about how to quickly tell if fur is real or fake regardless of what the label says.
Fake fur usually has a fabric backing which can be fairly easily observed. Real fur, on the other hand, will be attached to (tanned) skin, similar to thin leather. Pushing a pin through the base of the hairs can also help here. The pin should pass through easily if it is fake fur, as it doesn't require that extra effort in order to puncture the leather.

Fake fur 'hairs' tend to be blunt at the tip whereas real fur can often be seen tapering to a point at the tip. This test can be misleading if the real fur hairs have been sheared or plucked.

If a few sample hairs are available, use tweezers in a non-flammable environment. Carefully ignite the sample with a lighter or match. Burnt animal hair will smell like burnt human hair (real) but fake fur will smell like burning plastic. Only ever carry out this test safely, with the hair sample over a non-flammable plate!

Still not sure? You can send a samples to the Respect for Animals office, where we can do a microscopic test. We can tell quickly whether it is real or fake and will send you our findings. Email us and we'll arrange this: info@respectforanimals.org

Here are samples of real and fake fur under a microscope. Note the cells inside the real fur sample which are absent from fake fur:

The fur industry has been lobbying the Serbian government ruthlessly, in a desperate attempt to keep ...

New footage has been released by Bont Voor Dieren and Eyes on Animals/TSB|AWF showing th full horro ...

New undercover footage from a Canadian fur farm has resulted in charges of 14 counts of animal cruel ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to tell the difference between real and fake fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We frequently receive reports from members of the public who think they have found real fur on sale mislabelled as fake or bearing no label at all. Often, they are not entirely sure if the fur on sale is real or fake as the imitation fur is becoming more realistic.

# data[].attributes.body
85% of fur which goes in coats comes from fur farms and that means more than 45 million animals like Foxes ,minks ,cows ,rabbit, raccoons ,Chinchillas
snakes ,beavers ,seals ,dogs ,cats ,Bobcats ,wolves, squirrels ,badgers are killed just fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like to shop fur free? Find out which shops in your country have taken a stand against fur through our Fur Free Retailer program

BANK

Fur Free Alliance

NL41 TRIO 0391013866

SWIFT/BIC Code: TRIONL2U

TRIODOS Bank NV

Utrechtseweg 44, 3700 AB, Zeist, The Netherlands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fur Free Alliance - Working together towards a fur free world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like to shop fur free? Find out which shops in your country have taken a stand against fur through our Fur Free Retailer program BANK Fur Free Alliance NL41 TRIO 0391013866 SWIFT/BIC Code: TRIONL2U TRIODOS Bank NV Utrechtseweg 44, 3700 AB, Zeist, The Netherlands

# data[].attributes.body
overall your action plan and presentation style is really good but on exhibition .

# data[].attributes.body
Y3 hub go down at 10:50-11:00am

# data[].attributes.body
In the survey me and Dorothy conducted most of the children who have responded said that they do not know that much about fur farming so on exhibition day me and Dorothy plan to tell people more information.

# data[].attributes.headline
10 photos to tell other people not to wear fur 

# data[].attributes.subject
10 photos to tell other people not to wear fur 

# data[].attributes.body
when you are wearing fur you have basically killed an animals loved one it could be somebody's mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or even child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mamas and papas and babes-oh, my! Did you know that the fur industry breaks up families? Yep, animals experience emotions, are capable of love, and form strong social bonds with those closest to them. See for yourself:

Each year, millions of animals are killed in the name of fashion. And when you wear a fur coat, you're actually wearing someone's mother, father, child, brother, or sister. If you believe that fashion isn't worth breaking up a family, please pledge to be fur-free today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons Not to Wear Fur (Photo List)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mamas and papas and babes-oh, my! Did you know that the fur industry breaks up families? Yep, animals experience emotions, are capable of love, and form strong social bonds with those closest to them. See for yourself: Each year, millions of animals are killed in the name of fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
-John Galliano
-DKNY
- Donna Karen
-Versace
-Michael Kors
-Gucci
-Giorgio Armani
-Tommy Hilfiger
-Stella McCartney
-Vivienne Westwood

-Ralph Lauren

-Calvin Klein

-
-

# data[].attributes.body
the rabbit keychains sold almost every where in Singapore have been gaining popularity because people has no idea how many rabbits have suffered for that decoration on your handbag.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A recent investigation conducted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has found that rabbit bag chains sold in Singapore are made of real rabbit fur.

SPCA said in a Facebook post on Monday (July 25) afternoon that the chains' rise in popularity and feedback from concerned members of the public had spurred the investigation.

The post has garnered over 2,800 shares and nearly 300 comments.

According to SPCA's executive director Dr Jaipal Singh Gill, the sample tested came from a shop in Bugis. There are also shops selling similar products in the area, including shopping malls Bugis+ and Bugis Junction.

"Members of the public have also informed us that the product is sold in places such as Far East Plaza, Sun Plaza, Scape and by various online retailers," Dr Gill added.

These chains, depending on their size, are priced at between $20 and $30.

During its investigation, some sellers told SPCA that the fur was real, while others said it was not.

Based on its own in-house tests, which included microscopic examinations that compared the fur used in the chains with real rabbit fur and synthetic fur, SPCA concluded that the fur used in the chains was real.

Examples from SPCA's in-house microscopy test comparing fibre morphology. PHOTO: SPCA

"Fur is often obtained with much animal suffering and in Singapore, there is simply no excuse to wear fur, even as an accessory," SPCA wrote in its post.

"Exercise your right as a consumer to refuse this symbol of excessive cruelty."

It is not known what type of rabbit fur was used in the making of the chains being sold here.

In response to queries from The Straits Times, an Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) spokesman said the import of animal products - including rabbit fur keychains - derived from species protected under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora (CITES) have to comply with the necessary CITES requirements.

"Some rabbit species, such as the Assam rabbit and the volcano rabbit, are endangered species protected under CITES Appendix I, for which international trade in their parts and products is strictly prohibited," the spokesman added.

Finished animal products derived from non-CITES listed animals, however, do not require import permits from the AVA as they pose minimal disease risk to humans and animals.

On its part, SPCA said it will actively raise awareness on the issue via social media media, educational talks and outreach programmes.

"We are also reaching out to the sellers to encourage them to not bring in products made from real animal fur," said Dr Singh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SPCA cautions against animal cruelty as bag chains made of real rabbit fur gain popularity in Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A recent investigation conducted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has found that rabbit bag chains sold in Singapore are made of real rabbit fur. SPCA said in a Facebook post on Monday (July 25) afternoon that the chains' rise in popularity and feedback from concerned members of the public had spurred the investigation.

# data[].attributes.headline
the designers which have gone fur free for the sake of the animals.

# data[].attributes.subject
the designers which have gone fur free for the sake of the animals.

# data[].attributes.body
Although many designers still use fur in their products, some has decided that it isn't fair for the animals so they have decided to go gone fur -free and also their company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After years of campaigning, the tide is turning against fur in the fashion industry. From Versace to Gucci, here are the brands who have vowed to keep fur off the catwalk.

# data[].attributes.body
SPCA does an analysis to see if the rabbit keychains demonstrate real fur from rabbits.I think rabbit fur should be used by us because the fur is not ours,it belongs to the animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FUR IS FOR ANIMALS Rabbit bag chains (as pictured) have been gaining popularity in Singapore. Some members of public have expressed their concern to us that these products are made of real rabbit...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Post by spcasingapore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
rabbit fur keychains were a hit last year but nobody knows the ugly truth behind these keychains.SPCA has urged many people to stop buying these keychains made from rabbit fur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The popular rabbit bag charms sold in Singapore are made of real rabbit fur, the Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (SPCA) has claimed.

After conducting its own tests on the products, the results "strongly suggest that the product is made of real animal fur", SPCA executive director Jaipal Singh Gill told The New Paper.

The society first raised the issue in a post on its Facebook page on July 25.

Dr Jaipal said most retailers claimed they bought the charms from China, adding that the way animals are farmed for fur is cruel.

"In China, the industry is largely unregulated. The animals are often kept in very poor conditions and slaughtered in ways which cause much suffering," he said.

SPCA's tests on the fur on the bag charms against real and synthetic versions 'strongly suggest' that the fur on the bag charms was real rabbit fur. PHOTO: SPCA

"It is important we consider the effects our consumer choices have on animals, people and the environment, and aim to be responsible consumers with regard to all our purchases."

Animal Concerns Research And Education Society (Acres) deputy chief executive Anbarasi Boopal echoed Dr Jaipal's concerns:

"Animals are usually farmed in inhumane conditions, such as in small wire cages with no opportunities to express natural behaviours...

"Often, the killing may include cruel methods such as beating to death or electrocution or worse, skinning alive."

Dr Jaipal said SPCA did the tests as there was "conflicting information provided by sellers".

"Some claimed the fur was fake while others said it was real, so we decided to conduct our own in-house test," he said.

These bag charms, which are about 8 to 12cm long, are sold in shopping malls and pushcart stores around Singapore. Displayed prominently at the front of most shops, they come in a variety of colours and are sold for as low as $15.

They are shaped to look like rabbits and some have false eyelashes attached.

SPCA was alerted to this by concerned members of the public in early July, said Dr Jaipal.

According to its Facebook post, real rabbit fur would have tapered ends, as opposed to synthetic fur's uniform ends. Also, the internal fibre morphology (structure of fibres) of real rabbit fur is significantly thinner than that of synthetic fur.

When TNP visited the retailers in Bugis, we found that the charms from Korea cost $28 each while those from Hong Kong were $20 each. Of the six shops visited, four said the fur was fake.

A retail assistant, who wanted to be known only as Ms Li, said her boss had checked with the supplier.

"If it were real, I wouldn't sell it," she said.
SHAVED
A retail assistant at another shop said: "The supplier told me the rabbits were shaved, so there is no harm involved.

"Why are we making such a big fuss about it? They're just rabbits."

Another retailer said there should be no shame in buying such products: "My supplier promised me that these are real. But there is no issue since other people also sell cow and crocodile hides - it's in no way unethical."

Ms Boopal urged Singaporeans not to buy the rabbit bag charms.

"Even though it may seem like a small product, in the bigger picture, as long as there is a demand, the cruelty will continue," she said.

"That simple choice will go a long way in helping animals that suffer in these facilities."

Dr Jaipal said the SPCA would be contacting sellers of such products to dissuade them from bringing in products made from real animal fur.

"If the buying stops, the suffering will, too."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The popular rabbit bag charms sold in Singapore are made of real rabbit fur, the Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (SPCA) has claimed. After conducting its own tests on the products, the results "strongly suggest that the product is made of real animal fur", SPCA executive director Jaipal Singh Gill told The New Paper.

# data[].attributes.body
Millions of animals are killed worldwide each year for clothing and accessories , but now there are more fur-free brands than before which supports fur free clothes brands which are fur-free include:
-Versace

-Gucci
-Michael Kors
-Gorigio Armani
-Tom Ford
-Stella McCartney
-Furla
-Vivienne Westwood
-Calvin Klein

animals that are used for clothing include:
-Foxes
-minks
-cows
-rabbit
-raccoons
-Chinchillas
-snakes
-beavers
-seals
-dogs
-cats
-Bobcats
-wolves
-squirrels
-badgers

# data[].attributes.body
Ms Allison (Y3 EA/Teacher)

# data[].attributes.body
Home Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fur farming is banned in Germany,, Austria, Croatia, the United Kingdom,, the Czech Republic (effective in 2019) and Norway In Switzerland, the regulations for fur farming are very strict, with the result that there are no fur farms. Some other countries have a ban on fur farming of certain types of animals.

# data[].attributes.headline
thousands of animals are killed each year for their fur

# data[].attributes.subject
thousands of animals are killed each year for their fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Last Chance for Animals - Fur Trade Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last chance for Animals is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating animal exploitation through education, investigations, legislation, and media attention. The organization believes that animals are highly sentient creatures who exist for their own reasons independent of their service to humans; they should thus not be made to suffer for the latter.

# data[].attributes.body
-Versace

-Gucci
-Michael Kors
-Gorigio Armani
-Tom Ford
-Stella McCartney
-Furla
-Vivienne Westwood
-Calvin Klein
-
-
-
-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After facing over a year of pressure from PETA and receiving more than 200,000 e-mails from supporters like you, Furla has announced that it's joining the ever-growing list of fur-free luxury brands. Giorgio Armani, Gucci, and Michael Kors are also among the most recent companies to have denounced the use of fur-the majority of which is taken from animals who spend their short, miserable lives inside cramped wire cages before being electrocuted, bludgeoned, suffocated, or skinned alive.

The end of fur is near as more companies like Furla recognize that the future of fashion is vegan.

Why would anyone want to carry around a handbag decorated with the fur of animals who spent their entire lives confined to a filthy cage before finally being beaten, electrocuted, gassed, or skinned alive? No one with a conscience would.

Yet Furla continues to sell fur pompom key chains and handbags, which it recently added to its collection, despite hearing from PETA and nearly 200,000 compassionate people around the world that animals suffer in the fur trade.

Animals like the ones pictured here are killed to make fur key chains sold by Furla.

Fur farmers use the cheapest slaughter methods available in order to keep the animals' pelts intact, including neck-breaking, suffocation, poisonous gas, and genital electrocution, all of which result in agonizing pain. Workers hang the animals by their legs or tails, stomp on their necks if they struggle, and peel their skin and fur over their heads. Then, skinned, they're thrown onto a pile of bodies, where some remain alive-panting in ragged gasps-for as long as 10 minutes.

Furla also refers to its animal pelts as "eco fur." But research shows that it's 10 times more harmful to the environment to produce a garment made with animal fur than it is to produce a faux-fur item, and the chemicals used to prevent animals' flesh from rotting after it's been turned into a coat or trim are highly toxic and carcinogenic.

That's why hundreds of major designers and retailers-including Bottega Veneta, Giorgio Armani, Gucci, Nicole Miller, and Ralph Lauren -have already banned it and opt instead for beautiful, luxurious faux fur that does better by the animals and the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VICTORY: Tell Furla That No Furry Key Chain or Purse Is Worth an Animal's Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After facing over a year of pressure from PETA and receiving more than 200,000 e-mails from supporters like you, Furla has announced that it's joining the ever-growing list of fur-free luxury brands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As demand for food and natural resources grow, more companies are engaging in unsustainable business operations that cause critical harm to the environment and biodiversity. That's why it's more important than ever to be mindful of where we source products from.

At Wildlife Reserves Singapore (WRS), we actively support sustainable consumption and are committed to serving sustainably-sourced food and using eco-friendly products. Through these initiatives, we aim to reduce our impact on the environment and do our part in protecting wildlife in the region and beyond.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As demand for food and natural resources grow, more companies are engaging in unsustainable business operations that cause critical harm to the environment and biodiversity. That's why it's more important than ever to be mindful of where we source products from.

# data[].attributes.body
"An animals life for a piece of clothing? no way"

Partner with dorothy (take photo together)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Paula Moore Folks in West Hollywood, California, are well known for their support of forward-looking legislation, so it didn't come as any surprise when the WeHo City Council unanimously voted to ban sales of apparel made from animal fur last month. If the ordinance gets final approval, West Hollywood will become the first city in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Francisco Is the Largest U.S. City to Ban Fur - Plus, Find Out Which Fashion Brands Are Anti-Fur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Versace is the latest high-fashion brand to join the growing list of fur-free companies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion Essay: Should Fur For Clothing Be Banned?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, millions of animals are killed for the clothing industry, all in the name of fashion, since humans do anything to be trendy, which means a big worldwide business. I strongly disagree with this view for a number of reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Click on the image to see how many of these beautuful animals have to be killed just for a fur coat that nobody really needs.

Fur trim isn't the 'leftovers' from making full length fur coats. It depends on the style and size of the garment but here is a guide to the number of animals that suffer and die for 'fashion'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many animals have to die for a fur coat?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click on the image to see how many of these beautuful animals have to be killed just for a fur coat that nobody really needs. Remember: Fur trim isn't the 'leftovers' from making full length fur coats. It depends on the style and size of the garment but here is a guide to the number...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fur Industry: Animals Used for Their Skins | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether it came from an animal on a fur farm or one who was trapped in the wild, every fur coat, trinket, and bit of trim caused an animal suffering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fur clothing is clothing made of furry animal hides. Fur is one of the oldest forms of clothing, and is thought to have been widely used as hominids first expanded outside Africa. Some view fur as luxurious and warm; however, others reject it due to moral beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Olivia🏆I think that your padlet is really organised and neat. It looks really nice and I suggest you to do more note taking or maybe you did but I didn't see much.
Harry 😣Very much words
Next time please have more pictures overall your padlet is very nice.
Ethan 🤬I think that you should add more pictures in it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is resolved by members in the 2019 Annual General Meeting that the revised CONSTITUTION AND RULES with the advice of the Inland Revenue Department will be adopted upon the approval of the Lands Department. As we have obtained the related approval, it is announced that the revised version is formally adopted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is resolved by members in the 2019 Annual General Meeting that the revised CONSTITUTION AND RULES with the advice of the Inland Revenue Department will be adopted upon the approval of the Lands Department.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As crazy as it might sound, some people STILL wear clothing made from animal fur or skin.

What they may not realize is that every fur-trimmed coat, leather bag, and wool sweater caused animals tremendous suffering-and took away their lives. That'd be like someone taking your life just to add a piece of your skin to an overpriced jacket that no one really needs-gross! If you'd never wear clothing made from human skin, you shouldn't wear clothing made from animals, either.

Here are the top 12 animals you probably didn't realize suffer for "fashion":
12. Sheep
Sheep are gentle, sensitive animals who are extremely smart. They recognize the faces of at least 50 other sheep and can remember 50 different images for up to two years! When they're sad, they hang their heads and avoid company, just like a lot of humans do.

Sheep are often used for their wool, which is made into hats, sweaters, and other "fashion" items. Those who are used to make clothing are typically forced to undergo a great deal of abuse. For example, shearers (the people who remove the wool from a sheep's body) are paid by the amount of wool they cut, so they scramble to work as quickly as possible with sharp tools, often causing severe injuries to the sheep, including deep gashes.
11. Minks
Minks LOVE to swim, and they can dive to depths of 50 feet with just one breath! But those who are raised on fur farms are forced to live in small dirty cages until they're killed for their fur. They aren't even allowed to swim, which causes them lots of stress since swimming is what's most natural for them.
10. Cows
Cows are gentle giants-large in size but sweet in nature. They're curious, clever animals who enjoy spending their time together. They form complex relationships, very much like dogs in packs!

Cows on factory farms live in crowded, filthy conditions and suffer through painful procedures like branding, dehorning, and tail-docking (meaning their tails are cut off)-all without painkillers. After being crammed into trucks and carted off to the slaughterhouse, many are hung upside down and their throats are slit while they're still conscious.
9. Rabbits
You might be thinking, "How could anyone ever wear a little bunny?!" But rabbits are killed for their fur, too. Bunnies are extremely social animals who love nibbling on snacks like apples and green veggies. Adopted rabbit companions form lifelong bonds with humans, play with toys, and can even learn to use litterboxes like kitties do.

But when they're used for their fur, bunnies suffer terrible abuse. On angora fur farms, they usually live alone in small cages, and workers on some farms rip the fur out of their sensitive skin as often as every three months so it can be used to make sweaters, scarves, or other items. These bunnies actually scream in pain as their fur is being torn out.
8. Foxes
Have you ever seen one of these sleek critters making his or her way around your backyard? If so, we're sure you'll agree that foxes are truly beautiful animals. They're highly intelligent and have big, bushy tails. If left alone by humans (their main predator), they can survive up to nine years in the wild!

Unfortunately, on fur farms, many foxes are kept in tiny, filthy wire cages their whole lives before being killed for their fur. Others are caught in traps, which crush their legs, until they die or trappers arrive.
7. Raccoons
In nature, raccoons can live seven years or longer. They're smart, love frolicking and nesting, and have routines for finding food and shelter. Raccoons can even plot out and remember different hiding places for their food!

Like foxes, raccoons are hunted by humans using dogs, and many suffer in traps for hours before they're killed. Some even chew their own leg off in an effort to escape.
6. Chinchillas
I know what you're thinking: "That's the most adorable little fluff ball in the history of the universe." We agree. Chinchillas are shy, sensitive animals who can live up to 15 years in the wild. They're considered social "chatterboxes" because they may spend all night "talking" to each other with vocalizations like barks, chirps, and squeaks. Aww!

Chinchillas are nearing extinction (meaning their entire population is in danger of dying out forever!) because people keep killing them for their fur. On a fur farm in Midland, Michigan, PETA investigators saw workers electrocute chinchillas and break their necks while they were still awake.
5. Snakes
Snakes are super-cool animals! They use their tongues to smell and their bellies and lower jaws to detect vibrations so that they know what's going on around them.

But just like all animals used for clothing, snakes go through a lot of pain and suffering. They're commonly nailed to trees and their bodies are cut open from one end to the other because people think skinning them alive keeps their skin flexible.
4. Beavers
Yes, we're talking about those awesome creatures with the giant front teeth and paddle-like tails. Beavers are extremely gentle animals who love their families, remaining close with their mates and children for their entire lives.

Beavers today are in constant danger of being caught in underwater traps that cause them extreme pain and suffering, just so that they can be sold for their fur. In many cases, the traps fail to catch the animals the way they were meant to, and if they don't kill them right away, they can slowly drown, suffering for up to 15 minutes before they finally die.
3. Seals
Mother seals and their babies form a very strong bond and recognize each other by sound and smell. Female seals nurse their pups for a few days before going out to sea to feed, leaving the pups in a nursery group or a protected area for three to five days. When the mothers return, each one calls her pup with a specific bark that the pup will answer to.

When harp seal pups are just a few weeks old, they lose their white baby fur-once this happens, sealers in Canada are allowed to beat and skin them so that their fur can be turned into coats and accessories.
2. Bears
Can you imagine killing a bear (or any animal) for his or her fur? Neither can we. But for nearly two centuries, Britain's Ministry of Defence has encouraged the slaughter of these animals in Canada so that their pelts can be used to make hats for the Queen's Guard. Would you want to wear a dead bear on your head? No, thanks.

Bears are also cruelly killed for their skins. They're either shot or trapped, sometimes for days, in painful snares. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry reports that during hunts, as many as one bear out of seven is NOT killed immediately after being shot, and some escape wounded, often dying later from blood loss, disease, or hunger.
1. Dogs and Cats
That's right-not even our furry BFFs are safe from the fur and leather trades. In China, millions of dogs and cats are killed in horrible and painful ways to be made into coat trim and other products. Dog and cat fur is often mislabeled as fur from other species and then sold right here in the U.S.

What You Can Do

Now that you know more about some of the animals who are killed for their skin or fur, YOU can help put a stop to this cruelty by never wearing any clothing made from animals and telling your friends and family to do the same!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As crazy as it might sound, some people STILL wear clothing made from animal fur or skin. What they may not realize is that every fur-trimmed coat, leather bag, ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, billions of animals suffer and die for clothing and accessories. Skin is torn from them to make leather, birds are held down while handfuls of feathers are ripped out of their sensitive skin, and small animals are caged for life before being killed for their fur. Sheep are often beaten and mutilated by workers stealing their wool and their skin for shearling. Goats are similarly abused for cashmere and mohair. All this is done in the name of fashion. No matter the type of material or where it comes from, if the process involves an animal, it involves horrific cruelty.

The practice of wearing animal-derived materials is on its way to becoming a thing of the past, thanks to PETA. Our dedicated activists and supporters have exposed systemic cruelty in the skins (leather), wool, down, cashmere, mohair, and fur trades. Our investigations of these industries have repeatedly exposed widespread and relentless abuse of animals. Our advertisements and demonstrations against these bloody industries are famous for shocking the public, turning heads, and initiating action. We do hands-on work with companies behind the scenes to persuade the largest names in fashion to ditch clothing made from animals. PETA has also led radical actions against top-tier brands, persuading them to stop using animal-derived materials.

This is an exciting time-more so than ever before, people are against wearing animals. From mohair hats to shearling jackets to leather shoes, shoppers are ditching cruel and environmentally toxic items in favor of compassionate and sustainable vegan items.
PETA's Victories: Animal Used for Clothing
How Animals Used for Clothing Are Killed

The vast majority of the billions of animals who are killed for their skin, wool, feathers, or fur endure all the horrors of factory farming. Sensitive living beings are forced to live in cramped, filthy conditions, and every bit of freedom and autonomy is taken away from them. Animals suffer at the hands of workers, who may roughly handle, kick, and beat them. After a lifetime of torment, they're violently slaughtered via the cheapest means possible, including bludgeoning, anal electrocution, and gassing. Some are even dismembered and skinned alive. Trapped animals used for their fur can suffer for days from blood loss, shock, dehydration, frostbite, and gangrene or be attacked by predators before trappers return to kill them.

Fur and leather items are often deliberately mislabeled. In countries where animal welfare laws are virtually non-existent, some producers have been known to kill dogs and cats for fur and leather. So if you wear animals, there's no easy way of knowing whose skin you're in. But you can be sure that no matter who they were, they didn't want to die to become clothing or accessories.

Wearing Vegan Clothing

In addition to causing the suffering and deaths of billions of animals each year, the production of animal-derived materials-including wool, fur, and leather -contributes to climate change, land devastation, pollution, and water contamination.

@officialpeta
Don't be fooled by an industry that profits from cruelty-wool hurts sheep AND the planet.

♬ Sad Somber Piano and Cello - Moko_Music

Advancements in textiles make Earth-friendly vegan materials nearly indistinguishable from and far superior to their animal-derived counterparts. There's a reason why many outdoor clothing companies have ditched animal fur. The vegan materials available today are much lighter, and they're far more durable and practical.

Many of us are familiar with common vegan fabrics such as cotton and polyester. But in the 21 st century, business in vegan fashion is booming. Clothes and accessories made from hemp, bamboo, and other animal-free materials are now commonplace. They can also be made from innovative and sustainable materials such as cork, mushrooms, pineapple leaves, apple peels, other fruit waste, or recycled plastics. With so many different materials to choose from, there's no excuse for animals to die violently and painfully for fashion.

Help Animals Used for Clothing

When shopping for clothes, always choose something vegan-not someone. Pledge not to wear leather, fur, or wool. Post on the social media accounts of major brands urging them to stop selling materials made of animal parts. Stay up to date with the latest PETA campaigns for more ways to help.

With the help of our members and supporters, PETA and international PETA entities work globally to expose and end the use of animals in the fashion industry. Our actions include the following:

Conducting groundbreaking undercover investigations to inform the public

Working with celebrities and other activists on a wide variety of campaigns

Holding colorful, eye-catching campaigns such as "fur crawls," naked demos, and Fur-Free Friday protests outside stores

Persuading legislative bodies to ban the farming and sale of fur and exotic skins

Encouraging fashion designers, companies, and shoppers to use only vegan fabrics

Buying stock in companies for the sole purpose of pressuring them to change

Facilitating connections between major brands and vegan innovators

Awarding innovative companies for creating new vegan materials and designs

Partnering with compassionate designers, brands, and retailers on runway shows, exclusive vegan products, and many other exciting initiatives

Hosting ethics and sustainability panels at fashion universities to help educate the next generation of designers about the vegan fashion revolution

Promoting vegan options that are available from popular stores and brands

Exposing the cruelty behind all animal-derived materials, including mohair, down, and shearling

This multifaceted approach secures lifesaving victories for animals targeted by the deadly fashion industry, and soon, using animals for clothing and accessories will be a thing of the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leather, Wool, and Other Clothing Made From Animals | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, billions of animals suffer and die for clothing and accessories. No matter the type of material or where it comes from, if the process involves an animal, it involves horrific cruelty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hear the tale of this seal species named for the coats that make them attractive to hunters. Learn how some populations have rebounded-while others may never recover.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are riders in Australia only allowed to whip horse five times but in Hong Kong there's no such rule in Hong Kong

# data[].attributes.body
Many animals are used for our clothing we shouldn't kill a animal just for it's fur. We have to understand that fashion is not as important as the extinction of animal.

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

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

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

The Finish Line

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Overfishing
whaling
coral Bleaching
Polar Ice Caps Melting

# data[].attributes.headline
Who are experts experienced people related to your inquiry?

# data[].attributes.subject
Who are experts experienced people related to your inquiry?

# data[].attributes.body
1,Dorothy's mom because she has a client which is related to fur farming

# data[].attributes.headline
Australians only allowed to whip horse five times during competion

# data[].attributes.subject
Australians only allowed to whip horse five times during competion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Finishing on the wrong side of a narrow photo finish like the Zipping Classic isn't easy to take for a punter.

Knowing the jockey of the horse who defeated you has broken the rules but still retains the race, makes the situation even tougher to swallow.

Thankfully I wasn't one of the many punters who backed Almoonqith at Sandown but I really feel for those who did.

And the reason behind this is the ridiculous guidelines given to stewards by Racing Australia when policing the whip rule.

Jockeys are only allowed to use the whip on five occasions prior to the final 100m of a race.

So it doesn't matter if you are in a 955m scamper at the Valley or the Melbourne Cup over 3200m, they only can use the whip five times.

Glyn Schofield, riding the winner Beautiful Romance, breached the rules and used the whip nine times before the 100m, four more than allowed.

His horse won by the barest of margins and while it is hard to quantify a definitive margin that using the whip makes, one could easily argue that his extra urgings got the mare to her top gear and in to a winning position.

I've got nothing against Schofield, he got the job done. But we shouldn't have a situation where punters who backed Almoonqith are questioning whether they were hard done by.

Damien Oliver also breached the rules but only used his whip twice more than allowed prior to the 100m on Almoonqith. Did it make a difference? If he used his whip as many times as Schofield would he have won?

Racing needs as many customers as possible and shouldn't be providing ammunition for people to turn away.

Restrictions have been placed on jockeys' whip use to keep the sport in line with popular culture. It is about perception and making sure racing is doing enough when it comes to horse welfare.

There is certainly merit in the theory of the rule but it currently misses the mark with its execution.

Schofield's minimum earnings from winning the Zipping Classic was $9000, his fine a feather in comparison to the amount of money wagered on the result of the race.

Thankfully Des Gleeson's review of the whip rules is due to be presented to the Racing Australia board on December 7.

Hopefully common sense is applied and new guidelines are provided to those who are policing the sport because the current framework is nothing short of laughable.

****

While still on the Zipping Classic, Oliver wasn't exactly glowing in his report of Almoonqith following the weight-for-age race.

Almoonqith looked to have the race sewn up as he worked to the line in the middle of the track but the lack of killer instinct cost the Lindsay Park team victory according to Oliver.

"He pulled up, it is hard enough to win races when you've got horses that try but this bloke just dead-set pulled up, he threw the race away," he said.

And upon reflection of the race, it is hard to argue with Oliver.

****

Stephen Autridge's Spring Carnival hasn't exactly gone to plan and the New Zealand trainer will head home without one of his best horses as Shillelagh is set to join the Chris Waller stable.

He was putting on a brave face at Sandown but one can easily assume the owners' decision to keep Shillelagh in Australia is tough to swallow.

Autridge is also the trainer of Xtravagant, the much-hyped stallion who didn't fire a shot and returned to New Zealand with more question marks than answers.

But don't be surprised if Xtravagant makes another trip across the Tasman in the autumn, with Autridge hinting connections may roll the dice one more time.

****

Bravo Charlie Appleby, bravo.

Australian punters haven't been too fond of travelling English trainers in the past but that certainly changed this spring.

Qewy capped off a remarkable hit-and-run mission from Appleby, whose team in Melbourne was largely headed up by James Ferguson, his assistant trainer.

The Sandown Cup was a horror result for bookmakers across the country and the bagmen will be glad to see the floats leave Werribee for Tullamarine on Wednesday.

Such has been the popularity of Appleby's horses in Melbourne, CrownBet have reported that outside of Winx, they have been the worst results for the big bookie.

****

Stratum Star was heavily backed at Sandown and his effort behind Redkirk Warrior was enough for trainer Darren Weir to suggest he will travel north for the 1800m race at the Magic Millions race day in January.

His route north will include a stop in Sydney for the Villiers Stakes according to Weir, who is also planning to take Lucky Hussler back to the Gold Coast to defend his Magic Millions Cup crown.

****

The trip north to Sydney didn't work for Mandee with the winning run of Ciaron Maher's filly coming to a griding halt.

After two strong wins in Victoria this preparation, Maher sent Mandee north for a 1300m race, feeling the 1400m of the Twilight Glow Stakes at Sandown may be stretching her distance range.

Mandee commanded favouritism in the small field at Rosehill but never threatened, racing wide early before sitting second and being very plain in the home straight, beaten convincingly by Zumbelina, Cadogan and leader Samadoubt.

Short course races the Melbourne-way of going may be the key for Mandee at this stage of her career.

****

Craig Newitt was strong in his belief that O'Malley found the track too firm at Sandown, suggesting he needs the sting out to find his best form.

All three of his previous runs this campaign had been at Moonee Valley, a track noted for its forgiving surface.

Newitt wasn't the only jockey that made comment that the track was on the firm side, with Kerrin McEvoy suggesting Cool Chap, another favoured runner who didn't meet expectation, wasn't comfortable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COMMENT: Common sense needed for whip rule

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finishing on the wrong side of a narrow photo finish like the Zipping Classic isn't easy to take for a punter. Knowing the jockey of the horse who defeated you has broken the rules but still retains the race, makes the situation even tougher to swallow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is it that pushes some riders to break the rules on the use of the whip in Thoroughbred horse racing in Australia?

The prospect of coming second - or even last - may have something to do with it, if our team's study of recorded official whip rule breaches is anything to go by.

In the study, published today in the open access journal Animals, our team analysed the official Stewards Reports and Race Diaries in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.

In 2013 alone, there were 56,456 starts in 5,604 races at 785 race meetings on 122 different tracks.

A breach of the whip rules, as defined by the Australian Rules of Racing in place at the time, was reported in 348 starts and of these, 37 included a second breach.

Not all the race rules were breached, so what's interesting is to look at the breakdown of what breaches occurred, and when during the races.

Of the 139 riders who were responsible for the 348 starts with breaches, 51.08% were repeat offenders - riders who had more than one whip rule breach recorded in 2013. Overall, fines represented about 2.29% of the total prize money won by the horses involved.

Race placing

The data reveal that there was a significantly higher frequency of recorded breaches by riders of horses that finished first, second or third. This suggests a desire to win may motivate whip rule breaches and potentially affect race and betting outcomes.

The next highest percentage was seen in horses that ran last, which seems to suggest that the desire to not come last may also lead riders into a breach of the whip use.

The data show there was a significantly higher frequency of recorded breaches of the rules of racing at metropolitan than at country or provincial locations.

Despite hosting 67.34% of starts, country tracks recorded only 57.47% of starts with a breach or breaches. Conversely, metropolitan tracks hosted 14.53% of starts and yet recorded 22.13% of starts with a breach or breaches.

This discrepancy may reflect the desire to win may be particularly high at the more prestigious city race tracks, but also may bring into question the quality of surveillance in the non-metropolitan locations.

Horse racing without whips

So what is the future for the use of the whip in Thoroughbred horse racing in Australia?

Late last year Harness Racing Australia established a precedent by becoming the first racing authority in the world to walk away from using a whip to steer or encourage horses to race.

Racing Australia CEO Barry O'Farrell faces unprecedented challenges in balancing the growing demand for horse welfare with the needs of punters and industry tradition.

In 2015, O'Farrell's predecessor, Peter McGauran, famously told the ABC's Catalyst he believed the whip does "not inflict pain on a horse" and if there was any aspect of cruelty to it he "would have no part of it".

A year later, Ray Murrihy, the outgoing chief steward in NSW, conceded that whip use in the future looks dubious. He added:

If we don't pay due regard to welfare matters, it will be at our peril. If we don't do it ourselves, the next time we'll be sitting in the back seat, not the driver's seat.

And 2017 began with leading racing commentator, Steve Moran, declaring that a ban on the whip in Thoroughbred racing was inevitable and offering sage advice to punters, jockeys and trainers on how to prepare themselves for the transition.

He concluded his opinion piece by proposing that:

[...] the safety of the rider is the only genuinely, critical argument for retaining the whip in racing.

His most recent commentary proposes a step-wise progression to whip use for safety purposes only.

This is surely a tipping point. RSPCA Australia has repeatedly agreed with this position and calls for the introduction of hands-and-heels racing where whips are no longer used for performance but may be carried for safety purposes where proven necessary.

Racing and welfare

Clearly the whip issue is not going away. The integrity of racing, most notably the assurance for punters that the rules are being observed, has to be balanced by the need to show increasing regard for the welfare of horses.

These issues are reflected in the rules of racing in Australia, rules that the industry promotes as a means of both safeguarding horse welfare, and ensuring that:

The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.

Of course, the effectiveness of any rule is reflected in how well it is policed.

Our study raises a number of questions that need to be answered, including whether the number of breaches recorded by stewards aligns with the actual number of whip rule breaches at all of these locations, and what steward- and surveillance-related factors might affect whether a breach is recorded or not.

It is also concerning from a regulatory point of view that a small number of types of whip breach predominated in 2013, with no breaches recorded for 15 of the 24 whip rules.

Our study shows that more than half of all first breaches recorded occurred prior to the 100m mark and involved two whip rules: whip use that raises arm above jockey's shoulder height; and forehand whip use on more than five occasions prior to the 100m mark.

It is worth noting there have been some changes to the whip rules since 2013, not least to the latter rule in that both forehand and backhand whips strikes are now counted.

Also, under the rules that were current during our study, jockeys were allowed to whip at their discretion after the 100m mark, which is when horses are generally fatigued and, arguably, need more protection from the rules. This remains the case in the latest set of rules, introduced on January 1 this year. These seem rather difficult to interpret in that:

the whip shall not be used on more than 5 occasions save and except where there have only been minor infractions and the totality of the whip use over the whole race is less than permitted under [other rules] and also having regard to the circumstances of the race including distance and context of the race, such as a staying race or a rider endeavouring to encourage his mount to improve.

Our report recommends that racing compliance data be analysed annually to inform the evidence base for policy, education and regulatory change, and ensure the welfare of racehorses and racing integrity.

So, the onus is now on the Thoroughbred racing industry to either invest yet more in surveillance or, following the lead of Harness Racing Australia, revisit the rules.

Horse welfare advocates will be watching O'Farrell's leadership on the whip issue closely and hoping that his next step provides the industry with a whip-free future.

If the integrity of racing can be assured without the use of whips, as proposed by Harness Racing Australia, the RSPCA and Steve Moran (among others), then O'Farrell can make the administration of Thoroughbred racing more efficient by not having to police complex whip rules.

That would be a big step forward for efficiency and for animal welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When the pressure is on, some riders breach the whip rules in horse racing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is it that pushes some riders to break the rules on the use of the whip in Thoroughbred horse racing in Australia? The prospect of coming second - or even last - may have something to do with it, if our team's study of recorded official whip rule breaches is anything to go by.

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas Stephen Szasz (2004). “Words to the Wise: A Medical-Philosophical Dictionary”, p.65, Transaction Publishers  -Source

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Wikipedia resource:animal welfare, animal testing etc

# data[].attributes.subject
Wikipedia resource:animal welfare, animal testing etc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal welfare is the well-being of non-human animals. Formal standards of animal welfare vary between contexts, but are debated mostly by animal welfare groups, legislators, and academics. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these best indicate animal welfare.

Respect for animal welfare is often based on the belief that nonhuman animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being or suffering, especially when they are under the care of humans. These concerns can include how animals are slaughtered for food, how they are used in scientific research, how they are kept (as pets, in zoos, farms, circuses, etc.), and how human activities affect the welfare and survival of wild species.

There are two forms of criticism of the concept of animal welfare, coming from diametrically opposite positions. One view, held by some thinkers in history, holds that humans have no duties of any kind to animals. The other view is based on the animal rights position that animals should not be regarded as property and any use of animals by humans is unacceptable. Accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals. Some authorities therefore treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions.[page needed ] Others see animal welfare gains as incremental steps towards animal rights.

The predominant view of modern neuroscientists, notwithstanding philosophical problems with the definition of consciousness even in humans, is that consciousness exists in nonhuman animals. However, some still maintain that consciousness is a philosophical question that may never be scientifically resolved.

History, principles and practice

Early legislation in the Western world on behalf of animals includes the Ireland Parliament (Thomas Wentworth) " An Act against Plowing by the Tayle, and pulling the Wooll off living Sheep", 1635, and the Massachusetts Colony ( Nathaniel Ward) "Off the Bruite Creatures" Liberty 92 and 93 in the " Massachusetts Body of Liberties" of 1641.

In 1776, English clergyman Humphrey Primatt authored A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, one of the first books published in support of animal welfare. Marc Bekoff has noted that "Primatt was largely responsible for bringing animal welfare to the attention of the general public."

Since 1822, when Irish MP Richard Martin brought the " Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822" through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses, and sheep, an animal welfare movement has been active in England. Martin was among the founders of the world's first animal welfare organization, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in 1824. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing, and it became the RSPCA. The society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify abusers, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities.

One of the first national laws to protect animals was the UK " Cruelty to Animals Act 1835" followed by the " Protection of Animals Act 1911". In the US it was many years until there was a national law to protect animals-the " Animal Welfare Act of 1966"-although there were a number of states that passed anti-cruelty laws between 1828 and 1898. In India, animals are protected by the " Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960".

Significant progress in animal welfare did not take place until the late 20th century. In 1965, the UK government commissioned an investigation-led by Professor Roger Brambell-into the welfare of intensively farmed animals, partly in response to concerns raised in Ruth Harrison's 1964 book, Animal Machines. On the basis of Professor Brambell's report, the UK government set up the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979. The committee's first guidelines recommended that animals require the freedoms to "stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs." The guidelines have since been elaborated upon to become known as the Five Freedoms.

In the UK, the " Animal Welfare Act 2006" consolidated many different forms of animal welfare legislation.

A number of animal welfare organisations are campaigning to achieve a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) at the United Nations. In principle, the Universal Declaration would call on the United Nations to recognise animals as sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and to recognise that animal welfare is an issue of importance as part of the social development of nations worldwide. The campaign to achieve the UDAW is being co-ordinated by World Animal Protection, with a core working group including Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, and the Humane Society International (the international branch of HSUS).

Animal welfare science is an emerging field that seeks to answer questions raised by the keeping and use of animals, such as whether hens are frustrated when confined in cages, whether the psychological well-being of animals in laboratories can be maintained, and whether zoo animals are stressed by the transport required for international conservation. Ireland leads research into farm animal welfare with the recently published Research Report on Farm Animal Welfare.

A major concern for the welfare of farm animals is factory farming in which large numbers of animals are reared in confinement at high stocking densities. Issues include the limited opportunities for natural behaviors, for example, in battery cages, veal and gestation crates, instead producing abnormal behaviors such as tail-biting, cannibalism, and feather pecking, and routine invasive procedures such as beak trimming, castration, and ear notching. More extensive methods of farming, e.g. free range, can also raise welfare concerns such as the mulesing of sheep, predation of stock by wild animals, and biosecurity.

Farm animals are artificially selected for production parameters which sometimes impinge on the animals' welfare. For example, broiler chickens are bred to be very large to produce the greatest quantity of meat per animal. Broilers bred for fast growth have a high incidence of leg deformities because the large breast muscles cause distortions of the developing legs and pelvis, and the birds cannot support their increased body weight. As a consequence, they frequently become lame or suffer from broken legs. The increased body weight also puts a strain on their hearts and lungs, and ascites often develops. In the UK alone, up to 20 million broilers each year die from the stress of catching and transport before reaching the slaughterhouse.

Another concern about the welfare of farm animals is the method of slaughter, especially ritual slaughter. While the killing of animals need not necessarily involve suffering, the general public considers that killing an animal reduces its welfare. This leads to further concerns about premature slaughtering such as chick culling by the laying hen industry, in which males are slaughtered immediately after hatching because they are superfluous; this policy occurs in other farm animal industries such as the production of goat and cattle milk, raising the same concerns.

Captive cetaceans are kept for display, research and naval operations. To enhance their welfare, humans feed them fish which are dead, but are disease-free, protect them from predators and injury, monitor their health, and provide activities for behavioral enrichment. Some are kept in lagoons with natural soil and vegetated sides. Most are in concrete tanks which are easy to clean, but echo their natural sounds back to them. They cannot develop their own social groups, and related cetaceans are typically separated for display and breeding. Military dolphins used in naval operations swim free during operations and training, and return to pens otherwise. Captive cetaceans are trained to present themselves for blood samples, health exams and noninvasive breath samples above their blow holes. Staff can monitor the captives afterwards for signs of infection from the procedure.

Research on wild cetaceans leaves them free to roam and make sounds in their natural habitat, eat live fish, face predators and injury, and form social groups voluntarily. However boat engines of researchers, whale watchers and others add substantial noise to their natural environment, reducing their ability to echolocate and communicate. Electric engines are far quieter, but are not widely used for either research or whale watching, even for maintaining position, which does not require much power. Vancouver Port offers discounts for ships with quiet propeller and hull designs. Other areas have reduced speeds. Boat engines also have unshielded propellers, which cause serious injuries to cetaceans who come close to the propeller. The US Coast Guard has proposed rules on propeller guards to protect human swimmers, but has not adopted any rules. The US Navy uses propeller guards to protect manatees in Georgia. Ducted propellers provide more efficient drive at speeds up to 10 knots, and protect animals beneath and beside them, but need grilles to prevent injuries to animals drawn into the duct. Attaching satellite trackers and obtaining biopsies to measure pollution loads and DNA involve either capture and release, or shooting the cetaceans from a distance with dart guns. A cetacean was killed by a fungal infection after being darted, due to either an incompletely sterilized dart or an infection from the ocean entering the wound caused by the dart. Researchers on wild cetaceans have not yet been able to use drones to capture noninvasive breath samples.

Other harms to wild cetaceans include commercial whaling, aboriginal whaling, drift netting, ship collisions, water pollution, noise from sonar and reflection seismology, predators, loss of prey, disease. Efforts to enhance the life of wild cetaceans, besides reducing those harms, include offering human music. Canadian rules do not forbid playing quiet music, though they forbid "noise that may resemble whale songs or calls, under water".

In addition to cetaceans, the welfare of other wild animals has also been studied, though to a lesser extent than that of animals in farms. Research in wild animal welfare has two focuses: the welfare of wild animals kept in captivity and the welfare of animals living in the wild. The former has addressed the situation of animals kept both for human use, as in zoos or circuses, or in rehabilitation centers. The latter has examined how the welfare of non-domesticated animals living in wild or urban areas are affected by humans or natural factors causing wild animal suffering.

Some of the proponents of these views have advocated for carrying out conservation efforts in ways that respect the welfare of wild animals, within the framework of a discipline called compassionate conservation, while others have argued in favor of improving the welfare of wild animals for the sake of the animals, regardless of whether there are any conservation issues involved at all. The welfare economist Yew-Kwang Ng, in his 1995 "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering", proposed welfare biology as a research field to study "living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering)."

The European Commission's activities in this area start with the recognition that animals are sentient beings. The general aim is to ensure that animals do not endure avoidable pain or suffering, and obliges the owner/keeper of animals to respect minimum welfare requirements. European Union legislation regarding farm animal welfare is regularly re-drafted according to science-based evidence and cultural views. For example, in 2009, legislation was passed which aimed to reduce animal suffering during slaughter and on January 1, 2012, the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC came into act, which means that conventional battery cages for laying hens are now banned across the Union.

United Kingdom

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met. These include the need: for a suitable environment (place to live), for a suitable diet, to exhibit normal behavior patterns, to be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable), and to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease. Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or sent to prison for a maximum of six months.

In the UK, the welfare of research animals being used for "regulated procedures" was historically protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) which is administrated by the Home Office. The Act defines "regulated procedures" as animal experiments that could potentially cause "pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm" to "protected animals". Initially, "protected animals" encompassed all living vertebrates other than humans, but, in 1993, an amendment added a single invertebrate species, the common octopus.

Primates, cats, dogs, and horses have additional protection over other vertebrates under the Act. Revised legislation came into force in January 2013. This has been expanded to protect "...all living vertebrates, other than man, and any living cephalopod. Fish and amphibia are protected once they can feed independently and cephalopods at the point when they hatch. Embryonic and foetal forms of mammals, birds and reptiles are protected during the last third of their gestation or incubation period." The definition of regulated procedures was also expanded: "A procedure is regulated if it is carried out on a protected animal and may cause that animal a level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by inserting a hypodermic needle according to good veterinary practice." It also includes modifying the genes of a protected animal if this causes the animal pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm. The ASPA also considers other issues such as animal sources, housing conditions, identification methods, and the humane killing of animals.

This legislation is widely regarded as the strictest in the world. Those applying for a license must explain why such research cannot be done through non-animal methods. The project must also pass an ethical review panel which aims to decide if the potential benefits outweigh any suffering for the animals involved.

In the United States, a federal law called the Humane Slaughter Act was designed to decrease suffering of livestock during slaughter.

The Georgia Animal Protection Act of 1986 was a state law enacted in response to the inhumane treatment of companion animals by a pet store chain in Atlanta. The Act provided for the licensing and regulation of pet shops, stables, kennels, and animal shelters, and established, for the first time, minimum standards of care. Additional provisions, called the Humane Euthanasia Act, were added in 1990, and then further expanded and strengthened with the Animal Protection Act of 2000.

In 2002, voters passed (by a margin of 55% for and 45% against) Amendment 10 to the Florida Constitution banning the confinement of pregnant pigs in gestation crates. In 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 204 with 62% support; the legislation prohibits the confinement of calves in veal crates and breeding sows in gestation crates. In 2007, the Governor of Oregon signed legislation prohibiting the confinement of pigs in gestation crates and in 2008, the Governor of Colorado signed legislation that phased out both gestation crates and veal crates. Also during 2008, California passed Proposition 2, known as the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", which orders new space requirements for farm animals starting in 2015.

In the US, every institution that uses vertebrate animals for federally funded laboratory research must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Each local IACUC reviews research protocols and conducts evaluations of the institution's animal care and use which includes the results of inspections of facilities that are required by law. The IACUC committee must assess the steps taken to "enhance animal well-being" before research can take place. This includes research on farm animals.

However, research and testing studies sometimes involve pain that cannot be relieved with such agents because they would interfere with the scientific objectives of the study. Accordingly, federal regulations require that IACUCs determine that discomfort to animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research, and that unrelieved pain and distress will only continue for the duration necessary to accomplish the scientific objectives. The PHS Policy and AWRs further state that animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain and distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure, or if appropriate, during the procedure."

The National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals also serves as a guide to improve welfare for animals used in research in the US. The Federation of Animal Science Societies' Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching is a resource addressing welfare concerns in farm animal research. Laboratory animals in the US are also protected under the Animal Welfare Act. The United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces the Animal Welfare Act. APHIS inspects animal research facilities regularly and reports are published online.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total number of animals used in the U.S. in 2005 was almost 1.2 million, but this does not include rats, mice, and birds which are not covered by welfare legislation but make up approximately 90% of research animals.

There are many different approaches to describing and defining animal welfare.

Positive conditions - Providing good animal welfare is sometimes defined by a list of positive conditions which should be provided to the animal. This approach is taken by the Five Freedoms and the three principles of Professor John Webster.

The Five Freedoms are:

Freedom from thirst and hunger - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour

Freedom from discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area

Freedom from pain, injury, and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment

Freedom to express most normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind

Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

John Webster defines animal welfare by advocating three positive conditions: Living a natural life, being fit and healthy, and being happy.

High production - In the past, many have seen farm animal welfare chiefly in terms of whether the animal is producing well. The argument is that an animal in poor welfare would not be producing well, however, many farmed animals will remain highly productive despite being in conditions where good welfare is almost certainly compromised, e.g., layer hens in battery cages.

Emotion in animals - Others in the field, such as Professor Ian Duncan and Professor Marian Dawkins, focus more on the feelings of the animal. This approach indicates the belief that animals should be considered as sentient beings. Duncan wrote, "Animal welfare is to do with the feelings experienced by animals: the absence of strong negative feelings, usually called suffering, and (probably) the presence of positive feelings, usually called pleasure. In any assessment of welfare, it is these feelings that should be assessed." Dawkins wrote, "Let us not mince words: Animal welfare involves the subjective feelings of animals."

Welfare biology - Yew-Kwang Ng defines animal welfare in terms of welfare economics: "Welfare biology is the study of living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering). Despite difficulties of ascertaining and measuring welfare and relevancy to normative issues, welfare biology is a positive science."

Dictionary definition - In the Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, animal welfare is defined as "the avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain."

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has defined animal welfare as: "An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress." They have offered the following eight principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies.

The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.

Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.

Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.

Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.

Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.

Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.

Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.

The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.

Terrestrial Animal Health Code of World Organisation for Animal Health defines animal welfare as "how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment."

Coping - Professor Donald Broom defines the welfare of an animal as "Its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment. This state includes how much it is having to do to cope, the extent to which it is succeeding in or failing to cope, and its associated feelings." He states that "welfare will vary over a continuum from very good to very poor and studies of welfare will be most effective if a wide range of measures is used." John Webster criticized this definition for making "no attempt to say what constitutes good or bad welfare."

Animal welfare often refers to a utilitarian attitude towards the well-being of nonhuman animals. It believes the animals can be exploited if the animal suffering and the costs of use is less than the benefits to humans.[page needed ] This attitude is also known simply as welfarism.

Think about the animals that the meat you eat comes from. Are you at all concerned about how they have been treated? Have they lived well? Have they been fed on safe, appropriate foods? Have they been cared for by someone who respects them and enjoys contact with them? Would you like to be sure of that? Perhaps it's time to find out a bit more about where the meat you eat comes from. Or to buy from a source that reassures you about these points.

Robert Garner describes the welfarist position as the most widely held in modern society. He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by Robert Nozick:

Consider the following (too minimal) position about the treatment of animals. So that we can easily refer to it, let us label this position "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people." It says: (1) maximize the total happiness of all living beings; (2) place stringent side constraints on what one may do to human beings. Human beings may not be used or sacrificed for the benefit of others; animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.

Welfarism is often contrasted with the animal rights and animal liberation positions, which hold that animals should not be used by humans and should not be regarded as human property. However, it has been argued that both welfarism and animal liberation only make sense if it is assumed that animals have "subjective welfare".[clarification needed ]

New welfarism was coined by Gary L. Francione in 1996. It is a view that the best way to prevent animal suffering is to abolish the causes of animal suffering, but advancing animal welfare is a goal to pursue in the short term. Thus, for instance, new welfarists want to phase out fur farms and animal experiments but in the short-term they try to improve conditions for the animals in these systems, so they lobby to make cages less constrictive and to reduce the numbers of animals used in laboratories.

Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes. If an animal in a laboratory is suffering stress or pain it could negatively affect the results of the research.

Increased affluence in many regions for the past few decades afforded consumers the disposable income to purchase products from high welfare systems. The adaptation of more economically efficient farming systems in these regions were at the expense of animal welfare and to the financial benefit of consumers, both of which were factors in driving the demand for higher welfare for farm animals.[clarification needed ] A 2006 survey concluded that a majority (63%) of EU citizens "show some willingness to change their usual place of shopping in order to be able to purchase more animal welfare-friendly products."

The volume of scientific research on animal welfare has also increased significantly in some countries.

Some individuals in history have, at least in principle, rejected the view that humans have duties of any kind to animals.

Augustine of Hippo seemed to take such a position in his writings against those he saw as heretics: "For we see and hear by their cries that animals die with pain, although man disregards this in a beast, with which, as not having a rational soul, we have no community of rights."

Animal rights advocates, such as Gary L. Francione and Tom Regan, argue that the animal welfare position (advocating for the betterment of the condition of animals, but without abolishing animal use) is inconsistent in logic and ethically unacceptable. However, there are some animal right groups, such as PETA, which support animal welfare measures in the short term to alleviate animal suffering until all animal use is ended.

According to PETA's Ingrid Newkirk in an interview with , there are two issues in animal welfare and animal rights. "If I only could have one thing, it would be to end suffering", said Newkirk. "If you could take things from animals and kill animals all day long without causing them suffering, then I would take it... Everybody should be able to agree that animals should not suffer if you kill them or steal from them by taking the fur off their backs or take their eggs, whatever. But you shouldn't put them through torture to do that."

Abolitionism holds that focusing on animal welfare not only fails to challenge animal suffering, but may actually prolong it by making the exercise of property rights over animals appear less unattractive. The abolitionists' objective is to secure a moral and legal paradigm shift, whereby animals are no longer regarded as property. In recent years documentaries such as watchdominion.com have been produced, exposing the suffering occurring in animal agriculture facilities that are marketed as having high welfare standards.

World Animal Protection: Protects animals across the globe. World Animal Protection's objectives include helping people understand the critical importance of good animal welfare, encouraging nations to commit to animal-friendly practices, and building the scientific case for the better treatment of animals. They are global in a sense that they have consultative status at the Council of Europe and collaborate with national governments, the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association: Brings in veterinary involvement to animal welfare. Their objective is to share this concern of animals with all members of the profession, with the general public, with government at all levels, and with other organizations such as the CFHS, which have similar concerns.

National Farm Animal Care Council: Their objectives are to facilitate collaboration among members with respect to farm animal care issues in Canada, to facilitate information sharing and communication, and to monitor trends and initiatives in both the domestic and international market place.

National Office of Animal Health: A British organisation that represents its members drawn from the animal medicines industry.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: A well-known animal welfare charity in England and Wales, founded in 1824.

Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: A UK registered charity, established in 1926, that works to develop and promote improvements in the welfare of all animals through scientific and educational activity worldwide.

1. ^ Grandin, Temple (2013). "Animals are not things: A view on animal welfare based on neurological complexity" (PDF). Trans-Scripts 3: An Interdisciplinary Online Journal in Humanities And Social Sciences at UC Irvine. UC Irvine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 August 2014.

2. Hewson, C.J. (2003). "What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences". The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 44 (6): 496-99. PMC . PMID 12839246.

3. ^ "Draft of the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare" (PDF). media.animalmatter.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-02-27.

4. Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.

5. Francione, G. (1995). Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press.

6. Niven, Charles D. (1967). ^ History of the Humane Movement. Transatlantic Arts. p. 53

7. Levitt, Lacey; Patronek, Gary; Grisso, Thomas. (2016). ^ Animal Maltreatment: Forensic Mental Health Issues and Evaluations. Oxford University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-19-936090-1

8. Bekoff, Marc. (2010). ^ Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, 2nd Edition. ABC-CLIO. pp. 484-485. ISBN 978-0-313-35257-7

9. ^ Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare Archived March 28, 2014, at the Wayback Machine Compassion in World Farming

10. ^ Back a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare World Animal Protection

11. ^ Sherwin, C.M.; Richards, G.J.; Nicol, C.J. (2010). "Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK". British Poultry Science. 51 (4): 488-99. doi:10.1080/00071668.2010.502518. PMID 20924842. S2CID 8968010.

12. ^ Laws, N.; Ganswindt, A.; Heistermann, M.; Harris, M.; Harris, S.; Sherwin, C. (2007). "A case study: Fecal corticosteroid and behavior as indicators of welfare during relocation of an Asian elephant". Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 10 (4): 349-58. doi:10.1080/10888700701555600. PMID 17970634. S2CID 46617133.

13. ^ Lemieux, Leah (2009). Rekindling the waters : the truth about swimming with dolphins. Leicester: Matador. ISBN 9781848760578. OCLC 263296132.

14. ^ Gray, Michael D, John W Doane, Gary W Caille, Peter H Rogers. "Design of Acoustic Treatments for Use in a Dolphin Research Tank".

15. ^ Houghton, Juliana; Holt, Marla M.; Giles, Deborah A.; Hanson, M. Bradley; Emmons, Candice K.; Hogan, Jeffrey T.; Branch, Trevor A.; VanBlaricom, Glenn R. (2015-12-02). "The Relationship between Vessel Traffic and Noise Levels Received by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca)". PLOS ONE. 10 (12): e0140119. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1040119H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140119. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC . PMID 26629916.

16. ^ Veirs, Val, Scott Veirs (2006-04-21). "Average levels and power spectra of ambient sound in the habitat of southern resident orcas" (PDF) - via NOAA.

17. ^ "Reduction in Risk of Collisions with Whales Deemed Encouraging". www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Pêches et Océans Canada - Région du Québec - Infocéans. 2014-10-01. Archived from the original on 2017-07-24.

18. ^ Bexton, Steve (2012). "Unusual Mortality of Pinnipeds in the United Kingdom Associated with Helical (Corkscrew) Injuries of Anthropogenic Origin". Aquatic Mammals. 38 (3): 229-240. doi:10.1578/am.38.3.2012.229.

19. ^ Bik, Elisabeth M.; Costello, Elizabeth K.; Switzer, Alexandra D.; Callahan, Benjamin J.; Holmes, Susan P.; Wells, Randall S.; Carlin, Kevin P.; Jensen, Eric D.; Venn-Watson, Stephanie (2016-02-03). "Marine mammals harbor unique microbiotas shaped by and yet distinct from the sea". Nature Communications. 7: 10516. Bibcode:2016NatCo...710516B. doi:10.1038/ncomms10516. PMC . PMID 26839246.

20. ^ Rothenberg, David (2008). Thousand mile song : whale music in a sea of sound. New York: Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0465071289. OCLC 182662572.

21. ^ Whitham, Jessica C.; Wielebnowski, Nadja (2013). "New directions for zoo animal welfare science". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 147 (3-4): 247-260. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004.

22. ^ Iossa, Graziella; Soulsbury, C. D.; Harris, Stephen (2009). "Are wild animals suited to a travelling circus life?". Animal Welfare. 18 (2): 129-140.

23. ^ Kirkwood, James K.; Sainsbury, Anthony W. (1996). "Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals" (PDF). Animal Welfare. 5: 235-244.

24. ^ Dorado, Daniel (2015). "Ethical interventions in the wild. An annotated bibliography". Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 219-238. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-dora.

25. ^ Welfare Supplement, Editorial Board JWD Wildlife (2016). "Advances in Animal Welfare for Free-Living Animals". Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 52 (2s): S4-S13. doi:10.7589/52.2S.S4. PMID 26845298. S2CID 42993476.

26. ^ Beausoleil; Jessica, Ngaio; Mellor, David J.; Baker, Liv; Baker, Sandra E.; Bellio, Mariagrazia; Clarke, Alison S.; Dale, Arnja; et al. (2018). "'Feelings and Fitness' not 'Feelings or Fitness'-the raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, which aligns conservation and animal welfare objectives". Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 5: 296. doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00296. PMC . PMID 30538995.

27. ^ Bekoff, Marc, ed. (2013). Ignoring Nature No More: The Case For Compassionate Conservation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-92535-6.

28. ^ Tomasik, B (2015). "The importance of wild animal suffering". Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 133-152. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-toma.

29. ^ Horta, Oscar (2018). "Concern for wild animal suffering and environmental ethics: What are the limits of the disagreement?" (PDF). Les Ateliers de l'Éthique. 13: 85-100. doi:10.7202/1055119ar.

30. ^ Ng, Yew-Kwang (1995-07-01). "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy. 10 (3): 255-285. doi:10.1007/BF00852469. ISSN 1572-8404. S2CID 59407458.

31. ^ "Farm Sanctuary Applauds Colorado for Passing Legislation Phasing out Veal and Gestation Crates". Reuters. 2008-05-14. Archived from the original on 2009-11-11.

32. ^ "2005 Report on Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act" (PDF). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-03-01.

33. ^ The humane care and treatment of laboratory animals. National Association of Biomedical Research

34. ^ Duncan, I.J.H. (1996). "Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings". Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A. 27: 29-35.

35. ^ Duncan, I.J.H. (2005). "Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals". Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 24 (2): 483-92. doi:10.20506/rst.24.2.1587. PMID 16358502.

36. ^ Dawkins, M.S. (1990). "From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness and animal welfare". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 13: 1-61. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00077104.

37. ^ Ng, Yew-Kwang (1995). "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering". Biology and Philosophy. 10 (3): 255-85. doi:10.1007/BF00852469. S2CID 59407458.

38. ^ "OIE A new definition for the Terrestrial Animal Health Code: 'animal welfare'" (PDF). Terrestrial Animal Health Code. OIE.

39. ^ Broom, D.M. (1996). "Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment". Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A. 27: 22-28.

40. ^ Appleby, M. C.; Mench, J. A.; Olsson, I. A. S.; Hughes, B. O. Linda J. Keeling, Jeff Rushen and Ian Duncan. Understanding animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2011 p. 13. edited by Michael C. Appleby, Barry O. Hughes, Joy A. Mench. ISBN 9781780640808.

41. Interview with Ingrid Newkirk, David Shankbone, , November 20, 2007.

Animal Welfare Science Centre

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs page on animal welfare legislation

Careers Helping Animals

Chesley V. Morton v. Georgia Department of Agriculture and Tommy Irvin in his Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm Animal Welfare: Philosophical Aspects from the Encyclopedia of Animal Science

Humane Education Past, Present, and Future from The State of the Animals II: 2003

Dr. Temple Grandin's Web Page

Huntingford, FA; Adams, C; Braithwaite, VA; Kadri, S; Pottinger, TG; Sandøe, P; Turnbull, JF (2006). "Review paper: Current issues in fish welfare" (PDF). Journal of Fish Biology. 68 (2): 332-72. doi:10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.001046.x.

Welfare for All. Adam Fisher for October 7, 2015.

Revolution On The Animal Farm. The Huffington Post. September 23, 2016.

"Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish" (PDF). Alison Mood. fishcount.org.uk. 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal welfare is the well-being of non-human animals. Formal standards of animal welfare vary between contexts, but are debated mostly by animal welfare groups, legislators, and academics. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these best indicate animal welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal welfare is about the wellbeing of an individual animal from the animal's point of view. An animal's welfare includes its mental and physical state.

# data[].attributes.body
choices:
Dorothy

# data[].attributes.body
quote from https://www.globalgoals.org/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.globalgoals.org/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overcoming the World's Challenges - The Global Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The climate crisis. Ensuring no one goes hungry. Human rights abuses. Extreme poverty. Problems of this scale can be overwhelming, but the Global Goals(also known as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs) are the solution to tackling them.

# data[].attributes.body
-I want to do something related to animals
-Animal welfare🦁
-Animal rights 🐹
- why use animals for experiments?
-animal used for entrainment