Latest news with #HumaneWorldforAnimals
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
SA's trophy hunting quotas spark legal battles and civil society backlash
A fierce battle over South Africa's hunting quotas has erupted, drawing sharp lines between three opposing camps. Animal protection NGOs and conservation groups have sent submissions to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's (DFFE) Government Gazette for what they call the illegal, unethical and unscientific issuance of hunting quotas. At the same time, pro-hunting groups, led by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA), have taken legal action against the DFFE for failing to issue quotas for three CITES-listed species – African elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard – for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. The dispute issue has reignited the national debate about conservation, ethics and the future of South Africa's biodiversity economy. Court order On 21 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court ordered Environment Minister Dion George to produce all decision-making records related to the quota process within 10 days. The court also awarded costs against the minister, a move seen as a judicial rebuke of executive inaction. WRSA's press brief accuses the minister of engaging in 'a gross dereliction of duty', warning that the absence of quotas has 'crippled the regulated hunting industry, undermined rural livelihoods, and thrown South Africa's conservation credibility into question'. George responded in a press statement, calling WRSA's 'rhetoric inflammatory and misleading' and saying 'the court has not ruled on the substance of WRSA's application'. NGOs: quotas without science are illegal WRSA's legal offensive and the DFFE have both drawn sharp criticism from animal protection and conservation NGOs, including Humane World for Animals, the EMS Foundation and the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA). These organisations argue that DFFE's failure to publish quotas is not the real problem but a symptom of a deeper breakdown in scientific integrity and public accountability. Humane World for Animals (formerly HSI Africa), which temporarily interdicted the 2022 export of trophies, says the department's prior decisions were 'unlawful' because they were issued without valid non-detriment findings (NDFs) and without proper public consultation, which are requirements under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). For 2022, the DFFE set quotas for 150 elephant, 10 leopard and 10 black rhinoceros trophies. These quotas do not represent actual export volumes since the South African government releases typically report quota allocations, not actual export counts. While exports were temporarily halted in 2022, the hunting of trophies continued unabated. There is no reliable current data on exports, but historically, according to a Humane World for Animals report, from 2014 to 2018 South Africa exported an average of 4,204 trophies per year, representing 16% of global exports. This included 1,337 elephant trophies (about 268 a year), 574 leopard trophies (about 115 a year) and 21 black rhino trophies (about five a year). The EMS Foundation echoed Humane World for Animals' view in its own 51-page objection to previous quota processes, calling them 'arbitrary, opaque, and devoid of transparent ecological reasoning'. The EMSF, supported by WAPFSA (a coalition of more than 30 organisations focused on animal welfare, biodiversity, ethics and public participation), filed formal objections to DFFE's 2024 and 2025 public notices on non-detriment findings (NDFs) for CITES-listed species and for input on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES), which presents the government's desire to ramp up trophy hunting to industrial levels. They argued that the public consultation processes and the scientific methodologies were procedurally and substantively flawed, undermining CITES compliance and NEM:BA obligations. The NGO perspectives counterbalance industry-led claims, stressing ecosystem and welfare-centred conservation, and demand timely, transparent governmental response. Their involvement signals potential avenues for amicus support, broader civil society litigation or independent scientific intervention should the case escalate further. Legal framing: action vs inaction Despite their common focus on the DFFE's governance failures, WRSA and the NGOs present diametrically opposed legal arguments: WRSA Legal position: The DFFE's failure to issue quotas is unlawful; Objective: Compel the minister to act. NGOs Legal position: The DFFE's prior issuance of quotas without legal basis is unlawful; Objective: Block quota decisions lacking science and consultation. In short, WRSA's litigation attacks ministerial inaction, while the NGOs challenge unlawful action. Challenge in the Constitutional Court In another major legal development, the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association has launched a Constitutional Court challenge against provisions in the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. These contested provisions introduced a definition of 'animal wellbeing' into South Africa's biodiversity legislation, a move the association claims is problematic. It is asking the court to declare these provisions either invalid or temporarily suspended. The DFFE, listed as one of the respondents, has stated that the legislative process was complied with constitutional and administrative requirements, and asserts that public participation was facilitated adequately, and thus there was no procedural irregularity worthy of invalidation. Animal protection groups have again responded with fierce opposition. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), also a respondent in the case, firmly opposes the challenge, describing the wellbeing definition as essential, constitutionally sound and reflective of both animal sentience and international obligations. In late 2024, the NSPCA secured a high court interdict after learning SA Hunters had allegedly tried to reach a private settlement without involving key stakeholders. The NSPCA has since formally joined the Constitutional Court proceedings and filed its opposition, labelling the challenge as legally flawed and procedurally opportunistic. Similarly, the EMSF (also a respondent) has called on all state respondents, including the minister, to reject the challenge. EMSF argues that the wellbeing provisions are justified, scientifically grounded and necessary for effective wildlife protection – warning that their removal would undermine both conservation and legal integrity. What's at stake? The outcome of these challenges could redefine the legal responsibilities of the state in managing South Africa's wildlife. The wellbeing definition before the Constitutional Court plays a key role in shaping these legal reforms and views the provisions as vital for protecting wildlife from cruelty and neglect. The NGOs maintain that the new laws empower the minister to act on evidence of harm and apply a precautionary approach – critical for ethical wildlife governance. In the other case, a ruling compelling the department to publish quotas may force transparency, but could also deepen the rift between industry and civil society over what kind of wildlife economy the country should pursue. The NGOs warn that without robust processes, the DFFE risks turning quotas into rubber stamps for an unsustainable and exploitative system. With the minister now legally required to disclose internal records behind the quota delays, the next phase of litigation could expose how quota decisions – or indecisions – were made. WRSA has already hinted at further action, including potential contempt applications, if the department fails to comply. As South Africa balances conservation, economic development, ethical consideration and public accountability, these legal battles offer more than just a clash over hunting – they are a litmus test for the future of biodiversity governance in the country. DM Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
Vox
5 days ago
- General
- Vox
The incredible global collapse of fur production, explained in one chart
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat. In just one decade, a longtime fashion mainstay has been relegated to the sidelines of both haute couture runways and bargain clothing racks: fur. In 2014, over 140 million minks, foxes, chinchillas, and raccoon dogs — a small, fox-like East Asian species — around the world were farmed and killed for their fur. By 2024, that number plummeted to 20.5 million, according to an analysis from the nonprofit Humane World for Animals using data from governments and industry. (Disclosure: I worked at Humane World for Animals, formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States, from 2012 to 2017, but I didn't work on fur issues.) The data encompasses the vast majority of animals raised on fur farms, though it doesn't include the number of animals painfully ensnared in traps, which account for a small share of global fur production. It also doesn't include fur from rabbits. The rapid transformation represents a shift in the perception of fur from a luxury good that signals wealth and status to an ethical faux pas. It's perhaps the biggest animal welfare campaign success story of the 21st century, achieved by pressuring major fashion brands to drop fur from product lines and persuading lawmakers across Europe and elsewhere to ban the production and even sale of fur. Covid-19 hastened Europe's move away from fur production, as mink — the species farmed for fur in the greatest numbers around the world — were found to be especially susceptible to the virus, and mink-associated strains spilled back over to infect humans. Economic headwinds and shifting political dynamics in Russia and China, two of the world's biggest fur producers and consumers, helped change the course of the global industry, too. The outlook for billions of animals used by humans every year, in industries from meat production to scientific research, is largely bleak. But the fall of fur shows progress is possible. The brutality of fur farming, briefly explained A lot of factors have contributed to the global decline in fur production, but there's a key reason why it was possible to make progress against the industry. It produces an unnecessary luxury product that is, unlike meat, financially out of reach for most people. And that it's so unnecessary makes its cruelty all the more horrific. Animals farmed for fur are confined in tiny wire-bottom cages that are often stacked atop one another, causing feces and urine to fall through to the animals below them. Farms range in size from a few hundred, to a few thousand, to over 100,000 animals who are typically born in the spring and then slaughtered in the fall or winter. Mink are killed by carbon dioxide gassing, while foxes and raccoon dogs are anally electrocuted. In Finland, some foxes — nicknamed 'monster foxes' — have been selectively bred to have large folds of fat so they produce more fur, which causes a range of welfare issues. A small fur farm in Poland with foxes and raccoon dogs. Andrew Skowron/We Animals Mink crowded into a cage on a fur farm in Sweden. Jo-Anne McArthur/Djurrattsalliansen/We Animals The conditions and practices are terrible enough, but fur farming is especially cruel considering that these are wild, non-domesticated species. In the wild, their home ranges encompass several square miles, but on fur farms, they barely have any room to move around at all, much less express natural behaviors. Mink are semi-aquatic animals, yet have no access to water on fur farms. They also prefer to be solitary, yet they're caged with other minks. Foxes, meanwhile, naturally burrow and create dens where they care for their young, but they can't do so in captivity. These bleak conditions cause the animals to engage in what are called 'stereotypical' behaviors — repetitive motions that are a sign of stress. When caged, mink will pace or bob their heads — even perform somersaults — while foxes might constantly scratch at the corner of their cages in a fruitless attempt to dig and burrow. 'They've literally gone insane in these operations, because they're not fulfilling their natural behaviors,' PJ Smith, director of fashion policy at Humane World For Animals, told me. How animal advocates — and shifting political and economic conditions — put fur out of fashion Today's animal rights movement is largely focused on cruelty to animals raised for meat, milk, and eggs. But in the 1980s and '90s, ending the fur industry was the cause du jour. PETA put the issue on the cultural map, stigmatizing fur by throwing fake blood on runways and recruiting A-list celebrities to wear next to nothing for its 'I'd Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur' campaign. In 1991, The Go-Go's launched PETA's 'I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' campaign. Greg Gorman/Courtesy of PETA The impact of that early advocacy, however, is hard to discern; Calvin Klein committed to going fur-free in 1994, while other brands resisted PETA's campaign. US fur sales declined from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, though it's unclear how much of that was attributable to animal rights campaigning. By the late 1990s, animal advocates had largely moved on to other issues, while US fur sales began to recover. At the same time, China joined the World Trade Organization, which opened up its capacity to export fur, while the US's growing prosperity led it to become a major fur consumer. Fur production boomed, and fur trim became a popular lining for winter coat hoods. But some advocates maintained pressure against the industry, and in the 2000s, a few mid-level brands, like Ralph Lauren and went fur-free. Meanwhile, some European countries, including Croatia, Austria, and the United Kingdom, banned fur production. Terrifying undercover investigations into the fur trade — especially one video from a Chinese market in which a raccoon dog is skinned alive — reignited occasional momentum on the issue. In the mid-2010s, Armani, NET-A-PORTER, and Hugo Boss committed to going fur-free. Before then, Smith told me, it was hard to get companies to take meetings with him. And then, everything changed when, in 2017, Gucci announced a fur-free policy. After Gucci, other major brands followed — like Versace, Burberry, Prada, Chanel, and Michael Kors, to name a few. In 2019, California banned fur sales. Around this same time, more countries in Europe banned fur production, which had become a trend that accelerated after Covid broke out. Research found that mink are highly susceptible to the disease, and evidence emerged that mink-adapted viruses have spilled back over to humans. Economic downturns in Russia and China over the last decade, European sanctions against Russia over the war in Ukraine, and China's crackdown on corruption (furs had been a common gift to government officials) likely affected fur sales and production in those countries, too. And as major fashion brands moved away from animal fur, faux fur got a lot better. Until the mid-2000s, 'faux fur was this thing that was acrylic — it looked plastic. Not many people saw it as luxury,' Smith told me. But the political and corporate progress created a 'gap in the marketplace,' he said, which helped startups get funding to create better-looking, higher-quality alternatives. Is the end of fur nigh? That progress appears likely to continue. Switzerland just effectively banned fur imports, and the UK is considering doing the same. In 2023, European activists delivered over 1.5 million signatures in support of a ban on the production and sale of fur to the European Commission, which is currently weighing the measure. Last week, in a major boost for the effort, the EU's food safety agency issued a damning report on the welfare of fur-farmed animals. And earlier this month, the European Commission listed the American mink — which was brought to Europe for fur production — as an invasive species, which will restrict mink breeding and sales in the EU. Otto, a fox rescued from the fur farming industry stands on Piia Attonen's lap, awaiting a treat. Anttonen is the Director of Tuulispää Animal Sanctuary in Finland, an organization that cares for and provides a home for many different kinds of farmed and companion animals. Jo-Anne McArthur/#unboundproject/We Animals But there have also been recent setbacks. In 2019, New York City considered a ban on fur sales, but it didn't pass. Politicians in some of Europe's top fur-producing countries — Finland, Poland, and Greece — have resisted calls for fur bans, too. And there are some still big-name fashion holdouts, including Hermes and LVMH — the company behind Fendi, Dior, and Louis Vuitton. In February, the New York Times reported on a vibe shift around the stigma on wearing fur, though it's unclear whether that helped boost sales — the fashion world's focus has largely revolved around reclaiming vintage and used pelts. And despite the significant progress, 20.5 million animals in fur farms annually means there's still a lot of work to be done. Smith hopes that doesn't lead fellow animal advocates to become complacent and move on to other issues too soon, like what happened with fur in the late 1990s. 'The hardest part is going to be closing out an industry for good,' said Smith. 'It's going to be convincing those final fashion brands and retailers to move away from fur. And it's going to be the case that we need to make to legislators and policymakers that we need to implement policy change,' he said, to 'ensure the future is fur-free once and for all.'
Malaysian Reserve
29-07-2025
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
Humane World for Animals delivers over 195,000 signatures to Target demanding action on animal welfare commitments
Advocates gathered outside of Target headquarters to urge the retailer to follow through on decade-long promises to reduce animal suffering MINNEAPOLIS, July 29, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Today Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States, delivered more than 195,000 signatures in person to Target's downtown Minneapolis headquarters, calling on the company to fulfill its long-overdue commitments to eliminate the extreme confinement of pigs and hens in its supply chain. In 2012, Target pledged to stop sourcing pork from farms that confine pregnant pigs in gestation crates so small they are unable to even turn around. Then in 2016, the company committed to selling only cage-free eggs by 2025. Yet, despite making these pledges more than a decade ago, Target has failed to deliver on either promise. During the petition event, speakers, advocates and supporters from Humane World for Animals delivered 15 large boxes of signed petitions alongside life-sized battery cages stuffed with replica chickens. Dozens of members of the public engaged with the advocates and expressed support for Target's transition to selling eggs and pork sourced from chickens and pigs who are not forced to suffer in extreme confinement. Meanwhile, a mobile billboard circled downtown Minneapolis urging the public to visit the campaign website, 'We delivered a critical message to Target backed by more than 195,000 consumers: extreme confinement of farm animals is not only cruel but completely unnecessary,' said Kent Stein, corporate policy specialist at Humane World for Animals and one of the event's speakers. 'We urge Target to listen to its customers and follow through on long overdue promises to eliminate animal cruelty in its supply chain. We know they can do better just like all the large corporations who have already made, kept and implemented their commitments to animal welfare.' On a typical egg factory farm, hens are crammed into barren wire cages where they endure a lifetime of captivity in a space smaller than a single letter-sized sheet of paper. Pregnant pigs confined in horrific gestation crates suffer from muscle and bone deterioration as well as severe distress, gnawing on the bars of their small cages until their mouths bleed. 'More than a decade has passed since Target made these commitments, yet millions of animals in its supply chain are still suffering in tiny cages,' said Aaron Zellhoefer, Minnesota state director at Humane World for Animals and a featured speaker at the event. 'While many high-profile companies have already made good on their commitments—including Minnesota-based General Mills—Target continues to fall behind. Stop stalling. The time for action is now.' Fourteen states have already banned one or both of forms of extreme confinement for egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs, and hundreds of major companies—including Amazon, McDonald's, Costco, Unilever and Nestlé—have adopted similar policies within their U.S. operations. To learn more and take action visit Download Photos/Videos of today's event Download Photos/Videos of animals in gestation crates and battery cages About Humane World for Animals Together, we tackle the root causes of animal cruelty and suffering to create permanent change. With millions of supporters and work happening in over 50 countries, Humane World for Animals—formerly called the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International—addresses the most deeply entrenched forms of animal cruelty and suffering. As the leading voice in the animal protection space, we work to end the cruelest practices, care for animals in crisis and build a stronger animal protection movement. Driving toward the greatest global impact, we aim to achieve the vision behind our name: a more humane world.
15-07-2025
- General
Conservationists release rehabbed vultures back into wild on South Africa mountain
MAGALIESBURG, South Africa -- Five vultures that were rescued and rehabilitated by a conservation group have been released back into the wild on a mountain range in South Africa. Two of the Cape Vultures were rescued from the illegal wildlife trade, where the birds' body parts are sought after for potions and charms. One of them had all its feathers removed and the Vulpro vulture conservation group looked after it for nearly a year while they grew back. Two of the other vultures were injured in the wild. One was saved after it landed in a dam and became waterlogged and was unable to fly, conservationists said. The birds were set free on the Magaliesburg Mountains in northern South Africa, where there is an existing vulture colony. Vultures generally aren't well-loved because of their appearance and because they feed entirely on carrion — or dead animal carcasses — and are often associated with death. But conservationists say these scavengers are critical for cleaning up ecosystems and preventing animal and human disease outbreaks. Because of their eating habits, vultures are also susceptible to mass poisoning when poachers target other animals, and they can die in their hundreds from a poisoned carcass. Six of Africa's other native vulture species are listed as endangered or critically endangered. The Cape Vulture was removed from the endangered list in 2021 after successful conservation efforts but is still classified as vulnerable. The vulture release was organized by Vulpro and the Humane World for Animals organization.
Hamilton Spectator
15-07-2025
- General
- Hamilton Spectator
Conservationists release rehabilitated vultures back into the wild on South African mountain
MAGALIESBURG, South Africa (AP) — Five vultures that were rescued and rehabilitated by a conservation group have been released back into the wild on a mountain range in South Africa. Two of the Cape Vultures were rescued from the illegal wildlife trade, where the birds' body parts are sought after for potions and charms. One of them had all its feathers removed and the Vulpro vulture conservation group looked after it for nearly a year while they grew back. Two of the other vultures were injured in the wild. One was saved after it landed in a dam and became waterlogged and was unable to fly, conservationists said. The birds were set free on the Magaliesburg Mountains in northern South Africa, where there is an existing vulture colony. Vultures generally aren't well-loved because of their appearance and because they feed entirely on carrion — or dead animal carcasses — and are often associated with death. But conservationists say these scavengers are critical for cleaning up ecosystems and preventing animal and human disease outbreaks. Because of their eating habits, vultures are also susceptible to mass poisoning when poachers target other animals, and they can die in their hundreds from a poisoned carcass. Six of Africa's other native vulture species are listed as endangered or critically endangered. The Cape Vulture was removed from the endangered list in 2021 after successful conservation efforts but is still classified as vulnerable. The vulture release was organized by Vulpro and the Humane World for Animals organization. ___ AP Africa news: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
