The VHS’s Animal Advocacy Committee (AAC) aims to bring together advocates from across British Columbia who are interested in engaging their elected representatives at the local and provincial level in support of stronger animal protections and animal-friendly policies.
You bring the passion for change; the Vancouver Humane Society will share special actions, help you connect with other animal allies, and work with you every step of the way to make a meaningful difference for animals.
Here are some ways you might advocate for animals as part of the AAC:
Meeting with a city councillor to advocate for a bylaw to prohibit inhumane rodeo events in your community;
Gathering petition signatures in support of a proposal that will benefit animals;
Speaking with your B.C. member of the legislative assembly (MLA) to encourage plant-forward food purchasing policies that help reduce the high demand for animal products and factory farming;
Writing and submitting a ‘Letter to the Editor’ to your local newspaper, sharing your concerns about wild and exotic animals in captivity.
Who should join the committee?
Any B.C. resident who wants to help animals and support the VHS’s local and provincial campaign work! The current scope of the AAC’s work is focused on rodeo; plant-forward policies; wild and exotic animals in captivity; and farmed animal welfare.
You don’t need to be an expert on these issues or have previous experience writing, meeting or speaking with decision-makers. All you need is an interest in taking action for animals and the VHS team will support you with the rest!
Why is this important?
Your local City Council and provincialMLA were elected to represent their community – that includes you! It’s crucial they hear from their constituents about issues of concern. As a constituent of theirs, you are uniquely positioned to help bring animal welfare issues to their attention and advocate for change.
How does the committee work?
The VHS will host online calls to support AAC members in sharing ideas, planning actions and building new skills. Once you sign up to join the AAC, you’ll be invited to the next online call. The VHS is also available to support AAC members’ advocacy work between online calls, so don’t hesitate to get in touch!
Training can have a big impact on the way animals experience the world.
Rewards-based training methods can help keep animals safe, build stronger bonds with their guardians, and reduce their fear of unfamiliar situations. In this episode of The Informed Animal Ally’s series on animal well-being, the Vancouver Humane Society’s Chantelle Archambault and Amy Morris discuss science-backed training techniques for any species of animal, from dogs and cats to horses to birds and hamsters.
Note: This written discussion has been edited for length.
Amy: The way an animal is trained will make a big impact on their experience of the world and level of happiness. The most important thing to mention is that animal training is 100% grounded in science. Any person can learn how to train animals and can get consistent results.
There’s certainly knowledge and skills to be learned over time, and those include in particular how to best design an effective training protocol in regards to frequency and timing. The BC SPCA just released an updated 2023 literature review on dog training that gives great scientific grounding.
Why train animals?
Amy: So what are the reasons to train animals? In a broad sense, there are three goals in training:
To protect ourselves from animals that can harm us; for example, preventing us or others from being bitten or scratched, knocked or pulled over.
To protect animals from harm, real or perceived; for example, preventing animals from getting in fights with each other, preventing them from running or or flying away and related harms like getting injured or starving, as well as husbandry activities such as grooming, foot and hoof care, and medical care and treatment.
To build a bond between us and animals; for example, through trick training or other fun agility type activities.
Chantelle: Speaking of protecting animals from harm, real or perceived, animals can perceive harm that isn’t there, such as when they have a fear from the noise of fireworks. And training can play a big part in making our companions feel happy and healthy and safe.
Early life experiences
Amy: Before we dive into some specific scenarios, I’d love to talk a bit about the impacts of genetics and environment on training. The science of genetics, epigenetics, and environment on behavior is developed more in some species than others.
In a very broad sense, we understand that the negative life experiences of an animal can get passed on to their offspring. In humans, this could be labeled as intergenerational trauma.
Research in rats has demonstrated that if a rat is stressed while pregnant, the offspring will demonstrate more signs of fear and anxiety. However, there’s genetic and temperament variations within a litter, so essentially one offspring can be really fearful and aggressive, while another can come out fearful and defensive, and another could seem to be easygoing. These behaviors are seen to continue into adulthood.
It’s important to note that wild animals will be genetically fearful of humans. Feral domestic animals are those that aren’t exposed to humans in their early lives, so we know that environmental or early life experiences can play a big role as to the level of fear that domestic animals experience, such as one in response to humans.
Classical conditioning
Amy: Many people have taken psychology classes or heard of that experiment where a person called Pavlov rang a bell, which led to an animal salivating in prediction to food delivery. That’s called classical conditioning.
Chantelle:Classical conditioning is basically when a neutral stimulus like ringing a bell is paired with a stimulus that provokes a response like food.
Eventually, the animal associates the neutral stimulus with the meaningful stimulus so strongly that they start expressing the response when they’re exposed just to the neutral stimulus alone, which is why Pavlov’s dogs salivated when they heard a bell.
Now we will get into classical conditioning to better describe the role of genetics and environmental influences on behaviour. We know that classical conditioning causes a neutral stimulus to result in an involuntary response, and one example of that is a fear response.
The way people and animals respond to different stimuli, especially in terms of what causes fear and anxiety and folks’ risk tolerance, is very individual. The way that we, and other animals, respond to stimuli will differ. For example, some people can stand at the top of a high building comfortably, while others experience a fear response—things like a racing heart or sweating. Standing at the top of the building can be seen by some to present a risk, but it’s not a sign of imminent danger in itself. The same goes for walking into a loud, crowded restaurant.
For animals, some common examples we think about are skateboards or vacuum cleaners.
Amy: Classical conditioning is really interesting because, as I was mentioning, it can relate to early life experiences and temperament. One animal might hear a loud noise and be unaffected, while another will hide at a young age, and with no change or influence, will continue to hide as an adult. Fireworks are a great example of this. Many animals are terrified of fireworks because of the loud noises they elicit. Training animals with classical conditioning methods involves three concepts: habituation, desensitization, and counter conditioning.
Applying classical conditioning: habituation
Amy: Habituation can occur when a stimulus has repeated exposure and the animal doesn’t experience any consequences, they can become familiar with it.
Habituation’s effectiveness depends on the degree of sensitivity of the individual. I might be able to get used to motorcycle noises by being exposed to them over time, while another individual might find them increasingly fear inducing. The same goes for individual animals.
It can be helpful to pair positive reinforcement, such as delivering a treat, with stimuli that we think might cause fear in the future for animal to aid in the habituation process when an animal is newly being exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Delivering a treat is one way of conditioning the animal, so instead of being fearful of something like a noise they have a neutral or positive association with it.
Once, I was caring for a mini dalmatian mix that had spent her whole life tied up or crated in a barn. I was tasked with exposing her to new stimuli as my foster. It was amazing to see the world through her eyes; she would cower when a plane went by overhead!
Chantelle: So basically, the dog you were caring for was becoming habituated to everything because she hadn’t been exposed to anything. It sounds like she was in a similar situation to a puppy going out into the world for the first time. So if an animal isn’t having a response to a new thing at all or is having just a brief startle response about something new, we can help them become habituated to the new thing.
Applying classical conditioning: Desensitization and counter conditioning
Chantelle: When an animal is already showing signs of fear as a response to something, we can use the tools of counter conditioning and desensitization as go-to methods for making life more comfortable for them.
Amy: Two examples I would love to highlight are a fear of the sound of skateboards and a fear of having nails or hooves done.
If we take a step back, first we have to identify what the animal we are working with is afraid of. We talked about fear and stress behaviours a little bit in the last episode, so I won’t go into great detail. Depending on the species, you might observe cowering, running or flying away, freezing, barking, running towards the fearful situation aggressively, hissing, swatting, scratching, pecking or more.
Once the fear behavior is observed and identified, and the cause of the fear is identified, a training plan can be created. It is best to work with a trainer who is knowledgeable about the species if you think that you or your animal are at risk of injury or further psychological damage.
For example, my dog Clover became so averse to having her nails cut that I had to work with a trainer to develop a very carefully constructed protocol for desensitizing and counter conditioning her, also called DSCC. Similarly, her fear of skateboards became problematic because she would run towards them, barking, and almost pull me over! No one else could walk her because of this risk.
Chantelle: What are some of the steps someone could take to desensitize and counter condition an animal who has a fear response?
What is an animal’s “threshold” in DSCC?
Amy: The most important thing to understand about the process of DSCC is that animals have a “threshold”. This means that there is a moment that they don’t observe the thing they are afraid of, and then there is a moment when they notice and don’t react, and then there is the moment they react. It is impossible to desensitize and counter condition an animal that is already reacting.
Some fearful animals can stay in a hypervigilant state, so they are always looking for threats. It can also be very difficult to desensitize and counter condition them. Trainers suggest creating opportunities for decompression so that an animal is more relaxed as a status quo, before starting to retrain them.
The only method to train an animal that is feeling fear is delivering a reward when they are under their threshold. They receive the reward when they notice the thing they are afraid of, but do not react to it.
It can be important to set up scenarios that keep them feeling safe and relatively below threshold.
This can mean keeping a large distance between the animal and the trigger, or with something like foot or hoof care, breaking the process down into microsteps. For example, if the animal reacts to seeing the nail clippers, then anything that happens after they see the nail clippers is going too far.
Chantelle: The terms desensitization and counter conditioning are coupled together, because both are needed to change a behavior response from fearful to neutral. However, desensitization essentially describes the reduction in emotional response to the stimuli, or the outcome that is desired, while counter conditioning describes the method used to achieve that outcome, which involves changing the association the animal has made between the behavior and its consequences by pairing it with a positive experience.
Amy: Exactly! And that is what is always needed in this process: that pairing of a positive experience.
Chantelle: I did this with my companion cat Callie last year. We had fireworks going off near our home every night leading up to Halloween, and she was very fearful of them. I tried to help her get used to the fireworks by giving her a treat every time one went off. It’s a common training method, but I didn’t realize it was a classical conditioning method.
Amy: Typically a very high value reward is needed for this process, a reward that the animal does not experience any other time.
What is most important to consider with this kind of training is that it needs to involve short, intentional training period because just like us, animals reach a limit where they can’t relearn, and that limit is extremely short when it comes to situations that cause them fear.
DSCC is a very slow process, but we know from science that it works, and it just requires calm, consistent behaviour on our part.
Some scenarios we may never achieve the full outcome we are hoping for. For example, if you have a pet bird who bites your fingers as a means of protection, it might take a very long time to change that, and realistically, based the bird’s early life experiences, that behaviour may never change as much as you want it to.
Chantelle: This can be a hard concept to really absorb, so we’ve included some videos where you can see DSCC in action with a few different species.
It can be helpful to search youtube for desensitization and counter conditioning, and whatever fear issue the animal you are working with is experiencing, to get a general idea of how to address it.
Journey is learning that touch is not scary – but it’s hard for her! From this angle it’s easy to see that touch with the hand is too much for her at this point. The trainer pushes her too far and she jumps away.
Keep in mind that the person on YouTube might be making some mistakes when it comes to the value of the reward, the timing, or how much they push the animal in each session. Each animal is an individual and will move at a different pace.
This is the first part of three on teaching the dog to like nail trims. This part covers the process of counterconditioning and systematic desensitization to tools (in this case nail clippers) and general handling of the paws.
I also want to note here that there’s a misconception that “taming” and “training” are completely different thing. Really, taming is just one type of training that uses the classical conditioning technique of desensitization to teach animals to tolerate human touch who normally wouldn’t, like hamsters or feral cats.
Operant conditioning
Amy: Now that we have covered classical conditioning, let’s talk about operant conditioning. This is the formal term for intentionally increasing or decreasing the frequency of a behavior using a consequence.
Something to keep in mind, that I will bring up throughout, is that the same techniques that have an impact on human behaviour, have an impact on animal behaviour. Essentially, the way you raise a child, or treat a friend, and the way you train an animal are grounded in the same science.
Chantelle: I think this is probably the thing people do most consciously with children, like giving a toddler a high five every time they put their shoes on nicely for a walk because they like high fives.
In operant conditioning, there are four quadrants representing the following four ways of training: positive reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, and negative reinforcement.
The term positive is used for when a “consequence” is something that is added.
The term negative is when the “consequence” is that something is taken away.
The term “reinforcement” is used to describe trying to increase the frequency of a desired behaviour.
“Punishment” is used to decrease the likelihood of a behaviour.
Four quadrants of operant conditioning in animal training
Positive (adding)
Negative (taking away)
Reinforcement (to encourage desired behaviour)
Positive reinforcement is essentially adding something to the equation to encourage an animal to repeat a desired behavior. You can think of this as the well-timed use of food, play, or happy verbal attention to encourage them to repeat desired behaviours.
Negative reinforcement is when negative stimuli are applied to increase the frequency of a desired behaviour. A person might put physical pressure on a horse with the body of another horse until the horse offers a desired behaviour, such as turning a certain way, at which point, they give the horse space. The horse offers that behaviour as an attempt to avoid the physical pressure they were experiencing.
Punishment (to discourage unwanted behaviour)
Positive punishment involves adding a stimuli to a stop an unwanted behavior. This can include a person telling a dog “No” or “Stop” when they are barking. Positive punishment is often used on when walking an animal on a leash. When a dog pulls, handlers often have the tendency to tug at the leash. In this case, the handler is adding a correction as the consequence.
Negative punishment is when we take away something to get a behavior to stop. This could be, for example, walking away silently from an animal that is jumping up.
Chantelle: Although these are all ways that can be used to train animals, we know now from research that the level of effectiveness and long-term outcomes for the psychological well-being of the animal can differ based on the technique used. These different quadrants don’t fully encapsulate the role that trust plays in each of these scenarios.
Assuming all of these training methods are applied consistently, a training method like positive reinforcement builds trust because the animal derives enjoyment from the experience through brain chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin and want to continue to seek out experiences that lead to the release of those chemicals.
On the flip side, training methods like positive punishment or negative reinforcement are grounded in the parts of the brain that seek to avoid situations that cause fear or pain and do not have a knock-on effect of building trust.
Amy: We use the words “reward-based” and “aversive-based” training to differentiate between these two.
In the literature review we referenced from the BC SPCA, 4 out of 4 data-based research studies found that training with aversive-based techniques lead to more stress related behaviours in the dogs compared to training with reward-based techniques. They also identified that 7 of 7 surveys found that more frequent reported use of aversive-based techniques, whether alone or in combination with reward-based techniques, was associated with more frequent reporting of aggression and other problem behaviours.
Applying operant conditioning
Chantelle: I was wondering if you could speak more to different training tools?
Amy: Absolutely. In an ideal world, animals could be completely naked, with no harness or halter or collar.
However, sometimes we need to attach the animal to us, or ourselves to the animal, for that added layer of safety. In those situations, we certainly don’t want to put them or us at risk, so it can get pretty high stakes, especially when you talk about large animals like horses!
The most important thing is to see a collar, leash, harness, or halter as something that the animal might be fearful of and either habituate, or, if they are already fearful, practice DSCC to ensure that they are comfortable with putting on and taking off the apparatus.
Any tool that is safe to use should not cause pain. Tools like bits that you put in horse’s mouths, or prong collars, or choke collars, or shock collars, are all designed with positive punishment training methods in mind.
A trainer might be deceptive about this. For example, think about a scenario where a dog is walking around, away from a person. The person calls the dog and gets no response. The desired behaviour is for the dog to come to the person. A trainer might suggest pairing an electric shock (positive punishment) to extinguish the undesired behaviour (walking away) with a treat when they change their behaviour, and call that positive reinforcement.
The first problem with this example is that the trainer is adding an intermediary of positive punishment into a scenario that can be trained without it. That essentially makes a person dependent on shocking their dog to get the outcomes they want, which we know from research.
The second problem is that shocking a dog is aversive and can lead to long-term negative outcomes for both the dog, and the relationships with the dog and other dogs, strangers, and the guardian, since it is brings in their fear response.
What if a dog gets an electric shock when they are next to another dog? If they are fear aggressive by nature, they might end up turning and biting that dog, connecting the fear they are feeling to the presence of that dog.
So, how do we eliminate the need for the shock collar? The answer is in identifying the original goal: for the dog to respond to being called.
This can be difficult when a dog has already latched on to the scent of an animal trail, or the visual of another dog. Similar to the idea of threshold, there can sometimes be a point of no return where a dog goes into a focus mode and no longer registers the sound of our voice.
Early recall training has to be consistent, with small wins and big rewards. You eventually build up to more complex scenarios, and it has to be done gradually. The cue used to call the dog back has to be used only in very specific scenarios, where it is always paired with a very high value reward.
For example, for a time, Clover was trained to come to me yelling “TACO”. At some point, I stopped using as high of rewards, and I even used it once or twice without a reward, and the word lost its value. The good thing is you can always train a new cue, whether it be a word that is easy to yell or whistle.
Chantelle: This is a great example of the difference between training using solely positive reinforcement versus positive punishment and positive reinforcement combined. What other examples do you have for operant conditioning?
Amy: Many people think the only way to train a horse is by putting pressure on them. Instead, horses do really well with clicker training.
A clicker is an intermediate reinforcer that gives a cue that an actual positive reinforcer will follow. This is helpful when there is a time that passes between when a behaviour happens and our ability to deliver a reward. A click can happen right away and then the reward itself can follow.
Fairhorsemanship is a great resource for clicker training horses to lunge, move hindquarters, walk at liberty and more. Great reinforcers for horses include apples, carrots, sweet feed, but can also include high fiber pony cubes, sunflower seeds, chaff and scratches depending on the horse’s past experiences with these items as well as personal preference.
In sanctuary environments, it is so important for wild animals to be able to actively participate in and opt in to their care. Clicker training works really well for this.
You can find videos online of elephants voluntarily presenting their feet to be trimmed and filed. Positive reinforcement clicker training is how they work with animals to increase their desire to participate in what is called “cooperative care”. This is the term for any grooming and body maintenance that an animal chooses actively to be part of, rather than being tied down or held down for the care to occur.
Grooming and veterinary procedures can be stressful for all species. Often, when pets go to a groomer, they are held in place by a tight cord around their neck so that they feel helpless and cannot go anywhere. This is aversive, but common because of the time and cost pressure for the grooming and expectation of the guardian.
Ideally, pets are able to opt in, and opt out, of their grooming and veterinary handling experience. This can be done through positive reinforcement training.
With animals that are already fearful, the principles of desensitization and counter conditioning would need to be applied. Veterinary professionals can be certified Fear-Free, you can learn more about this from the link in our blog.
I only work with veterinary professionals who know how to read Clover’s behaviour and have the knowledge and training to keep her calm when we are at the vet. They never restrain her. Sometimes I hold her while a technician gives her treats if a needle is involved to prevent sudden movement that would further cause her harm.
Voice and choice for animals
Chantelle: Mentioning the opt in and opt out sounds like consent. I’m wondering if anyone talks about consent with animals?
Amy: I’m glad you mentioned that. I often think about people picking up small animals, cats, and small dogs without identifying first if that is something the animal wants.
Similarly, people will touch the top of the head of an animal because it is the easiest to access, but typically animals prefer to be offered a hand to sniff and then will direct the hand where they want it for pets, if anywhere.
We can offer a lot to the animals in our lives by giving them the opportunity to ask for what they need without assuming what we want, such as cuddles, is something they also want.
You can train an animal to enjoy being picked up or to be pet; however, the training needs to be designed with voice and choice.
Chantelle: What do you mean by voice and choice?
Amy: Voice and choice refer to the ability of animals to communicate their needs and preferences and to have some control over their environments.
Voice refers to an animal’s ability to communicate their needs and desires through vocalizations, body language, or other forms of behavior. It is a common misconception that animals do not have a voice. We know that they communicate clearly, but it comes down to whether anyone is actively listening to them.
Choice refers to an animal’s ability to make decisions about their environment, and in reference to training, their ability to end the training session when they want. It is important to listen to their voice as you can often identify subtle signs of frustration when they start to become overwhelmed.
Providing animals with opportunities to make choices in training can help them develop problem-solving and decision-making skills.
Choosing an animal trainer
Chantelle: You spoke in the last episode about receiving advice from a trainer to encourage a dog not to bark, and most people’s response would be to trust what we see as professional advice. How do we know if the guidance a trainer is giving us is trustworthy or not?
Amy: This is something I have grappled with a lot. With my first dog, he had a big barking problem. He barked at every noise that he heard. Unfortunately, I worked with a trainer who was not knowledgeable with animal behaviour. She suggested I make something that makes a loud noise, or try a spray bottle, and introduce this each time he barked. I now know these methods as positive punishment. Citronella collars and shock collars are also positive punishment.
Sadly, I was misguided and my dog suffered for it. I now know that the best ways to manage barking behaviour involve counter-conditioning and desensitization, as well as managing the environment.
When my current dog, Clover, started barking out the window, a trainer suggested frosting the glass so she couldn’t see through.
Whenever we would move to a new place, I would give her a high value treat every time we heard a noise, before she had a chance to bark. Pretty soon, she was coming to me for treats whenever she heard a noise, instead of barking!
When trying to screen for a trainer, it is important to ask clear questions about what quadrants of operant conditioning they work with, as well as what outcomes they have seen implementing DSCC.
Avoid working with trainers who can’t speak about quadrants of operant conditioning. This is a big red flag and is really common in the horse community. Also avoid trainers who say they are comfortable using positive punishment or negative reinforcement. These are aversive methods.
Look for trainers that specifically mention positive reinforcement-based training and use food-based rewards. Ask them about desensitization and counter conditioning and see if they understand the importance of pairing timing and rewards.
There are also training accreditations that can be researched. Some are more effective than others.
If you aren’t sure about a trainer, there is probably a good reason! Anyone can call themselves a trainer and they might actually make suggestions that are harmful.
Any good trainer is focused on ensuring a positive bond between the person and their animal, and a positive experience for the animal being trained.
Next episode
Please join us next month as we delve into the topic of well-being for farmed animals!
VANCOUVER, May 25, 2023 – Port Moody’s Council has unanimously voted in favour of prohibiting inhumane rodeo events, making the Lower Mainland city the third municipality in British Columbia to implement such a ban.
The motion to “prohibit inhumane rodeo events and practices including bucking, roping, wrestling, and mutton busting within city limits” was introduced by Councillor Kyla Knowles and was passed by Council at the May 9 meeting.
Councillor Knowles cited concerns that rodeo poses a risk of injury to animals and that practices are inherently cruel. She noted that at least 13 residents have written to municipal decision-makers calling for a ban in the community.
The Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) congratulated the City of Port Moody for this promising step forward for animals and the community.
“We’re very grateful for the advocacy of local residents and pleased see the City of Port Moody taking the initiative to proactively ban inhumane rodeo events, which cause unnecessary harm and stress to animals,” said VHS’s Campaign Director, Emily Pickett.
“There is no shortage of other types of events that can bring the community together without putting animals at risk of injury and suffering. We hope other communities will follow Port Moody’s lead by moving away from inhumane rodeo events.”
Last year, a new rodeo was established in Langley Township, prompting the VHS to advocate for proactive bylaws prohibiting the practice in B.C. communities.
Port Moody joins the City of Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver in banning rodeo events.
VANCOUVER, April 18, 2023 – Younger generations in B.C.’s Lower Mainland are increasingly shifting their diets toward plant-based foods, new polling data reveals.
The research poll, commissioned by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS), examines the dietary preferences and opinions around plant-based eating of Lower Mainland residents. The study was conducted among a representative sample of 803 Lower Mainland residents aged 18+ who are members of the Angus Reid Forum.
Responses reveal a trend away from meat and animal products with each passing generation: vegans and vegetarians comprised 10% of respondents aged 18-34, 9% of respondents aged 35-54, and 6% of respondents aged 55+.
A similar trend can be found when looking at respondents’ reduction of animal-based products. 69% of respondents aged 18-34 had reduced their animal product consumption, compared to 66% of respondents aged 35-54 and 60% of respondents aged 55+.
In addition to vegans and vegetarians, more respondents in the youngest generation identified their diet as “flexitarian” – primarily eating plant-based foods with occasional consumption of animal-based products. 7% of respondents aged 18-34, and 5% of both other age groups surveyed identified as flexitarian.
“The increasing availability of plant-based foods and the growing popularity of plant-based diets are mutually reinforcing,” said VHS Communications Director Chantelle Archambault. “Public demand for tasty animal-free options is driving a huge shift in the industry, which in turn makes it easier than ever for more people to put plant-forward meals on their plates.”
Interestingly, motivations for shifting toward a plant-based diet varied by generation. Respondents aged 18-34 identified both economic reasons and environmental concerns as the top factors influencing their decision to consume fewer animal products, while other age demographics were most motivated by personal health.
When considering how and what to eat overall, every age group was most motivated by taste. Archambault says this is also a hopeful sign for the future.
“As the food industry continues to develop innovative tastes and textures for plant-based products, we’re sure to see a wider shift toward a society that eats more sustainably.”
For those looking to add more plants into their diets, the VHS offers free resources and recipes on their Plant University website.
VANCOUVER, April 13, 2023 – The majority of British Columbians in the Lower Mainland have positive feelings about plant-based menu options, new polling data reveals.
The research poll, commissioned by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) among a representative sample of Lower Mainland residents from the Angus Reid Forum, asked participants about their dietary preferences and attitudes around plant-based eating.
73% of respondents agreed that “Food services that offer a greater variety of plant-based options are more inclusive to all”. This sentiment was shared by a majority of people regardless of their own dietary preferences; 95% of vegans or vegetarians and 71% of people following other diets agreed with the statement.
The poll results demonstrate that the demand for plant-based options is growing, with 65% of respondents having reduced their consumption of animal products.
Differences between age demographics indicate a growing shift toward plant-based foods over each generation – 69% of respondents aged 18-34 had reduced their animal product consumption, compared to 66% of respondents aged 35-54 and 60% of respondents aged 55+.
“A growing number of consumers are reducing or eliminating animal-based products, with more people turning to plant-based options when they are available,” said VHS Communications Director Chantelle Archambault.
Businesses and organizations are already moving to meet the growing demand for plant-forward foods. Many institutions that now offer plant-based menu items, such as Panago Pizza and the University of British Columbia (UBC), cite sustainability commitments as one motivation for the shift.
“There are so many great reasons to shift towards a more plant-based diet but for us at UBC Food Services we have done this to support the health of our students and the planet,” said David Speight, Executive Chef and Culinary Director of UBC Food Services. “We know that plant-based diets can provide excellent health benefits for our students and they reduce the negative environmental impacts on our planet compared to more animal protein centric diets.”
Other local businesses and institutions are stepping up to meet consumer demand as well. Last year, the City of Vancouver committed to exploring a 20% reduction in animal-based products in favour of plant-based foods in their municipal food purchasing, such as through catering and city-owned concessions.
The new polling data suggests that this growing movement toward accessible, affordable, and tasty plant-based options could prompt a greater dietary shift in the future. 65% of respondents identified that they “would eat more plant-based meals if there were more tasty options available when going out to eat”.
Speight added, “We have shifted a large percentage of our menu offerings to plant-based and our students are still asking for more. It shows a real hunger for great tasting plant-based offerings.”
“With the public increasingly interested in plant-forward food items and calling for corporate responsibility, we’re eager to see more businesses and organizations introduce plant-based options in the coming years to avoid being left behind,” said Archambault.
This shift has the important added benefit of reducing the number of animals suffering for human food production.
The VHS is offering free support to B.C.-based institutions, such as restaurants, long-term care homes, and schools, that are interesting in introducing more plant-based menu items.
While the NFACC guidelines aim to address cruelty, the code’s reach is not absolute. Meaningful monitoring, enforcement, and penalties for industry stakeholders found guilty of animal abuse are still needed to ensure animals are protected.
More than 5,800 people commented on new dairy industry guidelines
Last year, the VHS and other animal organizations across Canada spoke out for animals during a consultation period on the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Dairy Cattle Code of Practice, which provides guidelines for the care of dairy cows on farms across Canada, and shared tips on how to call for much-needed improvements during the public comment period. Thousands of animal advocates and concerned consumers responded, and the Code received a record-setting 5,800+ comments!
The NFACC has now released its updated Dairy Cattle Code of Practice. The strong public response during the public consultation prompted some positive changes, including stronger restrictions around abusive handling, changes to housing models, and a ban on branding. However, several areas of the Code still fall short of expectations.
A veal calf from the dairy industry chained up during the Quebec winter. Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur \ We Animals Media.
Click or tap the headings below for more details on each section.
Calf housing – Pair/group housing to be required, but not until 2031
A primary area of concern noted in the public consultation was around calf housing. Approximately 63% of farms currently keep dairy calves in individual housing. This lack of social and physical contact with other calves can cause significant stress for calves. Despite this, the new code continues to allow calves to be kept in individual housing until 2031, at which point they are to be housed in pairs or groups by 4 weeks old. The stressful industry practice of separating mothers and newly born calves was unaddressed in the new code.
Cow housing – Continuous tethering to be phased out, but details needed around freedom of movement
Currently, cows can be kept tethered in individual stalls and there has been no requirement for access to pasture, outdoors or a sheltered, bedded pen. Under the new code, continuous tethering will be prohibited by 2027, at which point cows must be provided “sufficient regular opportunity for freedom of movement”. What this means in practice is yet to be determined.
No requirement for outdoor access
The NFACC acknowledges that cows are “naturally motivated to access pasture and graze” and that “regular access to open outdoor areas or bedded packs improves hoof health, reduces the frequency and severity of injuries, and can reduce the occurrence of lameness”. Despite this, the new code does not require that cows be provided access to sheltered, bedded packs, exercise yards, or the outdoors.
No emergency plans required, despite recent disasters
The public consultation period for the dairy code began just weeks after catastrophic flooding hit British Columbia in 2021. This emergency, along with the record-breaking heat waves from earlier that same year, claimed the lives of 1.3 million farmed animals and reiterated the need for emergency plans for farms. Shockingly, the new code fails to include any requirements around emergency planning.
Compromised and lactating cows still allowed to be transported
Transport is a particularly stressful process for farmed animals, especially for dairy cows who may be in poor condition after their milk production declines or who are ill or injured. Still, the new code allows compromised (e.g. mild lameness, not fully healed from a procedure) or still lactating cows to be transported, putting them at risk of further injury and suffering.
Stronger language introduced around abusive handling
The new code prohibits abusive handling, which it defines as including but not limited to “kicking, beating, striking, tail twisting, dragging, improper use of a prod, and forcefully pulling cattle by the tail, head, or neck.”
The new Dairy Code of Practice can be read in full here (opens as a PDF).
Monitoring, enforcement and penalties needed
To protect the well-being of dairy cows, the new Code of Practice must be paired with independent, proactive third-party oversight; enforcement; and effective penalties.
The 2021 undercover investigation of Cedar Valley Farms, a B.C.-based dairy farm, reiterates the importance of proactive monitoring to deter and catch cruelty violations. Footage from the farm revealed serious instances of illegal animal abuse. A former employee of Cedar Valley Farms, who worked there for four years, told media he’d repeatedly reported the abuse, but nothing changed.
Take action
Update
This action has now ended. Thank you to the 4,381 advocates who used the quick action to call for meaningful changes for farmed animals. Please see the Current Campaigns page for more ways you can help farmed animals, including an action calling for widespread changes to protect animals raised and slaughtered for human use in the agriculture system.
Now is your chance to speak up for farmed animals! The B.C. government is currently conducting a review of the province’s farmed animal welfare framework. Use the quick action tool below to send a message to B.C.’s Minister of Agriculture.
Help protect farmed animals
In December 2021, the VHS launched a campaign calling for greater protections for farmed animals in B.C. To date,more than 3,700 animal supporters have used the quick action tool to contact the Ministry of Agriculture calling for:
Government-mandated and proactively-enforced compliance with the National Farm Animal Care Council Codes of Practice
Publicly-available reports of independent, third party audits on farms
Consistent video surveillance monitoring on farms
Emergency planning to protect farmed animals in disasters
Please call on B.C.’s Premier and the Minister of Agriculture to take these important actions to better protect farmed animals from cruelty and suffering.
This action has now ended.
4,381 people used this tool to call for meaningful changes to protect farmed animals. Thank you for taking action.
A heartbreaking incident this weekend showed many Vancouverites that horse racing is not all fun and games.
Vancouver’s Hastings Racecourse is once again the subject of controversy after a three-year-old horse named Lent Me Twenty tragically lost her life at The Cup – formerly known as the Deighton Cup – event on Saturday.
Reports of Lent Me Twenty’s death offer conflicting accounts. David Milburn, president of the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association of BC – an industry group that supports the continuation of thoroughbred horse racing – believed that the horse reared up before falling and striking her head on the ground.
One of around 30 spectators who witnessed the death, Darren Hill, said, “It just walked normal in front of me with its trainer and then as it passed me, it just dropped sideways.”
The true cause of Lent Me Twenty’s death is currently under investigation. Regardless of the outcome, it is doubtless that humans caused her death by choosing to use her as entertainment.
The selective breeding and use of animals for entertainment like horse racing always carries a risk. Sadly, that risk is not taken into account because the animals are not treated as sentient, feeling individuals. The industry requires that we see these horses as objects.
This is likely why, after Lent Me Twenty’s body was hidden beneath a tarp and carried away on a trailer, races continued throughout the day.
The tragic incident of Lent Me Twenty’s death is yet another stain on the satin shirt of this ostensibly high-society event.
The Cup markets itself as stylish and sophisticated; it invites people to dress up for a “good ol’ fashioned day at the races.” However, under the pomp and pageantry, the reality for animals is far less glamorous.
Unlike human athletes, racehorses are not given a choice of whether to participate. They are bred and raised for the purpose and forced to perform at high speeds in front of roaring crowds.
There is no choice to opt out when they are not feeling their best or conditions are not favourable. The show must go on – even on days like Saturday, in temperatures far exceeding what horses prefer to exercise in, and when a horse had just lost her life.
At the end of the race, horses have no concept of winning or losing. Dr. Stephen Peters, a neuroscientist who has worked with both humans and horses, notes that “The idea that horses love the event they compete in is something we’ve created. It’s a myth more for us than the horse.”
Unlike when horses “race” each other in a field, running around a racetrack is not a natural behaviour for horses, says certified applied animal behaviorist Dr. Sue McDonnell.
Horses do not understand the thrill of competing in events developed by, and for, humans. For animals, the thrill of play and competition can be seen when they set their own rules and are given freedom to move and behave as they please, like when a dog “chases” his guardian through the grass.
Instead, what these horses know is the stress of being carted between different loud and highly controlled environments, the bite of an uncomfortable bit in their mouth, and the pain of a whip on their flank as they run along a strictly guided path. Their so-called “careers” are short and marked by fear.
Typically, horses begin racing around two years of age. Research shows that horses who begin high-intensity activities like racing at a young age have been found to have high rates of injury, and to decline and retire quickly.
One study found that during the training and racing of two-year-old racehorses, 85% suffered at least one incident of injury or disease. Another found that of the horses that began racing at two or three years of age, only 46% were still racing two years later.
Racehorses typically retire around age four to six; but life after racing is no frolic in the pasture, either. If horses are not used for breeding or given another way to turn a profit, they run the risk of ending up at auction, where unwanted horses are sent and sold to the highest bidder.
While some horses may be bought from auction for riding or companionship, others are less fortunate and are purchased by horsemeat buyers, destined for slaughter. Auctions are a stressful and dangerous place to be an animal, and rescuers at the Squamish-based horse sanctuary, Second Chance Cheekye Ranch, have said that all horses they have rescued from this process arrive with some degree of trauma.
This display of risk and fear only exists because there is money in it. Every spectator at this year’s event at Hastings Racecourse can be part of the solution for horses by skipping next year’s event and spending a Saturday wearing a fascinator or cufflinks elsewhere.
The Calgary Stampede’s 100th anniversary of chuckwagon racing is getting a lot of attention this year, with commemorations of those 100 years being splashed across the Stampede website.
A book on the centennial was even published in March. The mood is downright celebratory.
But here’s something no one is proud to commemorate: more than 100 animals have died at the Calgary Stampede since the Vancouver Humane Society started tracking fatalities in 1986. Nearly three-quarters of those were horses used in the chuckwagon races.
The prospect of another 100 years of horse fatalities is certainly not worth celebrating.
The chuckwagon races are the most popular, and by far the most deadly, animal event at the Calgary Stampede. Event organizers and participants are well aware that any given race could quickly turn fatal in an event openly deemed the “Half-Mile of Hell,” as accidents are inevitable.
In fact, in the last two decades, there have only been three years in which the races did not result in horse fatalities: 2003, 2004, and 2016.
According to Stan Church, the chuckwagon safety commissioner of the Stampede in 2015, that risk has long been a draw for crowds. “A lot of people were disappointed if at least one wagon didn’t roll over” in the ‘50s and ‘60s, he said.
The thrill of the risk seems to continue to entice many. In fact, a disturbing pattern has emerged in recent years: each time organizers introduce a small change to improve the races’ safety in response to mass casualty events, those changes are vocally opposed by participants.
Reacting to a change that limited the number of wagons on the track for safety reasons, an anonymous veteran driver confided to the Calgary Sun, “I’m going to tell you, it’s boring watching three wagons compared to four wagons.”
The change came in response to the deaths of six horses in 2019. Safety is clearly not a top priority for all those involved in this sport.
Sadly, despite minor safety changes, horses continue to die in pain and fear nearly every year. That’s because changes to the number of horses and examinations of the track, while well-intentioned, fail to address the inherent dangers of the event: the fast pace, the close proximity of horses and wagons, and the fragile skeletal structure of the thoroughbred horses who are used, the latter of which has been the subject of criticism from animal scientist Temple Grandin.
Thankfully, the tide of public opinion seems to be turning on the use of animals in entertainment events like the Calgary Stampede. Sixty-one per cent of Canadians and 49% of Albertans are opposed to the use of animals in rodeo, compared to 29% and 40% in favour, respectively.
A Research Co. poll conducted during last year’s Stampede revealed the removal of the rodeo and chuckwagon events from the Calgary Stampede program would have virtually no impact on attendance rates.
The poll found that 64% of Calgarians asked indicated that they had attended or were likely to attend the Stampede last year, while 63% indicated they would be likely to attend without the inclusion of the rodeo or chuckwagon races.
What’s more, polling results indicated that the removal of controversial animal events would pique the interest of new crowds, with 24% of non-attendees from last year expressing interest in attending a Stampede free of rodeos and chuckwagons.
Without including the suffering of animals, the Stampede could truly become the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth by highlighting the vibrant arts and culture of Calgary and beyond, bringing people together with festivities all Canadians can be proud to claim as a major national event.
Members of Parliament may soon be voting on a federal private member’s bill that would impose hefty fines and jail time on those who expose animal cruelty and welfare issues on farms. While it’s being promoted as a measure to protect biosecurity, something far more sinister is happening beneath the surface.
In reality, Bill C-275 proposes a measure that’s well-known among animal advocates as “ag-gag” laws: punitive restrictions that target whistleblowers, journalists, and others who aim to shed light on hidden conditions and illegal cruelty within the animal agriculture system.
Ag-gag laws were first devised by the powerful US farm lobby in response to undercover investigations by animal advocates that showed the public the truth about the often-appalling conditions on factory farms. These exposés regularly caught farms cramming animals like pigs and chickens into tiny, filthy cages; workers hitting, kicking, and punching animals; botched euthanasia; and much more. The abuse captured on camera was bad press for the meat, dairy, and egg industries, and threatened to interfere with profits. But rather than addressing the crisis of cruelty, legislators in several US states instead passed ag-gag laws that made it illegal for undercover whistleblowers to film on farms—ensuring the abuse would stay behind closed doors.
Undercover investigations into factory farms became common in Canada in the 2010s, exposing heartbreaking animal suffering and leading to prosecutions and conviction, such as at Chilliwack Cattle Sales, where an undercover video led to some of the largest animal cruelty fines in Canadian history. The farm industry soon started pushing for ag-gag laws—Alberta and Ontario both introduced laws banning undercover whistleblowers in 2019—and imposing incredibly punitive fines on trespassers. Manitoba and PEI have passed their own versions of ag-gag laws since then, and the first federal ag-gag bill was introduced in 2019.
Ag-gag laws are so damaging to transparency that courts in six US states have struck them down as a violation of free speech provisions in the US Constitution. Animal Justice is leading a legal challenge to Ontario’s ag-gag laws, with the case slated to be heard this fall.
It’s clear these laws limit much-needed transparency on farms, but are they a necessary evil to prevent trespassing and protect biosecurity, as they purport?
If we look at the laws already in place, it’s evident these laws are not about trespassing at all. The justice system is well-equipped to respond to trespass; each province has general anti-trespass and similar laws which have been used to prosecute people who enter farms without permission.
In fact, existing laws have already been used in a way that is favourable to the animal agriculture industry. Many Canadians were disturbed by the high-profile case of the Excelsior 4 in BC last year, which saw advocates put on trial for exposing horrific cruelty at Excelsior Hog Farm. Two advocates were convicted of criminal mischief for entering a farm after the court forbade them from providing evidence of the unjust and potentially illegal cruelty as a “defense of necessity,” further withholding the transparency that Canadians expect in their food system.
Within a justice system already used to serve the bottom line of the animal agriculture industry, Bill C-275 would do more than punish trespassers; it could jail people who bring a camera or tape recorder onto a farm without permission—including undercover advocates, existing workers, or even someone visiting a farm on an “open house” day. It would also doubly punish undercover investigators in provinces such as Alberta and Ontario that already have ag-gag legislation in place. Shockingly, fines for violating the ag-gag law could be as high as half a million dollars.
Disease outbreaks happen regularly on farms, but animal advocates aren’t the cause. Animal Justice analyzed data compiled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which monitors and investigates reportable disease outbreaks in Canada. The report reveals that standard farm practices and poor adherence to biosecurity protocols by farmers are regularly linked to illness and lethal diseases—such as inadequate hand-washing, failure to change boots and clothing, sharing equipment between farms, sharing needles, or in the case of mad cow disease, feeding infected cow flesh to other cows.
If Bill C-275 was serious about stopping diseases on farms, it would set out clear, legal standards for biosecurity in Canada—which don’t currently exist.
It’s obvious that ag-gag laws have little to do with biosecurity or protecting the food supply, but everything to do with hiding the poor conditions where animals are kept. Animals kept on farms deserve national regulations protecting their well-being, coupled with transparent, proactive monitoring and enforcement such as publicly available reporting and surveillance footage. MPs should reject dangerous ag-gag laws, and instead focus on protecting animals farmed for food and increasing transparency.
A calf and mother at Sanctuaire pour animaux de ferme de l'Estrie in Quebec. Photo: Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur We Animals Media.
A version of this article was originally published in The Province.
Amid an onslaught of controversies surrounding the Canadian dairy industry, including a scandalous viral video of an Ontario farmer dumping milk down the drain, new guidelines for the care of dairy cows have been quietly released.
Late last week, the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) released its updated Dairy Cattle Code of Practice, which provides guidelines for the care of dairy cows on farms across Canada. The Code reportedly received a record-setting number of comments from more than 5,800 individuals. Although a strong public response prompted some positive changes, several areas of the Code still fall short of expectations.
During the public comment period on the Code of Practice, one of the sections that received the strongest response was that on calf housing.
It’s easy to see why; like other social animals, calves thrive with interaction and physical touch. Most human parents are familiar with the importance of cuddling to a baby’s development. Like human children, calves who are deprived of physical contact experience stress, slower growth, weakened immune systems, and lower welfare. Conversely, research shows that “pair or group housed calves show improved cognitive development, perform more play behaviours, and are less reactive to novelty”.
A 2018 study found that 63% of farms in Canada reared dairy calves in individual housing. It is a promising step that the NFACC has acknowledged in the new Code of Practice the harms that this can cause, as well as the many benefits of social housing for calves.
Unfortunately, the new regulations pave a long road to change. The updated Code of Practice will continue to permit the isolated housing of calves until 2031. This prolonged regulation shift will put millions of calves at risk of being housed individually over the next eight years, denying young calves the ability to engage in their natural herding instincts during their formative months.
Perhaps most shocking is the continued absence of required emergency planning.
The public comment period for the Dairy Cattle Code of Practice launched November 29, 2021, while rural communities in B.C. were still reeling from the impacts of disastrous flooding. The floods claimed the lives of approximately 640,000 farmed animals in B.C., including about 420 dairy cattle. Farmers, veterinarians, volunteers, and community members scrambled to evacuate and house thousands of animals, as many were trapped for days standing in deep, murky water.
The Code recommends that farms develop a plan for evacuating cattle in the event of an emergency, but has no requirements around emergency planning.
Other concerns that remain unresolved by the updated guidelines include the continued use of electric prods, the stressful separation of cows from their newly born calves, the lack of required outdoor access, and the transportation of cows who are compromised or lactating.
There is some good news – the new Code explicitly prohibits abusive handling, which it defines as “kicking, beating, striking, tail twisting, dragging, improper use of a prod, and forcefully pulling cattle by the tail, head, or neck”.
Avoiding many of these techniques was previously only considered a recommended best practice, but recent controversies have prompted a public cry for accountability. In 2021, the industry was subject to public scrutiny when news coverage revealed disturbing footage of dairy cows being violently beaten, kicked, and dragged at Cedar Valley Farms in Abbotsford.
While the NFACC guidelines aim to address some of the systemic cruelty highlighted in undercover investigations like the one at Cedar Valley, the Code’s reach is not absolute. Meaningful monitoring, enforcement, and penalties for industry stakeholders found guilty of animal abuse are still needed to ensure animals are protected.
The NFACC’s codes of practice are typically only updated every ten years, meaning that for better or worse, dairy cows will likely be stuck under these insufficient guidelines for the next decade. Meanwhile, consumers can find a growing selection of plant-based alternatives that increasingly rival the taste, texture, and price of dairy – without the suffering.
