Author: Nadia Xenakis

Categories
News/Blog

Have your say: Canada’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle

Cows looking at the camera, this breed Shorthorn or Durham, typical of Argentina.
  • The National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Beef Code of Practice outlines guidelines for the on-farm care and handling of cattle raised for beef in Canada.
  • The code is being updated for the first time since 2013 and a public comment period is open until June 12, 2026.
  • While there are a few improvements, the new draft code fails to address some of the most significant welfare issues within the beef cattle industry.
  • Join the VHS in calling for stronger requirements for shelter, daily monitoring, pain control, humane handling, transport decisions, and emergency planning.

TAKE ACTION: Share feedback on the draft code on the issues that are important to you; everyone can participate! 

Top welfare priorities
Tips for submitting
Submit your feedback 

Share this post!

Top Welfare Priorities

We encourage you to read through the draft Beef Cattle Code of Practice and provide feedback on the issues that matter most to you, if possible.

However, we have prepared the VHS’s top welfare priorities with section headers and tips for submitting your feedback, if you are short on time and would like guidance.

Short on time? Under the heading ‘Which section of the draft Code would you now like to provide feedback on?’, select ‘General Comments on the Code’. This will allow you to bypass providing feedback on each section of the code.

IMPORTANT: Do not copy and paste wording, as duplicate responses and/or profanity or derogatory language will not be considered by NFACC. 

Section 1: Animal Environment
Section 1.2: Facilities for all cattle

Comment on Requirements:

Currently, there is no minimum shelter requirement to protect cattle from heat, cold, wind, rain, or other harsh weather.

  • The Code should set clear minimum shelter space requirements based on herd size, as well as maximum stocking densities (e.g. number of animals/acre) for cattle on pasture, feedlots, and auction markets.

The Code should require enrichment opportunities that allow cattle to express natural behaviours, including foraging, exercise, social behaviour, and grooming.

The Code should also prohibit tethering cattle as a form of housing. Tethering (tying an animal to an anchor point) should only be used temporarily when necessary for handling or procedures, and it should never be used as a regular housing practice.

Section 2: Feed and Water
Section 2.2: Water

Comment on Requirements

Cattle should have reliable access to clean water, including during heat waves and/or periods of high humidity, and water sources should be monitored regularly.

Snow should not be permitted as the sole winter water source. Snow may not reliably meet cattle’s needs, especially if conditions change or cattle are not checked frequently. A backup water system should always be required.

Comment on Recommended Practices

The following should be requirements:

  • Water sources must be easy for cattle to find and access.
  • The number of watering points and flow rate must be appropriate for the herd size.
  • Automated water systems must be checked daily to ensure they are working properly.

Section 3: Animal Health
Section 3.3.1: Disorders of the Respiratory Tract

Comment on Requirements

Recently weaned calves and newly arrived feedlot cattle should be monitored at least twice daily for two weeks to support early detection of respiratory disease.

A risk-based bovine respiratory disease prevention strategy should be a requirement as part of every herd health program, given that it is a significant health and welfare problem in the beef industry.

Section 3.3.2: Lameness

Comment on Recommended Practices

Lameness is a painful leg or hoof condition that is a common welfare issue within the beef industry. The Code should require training on causes, prevention, and treatment of lameness.

It should also require producers minimize cattle exposure to mud and standing water, and to include lameness prevention strategies in herd health programs.

Section 3.4: Safety and Emergencies

Comment on Requirements

The Code should require stronger emergency planning for fires, floods, and extreme weather.

Newly built facilities should have fire suppression and flood mitigation systems. Existing facilities should be retrofitted where possible.

Section 4: Animal Husbandry
Section 4.1: Handling and Moving Cattle

Comment on Requirements

Electric prods are used during handling and provide an electric shock to the animal. These devices cause pain, stress, and can lead to injury.

Given that electric prods can also easily be overused and that humane alternatives exist and are effective, the Code should prohibit electric prod use and require low-stress handling methods.

Section 4.3: Identification

Comment on Requirements

Branding, which is used to permanently identify cattle, should be prohibited.

Branding is painful and unnecessary, especially when alternatives such as microchipping, visual identifiers, descriptive markings, coat patterns, colour variations, and properly fitted leg bands are available.

Section 4.4: Disbudding and Dehorning

Comment on Requirements

The Code should require practices that eliminate painful horn removal (disbudding and dehorning) procedures, such as transitioning to hornless breeds of cattle.

Section 4.5: Castration

Comment on Requirements

Cattle should be castrated as young as practically possible and provided both anesthetics and pain control, in consultation with a veterinarian.

Comment on Recommended Practices

Calves must be monitored after castration to ensure they are nursing or eating and to check for signs of infection or other complications.

Section 4.5.1: Spaying

Comment on Requirements

Spaying should only be carried out by a veterinarian, and both anesthetics and pain control should be required.

Section 4.6: Weaning

Comment on Recommended Practices

Abrupt weaning of calves from their mothers should be prohibited. Low-stress, gradual weaning strategies should be required.

This includes two-stage or fence-line weaning, avoiding weaning during other major stressors such as adverse weather, commingling with animals from other groups, marketing, or transport, and avoiding painful procedures like branding, dehorning, and castration at the time of weaning.

Calves should also be acclimated to human handling and feed delivery methods they will experience after weaning.

Section 4.8: Tail Docking

Comment on Requirements

Tail docking should only be permitted when medically necessary, in consultation with a veterinarian, and with both anesthesia and pain control.

Section 5: Preparations for Transport
Section 5.1: Evaluating and Preparing Cattle for Transport 

Comment on Recommended Practices

Transport is a stressful process that can pose a significant risk to the health and welfare of cattle. Therefore, the Code should require stronger protections during transport decision-making, planning, scheduling, and loading/receiving.

  • Farm personnel should be trained and have ready access to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) guidance and veterinarian-developed protocols for assessing an animal’s fitness for transport.
  • Monitoring should increase as the transport date approaches, so health or body condition concerns can be identified early.
  • If there is uncertainty about whether an animal is fit for transport, consulting a veterinarian should be required.
Section 5.2: Planning and Scheduling Transport

Comment on Recommended Practices

Transport should be planned to minimize the time animals spend loaded in parked vehicles and to account for forecasted weather conditions. Transport must not take place during extreme weather.

Section 5.3: Loading and Receiving Cattle

Comment on Recommended Practices

The Code should require loading practices that reduce stress and injury, including adjusting loading densities, absorbent material for the weather conditions and providing ramps when the vertical distance between the loading surface and vehicle floor causes cattle to hesitate, stop moving forward, or refuse to move.

Section 6: On-Farm Euthanasia
Section 6.1: Euthanasia Decisions

Comment on Requirements:

Delayed or inappropriate decisions around humane euthanasia can lead to prolonged animal suffering.

The Code should require training to help personnel assess quality of life, prognosis, and when euthanasia is needed. A required training module should be developed to support timely, humane decision-making.

General Comments

The Code should include a clear duty of care section, similar to other Codes of Practice, which require that all personnel responsible for cattle must be required to know the Code, be properly trained, and be competent and confident in cattle care and handling.

The Code should also require cattle to be checked daily at a minimum. Daily observation is essential to identify illness, injury, lack of access to food or water, extreme weather impacts, calving difficulties, and other welfare concerns.

There should also be stronger requirements for consistent, practical tools for measuring welfare outcomes across the beef cattle industry.

Submit your feedback now!

Tips for submitting

To make your submission impactful, and to ensure that it is reviewed by NFACC, consider these tips before submitting your feedback:  

  • REMINDER: Do not copy and paste the text below, as duplicate submissions will be ignored by NFACC. Use your own words so your submission reflects your personal concerns and experience.
  • Keep responses relevant to on-farm practices.
  • Provide references and examples whenever possible. 
  • Reference exact wording in the draft code that you would like to see changed and how you would like it changed.
  • Make it personal, the committee members are interested in how this code impacts you.
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak up for beef cattle in Canada.
Submit your feedback now!
References

TBD

Stay Informed. Help Animals.

Learn about farmed animal welfare in Canada and what you can do to help! Sign up now to get clear explanations, action alerts, and practical steps you can take when it matters most.  Click here to learn more.

Categories
News/Blog

Beneath the surface: The hidden welfare crisis of pet fish

A solitary betta fish housed in a plastic bag and only a small amount of water at a fish shop. The shop sells ornamental fish for the aquarium trade. Luu Xuan Tin, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Nam Bo, Vietnam, 2022. Aaron Gekoski / Asia for Animals Coalition / We Animals
Credit: Aaron Gekoski / Asia for Animals Coalition / We Animals

Bright aquariums filled with colourful fishes are often seen as calming, decorative additions to a home. But behind the glass is a reality that is far less visible.

Ornamental fishes are among the most widely kept exotic animals in the world, and often considered a ‘starter pet’, yet their welfare is frequently overlooked.

Read more
Learn what you can do to help!

Share this post!

Little girl holds glass with blue fish, pet store. Child buying equipment in petshop, accessories for domestic animals

Where do ornamental fish come from?

The ornamental fish trade is a global industry involving thousands of species and billions of animals. One recent review estimates it includes close to 6,000 species and generates over $15 billion USD annually. Common species that many are familiar with include Goldfish, Bettas, and Tetras. 

Many of us have seen fish in pet stores, carnivals, and homes, but how many of us know where they actually come from? 

1

Wild caught or bred in captivity

Over 90% of freshwater ornamental fish species are bred in captivity and over 90% of marine ornamental fishes are wild-caught. 

2

Transported to stores

Fish are then transported to be purchased by customers to places like pet stores or hobbyists.  

3

Most will die during transit

It is estimated that over 90% of fish will die during transportation, and a large proportion will be discarded for issues that customers find unattractive, such as wounds or a sickly appearance.  

4

Waiting on store shelves

The survivors will be stored in holding tanks until they are purchased.  

5

Living in a tank until death

Their final stage of life is often in a customer’s home aquarium, where they live until death.  

6

What’s often overlooked

At each stage, they can face significant stressors such as overcrowding, handling, and poor water conditions.  

Despite the scale of this industry, it remains relatively under-regulated compared to other sectors involving companion animals. Weak oversight and gaps in legislation continue to leave fish vulnerable to poor welfare conditions.  

Fish are sentient, often misunderstood, animals

Scientific evidence shows that fish are sentient. They can experience pain, form memories, and display complex social behaviours.  

Yet fish are still widely perceived as low-maintenance pets, or even as decoration. This misunderstanding has serious consequences for their welfare. When their needs are underestimated, they are more likely to be impulsively purchased or kept in environments that compromise their health and well-being.

Credit Jordan Rivers / We Animals

Life in a tank is more complex than it looks

Unlike many other companion animals, fish live entirely within aquatic environments constructed and maintained by humans. This makes water quality one of the most critical factors in their welfare.

In their natural habitats, fish have expansive space and enriched ecosystems that are often difficult to replicate in captive environments. Properly caring for fish can be intensive, making the myth that they are easy to care for ‘starter pets’ particularly harmful.

Parameters like ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, pH, temperature, and oxygen levels must be carefully maintained. When these are not properly managed, fish can quickly experience stress, illness, and death.

Proper care also requires: 

  • Adequate tank size and space
  • Appropriate stocking density
  • Species-specific environments
  • Species-appropriate groupings
  • A fully “cycled” tank that supports the nitrogen cycle

Many common health issues seen in ornamental fishes are directly linked to poor husbandry. From a veterinary perspective, treatment often depends on correcting the environment rather than simply administering medication. This requires ongoing knowledge and commitment from caregivers, something many are not prepared for when they first acquire fish.

There are barriers to veterinary care

Even when problems are recognized, access to veterinary care can be limited. Aquatic medicine is a specialized and relatively niche area, and many general veterinarians are not equipped to treat fish patients.

This creates a difficult situation. Fish may suffer from preventable conditions, while caregivers struggle to find guidance or support.

At the same time, the sheer diversity of species in the trade makes it challenging to develop consistent care standards. Different species have different environmental and social needs, and many are unlikely to have those needs fully met in typical home aquariums.

A welfare issue we can no longer ignore

The ornamental fish trade highlights a broader issue in how animals are perceived and treated. When animals are seen primarily for their appearance or being easy to care for, their needs can be overlooked.

Fish are sentient individuals capable of experiencing stress and suffering. Their welfare matters, both in the conditions they are kept in and in the systems that bring them into our homes.

Here’s what can you do to help!

Improving the lives of ornamental fish takes all of us!

1

Educate yourself & others

If you choose to purchase fish, learn about their complex welfare and husbandry needs, and about veterinary care options near you.

2

Share this post

Educate others on the welfare needs of fish so they can make informed decisions before purchasing animals.

3

Local advocacy

Talk to pet stores and local representatives in your community to advocate against the sale of fish in pet stores or for improved welfare conditions.

4

Sign up to take action ↓

Sign up for our mailing list to be informed when opportunities to advocate for fish arise.  

At VHS we believe all animals deserve care, respect, and consideration. That includes fish, whose needs may be less visible but are no less important. By looking beyond the surface, we can begin to change how ornamental fish are understood and treated and ensure their lives are more than something to look at.

Categories
News/Blog

B.C. bans exotic cats as pets. Thank you for speaking up for animals!

African Serval Cat Lying in Grass

The VHS is celebrating an important step forward for animals in British Columbia.

The provincial government has announced a ban on the breeding, sale, public display, and future private ownership of exotic cat species such as servals, caracals, leopard cats, ocelots and others. 

This progress would not have been possible without compassionate people like you.

Over the past year, the VHS and supporters spoke up for animals by contacting decision makers and participating in a public consultation on a proposal to ban exotic cats. Your voices helped show the province that British Columbians want stronger protections for wild animals. 

Read more
Ask the government go further!

Share this post!

Why don’t exotic cats belong in homes?

Exotic cats are wild animals with complex physical and behavioural needs that cannot be met in a household environment. Even when bred in captivity, they retain the instincts and behaviours of their wild counterparts.

  • They are driven to roam, climb, hunt, and defend territory. Confinement in homes can lead to severe stress, behavioural problems, and poor health.
  • Exotic cats require specialized diets and veterinary care that are not widely available.
  • Servals and caracals can weigh up to 40 pounds and have a bite force far stronger than a domestic cat. When exotic cats escape or are released they can harm other animals and pose risks to the community.

For these reasons, exotic cats experience poor welfare when kept as pets and can create risks for people, other animals, and local ecosystems.

What do the new rules mean?

Under the planned changes to the Controlled Alien Species Regulation (CASR), all exotic cat species will be prohibited in the future. Breeding, selling, or acquiring new exotic cats will no longer be allowed.

Animals already in private homes will be permitted to stay with their current guardians for the remainder of their lives, provided that guardians obtain a permit and follow basic care and safety requirements.

This change is designed to ensure that no more exotic cats are brought into captivity as pets where their needs cannot be met.

Close young serval cat (Felis serval)

A meaningful step, with more work ahead

While this ban is an important step for advancing animal welfare, many other exotic species continue to be kept as pets in B.C. despite facing similar welfare concerns. 

The VHS is encouraging the provincial government to go further by adopting an evidence-based positive list system for exotic animals. Instead of a long list of banned species, a positive list allows only animals that are proven suitable as pets based on animal welfare, public health, safety, and environmental criteria. 

Municipal leaders across British Columbia have already called for stronger action through a Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Resolution NR75, which urges the province to strengthen provincial rules for exotic animals. 

The VHS applauds the provincial government for taking this important step towards advancing animal welfare by banning exotic cat ownership and hopes to see more positive changes. 

When people speak up for animals, change happens!

Thank you for helping make the exotic cat ban possible by standing up for animals who cannot speak for themselves.

TAKE ACTION!
Help take the next step for animals

We invite you to help move this work forward by encouraging the provincial government to implement stronger rules for exotic animals in line with UBCM Resolution NR75.

Together, we can help ensure that wild animals are not kept in conditions that compromise their welfare or threaten public safety.

Share this post!

Categories
News/Blog

The campaign to regulate exotic animals in B.C. explained!

Snakes in small containers at an exotic pet expo

Share this post!

Many of us, or children in our lives, have passed snakes around classrooms, seen hedgehogs or tortoises sitting under bright lights at birthday parties, or seen lizards displayed in plastic containers at exotic pet expos. 

Across British Columbia, exotic animals are being transported to birthday parties, schools, fairs, and expo events through what are known as mobile live animal programs, or MLAPs. These programs are often marketed as educational and family friendly. But what do they really teach, and at what cost? 

There are growing calls, including from the VHS, other animal protection organizations, and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, for the B.C. government to regulate mobile live animal programs and update outdated exotic animal regulations using a science-based approach. 

Because these programs are often presented as educational or harmless, many people have questions about how they work and what impacts they may have on animals, public safety, and conservation.

Below are answers to some of the most common questions about mobile live animal programs and exotic animal regulations in B.C.

Read more
Tell the B.C. government to act!

What are mobile live animal programs?

MLAPs involve transporting animals to different locations for display, public entertainment, fundraising, or sale. This can include travelling petting zoos, classroom presentations, reptile expos, and events where exotic animals are sold. 

Many of the animals used in these programs are wild, exotic animals. By this, we mean that they are non-domesticated species native to countries outside Canada. Unlike dogs, cats, or horses, exotic animals have not been domesticated over thousands of years to live alongside people. Species like snakes, lizards, tortoises, sugar gliders, and spiders retain their wild instincts, even if bred in captivity.

Are these programs really educational?

MLAPs are often defended as hands-on learning experiences that help children develop care for conservation or empathy for animals. However, research does not support the claim that interacting with live animals in these settings increases conservation knowledge or action.

Some research actually suggests that these experiences can result in negative emotional or intellectual perceptions of animals. Seeing animals removed from their natural environments, confined in small enclosures, and handled repeatedly can normalize the idea that wild animals exist for human use. 

Hands-on interactions can also increase the desire to own exotic animals, particularly among children. Rather than discouraging impulse purchases, close contact may unintentionally fuel demand. 

Researchers note that seeing animals up close is not necessary to foster learning, care, or conservation. Many beloved species, such as humpback whales, are widely protected without ever being held or handled by the public. 

Why don’t many exotic animals make good pets?

Exotic animals, whether captive bred or wild caught, have complex social, behavioural, dietary, and environmental needs. These needs are difficult to meet in captivity and even more difficult in private homes. 

When their needs are not met, animals may suffer chronic stress, illness, and premature death. It can also be challenging and costly to access specialized veterinary care. This can result in painful death, abandonment or surrender to already overburdened rescues. 

Even well-intentioned guardians may not have the expertise or resources required to properly care for exotic species. That is why the VHS supports a science-based “positive list” framework. This framework would outline species allowed to be kept as pets and would be based on welfare, health, safety, and environmental criteria.   

B.C.’s current Controlled Alien Species Regulations (CASR) are based on a lengthy and reactive “negative listing” approach, which lists 1000+ restricted and prohibited species. The current regulations also do not include animal welfare or disease risk as considerations for which animals are prohibited.    

What happens to animals during these events?

Exotic animals used in MLAPs face significant welfare risks, including stress from: 

  • Frequent travel to and from events, sometimes long distances 
  • Repeated public handling 
  • Undersized or barren enclosures during transport and display 
  • Inability to escape from public view or the view of other animals 
  • Exposure to unnatural lighting, temperature, humidity, noise, and smells

Research shows that many reptiles and other exotic animals hide signs of stress as a survival tactic. An animal that appears calm may still be experiencing chronic stress, which can have serious physical and psychological impacts. 

The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries opposes public contact with wildlife, stating that pay-to-play activities are never in the best interest of the animal and can pose risks to both public safety and animal health. 

Why are animal enclosures at exotic animal events a concern?

Many exotic animals are sold across the province in barren, plastic take-out style containers with little to no enrichment, space, or opportunity to exhibit natural behaviours. It is often unclear how long animals remain in these containers throughout the duration of an event, which may last several hours or even multiple days. 

To justify this type of confinement, some organizations have referenced the International Air Transport Association’s Live Animals Regulations. These guidelines are designed to keep animals safe during air travel, where they may risk injury due to turbulence, and are intended to apply only during active transport. 

However, while travel to and from events may require temporary housing, displaying animals for sale or entertainment at an expo or event is not a period of active travel and does not pose the same safety risks as periods of active travel. Stress that animals experience in these housing environments far outweigh any potential benefits. 

Travel is often one of the most stressful events in any animal’s life, and all efforts should be made to minimize the need to transport animals, the duration of travel, and time spent in restrictive temporary housing.  

Unlike transportation guidelines, there are currently no consistent provincial standards in B.C. that regulate adequate animal handling or living spaces at mobile live animal events. Keeping animals in temporary, restrictive housing for entire days or weekends for the purpose of sale or public display can compromise animal welfare and increase stress and suffering. 

What about rescues?

Some MLAPs describe themselves as rescues that rely on events to raise funds for animal care. While funding challenges are real, reputable sanctuaries and rescues prioritize animal welfare above all else and successfully raise funds without putting animals at risk of stress and suffering. 

Grants, animal sponsorship programs, online peer-to-peer fundraising, corporate partnerships, and community events offer sustainable alternatives. Ethical rescues prioritize the long-term well-being of animals and do not use wild or exotic animals for public handling or entertainment. 

What changes are we calling for?

The VHS is urging the B.C. government to: 

  • Establish clear, enforceable regulations for mobile live animal programs that address animal welfare, environmental, public health and safety issues;  
  • Update and strengthen the CASR to prioritize animal welfare and public health considerations, alongside public safety, when determining which species can be kept, bred, and traded; 
  • Support a ban on keeping exotic species that cannot be humanely or safely kept. 

Peer-reviewed research, including recent analysis of reptile expos, supports stronger oversight and evidence-based regulations. A comprehensive approach must address both the sale of exotic animals and their use in public interaction programs. 

There are better ways to educate and inspire

We can foster compassion for animals without transporting them to and from parties and expos to be handled and put on display. Documentaries, virtual learning, sanctuary/rescue visits that prioritize animal well-being, and conservation programs all offer meaningful ways to engage the public. 

As public awareness grows, sentiment is shifting away from using live animals for entertainment and outreach. B.C. has an opportunity to lead with thoughtful, science-based policy that protects animals, public safety, and native ecosystems. 

If you believe wild, exotic animals deserve better protection, join us in calling on the provincial government to regulate mobile live animal programs and update B.C.’s exotic animal rules. 

Together, we can build a future where education and compassion never come at the expense of animal welfare. 

The VHS is grateful to the Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada for their generous grant funding of our work to raise awareness about the suffering of wild, exotic animals kept in captivity as pets and used in mobile live animal programs.

TAKE ACTION!
Add your name to the campaign

Ask the provincial government to take meaningful action on this issue by implementing the UBCM’s recommendations. 

Share this post!

Categories
News/Blog

Endangered, exploited, and still imported.

A group of macaques at a breeding facility peer through rusted wire while perching on their cage's ledge at sunset. Laos, 2011. Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals
Jo-Anne McArthur We Animals Media

Image credit: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals 

  • Long-tailed macaques are the most heavily traded primate in the world for experimentation.  
  • Between 2023 and 2025, Canada allowed the import of more than 10,000 long-tailed macaques from Cambodia. 

TAKE ACTION: Sign the new federal e-petition, which aims to improve protections for long-tailed macaques in Canada. 

Sign the e-petition
Learn more

10,000 endangered long-tailed macaques, a species of monkey commonly traded for experimentation, were imported to Canada in just three years.

This is deeply concerning.

A five-year U.S. federal investigation found that Cambodia’s supply chain laundered wild-caught macaques as captive-bred animals. In November 2025, Thai authorities uncovered ongoing smuggling of wild macaques destined for Cambodia. These findings raise serious questions about the legality and traceability of animals entering international markets.

Canada has both the authority and the responsibility to act.

A barn owl sits tethered to the hand of their handler in Prague, Czechia. This owl is displayed in order to sell photoshoots with the captive bird. Prague, Czechia, 2021. Lukas Vincour / Zvirata Nejime / We Animals
Credit: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals 

Your voice helps endangered monkeys

A new parliamentary e-petition calls on the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature to: 

  1. Launch an investigation into the legality, traceability, and authenticity of CITES permits used for importing Cambodian long-tailed macaques into Canada; and 
  1. Add long-tailed macaques to Schedule II of the Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations so Canada can require and assess its own import permits. 

This is a critical opportunity to strengthen oversight, uphold wildlife protection laws, and ensure Canada is not complicit in the exploitation of endangered animals. 

The petition closes the morning of April 28, 2026. 

If you are a Canadian citizen or resident, please add your name today and share the petition with others who care about wildlife protection and ethical responsibility. 

*Note: You will be asked to confirm your email after signing. Please check your spam folder to confirm your email and ensure your voice counts. 

Sign the e-petition

Together, we can urge the federal government to take meaningful action for long-tailed macaques before it is too late. 

Share our content to reach more people and spread the word!

Categories
News/Blog

How to spot red flags when animals appear in media.

A caged lion cub at a large pet expo stares up as multiple onlookers photograph them through the cage wire. A Thai exotic pet owners association brought the cub to the expo. Bangkok, Thailand, 2022. Ana Norman Bermudez / We Animals
Credit: Ana Norman Bermudez / We Animals

Image credit: Ana Norman Bermudez / We Animals

Animals appear in tv and film, advertisements, and our social media feeds. While some content celebrates animals in respectful ways, other videos and images raise serious welfare concerns.  Knowing what to look for can help you make more ethical choices about the content you watch and share. 

Share this post!

Red flags to watch for when animals are used in media:

  • Animals who appear unhealthy, such as being underweight, overweight, injured, or poorly groomed 
  • The use of wild and exotic animals in captivity for the purpose of entertainment 
  • Forced interactions, such as animals being held for the camera, hugged, or used for selfies.  
  • Animals made to perform tricks, dangerous stunts or forced actions 
  • Wild or exotic animals wearing clothes or being treated like props 
  • Signs of stress, fear, or attempts to escape 
  • Handlers using intimidation or violence to control animals 
  • Animals forced to work in extreme heat, cold, noise, bright lights, or crowded environments 

These signs often point to unethical training methods or poor living conditions behind the scenes. Wild and exotic animals are not domesticated, even if bred in captivity, and can face serious risks to their welfare off-screen. 

While it can be difficult to spot red flags from edited media, it is worth pausing to consider where the animals on our screens may have come from and what their lives may look like off-screen.  

A barn owl sits tethered to the hand of their handler in Prague, Czechia. This owl is displayed in order to sell photoshoots with the captive bird. Prague, Czechia, 2021. Lukas Vincour / Zvirata Nejime / We Animals
Credit: Lukas Vincour / Zvířata Nejíme / We Animals

There are also positive indicators to look out for

Green flags include content that:

  • Encourages responsible animal guardianship of domesticated species
  • Shows animals engaging in natural, species-appropriate behaviours
  • Depicts animals in a respectful and dignified way

Ethical animal content features animals in healthy physical condition, living in appropriate environments, and behaving naturally. It also reflects a genuine commitment to animal welfare, not just entertainment value. Importantly, animals should always have the choice to engage.

Girl hipster teenager with camera on farm in meadow takes photo of little young goat
Credit: Victoria de Martigny / Farm Sanctuary / We Animals

Some guiding principles

If you come across a video that raises concerns about animal welfare, it can be tempting to comment or share to call it out.

Unfortunately, this increases engagement and can encourage creators to produce more harmful content. The most effective response is not to interact with the content at all and to file a complaint with the company producing and showing the content, or to report the content to appropriate enforcement agencies if animal cruelty is observed.

Many animal videos are harmless and even positive. This includes well-cared-for companion animals playing or relaxing, or footage of wild animals filmed from a respectful distance without human interference.

Being thoughtful about what we watch, and share is one small but powerful way to protect animals. Every view counts. Choosing ethical content helps create a culture where animal welfare comes first

Social media can be part of the solution, not the problem.

Share our content to reach more people and spread the word!

Categories
News/Blog

Scrolling past suffering: Exotic pets and social media culture

Social media has become one of the most powerful places where people learn about animals. Every day, Canadians scroll past videos of sugar gliders, servals, turtles, snakes, and even native species of wild animals being kept in homes. 

But what do these posts actually tell us about public attitudes toward the exotic pet trade? 

A 2024 research study examined social media content to better understand how Canadians talk about exotic pets online. What the researchers found raises serious concerns for animal welfare, conservation, and the growing normalization of keeping exotic animals as companions. 

Share this post!

What animals are being shared online?

The study found that a wide range of animals appeared in social media posts, including: 

  • Endangered or threatened species, such as the black-breasted leaf turtle and the Sakishima grass lizard 
  • Animals seen as “cute” or trendy, like sugar gliders and servals
  • Native Canadian wildlife, including raccoons, foxes, and lynxes kept in captivity  (Note: the keeping of wildlife is illegal in B.C. without a permit)

Many of the most popular posts showed exotic animals in ways that encouraged admiration, without explaining how difficult it is to meet their complex needs. 

Public opinion was often positive

One of the most troubling findings was that overall public opinion about the exotic pet trade in Canada was mostly positive. 

Reactions often depended on the type of animal being shown. Mammals received more positive responses than reptiles or spiders, for example. 

When people expressed concern, it was usually focused on one visible issue, such as an enclosure being too small. Much less attention was given to broader harms, including: 

  • long-term suffering
  • improper care  
  • illegal wildlife ownership
  • impacts on conservation  

In many cases, the deeper consequences of the exotic pet trade were missing from the conversation entirely. 

A growing “Collector” mindset

Researchers also noticed a strong “collector” mentality online. 

Some users expressed a desire to own more animals, more species, and rarer animals simply for the sake of having them. This mindset treats living beings as possessions rather than individuals with complex needs. 

At the same time, there was little awareness of how the exotic animal trade threatens wild populations and ecosystems. 

Exotic pets are often personified for entertainment

Another major trend was the way exotic animals are portrayed with human-like emotions or personalities. 

Many posts gave animals voices, assigned them roles like “best friend” or “baby,” or suggested they enjoy captivity the way humans might. 

This kind of content can be deeply misleading. Exotic animals are not domesticated and treating them like props or characters can hide serious welfare concerns. 

Confusion about what’s legal

The study also found widespread misunderstanding about whether exotic pet ownership is legal. 

Many viewers assumed that if an animal is shown online, it must be permitted or ethical to keep. In reality, laws vary widely, enforcement is limited, and illegal ownership can easily go unnoticed on social media. 

When viral content drives demand: “Paris Hilton Syndrome”

The researchers highlighted a phenomenon sometimes called “Paris Hilton Syndrome.” 

This term comes from the surge in Chihuahua popularity after Paris Hilton’s dog frequently appeared in the media. Many people bought the breed impulsively, and countless dogs were later abandoned or surrendered to shelters. 

Similar trends have followed popular films and television shows, including: 

  • 101 Dalmatians 
  • Finding Nemo 
  • Lassie 

Today, influencers and celebrities sharing exotic pet videos can have the same effect. Viral content can make exotic animals seem trendy, accessible, and easy to care for, even when the reality is far more complex. 

The danger of “Folklore Husbandry”

The study also identified a troubling pattern of misinformation known as “folklore husbandry.” 

This refers to exotic animal care advice that spreads online without scientific evidence or best practices, often based on convenience or personal opinion. 

Examples included false claims such as: 

  • certain animals “do well in small spaces” 
  • keeping exotic pets helps conservation because the species is endangered 
  • captivity is harmless if the animal seems calm 

These myths can lead to suffering and neglect. 

What this means for animals

Positive reactions online can encourage people with little experience to purchase exotic pets or accumulate more animals over time. 

When exotic animals are presented as cute, funny, or emotionally relatable, viewers may accept the content without questioning whether the animal is stressed, improperly housed, or even being kept illegally. 

The result is increased demand, weak oversight, and growing risks for animals. 

What can we do?

Technology can worsen the exotic pet trade, but it can also help stop it. How we use social media matters. 

We can do better by: 

  • challenging myths about exotic pet care 
  • thinking critically about what we see online 
  • supporting stronger regulations 
  • promoting animal welfare and conservation 
  • sharing responsible, evidence-based content 

Social media can be part of the solution, not the problem.

Share our content to reach more people and spread the word!

Read the original study here: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138123001930 

Categories
News/Blog

Terrified animals are used as TV props in Fear Factor: House of Fear

‘Fear Factor: House of Fear.’ Photo by Serguei Bachlakov VIA RealityBlurred.com.

Cover image: ‘Fear Factor: House of Fear.’ Photo by Serguei Bachlakov VIA RealityBlurred.com.

Rats are crowded in a clear container open at the top, surrounded a larger container of snakes.
FearFactorUS, YouTube.

Game show contestants are covered in bugs while pigeons fall on them from above.

They crawl past a snake holding a dead rat in their mouth by the tail.

They dig through the entrails of dead animals.

They roughly grab invertebrates by the handful.

They are suspended in the air, picking up rats dangerously by their tails, accidentally dropping them into snake pits, and flinging them into a “safety” enclosure.

It seems like the television of a bygone era; the kind of show we could expect to see sitting around our slightly boxier television sets of the early 2000s. But these challenges are all part of the currently airing Fear Factor: House of Fear. The new series, which was filmed in Metro Vancouver and credits local animal handlers, uses animals in a way that is deeply troubling.

Original post + actions
Media red flags list

Fear Factor: House of Fear makes a spectacle out of animal suffering

In one challenge, contestants are locked into a clear box and covered in insects. Either rats, pigeons, crested geckos, or ball pythons are dropped onto them from above, followed by plastic balls that the contestants must open to reveal a code and escape the enclosure.  

As the show title suggests, we see the contestants visibly afraid, fleeing out of the box as soon as they can, some still covered in animals. We see the animals falling and expressing signs of fear and stress: reptiles writhing after falling a considerable distance, rats defecating over each other and people; pigeons flapping their wings and smacking into the wall of the box. As a former pigeon researcher, I found the clearly agitated birds particularly difficult to watch, although all these species are sentient and capable of feeling pain and stress.  

‘Fear Factor: House of Fear.’

And then there are the things we don’t see. It is unclear how animals are housed above the enclosure or how long they may be left in containers before, during, and after filming. It’s also unclear how animals are removed from the contestants after they escape—whether a handler collects them, or the panicked contestants fling them off. 

And of course, unlike the human contestants, the animals did not choose to be put in frightening situations.

Because these species are often thought of as “pests” and “vermin”, the average viewer may not consider their perspective. Others may assume that because the animals were on television, their treatment on- and off-camera was humane. We may be so accustomed to seeing the “No animals were harmed” disclaimer at the end of tv and film productions that many might assume it’s a requirement. But is it? 

Does seeing animals on TV mean “no animals were harmed”?

“No animals were harmed during the making of this film” is a product of collaboration between filmmakers and the American Humane Society. The disclaimer is provided to productions involving animals that meet certain criteria.

These guidelines are not legally mandatory for all productions. They include things like discouraging the use of glass panes around birds, ensuring that multiple reptiles are accustomed to each other if they are in a scene together to protect their safety, and that all physical and emotional discomfort of any kind is to be strictly avoided. 

The disclaimer is notably absent from Fear Factor: House of Fear. The show does not appear on the American Humane Society’s current list of certified “No animals were harmed” productions. 

Moving past inhumane “entertainment”

The 2000s version of Fear Factor was born out of a different cultural atmosphere. Once-popular shows based on mockery like The Biggest Loser, The Swan, andTeen Mom are now often dissected for their concerning themes. As we progress culturally, we must continue to be critical of the media shown to us and advocate for better treatment of both animals and people.  

Unfortunately, because the actual events depicted in the currently airing Fear Factor: House of Fear revival show were filmed months ago, they cannot be prevented. However, we can do better in the future. By refusing to engage with media that harms animals, we can send a strong message to production companies that profiting off of fear and harm is no longer acceptable.  

The VHS and advocates are calling for change

The Vancouver Humane Society has reached out to all relevant decision-makers to call for accountability and protection for animals. These are:

  • The BC SPCA: The VHS has submitted a cruelty complaint to the BC SPCA, the only animal welfare organization in B.C. with the authority to investigate complaints of animal abuse or neglect under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The BC SPCA is unable to comment on ongoing investigations. We will be sure to share any updates as soon as we are able.
  • Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC): The CBSC deals with complaints and questions from the public about the programming of private broadcasters in Canada. In response to our initial complaint, the VHS received an inadequate response from the shows Canadian broadcaster, Bell Media (CTV), and submitted a ruling request. We await a response to this request, which could take up to four months.
  • Bell Media (CTV): The VHS urged the show’s Canadian broadcaster to stop airing the program, which features improper and inhumane handling of animals.
  • Endemol Shine North America: The VHS also submitted a complaint to the production company of Fear Factor: House of Fear regarding the show’s treatment of animals.
  • B.C. Government: The VHS has contacted provincial decision-makers to call for greater protections for animals used in entertainment such as television productions filmed in the province.

Many supporters have also submitted additional complaints to these decision-makers.

Take action for animals
How to spot red flags in media

Share this post on:
Facebook | Instagram

A new Fear Factor: House of Fear special is set to air in May. For updates, including learning about additional actions as they come up, follow the VHS on social media, subscribe for email notifications, or check back on our website.

Categories
News/Blog

Have your say: Canada’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines

Animals close-up photography. Horse Consultation. Four horses assembled your heads together.

Update

The public feedback period for the Equine Code of Practice is now closed. Thank you to everyone who spoke up for animals. Please go to this page for current campaigns.

  • In 2024, we asked for your help in completing a national survey that gathered top equine welfare concerns. Your voice was heard, and responses from this survey were used to create a draft Equine Code of Practice.  
  • The public comment period for the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Equine Code of Practice is now open until March 12, 2026  
  • The Equine Code of Practice provides a guideline for the on-farm care and handling of horses and donkeys raised in Canada.  
  • While this draft provides many much-needed updates to the Equine Code of Practice, there are still changes to be made to improve equine welfare. 
  • Note that the code does not include transport, such as the live export of horses for slaughter; it only includes on-farm practices and deciding if individual horses are fit for transport. 

TAKE ACTION: Join us in providing feedback on the draft code on the issues that are important to you; everyone can participate! 

Top welfare priorities
Tips for submitting
Submit your feedback 

Share this post!

Top Welfare Priorities

We encourage you to read through the draft Equine Code of Practice and provide feedback on the issues that matter most to you if possible.

However, we have prepared the VHS’s top welfare priorities with section headers and tips for submitting your feedback if you are short on time and would like guidance. REMINDER: do not copy and paste the text below, as duplicate submissions will be ignored by NFACC.

Section 2: Facilities and Housing
Section 2.3.1 – Indoor space allowance

Comment on Requirements:

Tie-stalls should be banned, which keep animals tethered in one place and prevent them from moving freely, socializing, or behaving naturally, often leading to physical and mental health problems. (Popescu et al., 2019; Yngvesson et al., 2019).

Section 6: Loose Horse Management
Section 6.5.1 – Stocking density

Comment on Requirements

Currently, there are no requirements about how much space horses need or shelter access in feedlots or other similar environments. Clear minimum standards should be set, based on research, to give horses enough room, reduce stress, fighting, and injuries, and protect them from harsh weather.

Section 7: Husbandry
Section 7.1 – Turnout, social opportunities, and enrichment 

Comment on Requirements

Currently, there are no minimum requirements for turnout (giving equines free access to pasture or paddock), social opportunities, and enrichment in the draft code.

Turnout and enrichment allow horses to express natural behaviours and provide mental stimulation, including grazing, freedom of movement and social interaction.

Minimum requirements should include: 

Turnout: Horses should be allowed outside for at least 12 hours each day (Bell et al., 2001). They need enough space to move freely at their own pace and to get away from other horses if there is aggression.

Enrichment: Horses should have regular contact with other compatible horses, a variety of toys and feeding options, and opportunities to do natural things like rolling in pasture or using scent and scratching stations.

Section 7.2 – General behaviour and handling of horses

Comment on Recommended Best Practices

Horses are easily frightened and may react by bolting or becoming aggressive. To keep both people and horses safe, it should be a requirement to avoid loud noises, sudden movements, or other actions that could scare them.

Section 7.3 – Methods of identification

Comment on Requirements

Hot and freeze branding are painful and stressful for horses and can have lasting effects on their behaviour. Since there are safer ways to identify horses, like microchipping, branding should no longer be allowed. Instead, clear visual identification methods, such as coat markings, hair patterns, colour differences, scars, or properly fitted leg bands, should be used.

Section 8: Exercise & Training
Section 8.2 – Guidelines for training horses

Comment on Recommended Best Practices

It should be required to use the First Training Principles when training and handling horses (refer to Appendix L – Handling Horses and How Horses Learn).

Equestrians often use training methods that compromise equine welfare to achieve competition-related goals. Training horses should never harm their well-being and should match what they are physically and mentally able to do.

Using proven, humane training methods helps keep both horses and trainers safe and reduces problem behaviours.

Section 9: Reproductive Management
Section 9.5.4 – Weaning

Comment on Recommended Best Practices

It should be a requirement that foals are not weaned before 6 months of age, and when possible, weaning should wait until after 9 months. Gradual weaning helps reduce stress and supports healthy growth and development in young horses (Henry et al., 2020).

Section 10: Transport
Section 10.1 – Fitness for transport

Comment on Requirements

People who assess an animal’s suitability for transport should receive proper training, and their assessments should be recorded and documented so there are clear, reliable records.

Section 10.4 – Loading and unloading

Comment on Recommended Best Practices

Recommendations (a.), (b.), (c.), (d.), (e.) should be requirements given the high stress of loading and unloading for equines.

Section 10.4.2 – Post-transport management

Comment on Recommended Best Practices:

Horses may hide signs of pain when people are watching (Torcivia & McDonnell, 2020), so recently transported horses should be closely monitored for dehydration, injuries, colic, fever, or breathing problems, especially after long trips or when horses from different places have been mixed.

Comment on Recommended Best Practices:

There should be a recommended practice of video monitoring recently transported horses.

Section 11: Change or End of Career
Section 11.1 – Change or end of career

Comment on Requirements:

Every equine industry should have a transition plan for what happens to horses at the end of their working careers, and having this plan should be required for operation.

Section 12: Euthanasia
Section 12.2 – Methods of euthanasia

Comment on Requirements:

Euthanasia must be carried out in a way that causes no pain or fear, and horses must be made unconscious immediately.

Submit your feedback now!

Tips for submitting

To make your submission impactful, and to ensure that it is reviewed by NFACC, consider these tips before submitting your feedback:  

  • IMPORTANT: Do not copy and paste wording, as duplicate responses and/or profanity or derogatory language will not be considered by NFACC. 
  • Keep responses relevant to the draft code. Issues involving transportation, such as live horse export, will not be considered by NFACC.  
  • Provide references and examples whenever possible. 
  • Reference exact wording in the draft code that you would like to see changed and how you would like it changed  
  • Make it personal, the committee members are interested in how this code impacts you  
  • Consider looking through the submission form for formatting style before you begin drafting your feedback 
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak up for equids in Canada.
Submit your feedback now!
References

Bell R.A., Nielsen B.D., Waite K., Rosenstein D. & Orth M. (2001) Daily access to pasture turnout prevents loss of mineral in the third metacarpus of Arabian weanlings. Journal of Animal Science 79:142-1150.  

Henry, S., Sigurjónsdóttir, H., Klapper, A., Joubert, J., Montier, G., & Hausberger, M. (2020). Domestic foal weaning: Need for re-thinking breeding practices? Animals 10(2): 361. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020361  

Popescu, S., Lazar, E. A., Borda, C., Niculae, M., Sandru, C. D., & Spinu, M. (2019). Welfare quality of breeding horses under different housing conditions. Animals 9(3): 81. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030081  

Torcivia, C., & McDonnell, S. (2020). In-Person Caretaker Visits Disrupt Ongoing Discomfort Behavior in Hospitalized Equine Orthopedic Surgical Patients. Animals 10(2): 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020210  

Yngvesson, J., Rey Torres, J. C., Lindholm, J., Pättiniemi, A., Andersson, P., & Sassner, H. (2019). Health and body conditions of riding school horses housed in groups or kept in conventional tie-Stall/Box housing. Animals 9(3): 73. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030073 

Stay Informed. Help Animals.

Learn about farmed animal welfare in Canada and what you can do to help! Sign up now to get clear explanations, action alerts, and practical steps you can take when it matters most.  Click here to learn more.

Categories
News/Blog

Union of B.C. Municipalities calls on province to regulate mobile live animal programs and strengthen exotic animal rules

  • The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), which represents local governments across B.C., recently voted to endorse resolution NR75 – Mobile live animal programs 
  • This resolution calls on the provincial government to regulate mobile live animal programs and to strengthen exotic animal rules. 
  • Mobile live animal programs, such as travelling petting zoos, presentations and displays, or exotic animal events where animals can be purchased, are connected to animal welfare concerns and public health and safety risks. 
  • 2,450 messages were sent to UBCM delegates in support of resolution NR75. Thank you to everyone that advocated for stronger protections for animals! 

What happens next?

  • This vote signals that this issue is important to municipalities across B.C. and that provincial leadership is needed to ensure the health, safety, and wellbeing of animals, people, and the environment. 
  • Resolutions endorsed by the UBCM must be acknowledged and responded to by the provincial government.  
  • Help us take the next step by telling the provincial government that this issue is important to you and requires provincial leadership! 

TAKE ACTION: Add your name to the VHS’s campaign asking the provincial government to take meaningful action on this issue by implementing the UBCM’s recommendations. 

Tell the B.C. government to act!
Learn More

Learn more

Exotic animals are wild animals from other countries often imported to Canada through the exotic pet trade. These animals are not domesticated, even if bred in captivity, and their welfare can suffer when sold, bred, transported, or displayed. The exotic pet trade also poses risks to the environment and public health and safety.  

Animal welfare issues

Mobile live animal programs (MLAPs) can take many forms, including travelling petting zoos, presentations, and expos where animals can be purchased. They involve the transport of animals to a location for display, public entertainment, or sale to the public, and feature a variety of different animals.

MLAPs often include exotic animals—wild animals from other countries imported to Canada—such as spiders, snakes, lizards, and tortoises.    

Animals involved in MLAPs face many animal welfare risks, including:

  • Travel to and from events
  • The public handling of animals
  • Unregulated housing and breeding practices outside of events where they may face restricted movement due to lack of space
  • Limited behavioural opportunities
  • Abnormal social groupings, such as highly social animals being housed alone
  • Exposure to unnatural environmental conditions (lighting, temperature, substrate, sounds, odours)

Environmental risks

The accidental or intentional release of exotic pets (e.g. when pets are no longer wanted but a new home cannot be found for them) can introduce invasive species to our ecosystems. Some invasive species who have impacted our local ecosystems include the red-eared slider turtle, goldfish, and American bullfrog.  

Invasive species can threaten native wildlife, compromise habitats, and spread new diseases.   

Public health & safety concerns

While the risk of disease transmission is always present when interacting with exotic animals, MLAPs increase risk due to:

  • The number of animals and variety of species
  • High amount of close human contact
  • Difficulties in following hygiene protocols (if present)

These risks are particularly prevalent at events marketed to children.

The transportation and frequent handling of animals at these events presents a significant risk factor for stress, and stressed animals may also be more likely to bite or scratch, compounding risks of disease transmission and physical harm. 

Community impacts

Escaped or released animals and the surrender of unwanted exotic pets stress already overwhelmed shelters, rescues, and veterinary services, which may not have the resources and expertise to accommodate such a wide range of exotic species.

There have been many documented instances of escaped or released exotic pets in B.C. in recent years.

Outdated regulations leave exotic animals at risk

Currently, there are no provincial regulations in place that are specific to MLAPs and there is a lack of consistent and enforceable standards for keeping, breeding, displaying, and selling exotic pets.  

B.C.’s Controlled Alien Species Regulation (CASR), introduced in 2009, has banned ownership of more than 1,000 dangerous species like tigers and venomous snakes that pose a threat to people, property, and wildlife.

However, the CASR does not address animal welfare or disease risks, making many exotic species that suffer in captivity or can spread zoonotic diseases still legal to own and trade. 

UBCM resolution NR75 – Mobile Live Animal Programs calls on the B.C. government to:

  • Regulate mobile live animal programs to address animal welfare concerns and public health and safety risks; 
  • Update the Controlled Alien Species Regulation to equally prioritize animal welfare considerations alongside public safety and prohibit the import of all exotic species.

TAKE ACTION: Add your name to the call to action to show your support for this resolution!

ADD YOUR VOICE