Author: Peter Fricker

Categories
Media Release

Vancouver Humane Society questions Vancouver Aquarium’s claims on marine mammal rescue

Media release

April 27, 2017

Vancouver – The Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) is questioning claims by the Vancouver Aquarium that its marine mammal rescue program is threatened by a ban on cetacean display at the aquarium. The Vancouver Park Board voted in March to amend a bylaw to ban the display of cetaceans at the aquarium.

VHS points out that other major wildlife rehabilitation facilities in British Columbia do not put rescued animals on public display, despite dealing with many more rescues than the aquarium.

“Wildlife rehabilitation is not about rescuing animals to put them on display,” said VHS spokesperson Peter Fricker.  “The mandate is to rehabilitate and release animals.”  He said the aquarium’s current non-releasable rescued animals do not need to be on display to meet their welfare needs.

VHS argues that the aquarium should seek to work with the Whale Sanctuary Project, which is proposing to establish sea-pen sanctuaries for former captive cetaceans and non-releasable rescued cetaceans.

-ends-

Categories
Opinion Editorial

Battery cage ban lacks enforcement tools

Seek permission to use .Low res download options. White hens in enriched cage. Eggs at nest box end. Indoor, intensive

Article originally published in the Vancouver Sun.

Ethical Canadian consumers might have been pleased to hear the recent announcement by the National Farm Animal Care Council that the infamous “battery cage” for laying hens is to be phased out.

But while the end of this cruel cage system is welcome, the council’s new codes of practice for hens are far from any guarantee of good animal welfare.

An obvious issue is that egg farmers still have until 2036 before all hens must be out of battery cages. So, for the time being, supermarket shelves will be full of eggs from long-suffering hens that have been crammed into small cages.

By 2036, all hens must be in either cage-free housing or in “enriched” cages. Enriched cages, while bigger than battery cages, still restrict natural behaviours like running, full wing-flapping and flying, and do not permit unrestrained perching and dust-bathing. Even in an enriched cage system that meets the new code requirements, many of the welfare problems inherent in battery cages remain. In short, a cage is a cage. That is why an enriched cage would still not meet the standards required by the B.C. SPCA Certified Program, a third-party animal welfare certification system. Farmers who do opt for enriched caging will be committing to a major investment, guaranteeing these cages will continue to compromise animal welfare for decades.

But perhaps the most serious shortcoming in the new codes relates to inspection and enforcement. The National Farm Animal Care Council itself defines the codes of practice as “nationally developed guidelines” for the care and handling of farm animals. Guidelines are not regulations or laws. The codes refer to “requirements” that farmers “may” be compelled by industry associations to comply with and these requirements “may” be enforceable under federal and provincial legislation.

The codes also list a number of “recommended practices,” which are even less meaningful than code requirements, as they merely “encourage adoption of practices for continual improvement in animal welfare outcomes.” But no one is going to make a farm implement such practices, as the codes state that “…failure to implement them does not imply that acceptable standards of animal care are not met.” In other words, good practice is optional.

In fact, no independent, third-party body inspects egg farms to ensure the requirements under the codes are being met (unless they have signed up to a separate certification program like the B.C. SPCA’s or Certified Organic). It’s still the egg industry policing the egg industry, whatever spin is put on it.

So where does this leave the compassionate consumer who cares about animal welfare? For people who buy eggs, the least inhumane choice remains eggs that are certified organic, which are guaranteed to be cage-free and have the highest welfare standards. Consumers who continue to reject eggs from any cage system will send a strong market signal to parts of the egg industry that may be pinning their hopes on developing enriched cages under the new codes.

The most humane choice for consumers is, of course, to eliminate egg purchases altogether and transition to a plant-based diet. This has become a more feasible and popular option, as an increasing number of plant-based protein sources have rendered eggs unnecessary to a healthy diet. Reduced demand for eggs still means not only fewer hens in cages, but also fewer unwanted male chicks destroyed (by an industry that needs only hens) and fewer “spent hens” being shipped off to slaughter at the end of their lives.

While the end of the battery cage is a welcome victory for those who have long condemned its obvious cruelty, it’s not yet an end to the animal suffering inherent in the egg industry.

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty Cruelty-free Food and Drink News/Blog Promoted

New code of practice still leaves hens stuck in cages

So-called “enriched” cages will still be allowed under new codes of practice for laying hens

 

by Debra Probert, VHS Executive Director

A cage is a cage

The long-awaited revised Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets and Laying Hens has been released. You may remember that in 2016 VHS called upon you to submit your thoughts to the committee during the comment period.

First, an explanation. The codes of practice, according to industry and the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), are nationally developed guidelines. Yes, guidelines. They contain ‘requirements’ and ‘recommended practices’.  ‘Requirements’ represent a consensus position that the required measures are to be implemented. Yes, a position. Those who fail to implement requirements may be compelled by industry to comply. Requirements may be enforceable under federal and provincial legislation.

‘Recommended Practices’ promote ‘producer education’ and are generally expected to ‘enhance animal welfare outcomes.’ Failure to implement them, according to the Council, doesn’t imply acceptable standards of animal care are not met.

One of the most egregious failing of the new codes, in our opinion, is that they do not require a system to enforce the requirements or the recommended practices. They do not mandate a third-party animal welfare auditing system, as occurs in organic egg production. There is nothing mandatory in place to ensure that farmers are complying with requirements or recommended practices.

The failure of the codes to recommend a phase-out of all cages is also an egregious omission. Although conventional battery cages are to be phased out by July 1, 2036, and although industry has committed to transition a minimum of 85% of hens within 15 years, ‘enriched’ cages are considered to be an acceptable option. Enriched cages still restrict key behaviours like running, full wing-flapping and flying and do not permit unrestrained perching and dustbathing. Even in an enriched cage system that meets the code requirements, many of the welfare problems inherent in battery cages remain. 

In Europe, where enriched cages have been used for years, investigators are finding the conditions for hens to be little better than they were in battery cages – anxious hens with beaks severely trimmed, bodies badly feather-pecked, perches too low, too many hens crammed in, lives spent on wire floors or dirty perches and inadequate nesting and foraging opportunities.

This seems incredibly short-sighted, considering that most of the major retail and restaurant companies in North America have committed to sourcing cage-free eggs to meet the demands of consumers, and most of them, well before 2036.

This looks to be a case of the fox guarding the henhouse, and it will now be up to consumers to continue to demand cage-free products – or the least inhumane – certified organic eggs.

Or just don’t buy eggs at all.

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted

Stop sled dogs dying

Sled dog races push dogs to their limits.

Sled dogs are dying in cruel, long-distance races.  You can help stop this.

Five dogs have died so far in this year’s Iditarod race in Alaska. One died in the Yukon Quest in February.

The deaths have prompted an impassioned plea from P.J. Johnson, the Yukon Poet Laureate and life-long Yukoner, to end these races.

To sign a petition against the Iditarod and contact race sponsors click here.

Another petition has been launched by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

VHS is supporting a new documentary called Sled Dogs, which exposes the cruelty of sled dog races and tours.  It will be available on the CBC Documentary Channel later this year.

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted

Help stop this circus from appearing in Vancouver

VHS is concerned about the welfare of ALL circus animals

.

The circus is coming to town.  And we need to stop it.

The Royal Canadian Circus is scheduled to appear at Concord Pacific Place in Vancouver from May 12th to 14th.

This circus is put on by the U.S.-based Tarzan Zerbini Circus, which has a reportedly poor animal welfare record with regard to its treatment of elephants, as detailed in this 2016 article in the Ottawa Citizen and in this report by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This gives us concerns about the welfare of other animals in its care. 

The article in the Citizen, by the Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Fellow, reveals that the Zerbini Circus has been cited for animal welfare violations in the U.S. and states that it “has featured elephants who are kept chained and forced to perform under threat of punishment.”

The PETA report says the circus failed to “meet minimum federal standards for the care of animals” used in exhibition, as established in the Animal Welfare Act in the U.S. It states that in 2011 the USDA “cited Tarzan Zerbini for failure to prevent elephants from being exposed to tuberculosis (TB).”

 
While it is VHS’s understanding that the Vancouver performance of the Royal Canadian Circus will feature only domestic animals and not exotic animals (which is prohibited by City of Vancouver bylaw), its parent company’s animal welfare record raises serious concerns.  Consequently, we are urging the public not to attend the Royal Canadian Circus’s performances.

We are also asking the public to complain to Concord Pacific, the company that owns Concord Pacific Place (the circus venue), and to the company that manages the venue, WestPark.

Please email these companies and politely ask them to cancel the performance of the Royal Canadian Circus:

Concord Pacific: marketing@concordpacific.com

WestPark: ritar@westpark.com

Thank you.

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted

A victory for the opposition to cetacean captivity

VHS is thrilled with the unanimous vote by the Vancouver Park Board to direct its staff to bring forward a bylaw change by May 2017 prohibiting display of cetaceans at Vancouver Aquarium.

This is a huge step forward in the fight against cetacean captivity.  We hope the Park Board will approve the amended bylaw in May and end the aquarium’s captive cetacean program once and for all.

We would like to congratulate and thank all the groups and individuals who have helped convince the Park Board that now is the time to stop putting captive whales and dolphins on display at the aquarium.

VHS is proud to have played a part in the broad and growing movement to end cetacean captivity.  Late, last year we and Zoocheck published a powerful report that questioned claimed value of the aquarium’s cetacean research.

The report was distributed to each Park Board Commissioner and was followed up by a presentation to the board, which is reprinted here: 

The crux of this debate, in our view, is whether the Vancouver Aquarium’s claimed benefits of cetacean captivity outweigh the negative impacts of that captivity on animal welfare. 

The concerns over animal welfare are genuine and credible, but the Aquarium has tried to undermine those concerns with personal attacks on those who oppose its plans.

The Aquarium’s CEO, Dr. Nightingale said opponents of cetacean captivity “in my view have no credibility.” – CP story, Feb 21, 2017

Dr. Nightingale has referred to those who oppose cetacean captivity at the aquarium as “extremists” – “The head of the Vancouver Aquarium says “extremists” are behind a petition calling for a referendum to decide whether any new dolphins, whales or porpoises can be added to its expanding tanks.” – Metro News Vancouver, Feb 17, 2014.

I would like to list some of the people who are on record as opposing cetacean captivity at the Aquarium:

Dr. Lori Marino, Ph.D. – neuroscientist and expert in animal behavior and intelligence

Dr. Naomi Rose, Ph.D. – marine mammal scientist for the Animal Welfare Institute.

Dr. David Duffus, Ph.D. – founder of the Whale Research Lab at the University of Victoria

Dr. Paul Spong, Ph.D. – neuroscientist and cetologist, founder of the OrcaLab on Vanc Island

BC biologist Alexandra Morton –  who in 2006 received an award from Van Aquarium for Excellence in Aquatic Conservation.

 Dr. Jane Goodall, world-renowned animal scientist, whom Dr. Nightingale dismissed as “operating on information provided by the activist community.”

 Dr. Rebecca Ledger, Ph.D., animal behaviourist.

 This is what Dr. Ledger told the Vancouver Province after viewing the captive belugas Quila and Aurora at the Aquarium last July:

 “They’re trapped,” said Rebecca Ledger, an expert in animal behaviour, during a visit to the aquarium with The Province. “Psychologically, they are not fulfilled and are behaving abnormally. That’s sad, especially since these are very intelligent animals. We’re not talking about cockroaches, we’re talking about cetaceans.” – Vanc Province, July 2. 2016

 Barbara Cartwright, CEO of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, which represents SPCAs and humane societies across Canada, including our own BC SPCA…

 And what about the BC SPCA? – the agency with statutory responsibility for protecting animals in BC:

Here’s what the BC SPCA website says: “The BC SPCA recognizes the complex needs of cetaceans, and their highly sentient and social nature,” says Dr. Sara Dubois, BC SPCA chief scientific officer. “The society is opposed to the capture, confinement, and breeding of marine mammals for entertainment or educational display, as fully providing the animals with the Five Freedoms is not possible for wild animals who require large and diverse aquatic habitats to live. It is time to phase out these displays.”

These people are not extremists.  They do not lack credibility.  Yet the aquarium continues to demonize those who disagree with its plans.

What does lack credibility is the Aquarium’s sudden prioritization of Beluga whale research, which it claims is the chief reason for bringing back belugas to live and be displayed until 2029 – at least another decade..

Dr. Nightingale now says research on belugas is “crucial”. – CP story, Feb 21, 2017

But in a report VHS and Zoocheck released last year, we reviewed published Vancouver Aquarium research papers in which captive cetaceans were the research subjects.

 The report found just 13 peer-reviewed original scientific papers over the past 30 years in which captive cetaceans were the research subjects.

That is a low output, considering the Aquarium’s statements about how important cetaceans are to its research – 13 in 30 years is very poor. 

Citation analysis (number of papers produced and number of citations per paper), found that the research Impact is also low, with relatively few citations – from a low of 0 citations to a high of 27. 

Not exactly a world changing research program at the Vancouver Aquarium. But now, all of a sudden it is “crucial.”

To say the least, all of this has left both the Vancouver Humane Society and Zoocheck skeptical about the Aquarium’s justifications for bringing back belugas to live in captivity.

To put it bluntly, we think they are being brought back because they are a lucrative tourist attraction, not because they are vital to cetacean research. 

Furthermore, we believe that decision is being made in spite of the strong and credible opposition of those who believe cetaceans suffer in captivity and that the Aquarium cannot justify that suffering.

That is why we believe the Aquarium should not import any more belugas and why it should end cetacean captivity.

Categories
Media Release

Vancouver Aquarium should end cetacean captivity now

Media release

February 20, 2017

Vancouver Aquarium should end cetacean captivity now

Vancouver – The Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) says the Vancouver Aquarium should end cetacean captivity now and not import more beluga whales to the facility. VHS says the aquarium’s announcement that it will import several belugas and put them on display until 2029 appears to be a tactic to pre-empt a potential decision by the Vancouver Park Board to end cetacean captivity much sooner. VHS spokesperson Peter Fricker said the aquarium should not waste its resources on expanding its captive cetacean facility. “The tanks should stay empty and the money should instead be used to work with the Whale Sanctuary Project.” The Whale Sanctuary Project is a non-profit group of scientists and other professionals working on the development of a seaside sanctuary for whales and dolphins who might be retired from entertainment facilities or rescued from injury or sickness in the wild. VHS is also concerned that the aquarium may use its rescue program as a loophole to acquire cetaceans for its new facility. “We worry that rather than aim for genuine rescue and release, the aquarium will aim for rescue and retain. They haven’t promised to end captivity, only the display of belugas.” VHS is skeptical about the aquarium’s claims to use the imported belugas for research. A report published by VHS and Zoocheck found that the value of the aquarium’s captive cetacean research to date is questionable.

-ends-

Categories
animal welfare compassion News/Blog Promoted vegan

Here’s a great way to help hungry birds in this cold weather

 

This vegan recipe provides the fat that birds need in the cold

While feeding birds is not necessary year-round in our temperate climate, (there are some exceptions), birds definitely begin to have trouble finding suitable, nutritious food when the weather turns cold and snowy. Now is an important time to provide high fat, accessible food for our feathered friends. Birds seem to start coming to my backyard for a meal once the temperature drops below zero and especially when there’s snow on the ground.

You can find advice on many websites about what to feed and when – check out this store in Vancouver. However, if like me, you’re trying to avoid feeding suet (animal fat), I have a great recipe for a high-fat, vegan ‘suet’ that the birds in my backyard love. Of course, you’ll still need the wire suet cake holder, available at any pet supply or bird supply store.

Ingredients:

  • 1 1/2 cup Shortening
  • 3/4 cup Peanut Butter
  • 3 1/2 cup Wild Bird Seed
  • 1 cup Quick Oats
  • 1/2 cup Corn Meal/Polenta

Instructions:

Stir together your bird seed, oats, and corn meal. Set aside.

Melt the shortening and peanut butter together and stir until completely combined (you want the mixture to be a smooth liquid). Pour into the seed mixture and stir together until the seed mixture is thoroughly coated and no dry spots remain.

Spoon the mixture into moulds of your choice, spreading and smoothing to edges, and freeze until set (about an hour)… Alternatively, allow to cool in the refrigerator until the mixture can be easily moulded by hand. Form balls (or whatever shape you think the birds would like), use a skewer to make a hole to hang from string, and freeze until set.

Store in the freezer until ready to use.

I put the suet into two ziplock bags and while it’s still somewhat soft, scrunch it into two wire suet holders. Once it’s frozen, all you have to do is pull the block out of the holder, remove the bag and place it back into the cage. Hang where birds can easily access all sides and somewhere they are safe from predators. Added bonus? Cat TV, all day (do keep those cats on the inside of the window!)

 

Categories
Opinion Editorial

Animals used in TV and film production need protection

Article originally published in The Province.

The shocking video of a terrified dog being forced into a pool of churning water on the set for the Hollywood movie A Dog’s Purpose has put the spotlight on the use of animals in film and television production. It’s an issue acutely relevant in B.C., as the provincial government appears willing to allow local productions to use animals from suppliers facing animal cruelty allegations.

In 2016, the producers of the CBS television show Zoo, which was being filmed in Vancouver, was reportedly planning to use animals from Ontario’s controversial Bowmanville Zoo until pressure from the animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) convinced CBS to cancel the plan.

PETA had confronted CBS with a shocking viral video showing the zoo’s owner, Michael Hackenberger, allegedly whipping a tiger. Bowmanville Zoo has since closed down and Hackenberger is currently facing animal cruelty charges.

Documents obtained by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request have revealed that the B.C. government granted a permit to Hackenberger to supply animals to be used in the making of Zoo, despite strong objections from the BC SPCA, which pointed out that Hackenberger was the subject of an animal cruelty investigation by Ontario SPCA.

The B.C. SPCA also informed government officials that the facility where the animals were to be housed on arrival in B.C. had also been the subject of animal cruelty investigations. (The name of the facility has been redacted from the FOI documents.)

Despite these objections and widespread media coverage of the tiger-whipping video, the B.C. government granted Hackenberger a permit to supply 18 animals, including tigers, lions, leopards and baboons to Zoo’s producers. While CBS was shamed by PETA into cancelling the shipment, the provincial government, oblivious to the ethical alarm bells, was happy to see the animals shipped across the country from one captive animal facility facing cruelty allegations to another.

CBS is currently filming another season of Zoo in Vancouver. It is not known if they are using live animals in the production.

These revelations hardly inspire confidence in the provincial government when it comes to protecting animals used in B.C. film and television productions. The same could be said of the industry itself, which took no role in determining whether the animals from Bowmanville should be used or not.

The industry has relied in the past on the presence of representatives of the American Humane Association (AHA) on production sets. But as the BC SPCA pointed out in its objections to Zoo’s plans, the AHA has no legal jurisdiction for animal welfare in Canada.

It’s worth noting that the AHA had a staff member on the set of A Dog’s Purpose, when the dog was thrown in the pool. Perhaps more troubling, the AHA was the subject of a damning 2013 exposé by the Hollywood Reporter, which alleged that the association underreported incidents of animal abuse on television and movie sets. Similar allegations were made in a Los Angeles Times story in 2001. Can the AHA really be relied on to ensure “no animals were harmed” in the productions it monitors?

Even if the safety and welfare of animals can be effectively monitored during production, what happens when the cameras are turned off? Too often, it means that lions, tigers and other exotic animals are returned to their cages at the animal rental agencies to languish until the next job. B.C. is home to several such agencies, which are not subject to regular inspection.

While no one is suggesting banning domestic animals such as cats, dogs and horses from our screens, the entertainment industry needs to guarantee their safety and well-being. But with advances in Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) it is no longer necessary to use captive wild or exotic animals to make movies and television shows. They should be retired to sanctuaries along with any other captive exotic animal that is not part of a genuine conservation program.

When it comes to compromising animal welfare for the sake of entertainment, it’s time to say “cut.”

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted

The long war against circus cruelty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

VHS fought long and hard to keep animal circuses out of BC

 

By Debra Probert, VHS Executive Director

Nobody was happier than all of us at VHS to hear that the biggest, most famous circus in the world, Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey, would be holding its last performance later this year.  Cruelty in circuses, at least in this large circus, is no longer profitable. Hooray!!

Fortunately, Ringling Brothers Circus never came to B.C. Activists in other provinces, like Zoocheck in Ontario and smaller, grass roots groups across the country, did everything in their power to stop the behemoth – along with PETA, HSUS and dozens of smaller, grass roots organizations and their supporters in the U.S.  Congratulations to all of you – your work has finally paid off!

Here in B.C., we saw the smaller circuses, under names like the Zerbini Family Circus, Garden Brothers and the Royal Canadian Circus.  Some of them continue to travel around the U.S. and in other provinces in Canada, but they’re attended by ever decreasing audiences.

Over the last two decades, VHS worked tirelessly to have exotic animal bylaws passed across Metro Vancouver to prevent circuses from bringing exotic animals like elephants, monkeys and bears into local arenas and parking lots.

The initial bylaws came into force on Vancouver Island – in Nanaimo, Victoria and Saanich after hard work from dedicated local activists and organizations. VHS took up the torch here on the mainland and after years of picketing, attending council meetings and monitoring circuses, we did what some called impossible – we made it uneconomical for circuses to bring their animals into the province. One by one, with the City of Vancouver in the lead, we worked along with local activists to enable legislation in Surrey, Delta, Coquitlam, Langley, and basically every other region of high density in British Columbia, to stop the cruelty in its tracks.

And cruelty it was. I personally spent hours watching elephants, with their legs chained the entire time they weren’t performing, swaying back and forth, occasionally stretching out their trunks for an unreachable bit of greenery. Their lives were sheer misery, often lived without others of their own kind, and never free to walk or run the miles they would in the wild. They were controlled with bull hooks jabbed into their sensitive skin. When they weren’t performing, they were travelling, often for endless hours in trucks with no ventilation.

The bears, monkeys and tigers fared no better. They were kept in cages so small, they could barely turn around. Again, apart from when they were performing and were under the strict control of their trainers, they spent all of their time eating, sleeping and defecating in the same small space.  Winter quarters were no different – the same small cages, the same chains. Exposés surfaced showing baby elephants, tigers, bears and monkeys being beaten into submission, all in the name of training and simply to entertain an audience. Well, it’s over for Ringling Brothers and the smaller circuses that haven’t already will soon follow suit.

We who care so deeply for animals seldom have something to celebrate. We should use this opportunity to contemplate that successes are possible, even if it seems to take forever.  We are on the side of truth; we know animals suffer; we know it’s not necessary and we know how to stop it.  And we won’t stop trying, however long it takes.