Category: cruelty

Categories
animal welfare Captivity compassion cruelty ethics News/Blog Promoted wildlife

Ask the BC government to do more to combat the cruel and dangerous wildlife trade

UPDATE: This campaign petition gained more that 3300 signatures, which VHS forwarded to officials at the B.C. Wildlife and Habitat Branch. We are now asking the federal government to take action against the wildlife trade. Please support our new petition!

Original post:

VHS is shifting the focus of our campaigns and communications to include the wildlife and exotic pet trade, which has been implicated in the emergence of COVID-19.

The emergence of new zoonotic diseases (diseases that spread from animals to humans) has been ignored for far too long, especially its connection to the international wildlife trade (explained in our recent op-ed). It’s time the international community and all levels of government in Canada took action to put and end to the illegal wildlife trade, which is not only inhumane but also is a threat to biodiversity and public health.

Here in B.C., the provincial government’s Controlled Alien Species Regulation governs “the possession, breeding, shipping, and releasing of alien animals that pose a risk to the health or safety of people, property, wildlife, or wildlife habitat.”

We’re calling on the government to review the regulation to ensure it addresses the threat of zoonotic disease from the trade in wild and exotic animals.

Please send a message to the provincial government’s Wildlife and Habitat Branch, asking them to take action to address this important issue.

 

Categories
animal welfare Captivity compassion cruelty ethics News/Blog Promoted wildlife zoo

Challenging captivity

VHS has a long history of opposition to animal captivity. Most recently, we published a report, commissioned from Zoocheck, that drew attention to a number of issues at the Greater Vancouver Zoo.

The report found that animals at the zoo were suffering from boredom and frustration caused by the lack of activity and stimulation that comes with captivity.

In addition, the report identified animal enclosures that were too small, including cages for raptors (owls, hawks, kestrels) that provided no opportunity for flight. Tanks in the zoo’s reptile house were also found to be under-sized, preventing animals from engaging in natural behaviours.

A key finding was that a number of the zoo’s exotic animals are not suited to B.C.’s climate and should be moved to more appropriate facilities. In the longer term, the report recommended, the zoo should transition toward becoming a sanctuary for native species.

The report has received widespread media attention and many people joined our e-campaign calling on the zoo to address the issues it raises. Our opinion editorial in the Georgia Straight gives an overview of the psychological suffering experienced by captive animals at the Greater Vancouver Zoo and other zoos around the world.

The management of the Greater Vancouver Zoo has not responded directly to VHS or Zoocheck, but has told news media that it has plans to make changes and improvements over the next few years. It remains to be seen whether these changes will make a positive difference to the lives of the animals, but VHS will continue to monitor the zoo and draw public attention to their conditions and welfare.

Categories
animal welfare Captivity compassion cruelty Cruelty-free Dairy ethics Food and Drink News/Blog plant-based diet Promoted rodeo vegan vegetarianism wildlife zoo

Are women and young people the best hope for fighting animal cruelty?

A recent poll of Canadians about a range of animal issues is cause for optimism in the animal protection movement.

The poll, by respected polling company Research Co., found that majorities of Canadians are opposed to using animals in rodeos (59%); hunting animals for sport (85%); keeping animals in zoos or aquariums (52%) and killing animals for their fur (75%).

These results are encouraging but they may contain even more positive news when the survey sample is broken down by age and gender.

On a number of these issues, higher percentages of women and younger people oppose the exploitation of animals (which is consistent with other polling on animal issues). For example, while 59% of all Canadians oppose using animals in rodeos, 67% of women and 64% of people aged 18-34 take that position. Similarly, while 52% of Canadians oppose keeping animals in zoos and aquariums, 56% of women and 56% of the 18-34 age group are opposed.

Even on the animal-related issue of eating meat, where a significant minority of Canadians (19%) oppose eating animals, the poll found opposition higher among women (22%) and those aged 18-34 (25%).

On a number of animal welfare issues polling shows greater opposition to animal exploitation among younger people.

All this may bode well for animals in the future, as the younger generation moves up the demographic ladder and replaces the older generation.

The same may be true of the support for animal welfare from women, but this could depend on whether women continue to gain more social power and status in fields such as politics and media. Progress in these areas has been slow.

In October 2019, Canada elected 98 women to the federal House of Commons. Women now represent 29% of the 338 elected Members of Parliament, up from 27% in the last parliament.  However, a recent report found that, based on the rate of change over the last five federal elections, it will take 87 years before gender parity is reached in our national elected chamber. There are currently no female provincial premiers.  Another study found that women accounted for just 29% of all people quoted in major Canadian media, compared to 71% for men.

While polls show women tend to be more supportive of animal welfare, the gender gap in politics and media suggests their voices may not be heard in the public discourse on animal issues. This photo of current provincial premiers illustrates why that might be the case.

If women and younger people gain stronger voices in Canada’s public discourse, it’s possible that animal welfare issues will garner more attention, and the opposition to the abuse and exploitation of animals will grow.  If so, the future for animals might be brighter than we think.

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty Cruelty-free Dairy ethics Food and Drink News/Blog plant-based diet Promoted vegan vegetarianism

Thinking about going plant-based?

Navigating through the all the advice and information about plant-based diets can be confusing.  Arguments rage in the news media and online about the ethical, health and environmental considerations involved in moving away from animal-based foods.

Ethical arguments

The ethical case for switching to a plant-based diet is strong.  Science has shown that most animals are sentient. That is, they have the capacity to feel pain, pleasure, suffering or comfort. There is no doubt that the billions of animals raised for food suffer, mainly because of industrialized agriculture, which deprives them of the ability to engage in natural behaviours, forces them to live in confined spaces, subjects them to painful procedures, transports them in stressful conditions, and ends their lives prematurely in a slaughterhouse. 

Many people who have researched and thought about the sentience of animals and about the nature of modern animal agriculture have given up meat. For example, famed anthropologist and conservationist Jane Goodall has written that she stopped eating meat some 50 years ago “when I looked at the pork chop on my plate and thought: this represents fear, pain, death.”

Dr. Lori Marino, a renowned neuroscientist, recently wrote: “…the scientific literature on everyone from pigs to chickens points to one conclusion: farmed animals are someone, not something. They share many of the same mental and emotional characteristics that we recognize in ourselves and acknowledge in the animals closest to us – dogs and cats. To continue our self-indulgence, we resist the evidence and reinforce the status of farmed animals as objects, as commodities, as food.”

If you accept the ethical arguments against raising animals for food, the question then becomes: Okay, now what?  For a growing number of people, the answer is to simply stop consuming animal products. The good news is that it’s never been easier to do so, but there are still practical matters to consider.

What do I eat?

The first big one is: What do I eat?  This is where the debates over dietary health begin. It’s important to know that there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that a plant-based diet can be healthy. The Dietitians of Canada have stated that: “A healthy vegan diet has many health benefits including lower rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.”

However, if you’re concerned about health, you can’t just switch to a diet of veggie burgers, fries and vegan donuts. That’s why nutrition experts recommend a “whole foods” plant-based diet that focuses on including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, seeds and nuts.  It can take a little time and effort to learn how to plan, shop for and prepare whole-food meals, but fortunately there are boundless resources online and in print to help you. (One of our favourites is Easy Animal-Free. You can also sign our Meatless Monday Pledge and receive weekly plant-based recipes.)  In Vancouver, there are also plenty of plant-based restaurants to choose from, so going out to eat isn’t a problem.

The new meat alternatives

But what about all the new meat substitutes people are talking about, such as the Beyond Burger and the Impossible Burger?  These products are sometimes criticized for being processed foods or for being high in calories.  However, many also contain important nutrients such as protein and vitamin B12, which are important to a meatless diet. In many cases, the products have similar or better nutritional profiles than the meat products they’re replacing. The best approach to these foods is to eat them as occasional treats rather than as a staple of your diet. You can also check labels for nutritional information if you have specific concerns about ingredients. 

Vancouver Humane is very supportive of the rise of the plant-based food industry. If all the world’s burgers, sausages and chicken nuggets were replaced with plant-based alternatives it would likely mean the end of factory farming, which exists only to mass produce cheap meat. It would also mean the end of suffering and slaughter for billions of animals. That’s a prize worth striving for.

It’s also essential to know that eating the new plant-based meat substitutes is far better for the environment than eating meat. The global meat and livestock industry is a major contributor to climate change and causes considerable environmental damage and harm to wildlife.

Take a step in the right direction

So, for a variety of important reasons, it’s a good idea to transition to a plant-based diet. Not everyone can make that change overnight, so go at your own pace. Even just reducing your meat consumption helps and is a step in the right direction.  At Vancouver Humane, we recognize that change can be difficult and we don’t condemn people for their food choices. Instead we believe in providing helpful and reliable information, giving encouragement and being supportive.

If you’re ready to join the plant-based movement, please support our Go Veg campaign. You can help by eating more compassionately and by encouraging others to do the same.

Remember, every time you sit down to eat you can stand up for animals.

 

 

 

 

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty Cruelty-free Dairy Donate ethics News/Blog plant-based diet Promoted vegan vegetarianism wildlife

Why is a humane society talking about plant-based diets?

“Put simply, when we eat animal products we hurt both farmed and wild animals”

 

Anyone who is familiar with Vancouver Humane’s work or follows our social media channels will notice that we encourage people to try a plant-based diet. Some people, especially those who see a humane society’s work as limited to helping companion animals, might wonder why we put such emphasis on changing diets.

The most obvious reason is that the fewer meat and dairy products we consume, the fewer animals need to be slaughtered. Another reason is that reducing animal-based food consumption negates the case made by industry for factory farming, which exists because of the demand for intensively-produced, cheap meat and dairy.  In short, eating fewer animal products means less slaughter and suffering. It’s also worth noting that 60 per cent of all mammals on earth are livestock, so addressing factory farming means helping large numbers of animals.

“There is substantial evidence that meat consumption contributes to global warming” 

But cutting meat consumption benefits animals in other important ways. Most people are now aware of the threat of climate change to the planet – and that means a threat to animals as well as humans. There is substantial evidence that meat consumption contributes to global warming. (The United Nations says that the livestock sector produces 14.5 per cent of human-generated global greenhouse gas emissions.) And there is no doubt climate change is having an impact on wildlife. As the WWF says, “From polar bears in the Arctic to marine turtles off the coast of Africa, our planet’s diversity of life is at risk from the changing climate.”

Aside from contributing to the harm to wildlife through global warming, meat consumption is having a negative impact on animals by causing other environmental damage. A 2017 WWF study found that excessive animal product consumption is responsible for 60 per cent of all biodiversity loss, due to the massive amount of land being used to grow feed for livestock. A previous study on biodiversity loss concluded that: “The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides.”  Put simply, when we eat animal products we hurt both farmed and wild animals.

“Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss”

Our focus on reducing the consumption of animal products doesn’t mean we don’t also work to improve the lives of animals currently suffering on factory farms.  We publicly demand accountability for incidents of deliberate animal cruelty on farms and we routinely push for better conditions for farmed animals through, for example, government consultations.

We also make time to address other issues such as rodeos, animals in captivity and the plight of animals whose welfare is often overlooked.

And we haven’t forgotten our precious companion animals, who we help through our McVitie Fund when they are sick and injured.

It’s your donations that make all this work possible. Whether you want to make a better future for animals or help them right here and now, your support will make a real difference.

Take action: Our Go Veg campaign
News: Our latest article on the Daily Hive 

Categories
animal welfare Captivity compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted wildlife zoo

The truth about animals in captivity

Captive Sun Bear. Photo: Rob Laidlaw

 

On March 27, VHS hosted a presentation in Vancouver by Rob Laidaw, executive director of Zoocheck, on animals in captivity. 

Titled Nature in a box: the paradoxical and dangerous world of zoos and aquariums, Laidlaw’s talk was a compelling indictment of the captive animal industry.  Drawn from his own research and long experience of monitoring the industry, including visiting hundreds of zoos and aquariums around the world, the case against captivity was overwhelming. Below are some of the key points from the presentation.

Space, freedom and family

A major criticism of captive animal facilities concerns lack of space for animals, which Laidlaw explained is often not obvious to visitors:

“Space is a core consideration for nearly all captive animals, yet it’s something that is often overlooked, ignored or even dismissed by many animal caretakers. Some claim that animals don’t need a lot of space because they only travel when they are looking for food. Therefore, they say that if food is provided, the animals don’t bother traveling. That’s a myopic and unscientific perspective because animals are known to move around for a diversity of reasons, not just to find food. And when adequate space isn’t provided, there can be detrimental physical, psychological and social consequences to the animals. All animals should be provided with the largest living spaces possible. There’s no such thing as a cage that is too big.”

VHS hosted Rob Laidlaw’s March 27 talk, which drew a crowd eager to hear about the plight of captive animals. Photo: Emily Pickett.

Captive animals also lose the ability to make choices because of their restricted and often barren environments, which are damaging to their welfare.  Laidlaw described how they’re also deprived of their natural social context, such as being part of a family or larger social grouping.

“In addition to space, additional critical quality of life considerations include freedom of choice, proper social context and stimulation and activity, but these too are often given short shrift. When that happens animals suffer physically and they also suffer psychologically, as they can experience negative emotional states, like boredom, frustration, anxiety, fear and anger.  All aspects of animal welfare should be considered if the interests and wellbeing of the animals are a priority.”
Laidlaw recounted an experience that perfectly contrasted the lives animals have in nature versus the deprivation they experience in captivity. While visiting a zoo he noticed a non-captive lizard roaming the facility’s grounds, later finding the same species on display.

“After observing that changeable lizard moving about freely, running, climbing and foraging, and then seeing it’s captive counterpart in a tiny, glass-fronted exhibit unable to engage in any natural movements or behaviours, I realized just how abnormal the situation of the captive was. Nature should be what’s considered normal, not the animal in the cage.”

Zoos’ claims about “education” lack evidence

It’s common for zoos and aquariums to claim that they provide “education” about the animals they display, but Laidlaw said there was little evidence this was true and cited research that clearly contradicts such claims.

“There have been a number of studies examining how long zoo visitors look at animals. The results show that for some animals, particularly if they are not active, observation times can vary from about eight seconds to 90 seconds. There’s not much that can be learned about an animal in that length of time.”

He gave a sad example to illustrate the point:

 “My colleague was visiting a large Canadian zoo to see a bittern, a relatively small wading bird, in one of the zoo’s indoor pavilions. He decided to time how long people actually looked at the bittern. While he expected visitor observation times to be short since the bittern wasn’t one of the zoo’s popular, charismatic mega-vertebrates, like lions, bears and elephants, he was still astounded when the average length of time the bittern was observed turned out to be less than one second. In fact, most people just glanced as they walked by, even when the bird was pointed out to them.”

The future: alternatives to traditional zoo model

Laidlaw ended his presentation with a description of some alternative concepts to zoos and aquariums and a call for change.

“The traditional zoo model, with its relatively unfettered viewing of animals and mass-market entertainment approach is outdated and no longer makes sense. There are many new exciting kinds of facilities and technologies that should replace traditional zoos. They include regionally-focused wildlife facilities, multi-disciplinary centers, sanctuaries, specialist education and conservation facilities, virtual zoos and innovative interactive film technologies.”

The nearly 100 people attending the talk, judging by their enthusiastic applause, left with new insights into what life is like for captive animals, and, perhaps, a new-found desire to work for an end to the places where they are incarcerated.

VHS has long fought for animals in captivity, exposing poor treatment of animals at the Greater Vancouver Zoo and opposing cetacean captivity at the Vancouver Aquarium, including publishing this joint report with Zoocheck.

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
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted rodeo

The truth about bull-riding

Tormenting animals for entertainment is unacceptable.

Find on this page
  1. Why do bulls buck?
  2. Physical harm to bulls
  3. Injuries to humans
  4. Take action
  5. Latest news

Earlier this year, we were dismayed to see two events staged in Abbotsford that saw bulls tormented and taunted for the sake of entertainment.

One was an “extreme rodeo” event held at Abbotsford’s Exhibition Park, some of which can be seen in this video.  It’s clear that the bulls want no part of this sad spectacle. VHS complained to Abbotsford City Council, which owns the venue, but received no response.

The other was a Professional Bull Riders (PBR) event at the Abbotsford Centre, a venue also owned by the City of Abbotsford.  Again, bulls were exploited for human amusement, obviously distressed as they bucked wildly to get unwanted riders off their backs.  In addition, they were exposed to loud fireworks despite the fact that sudden noise is known to cause distress in cattle.

Bull-riding has become popular in recent years, as fans see it as a sensational contest between “man and beast.”  Few people feel empathy for the bulls, as they weigh us much as 2000 pounds and are seen as ferocious and powerful.  PBR and rodeo promoters say the bulls are star “athletes” and are born to buck, even though they have no choice but to participate.

Why do bulls buck?

The truth is that the bulls are selectively bred for a predisposition to buck, which means they are especially sensitive to any negative stimulus, such as the riders they are trying to buck off. This is thought to be an evolutionary response to a predator jumping on the bull’s back.  In other words, the bull feels it is under attack and is fighting for its life.  The wild bucking seen at these events does not occur outside the arena.

In addition to being mounted by the unwanted rider, a “flank strap” is cinched tight around the bull’s torso just before it is released into the arena.  This causes the bull discomfort, creating yet further negative stimulus to induce the bull to buck harder.  One study on bucking bulls puts it very clearly: “The purpose of the flank rope is to produce an annoyance to the bull.”

A bull showing “eye white” – a sign of fear and stress

.
While the rodeo and bull-riding industries deny bulls are suffering, it is clear to any objective observer that the bulls’ wild bucking is an unnatural, negative experience.  One indicator of the bulls’ distress is the presence “eye white” (an increase in the size of the white of the eye surrounding the pupil), which can be seen in photos of bull-riding events.  Eye white has been identified as sign of fear and distress in cattle. One 2017 study states: “The work to date suggests that eye white percentage is a meaningful indicator of emotion, with more eye whites indicating fear and frustration and less eye white associated with positive feelings.”

Although it is difficult to see what happens behind the scenes in the chutes before a bull is released, there have been instances at rodeos where bulls have been kicked, had their tails twisted or have been electrically shocked – all to ensure bulls leave the chutes angry, fearful and bucking wildly. VHS exposed the use of an electric shock device at the Chilliwack rodeo’s bull-riding event in 2018.

While bulls can exhibit aggressive behaviour, they are not the inherently “mean” or “ornery” animals described by PBR promoters.  Their levels of aggressive behaviour are determined by a mix of breeding and environment. For example, if they are isolated from the herd and put in an unfamiliar setting they are likely to be more aggressive.  Otherwise, aggressive behaviour is manifested when bulls are provoked – such as being mounted by an unwanted rider or stressed by a flank strap.

Bucking bulls are also “trained” through the use of dummies, which are metal weights placed on their backs and released when they buck their hardest, thus conditioning the bull to buck harder to gain relief from the distress caused by the weight.

Physical harm to bulls

There is evidence that bucking bulls may suffer physical damage from the events they are forced to participate in.  A 2017 study states that: “Results indicated bucking bulls were more likely than nonbucking bulls to develop horn and sinus disorders and musculoskeletal disorders of the vertebral region and pelvic limbs.”

While there are no independent statistics on bull injuries, there are certainly instances of bucking bulls suffering catastrophic injuries, such as in this video.

Injuries to humans

Although not an animal welfare issue, it is well known that bull-riding causes numerous injuries to human participants.  A 2007 research paper comparing injury rates in various sports found that bull-riding had an injury rate 10 times greater than American football.  The report concluded: “As a result of these analyses, it is a simple matter to conclude that there is a universal difference in the injury rates between bull riding and most other sports; and these authors, therefore, are compelled to declare the sport of bull riding to be the most dangerous organised sport in the world.” An earlier study suggests about 10 per cent of bull-riding injuries are concussions.

The PBR glorifies the danger of bull-riding, even producing a videos of the worst “wrecks” at its events.  Many boys and young men are drawn to the macho culture, money and adrenalin rush of bull-riding, despite the high risk of long-term physical harm, including potential brain damage.

Take action

Despite being inhumane to bulls, as well as unduly dangerous to humans, bull-riding has grown in popularity.  VHS is urging the public to complain to the venues that host PBR and rodeo bull-riding events.

Donate to protect animals

Tell the Calgary Stampede to end inhumane rodeo events

Learn more about rodeo cruelty

Latest news

A bull is prodded in a closed chute as he backed up into a gate.
News/Blog

Rodeo season wraps up with new actions, growing public opposition

Photo: Jordan Rivers \We Animals Media This summer, the VHS and supporters were hard at work advocating to end the suffering of animals in rodeos. Calgary Stampede This year’s Calgary Stampede rodeo and chuckwagon races were the deadliest of the past five years, resulting in the deaths of four animals: three horses used in chuckwagon…

READ MORE

News/Blog

Report urges Calgary city council to support a rodeo and chuckwagon-free Stampede 

Photos: Jo-Anne McArthur \ We Animals Media A NEW report from the Vancouver Humane Society highlights: This year’s deadly Calgary Stampede rodeo and chuckwagon races, with four animal fatalities and footage of inhumane handling of animals; Groundbreaking polling that reflects a significant increase in public opposition to rodeo events and government funding; 9600+ signatures on…

READ MORE

Categories
animal welfare cruelty News/Blog Promoted rodeo

Another rodeo, another spectacle of cruelty

080716 - Chilliwack, BC Chung Chow photo Chilliwack Rodeo Calf roping

This is what happened to animals at the Chilliwack rodeo

The past weekend, the annual Chilliwack Fair’s rodeo once again saw animals tormented for the sake of entertainment – graphically illustrated in the photos below. It’s the last full rodeo left in the Lower Mainland and we’d like to see it end.  If you agree, please let the Chilliwack Fair know by sending them a polite email at info@chilliwackfair.com

VHS will be taking further actions in the coming weeks, including identifying sponsors.

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo

 

Chilliwack Rodeo

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Chilliwack Rodeo - Sunday

 

Categories
animal welfare compassion cruelty News/Blog Promoted rodeo

Why is animal lover Jann Arden promoting the Calgary Stampede?

Bucking horse at Calgary Stampede. Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur
Bucking horse at Calgary Stampede. Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur

Let Jann Arden know that rodeo is cruel – see actions below.

Singer Jann Arden, long known as an animal lover, has been named as a joint-parade marshall for the Calgary Stampede parade, the event that kicks off the ten-day rodeo, fair and chuckwagon races.

The announcement is a surprise, given Arden’s previously stated opposition to the chuckwagon races, shown in this tweet from 2013:

J Arden tweet against chuckwagon race

Presumably, she is aware of the 65 horses that have died in the Stampede’s chuckwagon races since 1986? That includes 11 dead horses since the Stampede’s much-publicised new “safety measures” were implemented in 2011.

Arden’s decision is also surprising and disappointing given her support for animal causes, including opposition to the Alberta government’s cull of wild horses. Perhaps she isn’t aware that the Calgary Stampede also culls unwanted horses, as revealed by media in 2012.  As CTV News reported at the time, “For the first time, the Calgary Stampede is admitting that horses that don’t make the cut to compete in the famous rodeo are sent to an Alberta slaughterhouse for meat.”

In 2014, Arden described her opposition to the Alberta horse cull and her feelings about horses, stating:  “They just need to be treated with respect. I know there needs to be some sensibility, but why does the fucking solution have to always be killing something?”  Yet killing is the Stampede’s solution to unwanted bucking horses. Isn’t there a double-standard here?

Perhaps Arden is not aware of Stampede’s horse culling policy but is she also unaware of what happens to other rodeo animals?

DSC_0021Does she know that steers died in the Stampede rodeo’s steer-wrestling event in 2014 and 2013?

Steer-wrestling involves riders jumping onto steers and twisting their necks until they fall to the ground.  Both steers had to be euthanized because of neck injuries.

Steer-wrestling has nothing to do with real ranch work. It was invented for rodeo in the 1930s.  It’s just entertainment.

Perhaps Arden is unaware of the suffering of other rodeo animals such as the three-month-old calves that are chased, roped, thrown to the ground and tied up. Or the steers that are roped by the horns and hind legs and stretched off their feet. Or the bulls and bucking horses that are tormented into bucking by the flank strap tightened around their hindquarters.  And all these animals suffer for the mere amusement of a crowd.

Ad calfDoes Arden care that virtually all animal welfare agencies around the world are opposed to rodeos – organizations like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the national SPCAs of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK.

And does she care that most of her fellow Canadians are opposed to rodeo, with a recent poll showing that only three-in-ten Canadians are in favour of using animals in rodeos?

Let Jann Arden know that rodeo is cruel

If you think Jann Arden needs to rethink her support of the Calgary Stampede, please let her know.

Below are some actions you can take to send her a message.

You can tweet one of the messages below by clicking on it. (You will need to be logged in to Twitter.):

Tweet: .@jannarden Please don’t support the Calgary Stampede rodeo & chucks. The Stampede culls unwanted bucking horses. Rodeo animals suffer!

Tweet: .@jannarden Surprised you are supporting the Calgary Stampede, which is known for animal cruelty. Please reconsider!

Tweet: .@jannarden As an animal lover aren’t you concerned about the treatment of horses and rodeo animals at Stampede? 65 dead horses since 1986!

Or simply compose your own tweet to her at @jannarden

You can politely comment on Jann Arden’s Facebook page.

Every time you take a stand for the animals it makes a difference.