Blog

London Zoo has recently restarted their adult-only, late night parties. This has been concerning to many people as it means drunk guests “interfering with the animals” and “attempting to enter their enclosures”. Not only is there alcohol being served, but there is loud and blaring music that is played at these parties. The nights are to be held on Friday evenings from June to July, and the zoo claims it will allow adults to “embrace their youthful sense of awe and wonder”. The reason why this has sparked so much controversy is because of similar events that the zoo hosted back in 2015. These events resulted in distasteful events such as when, according to The Guardian, a man poured beer over a tiger before being thrown out by staff. Additionally, a man was seen stripping and attempting to enter the penguin pool before being stopped by staff. 

These parties can have a multitude of negative effects towards the zoo animals, both emotionally and physically. To begin, the number of visitors and the loud music causes the animals stress. For example, regular house cats have extremely sensitive hearing of 45–64,000Hz—more than one octave higher than what humans can hear. Loud noises such as fireworks, thunder, and loud music can cause hearing damage and stress. The damage is aimed at the feline cochlea—the inner ear where sound is processed—and is quickly damaged by exposure to sound ranging from 1.0 to 16.0 kHz, which is where certain music lies. The stress is due to the fact that it is unexpected and throws them off, creating fear and shock. 

Another significant issue is the alcohol that is being served at these parties. As witnesses have stated in the past, people under the influence of alcohol have tried to interfere with the zoo animals by climbing in their enclosures or coming into direct contact with them. London Zoo knows this, yet chooses to ignore it, keeping visitors and money at the front of their decisions. Already, tens of thousands of people have signed the petition to get rid of the parties, however, it may not be necessary to completely discard the idea. If London Zoo could decide to lower their music and refuse the selling of alcohol, the stress levels of the animals would be reduced, allowing both the visitors and animals to be satisfied. 

Recently, there has been a popular movement going around on the internet to save the turtles. Especially on TikTok, a video-sharing app that is known for its memes, people have been videotaping themselves using reusable metal straws or asking for no straw at Starbucks drive-thrus. Social media influencers like Bretman Rock and Emma Chamberlain have also contributed to the “Save the Turtles” movement by advocating the reduced use of plastic straws. 

This trend links back to the video released in 2015 of a sea turtle with a straw stuck up its nose. The graphic video shows the gruesome truth of pollution and has brought much awareness towards the problem. With 6 of 7 sea turtle species being listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, it is fortunate such a popular drink company like Starbucks is aiming towards eliminating single-use plastic straws at its 30,000 locations around the world. Starbucks has even released a new recyclable lid for cold drinks that do not require a straw. 

        New recyclable, strawless cold drink lid by Starbucks

With all of the attention towards the problem with straws, however, people are forgetting that Starbucks cups have plastic too. The main issue with the cups, especially the ones made for hot drinks, is that so many are used yet so little are being recycled. Starbucks uses around 7 billion cups every year, and by looking at the way they are developed, this is detrimental to the environment. 

Why are the paper cups so difficult to recycle?

The cups for Starbucks have been carefully made so that they do not leak, break, or warp, and on top of that, cheap and easily stackable. Because of all of these factors that need to be considered, engineers are having a hard time finding a more environmentally-friendly alternative. The cups are made of paper, but lined with plastic on the outside. Therefore, recycling facilities would have to separate the cups’ plastic lining from the paper, which is too costly and excessive. Because of the extra effort needed to recycle these cups, they are labelled as non-recyclable and end up at landfills, where they may degrade to microplastics (learn more about microplastics and the harm is causes here).

Fortunately, Starbucks has recognized this problem and are striving to fix it in addition to getting rid of plastic straws. According to CNN, Starbucks is aiming to double the recycled content in the cup by 2022 and is testing more than 12 greener technologies for paper cup liners, which provides us hope for a pollution-reduced future.

Recently, the athletic company, Reebok, turned their “eco-friendly” shoes vegan. In August, Reebok released a pair of shoes that were made from ‘bio-based’ materials including corn and cotton. (You can watch a short clip from Reebok explaining the reasoning and development of the sneakers here) These sneakers were a part of the conscientious effort to “create a broad selection of bio-based footwear that can be composted after use.” They advertised these sneakers as going from “dust to dust”, as they can be composted into soil that will grow the plants needed to ultimately create another pair of shoes.

Reebok’s Corn + Cotton collection.

However, since the release, animal advocates have taken notice to one specific detail in the sneakers: they contained a small leather patch on the heel and tongue. Reebok was attentive to the criticism and decided to get rid of the patch that used animal skin. Now, the sneakers are 100% vegan and the first ever 75 percent USDA certified biobased shoe, made with a 100 percent cotton upper and a biobased sole derived from corn.

What is “bio-based’? The USDA defines bio-based as deriving from organisms that were once alive, so plants and animals. Bio-based is an alternative to petroleum-based, and is more compostable and renewable. However, bio-based materials are not necessarily vegan and can contain animal by-products such as leather. On the other hand, 100% vegan shoes are not necessarily bio-based, compostable, or renewable, as they can be primarily made out of materials like rubber and plastic.

Although most companies don’t go so far as to make their shoes completely out of plants, several have released vegan shoes like Michael Kors, Doc Martens, Tory Burch, and more. Most sneakers and other types of shoes have leather or coated leather on them. Leather is made from animal skin–usually cattle but pigs, goats, sheep, and even crocodiles are used too. A common misconception about leather is that it is just a byproduct of meat production, however, leather is in high demand and therefore significantly contributes to the income of the selling of the animal’s body. So, it encourages more animals to be killed and sold. Some vegans and vegetarians consider buying leather goods second-hand to be a viable alternative as it does not directly increase the demand for leather.

As the first ever vegan and USDA-certified biobased sneaker, Reebok may be starting a new trend for other shoe companies. You may think owning vegan and biobased shoes is not effective in saving animals, but more than 20 billion shoes are sold worldwide each year, and in the US, 68% use animal products.

So, by supporting companies like Reebok who make the effort to reduce the amount of animal products being used, you can be making a change. Lowering the number of leather shoes you buy will lower the demand for it, and it will discourage people from killing as many animals for their skin. These shoes in particular are also good for the environment as no petroleum, a nonrenewable resource, is needed to make synthetic rubber or foam.

Dogs have been sold at pet shops for years, and although many people know the horrors that they hide, there are still many dogs being subjected to this practice (more information here). When you see fluffy puppies on display right in front of the stores, many people may not realize how inhumane that treatment is_or that these dogs are sourced from much worse conditions at puppy mills. Instead, the average person anyone walking by just enjoys the sight of the animals or feels compelled to go inside and pet the dogs. These pet shops take advantage of the emotions of anyone who happens to stroll past the storefront. That’s why it’s so important that animal rights advocates have been speaking out against the selling of pets in commercial storefronts. One recent example is a store called Pet Barn in Utah.

Pet Barn is a pet store that display rabbits, cats, and dogs at the front of the store. Many of the people that were a part of the protest on January 19 were owners of pets from Pet Barn. Their four-legged friends had been affected by a disease called parvovirus. This serious disease is highly contagious which can cause vomiting, bloody diarrhea, fever, and weight loss. It is usually fatal, especially for puppies.

A woman named Karlee Bursach said that she had taken home her dog, Eevee, and after going to the vet four days later, she found out Eevee had parvovirus. She says that they “don’t offer to help pay for medical expenses”, which proves the neglect that Pet Barn has for their animals.

Protests such as these are taken into notice by legislative representatives. Utah currently does not have any statewide laws that prohibit the sale of animals in a commercial store, only a handful of cities do. These laws would be effective in discouraging the selling of puppies from puppy mills, and may even increase the number of adopted dogs. However, this protest may be the turning point for puppies in stores as it has in one of the cities in Utah, Sandy. After a woman named Kris Nicholl was able to catch a lawmaker’s attention and after six weeks, a bill that prohibits the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits from a commercial breeder was passed.

Like the protesters of Utah, people that live in states that allow the selling of pets in commercial storefronts should band together. This has been proven to work—both on the state and the municipal level. Many areas including the entire state of California and many cities across the country no longer allow the sale of pets in commercial storefronts. The majority of animals sold at pet stores are bred and raised in cruel conditions such as puppy mills, and catch contagious diseases. By outwardly protesting, the state legislatures may take notice and feel compelled to take action. You don’t even have to physically stand outside and hold signs to protest: you can simply mail a letter urging the state to enforce new laws. This will allow the inhumane selling of pets to decrease and the adoption to increase.

The animated 1941 film about a huge-eared elephant named Dumbo stole the hearts of thousands worldwide. Recently, a trailer was released for a live-action remake of Dumbo. Many people are excited for the movie to be released, but animal activists have some concerns. The director, Tim Burton, was challenged with the question of how he would manipulate a story that romanticized circuses: a place with a history of abusing animals.

However, Burton shows his position through the trailer which depicts an upset Dumbo with a clown face painted on him.

While there are laws in several Latin American countries have laws against use of animals in travelling circuses, the United States has no laws against circuses.

Circuses are still around today, like UniverSoul Circus. Circuses have been around since 1782, rising in popularity around late 1800s to early 1900s. However, with the popularity came questions like, “how are the animals being trained?” and “where are these large animals kept?”. Especially with intelligent animals species like elephants and monkeys, it was easy to spot the cruelty that was going on.

The animals are kept in cages when they are not performing and “11 months a year they travel over long distances in box cars with no climate control; sleeping, eating, and defecating in the same cage.” They are treated with extreme discipline like being whipped or shocked so they can be put out to perform.

There are ways to put a complete end to circuses in America. For example, if a circus is coming to a place near you, you can write letters to newspaper editors urging them to keep advertisements and news out of the papers. You can also spend time educating yourself on the horrors of circuses by reading about them on website or in books like The One and Only Ivan, which tells the story of a gorilla caught in the circus world. There are also petitions that you can sign to prevent the spread of circuses such as this one.

However, even without implementation of federal laws, we’ve come so far as to shut down America’s biggest and longest running circus, the Ringling Bros. Therefore, if we were able to get rid of the most popular circus, we will be able to take down any other animal-harming circus!

On April 1st, Burger King announced that their classic burger, the Whopper, would soon be sold with a vegetarian option. This “Impossible Burger” from Impossible Foods has a plant-based patty that is supposed to look and taste like actual meat, so Burger King claims it will taste very similar to the original Whopper. The President of Burger King North America, Chris Finazzo, says that he wants to “give somebody who wants to eat a burger every day, but doesn’t necessarily want to eat beef everyday, permission to come into the restaurants more frequently,” He is also inviting vegans and vegetarians to visit Burger Kings and see the meat-less choices they have to offer. Additionally, compared to the original Whopper, the Impossible Burger has less calories and lower in cholesterol.

The company that allows these fast food chains to sell meatless options is called Impossible. They dedicate their time in producing meat alternatives made from plants.

      Matt Edge for the New York Times

Many fast food restaurants have been adding “impossible” items to their menus, like Taco Bell and White Castle. There are also other companies that produce vegetable-based meat substitutes, like the Beyond Burger from Beyond Meat (available at chains like TGI Friday’s and Carl’s Jr. and supermarkets like Safeway and Food Lion). Hopefully, this will encourage people to cut back on their meat intake, as about 85 million Americans eat fast food on any given day. Red meat causes big issues concerning the treatment of animals, the overall health of people, and the environment. (For more information about the ethicality of buying red meat, click here.)

It’s not just the reduced suffering of cows that should be taken into consideration when cutting back on beef—the production of beef also has a huge impact on the environment. The processing and distribution of meat requires enormous amounts of pesticides, fuel, feed, fertilizer, and water. According to EWG, growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The amount of resources needed to allow you to eat a Big Mac is insurmountable. Additionally, greenhouse gases are emitted during the entire process of meat production, which is detrimental to the environment. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, drastically play into global warming and climate change. The factories that are used to process the meat generate large amounts of nitrous oxide, and cows release a lot of methane. These two greenhouses gases are among the worst that impact the health of our planet.

Therefore, for the health of ourselves and the other animals of earth, it is important for people to consume less red meat. Fortunately, fast food chains have been taking their first several steps in offering vegetarian options that resemble beef. You do not have to completely cut meat out of your diet, but allowing yourself to regulate and reduce the amount of beef you are eating will create an impact. The Impossible Burger is only sold in Louisiana at the moment, but if that does well then Burger Kings across the United States will likely start selling them on their menus too. So, the next time you’re at Burger King, give the Impossible Burger a try, maybe it will taste even better than actual meat!

Yuki is a human-sized dog who currently resides at the Shy Wolf animal sanctuary. Yuki is 87.5% Gray Wolf, 8.6% Siberian Husky, and 3.9% German Shepherd. Therefore, although he does have some domestic dog DNA, he is mostly a Gray Wolf. Yuki was too much for his previous owner and is now unavailable for adoption, which is reasonable considering his ancestry and large size. This decision is a respectable one made by the sanctuary because Shy Wolf houses 20-100 wolves at a time, so they specialize in accommodating the behavior of wolves. Owning a species that very closely resembles a real wolf will be extremely difficult for the typical pet owner, and requires special care that only a place like Shy Wolf can provide.

It is easy to see the allure of owning a wild animal. It is fascinating to own an animal that is usually seen only in the wild. They are so different from the typical pets that people usually have. However, it is because of these unique traits that can make them unsuitable for people to own. Many people do not realize this when they scroll through pictures of adorable exotic pets on social media.

@juniperfoxx is an Instagram account with 2.7 million followers run by a person who owns a pet fox. The account is filled with pictures of the adorable animal, which attracted many people. With the many followers came the many comments saying “I want one”. The owner was quick to respond with a lengthy caption saying how “Foxes are not like owning a dog or cat”. She brings attention to the extra precautions needed in caring for these animals as she explains how they are “destructive, [and] they will destroy things in your house”, and how they “do not always ‘potty train”, resulting in a very skunky odor. Keep in mind when watching cute animal videos online that the person in the video may be a wildlife expert who had to get a lot of training to care for these animals.

However, if you are seriously considering housing an exotic animal, it is vital to…

1. Do a lot of research. Keep in mind that exotic pets can be dangerous, difficult to care for, and have very complicated needs both in terms of their health and their mental wellbeing.
2. Consider your daily life and determine whether the caretaking of the animal fits into your schedule and lifestyle.
3. Ask yourself if you have the money to buy whatever it needs. Exotic animals require special necessities and expensive veterinary care.
4. See if you are following the laws in your area. Some states may consider owning a certain animal legal while others do not.
5. Be prepared to make a lifelong commitment. This is true when getting any pet, but especially relevant to exotic pets. It’s more difficult to find second homes for exotic pets, and many exotic pets are sadly abandoned by their owners once they realize how complicated caring for them can be.

Many people get exotic pets when those pets are babies and don’t realize how large or unmanageable those animals can become. For example, minipigs are pets that many people want. They envision a pig the size of a teacup that is cute and cuddly. On the contrary, the director of The Pig Preserve, Richard Hoyle, says “There are 15 to 20 breeds of mini pig, and all of them are 150 to 180 pounds at full size,” These mini pigs are called ‘mini’ because they are smaller than the average farm pig (around 600 pounds), but are still pretty big. Therefore, if a person wants to adopt a pig, they must understand they will be adopting a 150-pound pig that will not hesitate to eat anything in sight.

Whether it’s a pig, a fox, or any other animal that is not typically kept as a pet, a lot of time and research must be spent in learning about any potential exotic pet. There are myths about these animals that may be spread just to get people to want these wild creatures, so it is vital to fact-check and make sure your schedule works around theirs.

Last month, the General Assembly in Virginia voted to increase and impose penalties for animal abuse, a development that animal welfare advocates are pleased by. The bill that has stood out the most is SB 1604, otherwise known as Tommie’s Bill, named after a Pitbull that was recently set on fire in a Richmond park for entertainment. This bill states that, “any person who tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims, or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and as a direct result causes serious bodily injury to such dog or cat is guilty of a Class 6 felony.” Therefore, anyone who purposefully tortures and eventually kills a dog or a cat will be guilty to a Class 6 Felony—a felony that requires imprisonment no less than one year and no greater than 5. This is a huge step up from the previous penalty of a misdemeanor.

Two more animal related bills that were passed were HB 1625 and HB 1626. HB 1625 requires that animal shelters provides shade for dogs and cats in the summer and a windbreak in the winter. HB 1625 allows animal control officers to confiscate any tethered animals that are suspected of being used for fighting. Several other bills were brought up, but killed by Senate.

Although these bills were only passed in Virginia, it sets an example for other states. Animal activists can use this opportunity to press their states’ governments to increase penalties for animal abusers. Currently, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, and Kentucky are among

Recently, pictures were released of a 14-month old lioness named Falestine who was brutally declawed so “visitors and children at the zoo could play with her”. The young lioness had her claws removed at Gaza Zoo with a pair of garden shears, which is problematic for multiple reasons. To begin, lions should not even be held in captivity, especially considering the Gaza Zoo did not provide sufficient food or medical care for the animals. There is simply just not enough space for lions in captivity as they have 18,000 times less space in zoos than they would in the wild. The stress of being contained and not being able to fulfill their need to hunt causes a higher rate of stillborn babies. On top of being in captivity, lions should not be forced to have their paws declawed.

Veterinarian examining Falestine’s claws by Getty Images from Fox News

Lions use their claws for hunting their prey and climbing trees. Their claws are a huge part of what makes them “king of the jungle” and it would be inhumane to mutilate them into something they are not. Declawing a cat is more similar to cutting off the tips of your fingers up to the knuckle than it is to removing your fingernails.

Lastly, it is impractical to cut off a lion’s nails so it can play with children. Lions are wild animals and only trained professionals should interact with them even in the best of circumstances. A declawed lion will likely be more dangerous because she may feel scared and less able to protect herself, and because she will still have her teeth. Lions have razor sharp canines that are about 10 centimeters long, and can rip apart 1,000-pound buffalos. Therefore, it would just not be reasonable to allow lions anywhere near children, with or without claws.

Fortunately, the Gaza Zoo was forced to shut down in January after petitions were signed. The zoo had a history of abusing animals, like when four lion cubs froze to death in the winter, and when the owner sawed off a injured fox’s leg.

It is vital for people to keep an eye out for animals that are being abused in zoos. Luckily, an organization called Four Paws was able to identify the mistreatment that Gaza Zoo was inflicting on their animals and release a petition “demanding the closure of the zoo and the relocation of over 40 suffering animals to sanctuaries in the region has been signed by more than 120,000 people worldwide.”

Proctor and Gamble have joined the #BeCrueltyFree campaign and are investing millions of dollars towards the end of animal cruelty.

According to Cruelty Free International, animal testing is any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. Animal testing is used for a variety of reasons, from medical research to the development of new cosmetics. More than 100 million animals from rats to monkeys are killed a year as a result of animal testing—and these statistics do not include invertebrates (except octopuses in the EU) or, in US-based research, mice, rats, fish, amphibians, or birds. Although animal testing can save lives and prevent humans from having adverse reactions, often results of animal testing do not end up being applicable to humans, and there are alternatives that are not only cruelty-free but can be more accurate than animal testing.

Vitro-testing is a way of studying cells in a petri dish or test tube. There are multiple pros to using vitro-testing over animal testing. Vitro-testing is a cheaper and more effective alternative due to the necessary obligations of housing and feeding the animals. This way of testing allows for the use of human cells, as opposed to animal testing which is obviously used on animal cells. For example, experimenting on real human cells will predict correct human reactions up to 86% of the time, while the widely-known Draize eye test, which is used to determine eye safety of materials, only goes up to 60%. Vitro-testing allows scientists to replicate human organ functions and how they would react to certain drugs and chemicals.

Another effective switch from animal testing is computer modeling. With technology today, almost anything is possible; including the creation of highly detailed simulations. By feeding information about human organs and bodily functions into a computer, it is possible to estimate the reactions that the body will have. This could one day be a more accurate way of determining interactions with the human body rather than an animal’s.

However, these alternatives to animal testing will not be able to fully predict the suffering or miracles that medical advancements can cause. These alternatives may not be able to totally replace animal testing, but with more funding and research, animal testing can be further reduced. You can find funding opportunities for non-animal research here, or reach out against companies that are known to encourage the use of animal testing.

When purchasing a cosmetic product from any brand, look for one of these three-party certified logos. These are the most reputable and trustworthy logos that stand for cruelty-free products. Many other products from cosmetic companies may have stickers that claim to be cruelty-free, but really are not.