https://www.animalslebanon.org/
13 months of war –
https://www.animalslebanon.org/news/13-months-of-war
Legislation – and what we do: https://www.animalslebanon.org/what-we-do/law
Latest news:
https://www.animalslebanon.org/news
Thank you for helping animals during the war: httpshttps://www.animalslebanon.org/Thank-you-for-helping-animals-during-war //www.animalslebon.org/
Contact – https://www.animalslebanon.org/contact
And very importantly – DONATIONS
Sometimes a single picture says it all.
Source: PETA
***************
***************
Nineteenth-century opponents of vivisection warned that the practice could make researchers and physicians callous toward all living creatures.
https://daily.jstor.org/the-dangers-of-animal-experimentation-for-doctors/
May 13, 2024
When we worry about cruelty to animals, we’re often thinking not only of their suffering but also of the potential dangers to human society posed by animal abusers. As A. W. H. Bates, a coroner’s pathologist and scholar of animal ethics, writes, this was particularly true in nineteenth-century England, when some people were horrified at the notion that the doctors who cared for their families might also torture dogs.
Bates writes that efforts to address animal cruelty in British Parliament began in the first years of the nineteenth century. The growing London elite found the treatment of livestock disturbing. They also viewed the poor condition of these animals as signs of unfeelingness or active cruelty among the working class. Lawmakers debated whether viciousness toward animals led to violence against humans. But, at first, these concerns were directed only against the poor.
In 1824, scientific vivisection became the subject of similar scrutiny. That year, French physiologist François Magendie gave a public demonstration of cutting apart a live greyhound, which he allegedly nailed to a table, at an anatomy school in London. While British doctors also performed vivisections at that time, they were more popular among continental Europeans. Magendie’s actions stirred up an outcry based partly on anti-French sentiments.
British doctors generally decried Magendie’s demonstration as unnecessary and therefore cruel—and also as a damaging stain on their profession. But they still defended vivisection as acceptable if the experiments yielded valuable results.
Bates writes that concerns about vivisection grew over the decades. Opponents warned that the practice could make researchers and physicians callous toward all living creatures. In 1844, the Protestant Magazine printed a “caution to parents” to avoid any doctor who practiced it. And Queen Victoria herself privately referred to vivisection as “one of the worst signs of wickedness in human nature.”
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), formed in 1875, blamed vivisection for an apparently increasing interest among scientists in experimenting on human beings, including condemned criminals and paupers.
Bates argues that the debate over vivisection reflected a continuing interest within the world of medicine in Aristotelian virtue ethics. While British society at this time was generally more attuned to utilitarian or deontological ethics, which focus on whether an action is right or wrong, the medical field concerned itself with the moral character of individual practitioners. This meant balancing qualities such as tenderness and resolution, for the purpose of carrying out difficult but necessary procedures without becoming inured to suffering.
Following this logic, some physiologists presented their work as an act of sacrifice, in one case writing that the process sometimes “so shatters them, that it requires all their power of will to carry the process through to the accomplishment of the aim.”
Ultimately, the battle over vivisection faded from public awareness largely because of shifting professional norms. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, animal experimentation increasingly became a specialization of dedicated physiologists rather than practicing doctors, freeing patients and parents from worries about their own physicians’ moral bearings.
**
Vivisection, Virtue Ethics,and the Law in 19th-Century Britain
By: A. W. H. Bates
Journal of Animal Ethics, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 30–44
University of Illinois Press in partnership with the Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics
“Thugs do not suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that is the problem.”
Photo: Reuters
((Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.))
28.09.2024
The text contains disturbing details
A man from East Sarajevo shot a dog, then dragged it wounded along the street with a tractor, a pensioner from the village of Stajkovce, in the south of Serbia, beat a mare with a hammer and a pole, a six-year-old boy from Niš threw a kitten and ran over it with a scooter, a man from Leskov tortured a poisonous snake – these are just some of the creepy headlines lately that disturb people in the Balkans.
Some of the adult perpetrators are prosecuted or convicted, but as a rule, the punishments are mild or none, and that is why there are more and more cases like this, says Milica Ranković from the Feniks Animal Protection Association.
“People who have these kinds of mental problems are increasingly relaxed, because they see that there is no adequate punishment.
“Thugs don’t suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that’s where the problem lies,” Ranković told the BBC.
And when there is a reaction, it is slow, and punishments are often conditional or just a warning, he adds.
The situation is similar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where because of the case from East Sarajevo, although the suspect was detained, protests were organized in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, demanding tougher sentences.
“There is enough violence against the weak, against women, children, animals… Enough!
“Monsters move freely among us, today it was a dog, and tomorrow it will be someone’s child,” said Mila Šarić, employed at the Veterinary Institute of the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. transmissions H1.
–Analysis by Marija Branković, professor at the Faculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University*
Science today understands animals as sentient beings, which absolutely have the capacity to experience pain, fear and many other emotions.
Because of all this, violence against animals should alarm us as much as violence against people.
Based on psychological research, we know that there are complex explanations for violent behavior, it is impossible to attribute it to just one cause.
At the basic level, there are differences in people’s capacities for empathy, so we are talking about the expression of certain personality traits, which we call “dark traits” – psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism – which are associated with a tendency to aggressive and antisocial forms of behavior.
Research conducted in Serbia shows that these four personality traits are clearly related to a negative attitude towards animals.
However, this should not be understood as something that will necessarily manifest itself, because it always depends on whether this behavior is encouraged or punished in the environment.
Furthermore, we know for sure that aggressive and violent behavior is learned by model and not only in the family, but social beliefs and norms are also very important, therefore, the general climate in society.
And we live in a so-called post-conflict society.
These are societies of fear, in which people live with a sense of threat, insecurity, and mistrust, which all make fertile ground for violence.
Moreover, violence is justified and applied in the public and political sphere, especially towards dissenters, which means that at the highest and most visible level of society you have clear models of violent behavior.
It is not an exaggeration to say that violence is promoted and even rewarded, and it is certainly punished insufficiently and unsystematically.
* Marija Branković is Frpsychologist and research associate at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory and author of the book Psychology of humans and (other) animals
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The laws in the two entities differ – Republika Srpska (RS) i Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Anyone who severely abuses an animal or destroys animal habitats in a wider area will be fined or imprisoned for up to six months in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and up to two years in the RS. For more serious forms, when a material benefit has been obtained or a protected species has suffered, the prison sentence can be up to one year in the Federation, and up to five years in the RS.
Montenegro: Anyone who kills, injures or tortures an animal in violation of the regulations will be fined or imprisoned up to one year, and in the case of protected species, imprisonment from six months to five years.
Croatia: Whoever kills an animal without a justified reason or abuses it more severely, causes it unnecessary pain or exposes it to unnecessary suffering, will be punished with a fine imprisonment for up to two years or in more severe cases up to three years. In Croatia, the criminal offense of abandoning animals was recently introduced, which carries a penalty of up to one year.
North Macedonia: Torturing and killing animals is punishable by a fine and a sentence of up to six months in prison, and carelessness is also punished – if the animal is left without food and water, it can be obtained three months in prison.
Serbia: Abuse and torture of animals is punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years, writes in Criminal law, and for more severe forms up to three years and a higher fine. It is a criminal offense to organize animal fights and bet on them out of self-interest, for which the prison sentence is from six months to three years. Rulebook exact punishments for abuse of animals are also prescribed, for example, for a brown bear it is one million dinars, for a griffon vulture or a black eagle 500.000, for a wolf or lynx 300.000, for an otter 250.000, up to certain types of snails or frogs where the penalty is 1.200 dinars.
Legislation is completely fine in Serbia, but the problem is that it is not enforced, Milica Ranković points out.
“The same problem is in the entire Balkans,” she adds.
At the beginning of September, for the second time, the Feniks Association, together with ten other animal protection organizations from all over Serbia, sent an official letter to the competent ministries with a proposal to create a database on abusers and killers of animals.
They also request that systematic work be done on education and prevention of such cases from the earliest age – through creating empathy, but also to encourage reporting.
The state representatives were approached for the first time last year after the May tragedies, when the neighbors of Uroš Blažić, accused of mass murder in the villages of Dubona and Malo Orašje, claimed that mistreated animals.
However, the authorities never responded.
“It is devastating for our society, because it shows that it is not interested in dealing with violence.
“All associations from all over Serbia have the same experiences, we are all aware that such a database is necessary, the problems are the same and nothing has changed,” says Ranković.
Whether the introduction of such a register is being considered at all and what it would look like, the BBC did not receive an answer from either the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of the Interior.
TOMS KALNINS/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock
In the past decades, there were many monstrous cases that filled the columns of the domestic black chronicle.
From Kerusha Mila, whose paws were cut off, to a video of a cat being doused with gasoline and burned alive, to individuals who kill dogs with a knife, sometimes petting them beforehand, and that’s how it is in the world.
The shocking number of cruelty to animals, which are found daily in the media or on social networks, are only the tip of the iceberg, because most are never reported, according to the website of the American association. Humane society.
Puppies, cats, horses and domestic animals are the most common targets.
According to their data, animal abusers are more often men under the age of 30, and sick collecting of animals, which is more often done by women over 60, is also considered abuse.
Cruelty to animals is strongly related to other crimes.
People who mistreat animals are five times more likely to be violent towards people, according to an American study by Northwestern University in Massachusetts.
Behavioral profiles of criminals by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regularly show that many serial killers and rapists tortured animals as children, writes the British association Peta.
https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/speciesism-the-root-of-animal-oppression/
We live in a world where we share our homes with some species, eat others, and exploit still more in myriad ways, depending on what we’ve been taught about how we should see and treat different species, and whether we should consider ourselves superior to them. Unfortunately, the misguided belief that some species are worth our moral consideration and protection and others aren’t is known as speciesism, and it’s causing immeasurable harm.
Speciesism is a form of discrimination that considers one species superior to others. This mindset is based on the belief that humans have the right to dominate, use, and kill non-human animals for their own benefit.
The term “speciesism” was coined in the 1970s by British psychologist and animal rights activist Richard Ryder, who introduced it in a pamphlet distributed as part of a campaign against animal experimentation in Oxford, England.
Like racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination against certain groups, speciesism devalues individuals based on arbitrary characteristics — and in the case of animals, their level of intelligence, their appearance, and if they have fur, feathers, and fins, or whether they walk on four legs instead of two.
This perspective perpetuates the idea that we have the right to use, exploit, and kill other animals simply because they’re different from us.
Speciesism is often the first form of discrimination we’re taught, and it manifests in two ways. The first is the belief in the supremacy of the human species over all other species. The second is viewing only certain species — such as animal companions and some wild animals — as worthy of care and protection, with some even considered part of our families. In contrast, most other animals are disregarded, and many are enslaved, tortured, and treated as commodities for food, entertainment, fashion, research, transportation, and much more.
Farmed animals are often depicted in marketing for food products as trivial, cartoonish characters, which strips them of their dignity and status as feeling individuals with their own personalities and preferences. Small family farms tend to be romanticized as wholesome places where animals live happy lives and are cared for by farmers. In reality, the basis of all animal farming is the exploitation and killing of sentient beings. Still, humans have compartmentalized their ethical views, allowing us to rationalize the cruelty and violence inflicted on animals we might otherwise be fascinated by and care about, all for our pleasure, convenience, advancement, habits, traditions, and tastes. Although it has been scientifically proven that humans can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet, most continue to consume the flesh, milk, and eggs of animals because we’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s “normal, natural, and necessary.”
Animal companions and certain wild species are granted some legal protections, while all other animals are not. Cruel practices and mutilations without anesthesia, such as castration, tail docking, burning off horns, and extreme confinement, are inflicted on farmed animals like pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, and turkeys, yet would be considered horrific abuse by most in Western culture if done to dogs or cats.
If we would never subject a dog or cat to these practices, nor send them to a slaughterhouse to end their life, we must recognize that no animal deserves to be used or enslaved by us, nor to have such pain and terror inflicted upon them. Even the desire to keep some animals as companions has led to their exploitation through breeding and selling, prioritizing profit over their well-being, which inevitably results in neglect, abuse, and often death. Beagle dogs and rabbits, usually seen as ‘pets,’ are also tormented and killed in research labs.
Humans often try to justify their oppression of animals by saying that humans are the most intelligent species. Yet many animal species possess sensory and physical abilities that humans do not have.
For example, bats use echolocation — the ability to use sound waves to navigate and find objects — to navigate in complete darkness. Tiny wrasse fish can recognize themselves and others in a mirror, joining chimpanzees and dolphins in this rare skill. Octopuses excel at problem-solving and camouflage, altering the texture and color of their skin to blend into their surroundings. Birds like the Arctic tern navigate thousands of miles using environmental cues, including the stars and the Earth’s magnetic field.
Chickens can recognize faces, form social bonds, and have memory and problem-solving skills on par with many other birds and mammals. Cows demonstrate empathy and many other complex emotions and can also solve puzzles. Pigs can navigate mazes and exhibit emotions and intelligence equivalent to a 3-year-old child.
Regardless, is intelligence truly the measure of whether someone deserves to be protected from harm by others? Some cognitively impaired humans are less intelligent than many animals. Does that mean we can also use and kill them? Of course not. No individual should be required to justify their right to safety and protection from human harm based on their cognitive or physical abilities.
Whether human or non-human, each individual thinks and feels and has their own subjective experience of life, deserving the right to share this planet with us without being dominated by us. Unlike all forms of discrimination that focus on our differences, we must focus on what all species have in common — our will and desire to live and be free, and our capacity for pain, suffering, and joy.
If we would not tolerate discrimination and harm based on race, gender, or other differences, we must apply the same reasoning to speciesism and view it as equally unjust.
To embrace liberation, justice, and compassion for all Earthlings, live vegan—the principle that calls on humans to live without exploiting any other animals.
***********
Excellent book on the subject, for more in-depth study:
https://www.amazon.com/Speciesism-Joan-Dunayer/dp/0970647565
Ryce Pub., 2004 – 204 Pages
Defining speciesism as “a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect,” this brilliant work critiques speciesism both outside and within the animal rights movement. The author demonstrates that much of the moral philosophy, legal theory, and animal advocacy aimed at advancing nonhuman emancipation actually perpetuate speciesism. Speciesism examines philosophy, law, and activism in terms of three categories: “old speciesism,” “new speciesism,” and species equality.Old-speciesists limit rights to humans. Speciesism refutes their standard arguments against nonhuman rights. Current law is old-speciesist — legally, nonhumans have no rights. Dunayer shows that “animal laws” such as the Humane Slaughter Act afford nonhumans no meaningful protection. She also explains why welfarist campaigns are old-speciesist.
Instead of opposing the abuse or killing of nonhuman beings, such campaigns seek only to make abuse or killing less cruel; they propose alternative ways of violating nonhumans’ moral rights. Many organizations that consider themselves animal rights advocates engage in old-speciesist campaigns, which reinforce the property status of nonhumans rather than promoting their emancipation.New-speciesists espouse rights for only some nonhumans, those whose minds seem most like those of humans. In addition to devaluing most animals, new-speciesists give greater moral consideration and stronger basic rights to humans than they do to any nonhumans. They see animalkind as a hierarchy, with humans at the top.
Dunayer explains why she categorizes such theorists as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Steven Wise as new-speciesists.Nonspeciesists advocaterights for every sentient being. Speciesism makes the case that every creature with a nervous system should be regarded as sentient. The book provides compelling evidence of consciousness in animals often dismissed as insentient — such as fishes, insects, spiders, and snails. Dunayer argues that every sentient being should possess basic legal rights, including rights to life and liberty. Radically egalitarian, Speciesism envisions nonspeciesist thought, law, and action.
6. June 2025
The Italian Senate has officially passed Bill AS 1308, a significant legislative advancement aimed at reinforcing animal protection across the country. The bill, previously approved by the Chamber under the name AC 30, introduces comprehensive amendments to the criminal code, criminal procedure code, and related provisions to address and deter crimes against animals, including the brutal practice of dogfighting.
One of the key aspects of the new law is the redefinition of the criminal code’s Title IX bis, replacing the outdated concept of “Crimes against the human sentiment toward animals” with the clearer and more progressive “Crimes against animals.” This change reinforces the idea that animals are deserving of legal protection in their own right, as sentient beings, not merely as subjects whose suffering might offend human sensitivity.
The bill also significantly increases penalties for acts of cruelty, including the killing of animals without necessity, mistreatment, and violations of the ban on unauthorized animal fighting or competitions. In particular, sentences for organizing or participating in animal fights have been increased, aiming to better deter those involved in these violent and illegal activities.
Additionally, the law introduces harsher penalties for crimes committed in aggravating circumstances, such as in the presence of minors or against multiple animals, as well as for the dissemination of videos or images of such acts via digital platforms. This is a critical step in tackling the spread of animal cruelty content online.
“The final approval of AS 1308 represents another important step in the protection of animals in Italy. We’ve made further progress towards the full recognition of non-human animals as sentient beings and victims of crimes, finally overcoming the outdated concept of exclusively protecting the ‘human sentiment’ towards them. We are pleased with the increase in penalties for dogfighting, a criminal activity that we have been combating for years through the ‘Io non combatto project,’ and the expansion of penalties to anyone participating in dogfighting in any capacity,” said Alessandro Fazzi, institutional relations consultant for Humane World for Animals Italy.
“We hope that it will soon be possible to intervene to offer even greater protection for minors, and also to introduce specific social rehabilitation programs for all those who commit crimes against animals, starting with those who participate in dog fights,” continued Fazzi. “By combining these requests with what has been approved today, our country will be able to take truly significant steps toward a more advanced legal civilization.”
A notable provision also addresses the management and recovery of animals seized in criminal proceedings. Under the new legislation, these animals can now be permanently assigned to certified organizations that can provide care and rehabilitation, helping to ensure they are not left in limbo during often-lengthy legal processes. The bill further includes a nationwide ban on keeping dogs chained, a practice often linked to dogfighting, except in strictly defined health or safety circumstances.
“The recently approved bill marks a significant step forward for all those who dedicate themselves every day to the protection of animals. It is a strong signal that strengthens the recognition of animals as sentient beings, deserving of direct protection. It also represents a concrete evolution on an operational level, particularly for the management of animals who are victims of crimes, taken from criminal circuits, and placed under judicial seizure,” said Federica Faiella, president of Fondazione Cave Canem, “I’m especially thinking of the dogs involved in fighting: this law finally recognizes their right to be immediately placed on a path of psychological and physical recovery and, where possible, welcomed into a family setting. This avoids the paradox of animals saved from abuse who remain trapped in the judicial system for years, confined to detention facilities.”
Although some proposed amendments, such as dedicated funding for law enforcement training or the ban on the import and export of hunting trophies from endangered species, were not included in the final version, the bill nonetheless marks a decisive move forward. It modernizes Italy’s approach to animal welfare by aligning legal language and enforcement practices with contemporary views on animal rights and ethical treatment.
By recognizing animals as victims of crime and ensuring stronger legal and institutional tools to protect them, this bill lays the groundwork for more robust animal welfare policies in the future. It sends a clear message that cruelty against animals will be met with serious consequences and that animal protection is a core part of a civilized, humane society.
Some of you are perhaps planning their holiday …
https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1247849/jackals-shot-and-hung/
06.09.2024 • 08:57
Police have launched an inquiry after the public outcry sparked by a video posted on social media showing three dead jackals hanging in two different places in the region of Messinia in southern Greece.
According to a report on Skai TV, the jackals were shot and killed earlier in the week in the village of Xirochori in Mani by an unknown assailant or assailants.
One of the jackals was hung in the village square and two on signposts.
Another atrocity followed when a fox was also hanged in the area.
The incidents were the latest in a long string of reports of animal cruelty in different parts of the country.
In 2023 alone, there were more than 10,000 animal abuse complaints.
************
08.10.2024 • 22:25
Authorities in the central Athens district of Kypseli are stepping up efforts to catch a suspect responsible for the gruesome decapitation of stray cats.
Reports suggest the perpetrator is targeting stray felines and leaving their bodies in various locations, sometimes accompanied by ominous notes.
Residents are growing increasingly alarmed, fearing more attacks. Despite reviewing surveillance footage from the crime scenes, police have yet to uncover any significant leads, but they continue to actively investigate the case.
Since December 14, 2023, five similar incidents have been reported, indicating a possible pattern that points to a single individual behind these heinous acts.
************
https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1271570/man-arrested-for-killing-kitten/
03.06.2025 • 19:38
Police in Thessaloniki have arrested a 34-year-old man on suspicion of torturing and killing a kitten.
The incident came to light after a video surfaced online showing the man kicking a kitten – believed to have already been injured by traffic – onto the road before deliberately running it over with his car.
The Municipality of Kalamaria, where the alleged incident happened, issued a statement expressing its “anger and disgust,” saying the act “offends the culture of our city.”
************
https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1263161/thessaloniki-police-investigate-stray-cat-poisonings/
04.03.2025 • 10:39
Police in Thessaloniki are investigating the mass poisoning of 16 stray cats in the Agia Marina district.
A local woman had been taking care of the cats and had given them food, but an unknown individual then added poison to the food, Vasilis Diamantakis, deputy mayor for the environment, told AMNA news agency.
The remains of the poisoned cats have been sent for an autopsy while a sample of the poisoned food has also been kept for examination.
“The police are conducting the necessary checks to identify the perpetrator and are investigating the case through the cameras in the surrounding area. We want the person responsible to be identified and punished so that people understand that there are consequences for such heinous acts,” Diamantakis said.
AI may soon be able to decode whalespeak, among other forms of communication – but what nature has to say may not be a surprise
harles Darwin suggested that humans learned to speak by mimicking birdsong: our ancestors’ first words may have been a kind of interspecies exchange. Perhaps it won’t be long before we join the conversation once again.
The race to translate what animals are saying is heating up, with riches as well as a place in history at stake. The Jeremy Coller Foundation has promised $10m to whichever researchers can crack the code. This is a race fuelled by generative AI; large language models can sort through millions of recorded animal vocalisations to find their hidden grammars. Most projects focus on cetaceans because, like us, they learn through vocal imitation and, also like us, they communicate via complex arrangements of sound that appear to have structure and hierarchy.
…
https://www.ibanet.org/Legal-systems-increasingly-utilised-to-protect-animals
Joanne Harris – Monday 2 June 2025
In April, Michoacán became the sixth Mexican state to ban bullfighting, while the previous month, legislators in Mexico City approved legislation to reform the sport. These reforms will ban ‘traditional’ bullfighting, limiting the length of contests and preventing matadors from killing their animal opponents – making the sport ‘bloodless’. Meanwhile in 2024, the Colombian President signed a bill that calls on the country’s government to completely ban bullfights by 2027.
These developments are part of a number of recent legislative and legal efforts around the world aimed at enhancing animal welfare. In New Zealand, the government plans to outlaw greyhound racing – a result, it says, of the significant number of injuries and deaths suffered by the dogs. It intends to introduce legislation later this year. Meanwhile, a growing number of non-profit organisations are seeking to protect animal rights through the courts.
‘It’s unmistakeable that there’s a growing trend in favour of protecting animals through the legal system,’ says Christopher Berry, Executive Director of US-based organisation the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). His organisation is now 30 years old, but Berry believes the use of the law to enhance animal welfare has taken strides forward in recent years.
‘We’re currently in the midst of a global change in society’s relationship with animals,’ Berry says, highlighting how science is delving deeper into their intelligence, emotions and communication. There’s reportedly a boom in such research, with an ever-increasing range of species observed using tools or playing for fun.
Helen Mitcheson, a director at non-profit legal organisation Cet Law – which focuses on advocating for the protection of whales, porpoises and dolphins – agrees science has been one of the factors in the growing regulation of facilities that house captive cetaceans in recent years. However, ‘there’s not one driver or one-size-fits-all movement to stop captivity or change practices in captivity and in a lot of cases it’s not even a legal driver. It’s driven by legislative, political and social actions,’ Mitcheson says.
Looking back at the history of the anti-bullfighting movement in Mexico, Cecilia Stahlhut, Secretary of the IBA Healthcare and Life Sciences Committee, explains that the sport was suspended in Mexico City in 2022, but the ban was later overturned by the country’s Supreme Court in 2023. Since then, groups advocating both for and against bullfighting have been vocal on the subject.
The details of Mexico City’s reforms are still awaited. The city’s government has seven months to publish secondary regulations, detailing exactly how the changes will be brought about. ‘Most of the groups that support bullfights will wait until that moment to submit any claim against this amendment. That’s when the real legal fight will begin,’ says Stahlhut, who’s also a partner at Hogan Lovells in Mexico City.
While other states have already introduced regulations to prohibit bullfights – and also contests involving dogs – some are waiting to see how the situation in Mexico City develops, says Stahlhut. However, she adds that Mexico has strong regulations around animal protection. At the end of 2024, the Mexican Constitution was amended to explicitly protect animals from cruelty and to allow Congress to legislate in matters of their protection and welfare.
At a federal level, these amendments to the Constitution enhanced the protection of animals in the country, and Stahlhut says the Mexico City proposals on bullfighting would bring its state legislation in line with federal laws. ‘It’s just to be consistent with what the government at a state and federal level has been working on. You can’t criminalise certain acts against animals and not other ones,’ she says.
However, legislation protecting animals can lead to complex knock-on effects. In 2021, France banned whale and dolphin displays at aquariums – a move that has, according to park managers, directly led to the closure of facilities such as Marineland in Antibes, which shut its doors in January. Mitcheson says the park is still responsible for the care of the dolphins it had in captivity, and questions remain about where they should be sent.
Similar questions arise in the case of Happy the elephant, who has been in captivity in the Bronx Zoo since 1977. NhRP brought a case to the New York courts arguing that Happy was entitled to the right of habeas corpus – which would allow a challenge to the elephant’s detention. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the case in 2022, but two judges wrote dissenting opinions saying Happy did have a right to freedom – even if that involved merely moving to a more spacious sanctuary. Bronx Zoo operator the Wildlife Conservation Society maintains its elephants are well cared for.
Efforts to give animals legal rights are growing worldwide. In 2024, Polynesian Indigenous leaders signed the He Whakaputanga Moana – or Declaration for the Ocean – granting whales legal personhood. That move was followed by a pro bono initiative involving the UK’s Simmons & Simmons, marine law firm Ocean Vision Legal and the Pacific Whale Fund, to draft proposed legislation called ‘Te Mana o Te Tohorā’ (‘the enduring power of whales’), which would offer nations a pathway to adopt similar laws. ‘Legal personhood for environmental bodies is a real topic,’ says Mitcheson. ‘It’s very academic at the moment because the difficulty of it is implementation.’
Cultural barriers will probably also remain a challenge when it comes to implementing legislation protecting animals, and there are significant differences in the ways jurisdictions look at these issues – what may be permitted in one country could be banned in another.
But recent trends certainly show a move towards enhanced animal welfare protection through legislation, regulation and the courts. ‘There’s a lot of energy and there is a lot of progress being made,’ says Berry. ‘It’s incremental and it’s frustrating and there’s a lot of obstacles in our way, but I’m very positive about the way this is headed in the long term. How fast it spreads and how quickly remains to be seen, but the trend line is for more protection and higher legal status for animals.’
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250602-how-your-pets-alter-your-immune-system
Getty Images
Living with animals is thought to have profound effects on our immunity – potentially reducing the risk of allergies, eczema and even autoimmune conditions.
Since they first emigrated from Central Europe to North America in the 18th Century, the Amish have become known for their unique lifestyle. Today they are reliant on the same practices of dairy cattle farming and horse-borne transportation that were followed by their ancestors for centuries.
The Amish have gripped the imaginations of Hollywood scriptwriters, documentary makers and sociologists for decades. But in the past 10 years, their way of life has become of increasing interest to the medical world too, as they seem to defy one particularly concerning modern trend. While rates of immune-related conditions which begin in childhood, such as asthma, eczema and allergies, have soared since the 1960s, this has not been the case for the Amish.
The reason for this is revealing insights into how our immune systems operate – and the profound ways that the animals in our lives are affecting them.
To try and understand why the Amish have lower rates of certain immune conditions, a group of scientists spent time back in 2012 with an Amish community in the state of Indiana, and with another farming community known as the Hutterites, in South Dakota. In both cases, they took blood samples from 30 children and studied their immune systems in detail.
There are many similarities between the two groups. Like the Amish, the Hutterites also live off the land, have European ancestry, have minimal exposure to air pollution and follow a diet which is low in processed foods. However, their rates of asthma and childhood allergies are between four and six times higher than among the Amish.
One difference between the two communities is that while the Hutterites have fully embraced industrialised farming technologies, the Amish have not, meaning that from a young age, they live in close contact with animals and the plethora of microbes that they carry.
“If you look at an aerial drone photographs of Amish settlements, and compare them with Hutterite communities, the Amish are living on the farm with the animals, whereas the Hutterites live in little hamlets, and the farm could be a few miles away,” says Fergus Shanahan, professor emeritus of medicine at University College Cork, Ireland.
In 2016, a team of scientists from the US and Germany published a now-landmark study concluding that Amish children have a lower risk of allergies because of the way their environments shape their immune systems. In particular, the researchers found that the Amish children in their study had more finely tuned so-called regulatory T cells than those from Hutterite backgrounds. These cells help to dampen down unusual immune responses.
When the researchers scanned dust samples collected from the homes of Amish and Hutterite children for signs of bacteria, they found clear evidence that Amish children were being exposed to more microbes, likely from the animals that they lived among.
Around the world, other scientists have been making similar findings. A group of immunologists reported that children growing up on Alpine farms, where cows typically sleep in close proximity to their owners, seemed to be protected against asthma, hayfever and eczema. Other research has found that a child’s allergy risk at ages seven to nine seems to decrease proportionally with the number of pets which were present in the home in their early years of life, dubbed the “mini-farm effect”.
“It’s not a universal cure-all, and every time I give a lecture on this, someone goes, ‘Well I grew up on a farm and I’ve got allergies’, but we know that if you grow up physically interacting with farm animals, you have about a 50% reduction in your likelihood of developing asthma or allergies,” says Jack Gilbert, a professor at the University of California San Diego who was involved in the Amish study, and also cofounded the American Gut Project – a citizen science project studying how our lifestyles affect our microbiomes. “Even if you just grow up with a dog in your home, you have a 13-14% reduction in risk,” he says.
Since the Amish study was first published, the potentially protective effect of interacting with animals during childhood has been the subject of much fascination, with the New York Times even publishing an article asking whether pets are the new “probiotic”.
So what’s going on? Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the tactile nature of humans and our fondness for stroking and fondling our pets, when we live with animals, microbes from their fur and paws have been shown to end up on our skin – at least temporarily.
This has led to suggestions that the “microbiome” could be colonised by bugs from our pets. This is the collection of vast colonies of microbes that live on our skin, in our mouths and most notably in the gut, which hosts a significant concentration of our body’s immune cells. According to Nasia Safdar, an infectious disease professor at the University of Wisconsin in the US, this concept has attracted interest from the pet food industry. The idea would be to develop products marketed as promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria in cats and dogs, which might then be transferred to their owners, she says.
“That angle has been an attractive one for people to fund, because for most of us, it’s the human condition that we’re interested in,” says Safdar. “So what role can the animal play in that?” she asks.
Safdar says she is considering running a study which would involve collecting faecal samples from both pets and their human owners when they come for repeated veterinary appointments to see if their guts become more microbially similar with time. She also wants to see if she can identify similar bacterial species which could confer health benefits.
However, others feel that the idea of dog or cat or any other kind of non-human animal microbes being incorporated into our microbiomes is dubious. “There’s zero evidence of that whatsoever,” says Gilbert. “We don’t really find long-term accumulation of dog bacteria on our skin, in our mouth, or in our guts. They don’t really stick around.”
In response to this, Safdar says that she still feels the study is very much worthwhile, stating she feels it is plausible that gut microbes can be transferred from pets to their owners and vice versa. “It’s worth studying and hasn’t been closely looked at yet,” she says.
Gilbert believes that pets are playing a different, yet equally vital role. His theory is that because our distant ancestors domesticated various species, our immune systems have evolved to be stimulated by the microbes that they carry. These microbes do not reside with us permanently, but our immune cells recognise the familiar signals as they pass through, which then keeps the immune system developing in the right way.
“Over many millennia, the human immune system got used to seeing dog, horse and cow bacteria,” says Gilbert. “And so when it sees those things, it triggers beneficial immune development. It knows what to do,” he says.
Studies have also shown that humans who live in the same household as a pet end up with gut microbiomes which are more like each other, and Gilbert suggests that the animal is likely acting as a vehicle to help transfer human microbes between its owners. At the same time, regular exposure to the pet’s own microbes will also be stimulating their immune systems to stay more active and better manage the bacterial populations in their own gut and skin microbiomes, keeping pathogens out and stimulating the growth of useful bacteria.
This is all good news for animal lovers, with research continuing to suggest that living with pets across our life course can be good for our immune system.
After reading the study on the Amish and the Hutterites, Shanahan was inspired to conduct his own research on Irish travellers, a marginalised population who typically live in confined spaces amongst multiple animals – from dogs and cats to ferrets and horses.
Shanahan sequenced their gut microbiomes and compared them with Irish people living more modern lifestyles today, as well as microbiomes sequenced from indigenous populations in Fiji, Madagascar, Mongolia, Peru and Tanzania who still live a lifestyle akin to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. He discovered that the microbiome of Irish travellers was more similar to the indigenous groups. He said that their microbiome also bore similarities to that of humans from the pre-industrialised world, which other scientific groups have been able to study by collecting ancient faecal samples preserved in caves.
“The Irish travellers have retained an ancient microbiome,” says Shanahan. “It’s far more similar to what you see from tribes in Tanzania who still live like hunter-gatherers or the Mongolian horseman who live in yurts, close to their animals.”
Shanahan believes that this may explain the low rates of autoimmune diseases in Irish traveller populations: conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis and other diseases, which like asthma and allergies, have become increasingly common in recent decades.
“This isn’t to say that their health is good,” says Shanahan. “Irish travellers are dying much earlier than the settled community. But they’re dying from things like alcoholism, suicide and accidents, driven by poverty and marginalisation and their culture being eroded. But go to an Irish rheumatologist and ask if they’ve ever seen a traveller with systemic lupus [an autoimmune condition], they’ve never seen it.”
Now researchers are looking to see whether introducing animals back into our lives in various ways can be beneficial for our health across the life course. Researchers at the University of Arizona in the US have explored whether rehoming unwanted dogs with older adults could help to improve their physical and mental health by boosting their immune systems. And results from an Italian research group which created an educational farm where children from homes with no pets could regularly pet horses under supervision suggested that the children’s gut microbiomes started to produce more beneficial metabolites.
Gilbert says it’s plausible that this could be a means of improving childhood immunity. “If you’re exposed to more types of bacteria, you are going to stimulate your immune system in more variable ways, which may then improve its ability to manage the microbes on your skin and in your gut,” he says. “But you’re not being colonised by animal bacteria, that’s not happening.”
Researchers point out that having pets throughout your life can also facilitate more microbial interactions with your immune system in other ways. For example, having a dog makes you more likely to go for regular walks, notes Liam O’Mahoney, professor of immunology at APC Microbiome Ireland, a microbiome-dedicated research centre at University College Cork.
“If you have a pet, you get out and about in the environment and go for walks in the park,” says O’Mahoney. “And by doing that, you’re also being exposed to microbes from the park, the soil, everywhere which can all be useful.”
World Animals Voice 