Split (1)

train · 4k rows

category stringclasses 191 values	search_query stringclasses 434 values	search_type stringclasses 2 values	search_engine_input stringclasses 748 values	url stringlengths 22 468	title stringlengths 1 77	text_raw stringlengths 1.17k 459k	text_window stringlengths 545 2.63k	stance stringclasses 2 values
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/trophy-hunting-and-lion-conservation-a-question-of-governance/5C7B42A9594CB8F93E398D3589412D7E	Trophy hunting and lion conservation: a question of governance ...	Abstract Lion Panthera leo populations and distributions in Africa have contracted considerably in the past 30 years. Recent policy debates focus on restricting trophy hunting as a measure to address concerns about excessive offtakes of lions. We review the impact of trophy hunting in relation to lion conservation goals, using comparative case studies from Southern and East Africa, which together contain most of Africa's remaining lion populations. The comparison demonstrates that the impact of trophy hunting on lion populations is variable and shaped by the way trophy hunting is managed and wildlife is governed in different range states. In Tanzania, the most important lion range state, hunting produces significant revenues but weaknesses in how hunting is managed and revenues are distributed undermine the potential of hunting and encourage overharvesting. In Southern Africa linkages are stronger between revenue generated by trophy hunting and lion conservation outcomes on private and communal lands. Trophy hunting is most beneficial to lion conservation where revenues and user rights over wildlife are devolved, ensuring benefits from lion hunting compensate for their costs to local people, and where hunting is managed through long-term and competitively allocated concession systems. Policy interventions should focus on supporting trophy hunting as a conservation tool where it is effective and well-managed, and work to promote reform of hunting and wildlife governance elsewhere. Partly in response to these findings and partly because of opposition in principle to trophy hunting, various animal welfare groups have lobbied for restrictions on international trade in lion trophies. The first such proposal was tabled by Kenya in 2004 at the 13th Conference of the Parties (CoP) of CITES, in Bangkok, Thailand, to list lions on Appendix I (Nowell, Reference Nowell2004). This proposal was subsequently withdrawn but since that time debate over the appropriate role of trophy hunting in lion conservation has continued. In March 2011 a consortium of animal welfare organizations filed a petition to list lions under the US Endangered Species Act (Platt, Reference Platt2011). The European Union is also under pressure to prohibit imports of lion trophies (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012). If successful, such interventions could severely limit the movement of lion products or trophies across international borders and substantially curtail the commercial sport hunting of the species in Africa. The ongoing debate about lion conservation policies and trophy hunting, under CITES and other unilateral statutes such as the US Endangered Species Act, hinges on whether trophy hunting supports or impedes lion conservation. This question is complex: trophy hunting generates > USD 200 million in annual revenue from lions and other wildlife in African countries, providing potentially important economic incentives to conserve species and their habitats (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007). A range of international policy statements affirms the importance of consumptive forms of sustainable use to effective conservation practice, including the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidance on Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and successive statements from IUCN World Conservation Congresses. For example, the IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources, issued at the 2000 World Conservation Congress at Amman, Jordan, states that the ‘use of wild living resources, if sustainable, is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provide incentives for people to conserve them’ (IUCN, 2000). However, as these international conventions and accords widely recognize, hunting, if not managed in a sustainable manner with an appropriate suite of mechanisms that create incentives for sustainable use, may contribute to the declines of hunted species. To design appropriate policy measures at both national and international levels it is essential to understand the factors that enable hunting to support sustainable use and lion conservation in the long term while mitigating the negative impacts of hunting. This is particularly important as hunting occurs under a wide range of governance regimes, with consequently variable impacts and outcomes (Dickson et al., Reference Dickson, Hutton and Adams2009). To inform policy debates over lion hunting and conservation strategies we compare the relationship between trophy hunting and lion conservation in a number of the key lion range states, all in East and Southern Africa where the majority of Africa's lions occur (IUCN, 2006a). We examine the conditions and factors that influence how trophy hunting threatens or supports lion conservation objectives under various management frameworks, paying particular attention to policy and governance factors that shape the incentives created by trophy hunting. Methods Our review uses published, unpublished and web-based sources of information to construct overviews of the relationship between trophy hunting and lion conservation in a number of key lion range states and management contexts. We collected information on lion and wider wildlife population trends, trophy hunting revenues, hunting concession allocation and management systems, extent and location of hunting concessions, lion offtake levels and analyses of their sustainability, and general wildlife policy and governance issues in Namibia, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Kenya, where no trophy hunting of lions or other species takes place, is included as a control case study. This review complements other studies that have assessed the significance of African lions for the financial viability of trophy hunting and the maintenance of wild land (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012) and evaluated the scale and impact of lion hunting across the species' range (P.A. Lindsey et al., unpubl. data). Selection of country cases was determined primarily by the availability of data, particularly on hunting revenues, species offtakes, quotas and lion populations (e.g. Zambia is an important lion range state but there are limited data available on population trends and hunting offtakes regarding lions and other species). Tanzania hosts the second largest trophy hunting industry in Africa, generating c. USD 77 million annually (Booth, Reference Booth2010). Lions are particularly important to Tanzania's hunting industry because, unlike most countries in the region, lions are included in the quotas allocated for the majority of hunting concessions, revenues generated by lion hunting are particularly lucrative (valued at c. USD 70,000 per animal excluding government fees), and Tanzania allows hunting of relatively few elephants Loxodonta africana, another highly valued species (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012). Between 1996 and 2009 an average of 171 lion trophies were exported annually from Tanzania, more than the next two highest-exporting countries (Zambia and Zimbabwe) combined (Packer et al., Reference Packer, Kosmala, Cooley, Brink, Pintea and Garshelis2009). This excludes South Africa, which exported > 800 trophies from captive-bred lions in 2009, a facet of lion hunting unique to South Africa and that has little relevance to wild lion conservation (UNEP WCMC, 2011). Tanzania's Game Reserves, which cover c. 13% of the country's land area, are used primarily for trophy hunting. This is in contrast to National Parks, which cover c. 4.4% of the country and do not allow consumptive utilization of wildlife (URT, 2007). Trophy hunting also occurs outside state protected areas; c. 56% of the 300,000 km2 used for such hunting is outside protected areas, on or around community lands, particularly in the north and west (Baldus & Cauldwell, Reference Baldus and Cauldwell2004). Land used for trophy hunting comprises 34–50% of the range of lions in Tanzania (P.A. Lindsey et al., unpubl. data). Consequently, trophy hunting has potential to have substantial impact on lion conservation, depending on how it is managed (Packer et al., Reference Packer, Brink, Kissui, Maliti, Kushnir and Caro2011). However, trophy hunting in Tanzania has long been characterized by weaknesses in how wildlife utilization is governed and how revenues are distributed, leading to long-running debates over reform of the industry. These governance factors serve to undermine the development of a positive relationship between wildlife conservation and hunting revenues (Baldus & Cauldwell, Reference Baldus and Cauldwell2004; Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Nshala and Rodgers2007). Firstly, revenues from trophy hunting accrue to hunting operators and central government, largely bypassing the communities and landholders who live with and bear costs from wildlife (Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Baldus, Smith, Dickson, Hutton and Adams2009). Local communities are not directly involved in negotiations or authorization of hunting concession allocations on their village lands and no revenue is paid directly by hunting operators to communities except through mandatory, but poorly defined and inconsistently applied, contributions to local development projects. Recent changes to regulations governing Wildlife Management Areas give communities greater authority over trophy hunting in these areas; however, these changes have yet to be fully implemented and their impacts remain unclear. Such distribution of costs and benefits is particularly significant for the lion, which is a key conflict species because of its impacts on livestock and the threat to human life. Lions attacked at least 1,000 people in Tanzania during 1990–2007 (Kushnir et al., Reference Kushnir, Leitner, Ikanda and Packer2010). Where the people living with lions do not benefit financially from their presence the species is unlikely to be tolerated (Kissui, Reference Kissui2008). Secondly, Tanzania employs a closed tender system for allocating hunting areas, resulting in lower earnings than could be generated via public auction systems. This system allows discretionary allocation of valuable hunting concessions by government officials, creating conditions conducive to corruption and the use of hunting blocks for political patronage (Nelson & Agrawal, Reference Nelson and Agrawal2008; Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Baldus, Smith, Dickson, Hutton and Adams2009). Thirdly, the majority of government income from Tanzanian hunting blocks comes from trophy and licence fees, which has encouraged the establishment of unsustainably high quotas (Booth, Reference Booth2010). Furthermore, there has been a tendency for hunting blocks to be subdivided, resulting in substantially increased overall quotas over time (Hurt & Ravn, Reference Hurt, Ravn, Prins, Grootenhuis and Dolan2000). Operators are required to pay for 40% of quotas in advance, regardless of whether animals on the quota are actually hunted, further encouraging excessive and unselective harvests (P. A. Lindsey et al., unpubl. data). As a result of these factors lion quotas and offtakes are higher than the recommended maximum of 0.5–1.0 per 1,000 km2 in most Tanzanian hunting areas (Packer et al., Reference Packer, Brink, Kissui, Maliti, Kushnir and Caro2011). Lastly, Tanzanian hunting blocks are leased for periods of 5 years, which is shorter than lease lengths in most other countries, discouraging management for long-term sustainability (Hurt & Ravn, Reference Hurt, Ravn, Prins, Grootenhuis and Dolan2000). In the mid 1990s the government approved policy reforms to introduce a competitive bidding system for hunting concessions, which would have reduced corruption and devolved rights over wildlife management and benefits, including hunting revenues, to local communities (with respect to wildlife living on community lands outside core protected areas). However, these reforms were blocked by government officials following lobbying by national and international trophy hunting organizations (Baldus & Cauldwell, Reference Baldus and Cauldwell2004). Groups and individuals within government and industry have long benefited from the non-transparent and non-competitive system of hunting concession allocation that has kept down concession prices and allows concessions to be distributed via personal or political means (Nelson & Agrawal, Reference Nelson and Agrawal2008). The World Bank (2008) estimates that the market value of Tanzanian hunting concessions is USD 7 million greater than their actual administratively determined price. These excess rents become available to those companies that are allocated blocks and then sub-lease them at market rates, and to government officials who control the process (Nelson, Reference Nelson2009). Tanzanian investigative journalists have described a range of elected officials and other political elites who, through various proxies and relatives, have ownership stakes in numerous hunting companies and thus vested interests in concession allocation (This Day, 2008; cited in Nelson, Reference Nelson2009). As an example of how hunting revenues, local community incentives and conservation outcomes for lions interact, Tanzania's Maasai Steppe holds the country's fourth largest population of lions (Kissui, Reference Kissui2008). More than 80% of the Maasai Steppe lies within the boundaries of village lands managed by local pastoralist communities (Sachedina & Nelson, Reference Sachedina and Nelson2010). Human–lion conflict because of livestock predation is widespread, with Kissui (Reference Kissui2008) recording 85 lions killed in 12 villages during a 19-month period. The Maasai Steppe is the most important trophy hunting area in northern Tanzania, with more than a dozen concession areas. However, because hunting revenues flow to central government and private hunting companies, with limited benefit-sharing with resident communities living alongside wildlife, hunting does not provide incentives for local communities to protect wildlife habitat or tolerate species such as lions (Sachedina & Nelson, Reference Sachedina and Nelson2010). The Maasai Steppe is thus emblematic of the broader paradox of wildlife conservation in Tanzania: wildlife is highly valued and productive but the distribution of costs and benefits engendered by existing policy and governance arrangements results in local incentives that discourage conservation, particularly for a high-conflict species such as the lion. Wildlife in the Maasai Steppe, as in the majority of Tanzania's main wildlife areas, has declined significantly since the 1990s (Stoner et al., Reference Stoner, Caro, Mduma, Mlingwa, Sabuni, Borner and Schelten2007). Lions in particular have suffered; Kissui (Reference Kissui2009) reports that the Tarangire National Park lion population, a key stronghold for the species in the region, declined by 15–20% between 2003 and 2008. Southern Africa Southern Africa has a unique shared regional experience of adopting a number of important wildlife management and policy reforms that have led to wildlife recoveries across large areas of private and communal land (Child, Reference Bond, Child, de la Harpe, Jones, Barnes, Anderson and Child2004). Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (which have large commercial farming sectors on private land) all devolved user rights over wildlife to landholders in the 1960s and 1970s (Bond et al., Reference Bond, Child, de la Harpe, Jones, Barnes, Anderson and Child2004). Most countries in the region have also experimented with reforms that facilitate community-based natural resource management, with the aim to devolve significant control over wildlife use and benefits to people living alongside wildlife on communal lands, although only in Namibia has this devolutionary aspiration come close to being fully realized and implemented (Roe et al., Reference Roe, Nelson and Sandbrook2009; Nelson, Reference Nelson2010). These different long-term management strategies and wildlife governance experiments provide key insights into the relationship between trophy hunting and lion conservation. There are three scenarios under which trophy hunting is carried out, which reflect the region's three main land tenure categories: private ranches and conservancies, communal conservancies, and state protected areas. Private ranches and conservancies Large areas of privately owned rangelands, including former cattle farms where large predators such as lions were historically persecuted, have been converted to wildlife ranches (and mixed wildlife/cattle ranches in many cases) across Southern Africa: 205,000 km2 in South Africa, 27,000 km2 in Zimbabwe (prior to the land seizures initiated in 2000) and 288,000 km2 in Namibia (Lindsey et al., 2013). Earnings from trophy hunting have been a key driver of these restorative conservation efforts (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007). Such land conversion has driven a steep increase in some wildlife populations; for example, 1.8–2.8 million wild ungulates occur on freehold land in Namibia, which is 10–20 times the number occurring in the protected area network (Lindsey et al., 2013). The impacts on predator conservation are less clear (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Romañach, Davies-Mostert, Hayward and Somers2009a). Many commercial game ranchers perceive large carnivores as competitors and some persecute them accordingly (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, du Toit and Mills2005). However, in cases where landowners have pooled land to create collaboratively managed conservancies, land uses tend to shift to high-value trophy hunting and ecotourism where lions and other predators are considered valuable (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Romañach and Davies-Mostert2009b). In several such circumstances lion populations have been reintroduced or allowed to recover. For example, lions naturally recolonized and were also reintroduced to the Bubye Valley and Savé Valley Conservancies in Zimbabwe and now occur in significant numbers in both (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, du Toit, Pole, Romañach, Child, Suich and Spenceley2008). Similarly, > 500 wild lions have been reintroduced into private conservancies in South Africa for ecotourism and hunting purposes, adding considerably to the country's two naturally occurring lion populations (Slotow & Hunter, Reference Slotow, Hunter, Hayward and Somers2009). On private lands in Southern Africa the growth of wildlife-based land uses during the past 30–40 years stems from policy and legislative reforms that devolve user rights over wildlife to landowners, enabling them to benefit financially from recreational hunting (Bond et al., Reference Bond, Child, de la Harpe, Jones, Barnes, Anderson and Child2004). However, successful lion conservation appears to require an additional step, namely collaborative management agreements among neighbouring landowners that facilitate development of sufficiently large land units (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Romañach and Davies-Mostert2009b). Communal conservancies Wildlife-based land uses have also developed on communally owned lands in parts of Southern Africa, most notably in Namibia. Namibia has put in place policy and legal measures, starting in the mid 1990s, which devolve user rights over wildlife to local landholders. Communities in Namibia are able to establish ‘communal conservancies’ where local residents can legally hunt wildlife for their own consumption or sell a quota to a hunting operator, keeping 100% of the revenue (Jones & Weaver, Reference Jones, Weaver, Suich, Child and Spenceley2009). Trophy hunting has played a key role in the development of Namibian conservancies by providing an entry point for communities into wildlife-based land uses and acting as a catalyst for changing attitudes towards wildlife (Weaver & Petersen, Reference Weaver, Petersen, Baldus, Damm and Wollscheid2008). The number of conservancies in Namibia has increased rapidly, and there are now 71 covering 149,829 km2, or 18.2% of Namibia's land area (NACSO, 2010). Wildlife, including lions, in the conservancies has recovered dramatically (Jones & Weaver, Reference Jones, Weaver, Suich, Child and Spenceley2009). For example, the lion population in the Kunene region in north-west Namibia, where many communal conservancies are located, grew from only a few in 1999 to > 120 by 2009 (Stander, Reference Stander2010). Lions hunted on conservancies may generate > USD 60,000, much of which accrues to the conservancy members, who are rural, economically marginalized people with limited economic alternatives to wildlife and livestock. In 2008 trophy hunting generated a total of USD 1.3 million for Namibia's communal conservancies (Weaver & Petersen, Reference Weaver, Petersen, Baldus, Damm and Wollscheid2008). Key to the success of the Namibian communal land conservancies has been the allocation of clearly defined user-rights over wildlife, the integral involvement of communities in wildlife management decisions, and the fact that all earnings from wildlife on communal lands accrue to the communities rather than local or national governments (Jones & Weaver, Reference Jones, Weaver, Suich, Child and Spenceley2009). In cases where wildlife has been promoted as a land use on communal lands in Southern Africa without full devolution of user-rights over wildlife and where greater proportions of earnings accrue to local or national governments, conservation success has been less clear (Child, Reference Child, Suich, Child and Spenceley2009). In Zambia, for example, the Zambia Wildlife Authority retains 50% of daily rates and 80% of concession fees from trophy hunting in Game Management Areas situated on customary community lands, resulting in weak local incentives for conservation and the decline of wildlife populations (Simasiku et al., Reference Simasiku, Simwanza, Tembo, Bandyopadhyay and Pavy2008). State protected areas Most Mozambican wildlife areas were severely depleted during and after the many years of civil war and many were partially settled by communities. Because of their remoteness and low wildlife densities, many wildlife areas in Mozambique are currently unsuitable for ecotourism and trophy hunting represents the only commercial form of wildlife use that can generate significant revenue from wildlife. Many Mozambican trophy hunting operators are investing in their hunting blocks and running at a loss, on the assumption that profits will be forthcoming following recovery of wildlife populations (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012). Central to the prospect of success is investment in anti-poaching to protect wildlife resources. In one hunting concession area, for example, hunting operators removed 5,000 gin traps during 2002–2010 and have reintroduced lions (Lindsey & Bento, Reference Lindsey and Bento2010). Trophy hunting is the primary land use in the Niassa Reserve, one of Southern Africa's largest state protected areas (42,000 km2), and represents the core portion of the distribution of lions in Mozambique (Chardonnet et al., Reference Chardonnet, Mesochina, Renaud, Bento, Conjo and Fusari2009). Trophy hunting in Niassa generates USD 400,000 in annual income, some of which is retained for running of the reserve (Mozambique Ministry of Tourism, 2006). Hunting operators are granted exceptionally lengthy leases for their blocks (20–25 years), providing incentives for conservative long-term management and investment in their concessions. The Niassa lion population, estimated at c. 700–1,000, is one of the few in Africa believed to be growing (IUCN, 2006a). In Niassa lion conservation has additionally benefited from the development and implementation of a programme to restrict hunting to that of male lions of 6 years and older (Begg & Begg, Reference Begg and Begg2009). Kenya Kenya provides an illuminating contrast as all hunting has been banned there since 1977, making it the only country in Africa with a population of > 1,000 lions that does not allow any licensed trophy hunting. Despite the ban on trophy hunting, wildlife conservation efforts in Kenya have been notably unsuccessful. Numbers have declined by 60–70% since the 1970s in state protected areas and on communal lands (Norton-Griffiths, Reference Norton-Griffiths2007; Western et al., Reference Western, Russell and Cuthill2009). The underlying drivers of wildlife declines in Kenya are rapid human population growth, changes in land use, and disincentives to invest in wildlife as a form of land use (Norton-Griffiths, Reference Norton-Griffiths2007). Although ecotourism generates large amounts of revenue (tourism as a whole is worth > USD 1 billion annually) the vast majority of wildlife tourism occurs on only 5% of the land, limiting the distribution of revenues generated by wildlife (Norton-Griffiths, Reference Norton-Griffiths2007). Elsewhere, generating income from wildlife is largely precluded because ownership is retained by the state and all forms of consumptive utilization are prohibited. As a result, incentives for conservation are weak and wildlife-based land uses are generally unable to compete with alternative, less conservation-compatible alternatives (Norton-Griffiths, Reference Norton-Griffiths2007). Since the 1990s there have been recurrent attempts to reform current wildlife law and reintroduce hunting (Kabiri, Reference Kabiri and Nelson2010). However, at least in part because of the notable influence of western animal welfare organizations in Kenya, these reform efforts have been unsuccessful (Norton-Griffiths, Reference Norton-Griffiths2007). Lions in Kenya, although not subjected to any legal hunting, are rapidly declining because of conflicts with people and resultant killing through poisoning or other means, loss of habitat, and depletion of prey (Frank, Reference Frank2010). Kenya Wildlife Service officials have estimated that the country is losing 100 lions annually and that at this rates of offtake the lion could be extirpated from Kenya within 20 years (Barley, Reference Barley2009). Discussion Our review demonstrates that the relationship between the trophy hunting of lions and their conservation is complex and varies considerably amongst the countries in East and Southern Africa. Table 1 provides a summary of the role of trophy hunting in relation to lion population trends in the countries and different management contexts discussed. Table 1 Summary of comparative regional examples of the interaction between trophy hunting and lion population trends and their drivers across key lion range states in East and Southern Africa. Tanzania's trophy hunting industry is notable in that most revenue, whether on state or communal lands, accrues to the state and private operators, and the state remains responsible for concession allocation, with limited authority devolved to local landholders. These factors, combined with the lack of transparency and public oversight in hunting concession allocation, undermine the ability of trophy hunting to generate long-term incentives for local people to tolerate lions and the sustainable use of Tanzania's wildlife more generally (Baldus & Cauldwell, Reference Baldus and Cauldwell2004; Nelson & Agrawal, Reference Nelson and Agrawal2008; Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Baldus, Smith, Dickson, Hutton and Adams2009). From the perspective of lion conservation the priority in Tanzania is to develop measures that provide stronger linkages between trophy hunting and local communities living alongside lions. This requires reform of the governance of trophy hunting and wildlife use more generally, a need that is widely acknowledged (Baldus & Cauldwell, Reference Baldus and Cauldwell2004; Barnett & Patterson, Reference Barnett and Patterson2006) but that has been undermined by the constellation of private and public interests that benefit from existing arrangements (Nelson & Agrawal, Reference Nelson and Agrawal2008). Any efforts to promote lion conservation through international trade regulations, directed at trophy hunting or otherwise, should be logically oriented towards encouraging domestic wildlife governance reforms in Tanzania. Southern Africa, by contrast, provides broad evidence of positive interactions between lion conservation and trophy hunting, with the economic value of hunting having helped drive the recovery of wildlife, including lions, across large areas. During the last 20–30 years there have been significant recoveries in wildlife populations and ranges because of the development of wildlife-based land uses. Changes in legislation occurring in the 1960s and 1970s granted user rights over wildlife to private landowners, enabling them to generate income from this resource through trophy hunting and other forms of consumptive wildlife use (Bond et al., Reference Bond, Child, de la Harpe, Jones, Barnes, Anderson and Child2004). Similarly, devolved user rights and control over wildlife's economic value underpin the recovery of wildlife, including lions, in Namibia's communal conservancies. The ability of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation has thus been a function of governance institutions that grant landholders authority over wildlife use. The experience of Kenya serves to illustrate that prohibiting trophy hunting does not assure effective conservation of lions or other large mammals. Kenya is experiencing some of the steepest declines in wildlife numbers of any country in the region. Our review suggests that trophy hunting can provide conservation benefits for lions where well managed, or alternatively constitute a significant threat where governance of the industry is poor. Key criteria for effectively governed trophy hunting systems include clear, transparent and competitive systems for hunting concession allocation, long-term leases (> 10 years) for concessions to encourage long-term investments by operators, and the empowerment of local landholders to capture the bulk of revenues generated from hunting on private or communal lands (Table 2). The challenge for international conservation efforts is to encourage the forms of trophy hunting that benefit conservation, while promoting reforms to hunting and wildlife management in Tanzania and other key range states where hunting revenues do not provide effective or sufficient incentives for conservation measures. Sweeping measures that simply curtail trophy hunting without reference to specific national situations will probably have a negative impact on lion conservation in countries such as Namibia and parts of Mozambique and Zimbabwe, while failing to target some of the key causes of lion population declines elsewhere (e.g. exclusion of the people from economic benefits derived from wildlife; Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012). For international regulatory mechanisms such as CITES to play an effective role in promoting the conservation of species affected by trade, polarized ideological positions need to give way to a more scientific and context-specific approach to problem-solving. Using international trade regulatory regimes to promote the necessary domestic governance reforms to trophy hunting should be explored as a strategy to address current lion declines and range contractions and encourage more effective conservation policies and practices. Acknowledgements We are grateful for helpful comments made by Bill Adams and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this article. Biographical sketches Fred Nelson is Executive Director of Maliasili Initiatives, which supports natural resource conservation, sustainable development, and social justice in Africa by working with leading local organizations to build their capacity to foster collaborative and innovative incentive-based solutions to conservation challenges. His research interests focus on community-based natural resource management, political economy and governance issues. Peter Lindsey works throughout Southern Africa on wildlife-based land uses, the bushmeat trade and predator conservation. He is Policy Initiative Coordinator for Panthera's Lion Program. Guy Balme is the Director of Panthera's Lion Program and also heads the organization's efforts to address poorly regulated trophy hunting and legal control of leopards in Africa. In addition, he is an Honorary Research Associate at the University of Cape Town. References Baldus, R.D. & Cauldwell, A.E. (2004) Tourist hunting and its role in development of wildlife management areas in Tanzania. Game and Wildlife Science, 21, 519–614.Google Scholar Booth, V.R. (2010) The contribution of hunting tourism: How significant is this to national economies? In Contribution of Wildlife to National Economies. Joint publication of FAO and CIC, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar Chardonnet, P. (2002) Conservation of the African Lion: Contributions to a Status Survey. International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife, Paris, France.Google Scholar Weaver, L.C. & Petersen, T. (2008) Namibia communal area conservancies. In Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting: A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World (eds Baldus, R.D., Damm, G.R. & Wollscheid, K.). CIC Technical Series Publication No. 1. International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary.Google Scholar	Similarly, devolved user rights and control over wildlife's economic value underpin the recovery of wildlife, including lions, in Namibia's communal conservancies. The ability of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation has thus been a function of governance institutions that grant landholders authority over wildlife use. The experience of Kenya serves to illustrate that prohibiting trophy hunting does not assure effective conservation of lions or other large mammals. Kenya is experiencing some of the steepest declines in wildlife numbers of any country in the region. Our review suggests that trophy hunting can provide conservation benefits for lions where well managed, or alternatively constitute a significant threat where governance of the industry is poor. Key criteria for effectively governed trophy hunting systems include clear, transparent and competitive systems for hunting concession allocation, long-term leases (> 10 years) for concessions to encourage long-term investments by operators, and the empowerment of local landholders to capture the bulk of revenues generated from hunting on private or communal lands (Table 2). The challenge for international conservation efforts is to encourage the forms of trophy hunting that benefit conservation, while promoting reforms to hunting and wildlife management in Tanzania and other key range states where hunting revenues do not provide effective or sufficient incentives for conservation measures. Sweeping measures that simply curtail trophy hunting without reference to specific national situations will probably have a negative impact on lion conservation in countries such as Namibia and parts of Mozambique and Zimbabwe, while failing to target some of the key causes of lion population declines elsewhere (e.g. exclusion of the people from economic benefits derived from wildlife; Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012).	yes
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222849/	Issues and Opportunities Associated with Trophy Hunting and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Associated Data Abstract Simple Summary Trophy hunting and mass tourism were introduced to Khunjerab National Park, northern Pakistan to generate income for the community and help conserve and sustain the ecosystem in the region. These initiatives have provided economic benefits, but only at the cost of other environmental problems, as both trophy hunting and mass tourism have resulted in various ecological issues. Trophy hunting has not been based on scientific population data and has thus not helped increase numbers of wild ungulates or wild carnivores. Although mass tourism has increased enormously in this region, it has damaged the ecosystem through pollution generation and negatively impacted wildlife. We suggest that trophy hunting should be stopped, and mass tourism should be shifted to ecotourism as a sustainable solution to help improve the ecosystem, while generating income for the local community. Further studies are required to investigate ecotourism as a potential mitigation measure for the conservation issues in this region. Abstract Trophy hunting and mass tourism are the two major interventions designed to provide various socioeconomic and ecological benefits at the local and regional levels. However, these interventions have raised some serious concerns that need to be addressed. This study was conducted in Khunjerab National Park (KNP) with an aim to analyze comparatively the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of trophy hunting and mass tourism over the last three decades within the context of sustainability. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders and household interviews were conducted to collect data on trophy hunting and mass tourism, and on local attitudes towards these two interventions in and around KNP. The results revealed that 170 Ibex (Capra sibirica) and 12 Blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) were hunted in the study area over the past three decades, and trophy hunting was not based on a sustainable harvest level. Trophy hunting on average generated USD 16,272 annual revenue, which was invested in community development. However, trophy hunting has greatly changed the attitudes of local residents towards wildlife: a positive attitude towards the wild ungulates and strongly negative attitude towards wild carnivores. In addition, trophy hunting has reduced the availability of ungulate prey species for Snow leopards (Panthera uncia), and consequently, Snow leopards have increased their predation on domestic livestock. This has, in turn, increased human–snow leopard conflict, as negative attitudes towards carnivores result in retaliatory killing of Snow leopards. Furthermore, according to official record data, the number of tourists to KNP has increased tremendously by 10,437.8%, from 1382 in 1999 to 145,633 in 2018. Mass tourism on average generated USD 33,904 annually and provided opportunities for locals to earn high incomes, but it caused damages to the environment and ecosystem in KNP through pollution generation and negative impacts on wildlife. Considering the limited benefits and significant problems created by trophy hunting and mass tourism, we suggest trophy hunting should be stopped and mass tourism should be shifted to ecotourism in and around KNP. Ecotourism could mitigate human–Snow leopard conflicts and help conserve the fragile ecosystem, while generating enough revenue incentives for the community to protect biodiversity and compensate for livestock depredation losses to Snow leopards. Our results may have implications for management of trophy hunting and mass tourism in other similar regions that deserve further investigation. 1. Introduction Trophy hunting programs, if designed and implemented scientifically and appropriately, can provide various socioeconomic and ecological benefits at the regional and global levels. However, trophy hunting has emerged as a debatable and hot issue in the world due to its profound socioeconomic and ecological consequences [1,2,3]. The issues and opportunities associated with trophy hunting are varying in different geographical settings [4]. There have been many cases in which trophy hunting can generate income for the local community [5,6], conservation benefits in some countries [1,6], and financial support for re-introduction of wildlife in some regions [7]. In some cases, trophy hunting generates few benefits for the local community [8,9], and income generated by trophy hunting is not distributed appropriately to the community helping in conservation of trophy animals [10,11]. A common problem with trophy hunting is lack of monitoring of trophy wildlife populations [12], resulting in improper population estimates [13] and improper quota for trophy hunting [14,15]. There are other problems related to trophy hunting, including no appropriate permits [16], trophy size being not related to its price [17], and lack of restrictions on the age of trophy animals [12]. The consequences of trophy hunting include tilted population sex ratio due to selective harvesting of large males [18,19], changing population dynamics [20], decline of target trophy animal populations [21,22,23], loss of genetic diversity and genetic changes [24,25,26], and increasing human-wildlife conflicts [27,28]. All of these can ultimately result in the loss of wildlife species [29,30]. Like trophy hunting programs, mass tourism, if not managed and conducted appropriately, has profound negative ecological impacts, as it may destabilize the ecosystems and increase pollution [31,32]. Due to the associated negative environmental impacts including degradation of natural habitats and pollution, mass tourism is considered as an unsustainable activity [33,34,35]. In contrast to mass tourism, ecotourism programs could provide dual benefits, including biodiversity conservation and economic benefits for the community [36,37]. If designed and implemented wisely, ecotourism can serve as a source of funding for biodiversity conservation [38]. Strikingly, ecotourism is a non-consumptive activity and far more acceptable compared to trophy hunting [39]. Similarly, in areas that have tourism potential, e.g., scenic attractions with easy accessibility [40], trophy hunting may cause wildlife to flee or avoid human presence, thereby negatively affecting wildlife watching and ecotourism [41]. Khunjerab National Park (KNP) was notified in 1975 by the government of Pakistan with an area of 4455 km2 to protect Marco polo sheep (Ovis ammon polii) and Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in northern Pakistan. KNP is a combination of two different regions: one region is owned by communities represented by Khunjerab Village Organization (KVO) and named as KVO’s KNP; the other one is owned by Shimshal Community and named as Shimshal KNP [42,43]. The Shimshal’s KNP covers 3/4 of the national park area, but is not managed properly with almost no presence of the national park staff. There are no road accesses to Shimshal’s KNP and negligible tourism, and only limited adventurous trekkers visit there. On the other hand, KVO’s KNP is the managed part of the national park with officials being permanently employed for guarding and management inside this part. KVO’s KNP is only one fourth (1/4) of the total area of KNP, but almost all of the tourism in KNP is concentrated in this region [44]. Trophy hunting was introduced in 1993 into the Community Controlled Hunting Area (CCHA) that lies in the buffer zone of KNP [45] and is managed by KVO (so it is referred to as KVO’s CCHA). The aim was to increase the population sizes of prey ungulates including Ibex (Capra sibirica) and Blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) for Snow leopards, and to generate sustainable income for the community at the same time [46]. An entrance fee was imposed for tourists to KNP since 1999. There have been few studies on the issues and impacts of trophy hunting and mass tourism in KNP, though trophy hunting and mass tourism have been operated there for several decades. Therefore, the current study was conducted to: (1) analyze the trend of trophy hunting and mass tourism in KNP; (2) identify and explore impacts of trophy hunting and mass tourism on conservation and local communities; and (3) recommend potential solutions to address the issues concerned with trophy hunting and tourism in KNP. Our results may have implications for better management of trophy hunting and mass tourism in other similar regions. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area The study area with a total area of 2407 km2, consisting of two portions—KVO’s KNP inside the national park and KVO’s CCHA in the buffer zone of the national park, lies between 36°33′ N to 37°01′ N and 74°47′ E to 75°26′ E in Hunza District of northern Pakistan (Figure 1). The study area has an altitudinal range from 2439 to over 4880 m above sea level [43,47], and is bounded in the North and North-east by Xinjiang Province of China, in the east and south by Shimshal Valley and Shimshal CCHA. Misgar CCHA and Chipursan CCHA lie in the west [42]. Map showing the study area consisting of Khunjerab Village Organization’s (KVO’s) Khunjerab National Park (KNP) and KVO’s Community Controlled Hunting Area (CCHA). The study area is located on Pakistan’s northern border with China. The KVO’s KNP has traditionally been used by the community for grazing livestock with an area of 1168 km2, but it is now managed by the Parks and Wildlife Department (PWD) for its resources and mainly used for tourism to generate revenues. On the other hand, KVO’s CCHA with an area of 1239 km2 is managed by KVO for trophy hunting of Ibex and blue sheep. There are no natural or man-made barriers between the two portions of the study area to prevent wild animals from moving into either portion [43,48]. The annual precipitation in the study area ranges from 200 mm to 900 mm and is mostly received in winter in the form of snow. The average temperature is below 0 °C from October onward and rises to about 27 °C in May [49]. The key mammal species in KNP are Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), Blue sheep, Marco polo sheep, Snow leopard, Wolf (Canis lupus), Brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus), Lynx (Felis lynx), Tibetan red fox (Vulpes vulpes montana), Golden marmot (Marmota caudata aurea) and Cape hare (Lepus Capensis) [42]. KVO is a community-based organization of the seven villages in the buffer zone of KNP, and is responsible for conservation programs in the region, including trophy hunting. KVO receives 80% of the trophy hunting revenue and also 80% of the revenue from KNP’s entry fees [50]. 2.2. Data Collection Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to collect data on the aforementioned parameters. Particularly, we used Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and household interviews for data collection during 2018 with well-developed questionnaires. FGD is commonly used as a tool to collect scientific data from individuals or communities about a specific topic [51,52] and is also employed in conservation sciences. Furthermore, FGD is mostly used for evaluation of management interventions or policies which are already in place [53,54,55]. FGD tool was selected for this study for the following reasons. Firstly, it provides the different stakeholders (local community, National Park staff and KVO’s staff) an opportunity to discuss the conservation issues in a non-instructive manner. Secondly, FGD is flexible in allowing the discussion to progress gradually, thus prompting sharing of information and perspectives. Thirdly, FGD can dig out in-depth data about conservation issues. Finally, FGD can enrich the data obtained from household interviews and different records (including mass tourism and trophy hunting data) with additional information which is more representative of the ground situation. Thus, a total of four FGDs were conducted: one with KVO’s officials (including KVO’s President and all related staff); one with the national park officials (Park Ranger, watchers); and the remaining two with the community members that were conducted in the main villages of Morkhun and Sost centre (Table S1). For the community FGDs, a total of 13 community members were selected from the two main villages (particularly the elders and learned). The FGD with the KVO’s officials was conducted to assess their perception about trophy hunting and its emerging problems in KVO’s CCHA (Supplementary Materials). Besides, records of trophy hunting in the past three decades including number of wild ungulates hunted (Table S2 and Table S3) and revenue generated were obtained from KVO’s officials. FGD with the national park staff was conducted to assess their perceptions of tourism and its issues inside KVO’s KNP. Data on the status of tourism (e.g., number of visitors, tourism income, etc.) in the past 20 years in KVO’s KNP were provided by the national park staff (Table S4). While FGDs were conducted with community members to assess the community perceptions towards trophy hunting, wild ungulates and wild carnivores, the stories of retaliatory killing events of Snow leopards were also recorded. Data on changes in accessibility and tourism to KVO’s KNP and depredation of livestock were obtained by questionnaire surveys of 106 households. These households were randomly selected from all the 317 households in the seven villages in the buffer zone of KNP. 3. Results 3.1. Conservation Impact of Trophy Hunting The FGDs revealed the perceptions of local community members regarding trophy hunting. Trophy hunting has changed the perspective of the local community towards wildlife in an antagonistic way. 3.1.1. Perception about the Wild Trophy Ungulates All of the participants (100%) in the community FGDs agreed that the number of the trophy ungulates (both Ibex and Blue sheep) should increase in the area (Table 1). They viewed the economic benefits from trophy hunting as the main reason for the positive attitude in the community. Table 1 Demography and perceptions of the Focus Group Discussions participants 3.1.2. Perception about the Wild Carnivores in the Community A majority (69%) of the community participants had negative attitude towards Snow leopards. They wanted the number of Snow leopards to decrease. About 77% of the FGD members perceived Snow leopard as a pest in the trophy hunting area (Table 1). Similarly, the community showed a strongly negative attitude towards wolves, as shown by the FGD result that all of the community FGD participants (100%) would like the number of wolves to decrease. 3.1.3. Community Perception about the Impact of Trophy Hunting on Retaliatory Killing of Snow Leopards Human–Snow leopard conflict was prevailing in the study area. Snow leopards were killed due to their depredation on livestock, and more importantly due to their depredation on the wild trophy ungulates. The FGDs with the community revealed that 13 Snow leopards were reportedly killed in the study area from 2011 to 2018 (Table 2). Snow leopard killings were not reported outside this area, because local community members feared being punished by the government. Furthermore, all of the interviewed community members in the FGDs told us the retaliatory killings of Snow leopards would continue unless there was a comprehensive mechanism to compensate for the losses of livestock due to depredation by Snow leopards. Table 2 Snow leopards reportedly killed in and around KNP from 2011 to 2018. Month (Year) Description By Whom Exact Location Where Snow Leopard(s) Was Killed May or June 2011 One Snow leopard was killed in retaliation for mass killing of sheep and goats. Livestock herders Dhee Nala, Khunjerab National Park 2014 The hunters injured two Snow leopards. One died on spot, while the other died later. Illegal hunters Ghalapan, Khunjerab valley 2014 One Snow leopard was killed in retaliation Farmers Abgarch Khunjerab valley February 2014 One Snow leopard was killed inside a livestock corral Locals community Yarzghirch, Chipursan, near Khunjerab National Park March 2014 Two Snow leopards were killed inside livestock corral. The locals Kirman, Chipursan near Khunjerab National Park 23 June 2014 Four Snow leopards were killed by burning inside a cave. Petrol was used to make a flame and they were burned alive. Locals Boybur valley, Jamalabad, Khunjerab valley December 2014 One Snow leopard was killed in Khuda abad near Sost area. The illegal hunter carried that Snow leopard and asked some locals to help in stuffing the Snow leopard hide. Illegal hunter Khuda abad, Sost, Khunjerab valley 2016 One Snow leopard was killed in retaliation for killing the livestock in the valley 3.1.4. Opinions about Continuity of Trophy Hunting in the Future The FGDs with the community and the KVO officials revealed that all of the participants agreed that trophy hunting had generated economic benefits for the community as a whole. Interestingly, only the community participants elaborated that trophy hunting should be continued for the economic benefits to community in KVO’s CCHA, but all the KVO’s officials openly admitted that trophy hunting was not a conservation tool in KVO’s CCHA. One of the problems with trophy hunting in KVO’s CCHA was the lack of population census or survey of the trophy ungulates in recent years and the annual quotas for trophy hunting were estimated subjectively. Additionally, the required age of a single trophy ungulate should be about 12 years old, but most trophy animals were much younger than this. The population sizes of trophy ungulates were decreasing at a faster rate in recent years, so the trophy hunting program in KVO’s CCHA was unsustainable. Proper scientific surveys were required for determining the number of trophy animals to be harvested in a single year. Moreover, trophy hunting in KVO’s CCHA should be stopped at the earliest for the benefits of wild ungulates. Instead, some conservation-friendly alternative to trophy hunting was desired. (FGD with KVO’s Officials) 3.1.5. Livestock Holdings and Livestock Depredation The questionnaire survey of the 106 sampled households revealed that the community in the study area was dependent on livestock for their livelihood. Livestock population data showed that sheep (808) were the dominant type of livestock in the study area, followed by goats (677) and cows (305). Yak (154) was kept in small number in the study area. In the last year, 52 sheep, 47 goats, and 18 yaks were depredated. Cows were depredated less by comparison, with the least number (8) last year (Table 3). Table 3 Total number of livestock and number of livestock depredated in the study area last year. 3.2. Economic Returns of Trophy Hunting Program in KVO’s CCHA Trophy hunting of Ibex and Blue sheep were introduced into KVO’s CCHA in 1993 and 2004, respectively. A trophy hunting season in KVO’s CCHA starts in early October and ends in late March. A total of 170 Iibex were legally hunted as trophies in the past 26 years. The number of Ibex hunted per year remained only one in the first several years from 1993, but it generally increased since 2000 (Figure 2A). Twenty-nine Ibex were hunted in the hunting season of 2016–2017, while the number of Ibex hunted almost halved (14) in 2017–2018 (Figure 2A). Trophy hunting of Ibex in KVO’s CCHA from 1993 to 2018: (A) The number of Ibex hunted in KVO’s CCHA; (B) Annual revenue generated from trophy hunting of Ibex; and (C) Charges for trophy hunting of an Ibex for a Pakistani hunter and foreign hunter from 1993 to 2018. Trophy hunting of Ibex in CCHA had generated a total of US$326,963 since its inception in 1993 (Figure 2B). The proceeds were shared between KVO and the government with 75% of the proceeds going to KVO before 2000–2001 and 80% after 2000–2001. The total share from trophy hunting of Ibex for KVO was US$261,321, accounting for 79.92% of the total earnings. The charge for hunting a single Ibex was different for Pakistani and foreign hunters. Initially, the charge was much low for Pakistani hunters, but it generally increased since the 1990s (Figure 2C). The charge for hunting one Ibex by foreign hunters was higher than by Pakistani hunters in most years, except in 2007–2008, when the charges were the same. There was more variation in the charge for foreign hunters than for the Pakistani hunters across the entire study period. A total of 12 adult male Blue sheep were hunted since 2004, among which 10 males were hunted by foreign hunters. No single Blue sheep was hunted in eight years since 2004 (Figure 3A). The trophy hunting of Blue sheep in KVO’s CCHA: (A) The number of Blue sheep hunted per year from 2004–2018; (B) Charges for trophy hunting a Blue sheep for a Pakistani and foreign hunter from 2004–2018. Like the charge for trophy hunting of Ibex, the charges for trophy hunting Blue sheep were different for Pakistani hunters and foreign hunters in most of the years (Figure 3B). Pakistani hunters paid less (US$5000) than foreign hunters (US$8600) in 2014. The charge reached the highest (US$15,000) in 2007, but reduced to almost half in the following years. The decreased charge for trophy hunting of the endangered Blue sheep could be attributed to its lower charge in the nearby valley of Shimshal, where there were more Blue sheep than in KVO’s CCHA. The reduced charge for Blue sheep in Shimshal drove down the charge in KVO’s CCHA. Trophy hunting of Blue sheep had generated a gross revenue of US$96,100 in the past 14 years. KVO’s share was US$76,880 (80%), and the government share was US$19,220 (20%). 3.3. Mass Tourism and Its Economic Benefits KVO’s KNP has become a major tourist attraction in Pakistan in recent years. The number of tourists to KVO’s KNP has fluctuated widely, but has generally increased in recent years, generating economic benefits correspondingly (Figure 4a). Only 1382 people visited KVO’s KNP in 1999, while the number of tourists surged by 10,437.8% to 145,633 in 2018. There was a sharp decrease in the number of tourists (13,331) in 2002 due to the occupation of neighboring Afghanistan by US troops after the September 11 attacks in the United States of America in 2001. Similarly, in 2005, the Kashmir earthquake resulted in another decreased flow of tourists (14,102) to KVO’s KNP. The most significant decline in the number of tourists (4,644) took place in 2010 due to the Attaabad landslide (damming Hunza River) which resulted in a portion of the road being submerged by the Attaabad Lake. In recent years, the number of tourists to KVO’s KNP has increased by many folds, partially due to construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which has highlighted this important region (Figure 4b). Tourism in KVO’s KNP: (a) Tourist number and revenue in US$ from 1999 to 2018; (b) Revenue in Pakistani Rupees (PKR) from 1999–2018; (c) Entry fee for a single tourist to KVO’s KNP in US$; and (d) Entry fee (PKR per tourist) and exchange rate (PKR per 1 US Dollar). However, the many-fold increased number of tourists did not correspondingly increase revenue. More than half a million (678,075) tourists entered into KVO’s KNP in the past 19 years, but a revenue of only US$457,137 (US$365,710 for community share and US$91,427 for government share) was generated. Even in 2018 when the number of tourists to KVO’s KNP surged to a record-high (145,633), tourism revenue was only US$101,895 (Figure 4b). This was mainly because the admission charge to KVO’s KNP was low: less than US$1 for Pakistani tourists since the beginning (1999) and US$4 for foreign tourists between 1999 and 2011. The entry fee was PKR 20 (Pakistani Rupees) (on average equal to US$0.3) for domestic tourists, and US$4 per person for foreign tourists between 1999 and 2010. The entry fee was raised to PKR 40 (on average equal to US$0.4) between 2011 and 2016 and then to PKR 100 (on average equal to US$0.8) since 2017 for domestic tourists (Figure 4c). The entry fee for foreign tourists was raised to US$8 per person from 2011 onward. Despite the increased entry fees per foreign tourists, tourism revenue did not increase proportionally because most tourists were from Pakistan. 3.4. Comparison between Trophy Hunting and Mass Tourism The revenue from trophy hunting of Ibex and Blue sheep during the period (1993–2018) was calculated to be US$423,063, while that from mass tourism during the period (1999–2018) was US$457,137 in the study area. Although the entry fee to KVO’s KNP was imposed from 1999, tourism to KVO’s KNP generated a higher and more reliable revenue stream than trophy hunting (Figure 5). Trophy hunting returns were even zero in some years due to unavailability of trophy hunters or the absence of trophy animals in KVO’s CCHA, whereas tourism grew steadily and dramatically after 2010 (Figure 5). The number of tourists to KNP increased from 2017 to 2018, but tourism revenue (in US$) decreased in 2018 due to devaluation in the national currency against US dollar (Figure 4c). All of the national park staff participating in FGDs observed that mass tourism was increasing at a faster rate in recent years. As evidence, they pointed out tourists even visited the national park in the winter season in recent years. They revealed that a proposal was developed to open the Khunjerab Pass (connecting Pakistan and China) year-round for vehicles in the near future, whereas this high mountain pass was closed in winter due to heavy snowfall now. The opening of this trade corridor to winter traffic will be another boost to the tourism inside the national park. Meanwhile, they expressed their concerns over mass tourism because mass tourism might have caused some eco-environmental problems within the national park. An estimated 4 Ibex and some other animals were killed per year in collisions with vehicles inside KVO’s KNP due to the lack of protection/fence on both sides of the road. Mass tourism has also resulted in pollution inside KVO’s KNP, which could be observed along the main road. The solid wastes are impacting the serene environment inside KVO’s KNP, and wild animals at times consume these wastes. In addition, noise from traffic disturbs wildlife inside the park. (FGD with national park officials) The KVO organized seasonal campaigns with volunteers to clean the environment inside the park (only in Khunjerab top), but these efforts were not enough to control the pollution problem as the area was very large and the mass tourism was increasing exponentially inside the park on a yearly basis. 3.6. Impact of Infrastructure on Tourism Inside the Park The questionnaire survey (N = 106) showed that an overwhelming majority (97.2%) of the respondents believed accessibility to KVO’s KNP increased in the last 15 years, while only 2.8% of the respondents thought that accessibility did not increase. The increased accessibility to KVO’s KNP was mostly attributed to road construction and opening of the Attabad tunnels, while very few respondents believed that the improved security situation in the country contributed to the increased accessibility to KVO’s KNP (Figure 6). Respondents’ opinion on increasing accessibility to KVO’s KNP in the last 15 years. The perceived reasons were grouped together and shown in percentages (N = 106). 4. Discussion 4.1. Trophy Hunting: Its Impacts on Trophy Ungulates As currently practiced and as revealed by our study, trophy hunting does not seem to be a sustainable conservation tool for the ungulate species in our study area because it may cause a decrease in their population sizes. To sustainably hunt wildlife, a specific population census must be conducted with proper scientific methods. However, no such census has been carried out regularly in the study area for many years [46,56]. Appropriate monitoring of the trophy ungulate populations employing standard methodologies were previously proposed by studies in this area [50,57], but consecutive seasonal surveys are still lacking, which is a basic requirement of trophy hunting. Before 2006, proper population surveys involving the Wildlife department, local communities and NGOs were conducted (FGD with KVO’s Officials). The lack of regular population census of wild trophy ungulates has resulted in trophy hunting quotas that are based on guesstimates and often above the sustainable harvest level. Furthermore, most trophy hunters opt to hunt in KVO’s CCHA, possibly due to its easy access from the main Karakoram Highway and the perceived high conservation value of KNP [45]. Therefore, higher quotas (for the same year) have been set by the provincial wildlife department for Ibex trophy hunting in KVO’s CCHA, to meet the higher demand from the trophy hunters. This has caused trophy hunting of Ibex to exceed its annual quota in KVO’s CCHA. A former study estimated the average density of Ibex to be 0.276 km2 in different valleys inside the national park in 2016 [42]. We used this estimate as a baseline and extrapolated it to KVO’s CCHA with an area of 1239 km2 and outside of the national park. The very optimistic estimated population size of Ibex was 342 in KVO’s CCHA in 2016. In Pakistan, previous studies [57,58,59] have used a trophy hunting quota allocation of 1–2% of a target population of similar wild ungulates for sustainable harvesting. With our optimistic estimate of 342 individual Ibex in KVO’s CCHA, about 3–6 Ibex trophies (1–2% of the population size) could be harvested sustainably in 2016. However, the current study revealed that 29 Ibex trophies were harvested in the single year of 2016, which was more than 6 times above the sustainable harvest quotas. A previous study [45] revealed that Ibex trophy hunting in 2006 was above 83.3% of the allocated quota for that year, i.e., about 11 Ibex were hunted against the allocated quota of 6 Ibex in KVO’s CCHA, which was set without any scientific basis. Trophy hunting without scientifically based harvest quotas may cause the Ibex population to crash in long term [45]. The study area is the westernmost part of the global Blue sheep distribution [46]. Previous studies in Pakistan have proposed that trophy hunting in similar wild ungulates may not be permitted if the total population is below 100 individuals [57,58]. There were about only 70 Bblue sheep in KVO’s CCHA in 2006 [45], suggesting the population was too low for sustainable trophy hunting of even a single Blue sheep. However, our study revealed that one Blue sheep trophy was harvested in 2006 and another two in 2007. A recent survey observed a total population of 104 Blue sheep in KVO’s CCHA in 2014 [46], but two trophy Blue sheep were harvested in that year. This shows that trophy hunting of Blue sheep is not sustainable in this area. Additionally, as the pre-requisites for Markhor (Capra falconeri falconeri) trophy hunting in this region, two trophy size males could be harvested if the total population is 150 individuals and 8 trophy size males were observed in consecutive winter seasons [50]. Unfortunately, consecutive winter seasons surveys are not in practice to find harvest quota in the study region employing this criteria. The unsustainable trophy hunting of wild ungulates in an area may pose a threat to their survival in the long run [60]. This issue was also stressed by the KVO officials who considered that current trophy hunting in the KVO’s CCHA was not sustainable, and it was not helping in conservation of wild ungulates. Studies conducted previously have pointed out that proper scientific population censuses are rare [13,46,61]. Efforts must be undertaken to assess and monitor population trends at an appropriate time interval to determine if wildlife populations are declining on account of trophy hunting [46,62,63]. In contrast to our study, trophy hunting of Suleiman Markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and Afghan Urial (Ovis orientalis cycloceros) in the Balochistan province of Pakistan has been carried out sustainably since 1986. Trophy hunting in that region has been conducted on the basis of regular and scientific surveys of wild ungulate populations and has resulted in considerable economic benefits to the community and helped in the restoration of these wild ungulates [6,64]. 4.2. Trophy Hunting: Its Impacts on Carnivores Trophy hunting in the study region is only centered around trophy ungulates because economic value is attached to trophy ungulates only. Previous study has shown that trophy hunting has not helped in changing negative perception against wildlife in a positive way [63]. In our study, the local community’s perceptions about wolves were strongly negative, and all of the community members wanted to decrease or eliminate the wolf population. However, community’s perceptions about Snow leopards were less negative compared to wolves, possibly due to conservation programs or awareness-raising in the community about Snow leopards. A study in Mongolia found a similar situation, where the community had stronger negative perceptions on wolves than on Snow leopards [65]. Snow leopards are the apex predator, largely depending upon wild ungulates as their prey species. The majority of local community residents perceive Snow leopards as their enemy. Human-Snow-leopard conflict has increased with the introduction of trophy hunting. Studies have shown that, after the introduction of trophy hunting, local people have two reasons to kill Snow leopards: predation on trophy ungulates and depredation on livestock [27,66]. Our study reveals that Snow leopards are often viewed as a threat to not only the livestock, but also trophy hunting because they are perceived to deplete wild ungulates, which local people believe would otherwise generate more trophy hunting revenues. The depredation of livestock by Snow leopard is high in our study area with about 12% of the yak, 7% of the goats and 6% of the sheep being depredated in last year. The trophy hunting program has decreased the number of wild ungulates, compelling the carnivores to depredate the livestock in this area. Due to unavailability of natural prey, Snow leopards are depredating more on livestock [67]. Our study shows that on average more than one Snow leopard was reportedly killed per year in the study area. However, a previous study has concluded that many local people have a negative perception on Snow leopards, and even kill them without reporting to the authority due to fear of penalty from the government [68]. Thus, it is more likely that the number of Snow leopard killings is higher than the number currently reported. Trophy hunting may provide funds and incentives to protect wild ungulates in this region, but the benefits certainly do not extend to other wildlife species, even to rare carnivores like Snow leopards. Interestingly, trophy hunting has increased the perceived value of specific trophy animals [69], but the associated wild carnivores which prey on them are not valued [70]. Realistically, however, these carnivores also need to be conserved to ensure a continuing supply of ecosystem services and maintenance of ecosystem functions [71]. 4.3. Trophy Hunting: Its Economic Benefits and Future Trophy hunting in the KVO’s CCHA has generated a total revenue of US$423,063 from 1993 to 2018, which on average is equivalent to an annual revenue of US$16,271. The local community obtained on average 80% of the revenue, i.e., about US$13,000 per year. This seems to be a substantial income for the local community, given the exchange rate. However, the economic return from trophy hunting is expected to fluctuate and decrease due to the current unsustainable level of harvest of wild ungulates in KVO’s CCHA. There is a big difference in the charges for Pakistani and foreign hunters to hunt either Ibex or Blue sheep in the same year. Pakistani hunters usually pay astonishingly lower prices to trophy hunt an endangered animal (e.g., Ibex). Interestingly, about 28.8% of all the Ibex trophies in the last four years were hunted by Pakistani hunters in KVO’s CCHA, and these hunters paid less than US$2000 per animal on average. As such, even though more Ibex are hunted than in previous years, there has not been a corresponding increase in trophy hunting revenues. Trophy hunting has put a monetary value on ungulates species. The community has accepted trophy hunting due to the economic benefits it provides. Yet conflicted perceptions about the continuation of the trophy hunting were identified in the study area. Community members only wanted trophy hunting to be continued for its economic benefits. However, the KVO (although directly receiving the trophy hunting revenue) officials identified ecological problems caused by trophy hunting. They proposed that trophy hunting should be discontinued due to its negative ecological impacts. Trophy hunting resulted in monetizing wild trophy ungulates, but recent studies show less effect of population increase (especially the blue sheep), despite continuous trophy hunting for a few decades in these valleys. The total number of Blue sheep in KVO’s CCHA previously was 70 in 2006 [45] and 104 in 2014 [46] with no current estimates. Appropriate number of trophy size males in ungulates population is essential for successful trophy hunting programs and higher fecundity [46]. However, until now no study documented the exact number of trophy size males in the Blue sheep population in this area. The KVO officials revealed that the number of trophy size ungulates was decreasing at a faster rate in recent years. The ratio of female to young in the Blue sheep population was 1:0.5 in 2014 [46], representing a very low level of offspring and lower fecundity. Similarly, previous studies have shown that economic valuation and commodification of wildlife animals have created problems for conservation [72]. The issue with trophy hunting in many regions is that economic values in trophy hunting are asymmetric, i.e., wild trophy ungulates are economically valued, while wild carnivores are not valued, thereby resulting in conflict situations [73]. Instead, the Snow leopards are regarded as pests and killed in retaliation. Many studies have found out that giving monetary values to wildlife can result in conservation conflicts, whereas stressing the intrinsic values of wildlife helps in conservation [74,75]. Additionally, the monetization of biodiversity is not applied appropriately, thus not helping in conservation [76]. Some scholars have suggested it is our moral obligation to conserve wildlife, not just because of their monetary value [77,78]. Although trophy hunting could generate some income for the local community, the economic benefits cannot be the sole justification for trophy hunting to continue in the future [29,79]. Mass tourism in KVO’s KNP has increased by 10,437.8% and generated an average revenue of US$33,904 per year. The local community obtained on average 80% of the total revenue, i.e., on average about US$27123 per year. For the local community having a total population of 317 households, this is a considerable income that can be used to improve their livelihood. Besides, as perceived by the national park staff in this study, the revenue from tourism will increase further in the coming years due to the increasing number of tourists into this national park. Such perceptions are similar to studies in other regions [80,81,82]. Compared to trophy hunting, tourism provided a more reliable and sustainable stream of revenue because the income from trophy hunting (US$16,271/year) was highly variable, partly due to non-availability of trophy hunters or non-availability of trophy size animals. As a result, no revenue was generated by trophy hunting in some years. On the other hand, the revenue from tourism (US$33,904/year) was sustainable and increasing year to year in KVO’s KNP. The improved maintenance of highways, and construction of the Attabad Tunnels [83] and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through KVO’s KNP [84] have contributed to a tremendous increase in tourism, and this increasing trend is expected to continue in the future. Currently, the CPEC is helping to promote tourism in this region [85], and there is huge potential for mass tourism due to economic development, enhanced livelihood standards and improved infrastructure in the region. Previous studies have pointed out that tourism is generating the most sustainable flow of benefits to communities living with wildlife or near protected areas [86,87]. We thus believe that tourism will prevail in KVO’s KNP in the future and result in significantly increasing income for both KVO and the local communities. Rapid increase in tourism could provide a good source of income [88,89], but uncontrolled tourism would also degrade the local environment [88,90]. Mass tourism has considerable negative environmental impacts and threatens local biodiversity, and thus ultimately can degrade the ecosystem [91,92]. The emissions from the vehicles transporting tourists are responsible for degrading the air quality [93] and the solid waste pollution generated by the mass tourism could cause degradation to environment and wildlife habitats [94]. Previous studies have revealed that stakeholders perceived environmental problems arose from tourism in an area [95,96,97]. In addition to the environmental problems, mass tourism also results in social problems over resource use [91,98]. As revealed by our study, the current tourism is adversely impacting the environment inside the KVO’s KNP due to the pollution and degradation of the habitat. These environmental challenges need a sustainable solution [91]. KVO receives 80% of the income from the entry fees to KVO’s KNP. The current income from the park entry fees is low for the local community because of the low entry fee charged for each tourist. There is huge potential and room to increase the income from tourism for the local community. The current entry fee (less than 1 US$ for local and 8 US$ for foreigner) to KVO’s KNP is significantly low in comparison to similar national parks in nearby countries. For example, the entrance fee to Kanha Tiger Reserve in India is US$14.80 per domestic tourist and US$47.47 per foreign tourist [99], and the entrance fee to Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal is US$30 per foreign tourist [100]. A very small increase in the entrance fee to KVO’s KNP could greatly increase income for the KVO community, with potential positive impacts on the national park and the entire community. In addition, studies in China, the United States and Malaysia have found that increasing the entry fee to a national park will result in a decrease in the total number of tourists [101,102,103]. This would potentially protect the KNP biodiversity from the adverse effects of mass tourism in the long run, while generating even more income than current tourism. Ecotourism, in comparison to mass tourism, has more benefits [103] and could be a better option to balance conservation and local community development in the current context. Studies have shown that ecotourism is the best option for areas with wildlife availability and easy accessibility for tourists [40,80]. Previous studies have shown that ecotourism has dual benefits including environmental conservation and income generation for the community [104,105,106]. Eco-tourism could even replace trophy hunting as a sustainable revenue sources and a beneficial tool for conservation in this region [86] if we design and implement a better tourism plan. 5. Conclusions Trophy hunting and mass tourism are providing economic benefits to the community in the buffer zone of KNP. Analyzing the success of these programs based only on income generation tells an incomplete story. Currently, both trophy hunting and mass tourism are failing to support conservation of wildlife in and around KNP. Trophy hunting is not beneficial to the trophy prey ungulates or to the endangered Snow leopards, which are killed in retaliation for their predation on wild trophy ungulates and livestock. Mass tourism, meanwhile, has damaging environmental consequences. KVO’s KNP has become a major tourist attraction, which could provide an alternative source of income to the community from entry fees. However, mass tourism has environmental consequences that need to be mitigated, possibly by shifting to ecotourism. Tourism revenue in KVO’s KNP could be increased many folds by raising the entrance fee slightly. Raising the entrance fee to a proper level could provide higher revenue for the community, and meanwhile potentially deter mass tourism, which could help restore degraded areas in the park. Considering the limited benefits and significant problems created by trophy hunting and mass tourism, we suggest trophy hunting should be stopped in and around KNP. We conclude by recommending eco-tourism as a possible and sustainable alternative solution to address issues related to local community development and wildlife conservation, which deserves further investigation. Ecotourism could mitigate human–Snow leopard conflicts and help conserve the fragile ecosystem, while generating enough revenue incentives for the community to protect biodiversity and compensate for livestock depredation losses by Snow leopards. Ecotourism is considered to be economically viable, socially acceptable, ethically justifiable, and ecologically sustainable. Our results may have implications for management of trophy hunting programs and tourism in other similar regions. Future research can explore the possibility of ecotourism as an alternative to trophy hunting in easily accessible regions. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the support provided by CAPRIL (Center for Applied Policy Research in Livestock), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore (Pakistan). We also thank Chelsea Batavia and Muhammad khurshid for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article. Funding This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.: 31572281), China Scholarship Council (CSC No. 201639180003), and the Interdisciplinary Research Funds of Beijing Normal University. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. 8. Pasmans T., Hebinck P. Rural development and the role of game farming in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land Use Policy. 2017;64:440–450. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]	We suggest that trophy hunting should be stopped, and mass tourism should be shifted to ecotourism as a sustainable solution to help improve the ecosystem, while generating income for the local community. Further studies are required to investigate ecotourism as a potential mitigation measure for the conservation issues in this region. Abstract Trophy hunting and mass tourism are the two major interventions designed to provide various socioeconomic and ecological benefits at the local and regional levels. However, these interventions have raised some serious concerns that need to be addressed. This study was conducted in Khunjerab National Park (KNP) with an aim to analyze comparatively the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of trophy hunting and mass tourism over the last three decades within the context of sustainability. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders and household interviews were conducted to collect data on trophy hunting and mass tourism, and on local attitudes towards these two interventions in and around KNP. The results revealed that 170 Ibex (Capra sibirica) and 12 Blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) were hunted in the study area over the past three decades, and trophy hunting was not based on a sustainable harvest level. Trophy hunting on average generated USD 16,272 annual revenue, which was invested in community development. However, trophy hunting has greatly changed the attitudes of local residents towards wildlife: a positive attitude towards the wild ungulates and strongly negative attitude towards wild carnivores. In addition, trophy hunting has reduced the availability of ungulate prey species for Snow leopards (Panthera uncia), and consequently, Snow leopards have increased their predation on domestic livestock. This has, in turn, increased human–snow leopard conflict, as negative attitudes towards carnivores result in retaliatory killing of Snow leopards.	no
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2016/8763980/	Trophy Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Development in ...	Trophy Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Development in Zimbabwe: Issues, Options, and Implications Abstract Trophy hunting has potential to support conservation financing and contribute towards rural development. We conducted a systematic review of the Zimbabwean trophy hunting perspective spanning from pre-1890 to 2015, by examining the following: (1) evolution of legal instruments, administration, and governance of trophy hunting, (2) significance of trophy hunting in conservation financing and rural development, and (3) key challenges, emerging issues in trophy hunting industry, and future interventions. Our review shows that (i) there has been a constant evolution in the policies related to trophy hunting and conservation in Zimbabwe as driven by local and international needs; (ii) trophy hunting providing incentives for wildlife conservation (e.g., law enforcement and habitat protection) and rural communities’ development. Emerging issues that may affect trophy hunting include illegal hunting, inadequate monitoring systems, and hunting bans. We conclude that trophy hunting is still relevant in wildlife conservation and rural communities’ development especially in developing economies where conservation financing is inadequate due to fiscal constraints. We recommend the promotion of net conservation benefits for positive conservation efforts and use of wildlife conservation credits for the opportunity costs associated with reducing trophy hunting off-take levels and promoting nonconsumptive wildlife use options. 1. Introduction Paleontological evidence suggests that hunting has always been part of the human societies since time immemorial [1, 2]. Hunting is considered as among other few human activities that show a more sustained link across human civilization [3]. However, unregulated hunting led to the extinction of some wildlife species through what has been referred to as the global blitzkrieg (overkill) hypothesis [4, 5] whilst the African continent was to some extent spared from this unprecedented loss of species [6]. This was possible because African communities practiced indigenous hunting practices [7], using some form of customary regulatory framework supported through an indigenous conservation practices (e.g., totems and norms) to reduce species loss. The overwhelming exploitation of wildlife species through hunting activities in the 19th century prompted people to instigate the protection of the remaining wildlife populations through various conservation initiatives [8]. This evolution resulted in the establishment of protected areas in most countries and the subsequent institutionalisation of trophy hunting as a conservation tool supported by ecological theory and sustainable use principles [9–11]. Trophy hunting refers to hunting by paying tourists, typically with the objective of selecting individuals with exceptional phenotypic traits (e.g., large horns, tusks, body size, mane, or skull length) and usually in the company of a professional hunting guide [12]. Trophy hunting uses a quota system approach that promotes sustainable off-takes by removing a fraction of natural population growth rates, which arguably falls within the compensatory mortality range and has a negligible impact on overall ecology of wildlife species [13, 14]. The quota system used in trophy hunting is based on ecological theory, that is, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), set in such a way that off-take levels are always below the growth rate of the target species at any given time [11, 15, 16]. However, there are concerns that over time trophy hunting may lead to loss of species if not properly regulated [17]. Some researchers argue that, by its nature, trophy hunting is meant to remove only a few individuals, mostly those that have past their prime reproductive time and as such should not compromise the viability of wildlife species [18–20]. Trophy hunting may contribute immensely to wildlife conservation and rural development if proper institutional and governance structures are in place to uphold the founding principles [3]. Research has shown that trophy hunting is known to create incentives for the conservation of threatened and endangered species as well as their habitats [21–24] and is considered as a market-based intervention to conservation in most countries endowed with diverse wildlife resources [25, 26]. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers conservation to be largely characterized by sustainable utilization of resources for rural development under which the trophy hunting concept falls [27, 28]. Trophy hunting as a form of sustainable use is a strong economic instrument that not only incentivizes conservation but also contributes to rural development through integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in most tropical countries [6, 29, 30]. For example, in Zimbabwe, the trophy hunting industry grew rapidly upon its inception of in the 1980s in marginalized and vulnerable communities in Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) areas as well as protected areas [31–33]. Nonetheless, the trophy hunting industry took a massive slump after the year 2000 due to the land acquisition and reform programme which resulted in the loss of wildlife in most private land where trophy hunting was previously practiced [34]. The industry has somewhat recovered but is also being affected by the restrictive policies by the United States of America and some European countries limiting the importation of some trophy specimens by hunters [35]. There is however perpetual debate, polarisation, and lack of consensus among conservation nongovernmental organizations, some African governments, and animal rights and welfare groups over the acceptability and effectiveness of trophy hunting as a conservation tool [3, 12, 36]. Arguments brought forward against trophy hunting include the continual decline of key wildlife species due to illegal hunting [37, 38], land reforms [39, 40], and negative media framing of wildlife conservation and trophy hunting [41–43], as well as unethical and immoral practices [26, 44]. More so, there has been a rise in a globally polarised and emotive media discourse on animal welfare issues and the significance of trophy hunting following the illegal killing of “Cecil” a radio-collared lion (Panthera leo) by an American trophy hunting client in western Zimbabwe in 2015 [35, 45]. Similar responses from the international community occurred early 2015 in response to a legal hunt of a critically endangered male black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in Namibia triggering motions for the outright ban in trophy hunting throughout Africa [46]. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service sanctioned a temporal ban on the importation of trophy products of the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), a key trophy hunting species from Zimbabwe, as of 2014 into the United States of America (https://www.fws.gov) [48]. Similarly, some commercial airlines adopted policies that do not allow freight of trophy products from certain species making it even more difficult for potential tourist hunters to fulfil their quest for having trophies from Africa [46]. Such policies have reduced the attractiveness of Zimbabwe as a trophy hunting destination given that a substantial number of trophy hunting clients interested in big game are known to originate from the United States of America. However, other researchers argue these restrictive policies and proposed trophy hunting bans may exacerbate the loss of wildlife species in most African countries due to the growing human population and competing priorities particularly on land use options [35, 46]. In Zimbabwe, trophy hunting is believed to offer incentives for conservation and habitat protection and rural development through ICDPs, that is, CAMPFIRE [29]. Banning trophy hunting may result in the demise of wildlife species as there would be little incentives and motivation to protect and conserve wildlife species and their habitats [46, 49]. Given the polarity and emotive nature of trophy hunting issues in modern-day conservation, more research is needed to inform policy at local, regional, and international levels. Considering that most international policies are implemented by member countries, research on the sustainability of trophy hunting as a conservation tool would aid in adaptive management processes particularly in countries endowed with diverse wildlife resources that are financially constrained to protect and conserve the vast wildlife habitats. This study focuses on trophy hunting and conservation issues using Zimbabwe as a case study. We specifically explored the following: (1) evolution of policy and legal instruments governing trophy hunting, (2) trophy hunting administration and governance, (3) significance of trophy hunting in conservation financing and rural development, and (4) emerging issues in trophy hunting industry and future interventions. 2. Methods 2.1. Research Approach In this study, we adopted a holistic and historical perspective approach [41], to understand the linkages between trophy hunting, conservation, and rural development. A holistic approach enabled us to explore the issues emerging from trophy hunting as a conservation tool and how it contributes to community development and rural development. On the other hand, a historical perspective allowed us to explore the evolution of wildlife conservation and related institutional and policies frameworks that affect trophy hunting as a practice in Zimbabwe. Most scientific articles, reports, and written documents on trophy hunting issues in Zimbabwe are either old or outdated for a fluid and dynamic landscape of wildlife conservation. To fill this gap, we incorporated stakeholders and expert opinion on trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe to disentangle the policy and governance issues, emerging issues, and challenges related to trophy hunting locally, regionally and globally. For this, we adopted four forms of ecological knowledge as described by Fleischman and Briske [47], that is, Scientific Ecological Knowledge (SEC), Local Ecological Knowledge (LEC), Administrative/Bureaucratic Knowledge (BEK), and Professional Ecological Knowledge (PEK), to select respondents for experts’ opinion (Table 1). Table 1 The four forms of knowledge used for the key informant interviews. Adopted from Fleischman and Briske [47]. 2.2. Data Collection and Analysis We used a qualitative orientation approach [55] to conduct a meta-analysis of existing literature from peer-reviewed journal articles, books, edited book chapters, academic theses, and reports covering issues on wildlife conservation policy, trophy hunting, conservation financing, and rural development. We searched for materials from two main sources, namely, (1) internal and external reports from stakeholders (Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA)), CAMPFIRE, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), and technical reports, (2) peer-reviewed journal articles, books, edited book chapters, and academic theses from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. The following key words or phrases were used: “trophy hunting, sport hunting, tourist hunting”; “wildlife conservation policy”; “conservation financing”; “CAMPFIRE”; “conservation and rural development”; “trophy hunting bans”, and with a combination of “AND” between the key words to retrieve the relevant literature. From the articles gathered, we further mined for old articles discussing trophy hunting, wildlife conservation, and rural development. We ensured the search was fairly exhaustive though some studies may have fallen outside our search parameters, those that are published in lesser known volumes, or have not been cited in recent literature [56]. Only articles with abstracts containing at least two of the key words/phrases were selected. We later read documents to check if they discussed trophy hunting issues in relation to conservation and rural development. Accordingly, we reviewed a total of 350 articles including reports from which 153 were used in this paper. We conducted a meta-analysis using these publications and reports under the four themes: (1) evolution of legal instruments governing trophy hunting, (2) trophy hunting administration and governance, (3) significance of trophy hunting in conservation financing and rural development, and (4) emerging issues in trophy hunting industry and future interventions. For triangulation purposes and to augment literature sources, we conducted interviews with key informants across the four forms of ecological knowledge through snowball sampling. Through the snowball sampling technique, we were able to interview hard-to-reach subject experts on trophy hunting and wildlife conservation issues in Zimbabwe across the four forms of knowledge. In total, 20 interviews were conducted to gather empirical expert opinion on trophy hunting issues, threats, and future interventions between the period October 2015 and April 2016. The findings obtained here could be generalized to the regional context because the pool of data and experiences spilled beyond national boundaries. We also acquired data on (1) elephant population trends for the period 1989–2014 [41, 57] and (2) CAMPFIRE revenue data for the period 1989–2013 [41, 53] from published sources. We performed simple linear regression analyses using IBM SPSS 20 software package (IMB, New York, USA) to determine trends in elephant population in Zimbabwe between 1989 and 2014. 3. Results and Discussion Like most African countries, Zimbabwe’s conservation landscape has evolved following three main phases, that is, precolonial (before 1890), colonial (1890–1979), and postcolonial (1980 to date) [7, 58]. During the precolonial era, trophy hunting was nonexistent as hunting was mainly for subsistence and was controlled through traditional institutions with a collective access ideology [59–62]. Although meat constituted a significant part of local diets, with wildlife products being essential commodities, technological limitations and unsophisticated weapons ensured that indigenous hunter gatherers did not deplete existing wildlife populations [7]. Generally, the precolonial era was characterized by indigenous conservation laws, totemism and sacred realm, and collective access ideologies as governed by traditional institutions (Figure 1). The change in the political landscape through the colonial era transformed the collective access of indigenous communities into a highly restrictive and segregatory policy popularly known as fortress conservation [52, 63]. The fortress ideology resulted in the dispossession and displacement of indigenous people from their ancestral land and alienated them from the resources they were much dependent upon [64, 65]. The colonial era led to the development of nature conservation areas devoid of human pressure and settlement, with highly restricted access to resources [66, 67]. Using controlled hunting areas, the colonial-era conservation policy enforced the royal game principle that further alienated indigenous people from the wildlife resource [58, 68]. During this period, hunting was mainly the preserve of professional hunter-traders, adventurers, and explorers equipped with high precision rifles, for trade in trophies in Europe [7]. To some extent, there was some form of mass slaughter of animals by European settlers and hunters as they displayed a predatory attitude to African wildlife thus threatening the viability of these species due to overexploitation [69]. As a response to the depletion of the hitherto abundant wildlife species, there was the promulgation of the Game Law in 1896 aimed at regulating wildlife utilization through a license and permit system in order to reduce the growing export of game and prevention of commercialization of game [68, 70]. To augment the Game Law, the Game Preservation Ordinance “Number 6” was enacted in 1899. This ordinance had provisions to (1) specify and protect certain birds and animals, (2) stipulate times and seasons within which it was prohibited to kill, pursue, or shoot game without a license, and (3) classify some animals as royal game and restrict people from hunting or capturing them, for example, elephant (Loxodonta africana), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), and ostrich (Struthio camelus) [7, 68]. To further strengthen the philosophy of preservation of game and fish, the Game and Fish Act of 1929 was enacted. This act empowered governors to form game reserves and establish necessary management structures (game wardens and rangers) for the effective management of these reserves [7]. The alienation of local indigenous people resulted in more antagonism between the colonial settlers and the local people which resulted in more conflicts, environmental degradation, and habitat loss [71]. Owing to the need to conserve more land and wildlife species, further sanctuary areas were proclaimed and culminated in the present Parks and Wildlife Estate, from which the controlled hunting areas became safari areas [72]. Commercial wildlife utilization under a permit issued by government mainly for cropping animals for bush meat was made possible by the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1960 [58]. However, viability of cropping practices in game farms was low due to poor prices [73, 74]. Fortunately, in the mid-1960s, there was a boom in the international safari industry and the commercial activities of game ranches embraced safari hunting as the major form of wildlife exploitation [75, 76]. This led to the establishment of the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 that conferred privileges on owners and occupiers of land as custodians of wildlife and as such could utilize the resource freely. This act provided land holders with an economic incentive to reinforce the scientific, aesthetic, and moral justification for wildlife conservation [77, 78]. Postcolonial experienced rapid policy advances towards inclusiveness in natural resources management by ensuring that communities living with wildlife resources ought to benefit from managing such a resource. This resulted in amendments in 1982 on the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 to ensure that there were provisions ceding appropriate authority to Rural District Councils (RDCs) [79]. Appropriate Authority ensured that communities had de facto responsibility for wildlife, thus becoming beneficiaries of sound wildlife conservation and sustainable use through trophy hunting [51]. To date, trophy hunting activities in Zimbabwe are regulated through the revised Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14) of 1996, the Wildlife Policy of 1992, and the Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy of 2006 [52]. The Wildlife-Based Land Reform Policy included provisions that promoted the participation of indigenous Zimbabweans or local people in wildlife ranching or game farms as well as conservancies [80]. The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) is the administrative agency and plays a regulatory role for all hunting activities in Zimbabwe. The governance of trophy hunting activities through ZPWMA is stipulated in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe and mainly occurs in three different systems or categories [58], that is, concessions under (1) state land (Parks and Wildlife Estates, Forestry Estates), (2) communal land (i.e., CAMPFIRE), and (3) private land (conservancies, game ranches, or farms). For the efficiency and proper management and monitoring of hunting activities in Zimbabwe, four mechanisms are in place: (a) system of protected areas (mostly safari areas), (b) CAMPFIRE and its coordinating arm (CAMPFIRE Association), (c) a financial facility (the Wildlife Conservation Fund), and (d) an administrative agency, ZPWMA [81]. 3.3. Trophy Hunting Ethics and Policies in Zimbabwe There are a set of ethical considerations that trophy hunters ought to adhere to during their hunting expeditions in Zimbabwe. Hunters are encouraged to ensure that they engage the principles of fair chase by all means possible. Fair chase principle entails the following: (a) the pursuit of a free ranging animal that still possesses the natural behavioural inclination to escape from the hunter and is fully free to do so, (b) that hunters avoid using artificial light source or a motorized mode of transport in an area that does not, by human design, concentrate animals for a specific purpose or at a specific time through provisioning or attraction (i.e., waterholes, salt, and mineral licks), (c) that no female animals with dependents or young ones shall be hunted [82]. Moreover, trophy hunters are not allowed to shoot and kill an animal within 400 m of the park boundary [58]. Besides these, Canopy [83] outlines some of the hunters’ code of ethics as applied by ZPWMA: (1) do not shoot animals from a vehicle, aircraft, or boat, (2) avoid hunting animals at night and hunting “caged” or “canned” or captive bred animals, (3) avoid the use of spotting agents to locate animals, (4) avoid hunting animals in an inhumane way and leaving baits at the end of a hunt, (5) desist from luring animals with electronic calling devices, (6) avoid littering a hunting area, (7) desist from submitting falsified trophy measurements, (8) avoid mishandling and behaving irresponsibly with firearms, and (9) ensure hunters follow up on wounded animals. 3.4. Monitoring and Administration of Trophy Hunts in Zimbabwe ZPWMA has the mandate of governing and monitoring all trophy hunting activities in the three land categories, that is, safari areas, CAMPFIRE areas, and private areas to safe guard its integrity and curb underhand dealings. As an authority, ZPWMA ensures that (1) professional standards and ethics are maintained, (2) quotas are set using sound ecological and sustainable use principles as well as quota approval, (3) only set trophies meeting the minimum sizes are exported out of the country, (4) there is a centralized trophy hunting monitoring system, and (5) all trophy hunting activities remain within bounds of the provisions under international conventions such as Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [58]. For these roles and many others that do not fall under trophy hunting, ZPWMA spends a substantial amount of money and resources each year in order to achieve its overarching mandate of conserving wildlife in Zimbabwe. However, ZPWMA retains direct management control of hunting concessions in safari areas though much responsibility is shared with the safari operators. ZPWMA together with the safari operators helps in antipoaching activities and habitat protection of these conservation areas [84]. All the hunts are conducted in the presence of a professional hunter and trophy hunt monitor (i.e., a designated park ranger). Professional hunters are there to (a) supervise and oversee the hunting by the client, (b) ensure that hunting clients adhere to the laws and ethics regarding trophy hunting, and (c) record and keep a register of the hunting expedition of every hunting client [82]. Zimbabwe is able to maintain professional trophy hunting standards through a set of systems through ZPWMA, Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe (SOAZ), and Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guide Association (ZPHGA). ZPWMA in association with SOAZ and ZPHGA conducts practical and written examinations for Learner Professional Hunters and later certifies one for Professional Hunters License after undertaking a two-year apprenticeship with a reputable licensed professional hunter [58]. These institutional and administrative systems enable the country to have an efficient monitoring and administration system for adaptive management purposes by ZPWMA with various stakeholders. To achieve this, there are a set of trophy hunting data forms for use in monitoring all hunting activities occurring in Parks and Wildlife Estate, communal areas, and private areas. Some of the forms are a legal requirement especially when processing CITES export permits for the trophies by the hunting clients. This is important given that Zimbabwe is a CITES signatory, thus making it mandatory to monitor species which are under CITES quota system. As a regulator, ZPWMA determines and ensures compliance regarding trophy hunting fees as mandated by provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14) of 1996, and Statutory Instrument 362 of 1990 provides for the ZPWMA (Tariff of fees) by-laws, 2014, on hunting trophy fees in concession areas. However, there are some concerns that the ZPWMA seems to be failing to fulfil its mandate. These concerns emanate from the idea that, as a regulatory authority, ZPWMA was probably not supposed to also operate as a safari operator or concessionaire as same institution cannot be a player and a regulator at the same time. 3.5. Forms of Trophy Hunting in Zimbabwe Two main types of hunts occur in Zimbabwe; namely, (a) big game safaris can only be offered by operators who lease hunting concessions and are able to maintain elephant, lion, and buffalo populations and (b) plains game safaris are conducted by operators with concessions in ranches characterized by mixed wildlife and livestock farms that maintain good numbers of plains game. In each of these, hunting clients are able to choose their form of hunting as determined by the type of weapon during the hunt. The suitable and recommended firearms, the loads, and reloads vary with the target species as well as the hunting condition [85]. Although bow hunting used to be popular in Zimbabwe, this form of hunting has since declined as ZPWMA has strict requirements and is more expensive compared to rifle hunting. Nonetheless, bow hunting is considered as more environmentally friendly and quieter and causes less acoustic disturbance to wildlife than rifle hunting [86]. However, a new concept, darting safaris, that is being practiced in South Africa is yet to be practiced in Zimbabwe. Darting safaris are a form of hunting where the projectile (bullet or arrow) is replaced by a dart containing an immobilizing drug; thus the hunter would be able to take temporal possession of the immobilized animal [87]. This form of hunting is some form of green hunting and may go a long way in reducing loss of wildlife species as argued by many antihunting lobby groups [88]. However, darting safaris may somehow promote illegal harvesting by poaching syndicates through overdosing animals with immobilizing drugs as has been reported in rhinoceros poaching in South Africa [87]. 3.6. Trophy Hunting in Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Estate The Parks and Wildlife Estates support a network of safari areas where most of the hunting occurs in Zimbabwe covering approximately 18,500 km2. Most of these areas occur in remote and dry regions of the country (Figure 2). These areas are leased to either individual or several hunting concessions through five-year lease arrangements with ZPWMA [89]. ZPWMA generates revenue from trophy hunting through (1) trophy fees, (2) administrative fees (punching and stamping fees), and (3) fixed quotas (a predetermined, fixed number of animals expected to be harvested from a population per hunting season [90, 91]). Until recently, ZPWMA has been leasing all its concessions to private operators. As of 2012, ZPWMA has been conducting trophy hunting through its strategic business units for Matetsi Safari Area, concession units 2, 4, and 5 thus generating more income through trophy fees and daily rates from hunting clients. Daily rates refer to the combined fee charged to the trophy hunting clients by the concession holder meant to cater for the professional hunters own running costs such as leasing and maintaining concessions, running vehicles, and hunting lodges, as well as the profit margins [58, 81]. Figure 2 Map showing the key trophy hunting areas (safari areas, CAMPFIRE areas, and private conservancies) in relation to national parks in Zimbabwe. Source: data and information from the Surveyor General of Zimbabwe; WWF Programme Office in Harare, Cartography: V. K. Muposhi. 3.7. Trophy Hunting in CAMPFIRE Areas There are several trophy hunting areas in Zimbabwe occurring mostly in remote and marginalized areas of the country, that is, CAMPFIRE areas [78]. In CAMPFIRE areas, trophy hunting has been observed to contribute enormously to the revenue accrued to Rural District Councils (RDCs) with appropriate authority (Figure 3(a)). In these areas, trophy hunting has been observed to contribute approximately 89.5% of the total revenue generated compared to about 2.3% by ecotourism [92], making trophy hunting the most viable land use option in these areas [23]. Most CAMPFIRE areas have lease holders who service these concessions for five or more years depending on the agreements which vary from district to districts [51]. These areas have personnel responsible for law enforcement, problem animal control, and wildlife monitoring as well as trophy hunts monitoring. The occurrence of partially stable wildlife populations and availability of good trophy species in these CAMPFIRE areas influences the long-term sustainability of trophy hunting. The population of one key species in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe, African elephant, has been observed to have steadily increased and stabilized during the period 1989–2014 (Figure 3(b)). (a) (b) Figure 3 Long-term trends for (a) annual CAMPFIRE revenue for the period 1989–2013 and (b) elephant population as observed over the period 1989–2014 in Zimbabwe. Notes: there was no data for CAMPFIRE revenue for 2007 and 2008; data presented on elephant estimates were only for those years where national elephant aerial surveys were conducted. Data source: Gandiwa et al. [53], Gandiwa et al. [41], and http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/. On the contrary, there has been a decline in the elephant populations in other regions of Africa, for example, central, eastern, and western Africa mostly due to overharvesting through illegal hunting activities, habitat loss, and droughts [37, 93, 94]. However, more effort needs to be put towards law enforcement as there has been a challenge of illegal hunting activities in some parts of Zimbabwe which has triggered much despondence and negative media framing [84, 95, 96]. A concerted effort towards monitoring animal populations, illegal off-takes, and trophy quality is critical for the sustainability of trophy hunting [97–99]. This information would provide essential scientific information required for adaptive management in lobbying and rebranding trophy hunting activities in these areas for the good of conservation [3]. In Zimbabwe, the 2015–2020 Elephant Management Plan (Box 1) specifically prescribes trophy hunting to manage elephant populations in a sustainable way (http://conservationaction.co.za/resources/reports/zimbabwe-national-elephant-management-plan-2015-2020/). 3.8. Trophy Hunting in Private Areas Most private areas conducting trophy hunting in Zimbabwe are more specialized in plains game and have properties with high densities of wildlife species which attract trophy hunting clients [100]. In Zimbabwe, though there are several private conservation areas, the most prominent and key areas with high value trophy species include Bubiana Conservancy, Bubye River Conservancy, Chiredzi River Conservancy, Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve, and Save Valley Conservancy [101, 102] (Figure 2). These areas benefit from trophy hunting through the daily rates and other hidden costs. Nonetheless, there is very little information regarding returns from trophy hunting in these private areas though their combined contribution is almost 36% of the national trophy fees [81]. In some cases, the private areas also take advantage of trophy hunting and create side business such as bush meat sales [103] and biltong manufacturing [104, 105]. Considering the lack of studies on trophy hunting in Zimbabwe, it is difficult to ascertain the current state of private hunting areas after the land reform and distribution. Stakeholder consultations as well as other researchers show that there was loss of wildlife species through illegal hunting and habitat destruction; for example, more than 33% of Save Valley Conservancy was fragmented due to the land redistribution program [80, 106]. Other private conservation areas such as the Bubiana and Chiredzi River Valley conservancies were greatly affected, as these were almost totally fragmented and converted into small scale farms [107, 108]. 3.9. Significance of Trophy Hunting in Conservation Financing Wildlife conservation and protection of habitats is a costly undertaking as this land use option is constantly under threat due to the continued human population increase [109]. Trophy hunting has been for a long time considered an integral part of wildlife conservation and protection of habitats in Sub-Saharan Africa [1, 23]. Due to the economic challenges facing African countries, particularly Zimbabwe [84], financial resources that may be channelled towards wildlife conservation may be low and as such both consumptive and nonconsumptive forms of wildlife utilization (i.e., trophy hunting and ecotourism) are beneficial [19, 110, 111]. Accordingly, trophy hunting can be considered as one of the payments for ecosystem services (PES) towards its payments for wildlife management initiatives from the trophy hunting revenue [30]. Wildlife management involves a lot of activities particularly law enforcement, fire management, and water supply over and above population monitoring activities [112]. These activities are therefore costly to undertake considering the extent of the protected areas network in Zimbabwe and the expected manpower levels required. As of 2014, ZPWMA had about 913 effective patrol men against a desired 1130 patrol men [113]. As such, ZPWMA tends to operate below optimal field staff levels for law enforcement due to low staffing levels as constrained by financial resources [113]. The optimum patrol effort per single field ranger is supposed to be one ranger per 20–24 km2 [84] which requires approximately about US$300–2000/km2 per annum for effective conservation of a protected area depending on the level of threats or disturbances [114, 115]. To fund these operations requires large sums of money which may not be available through government support (i.e., through line ministry budgets from national funds) as is the case with some developing countries [116]. Trophy hunting is therefore a reliable source of revenue for park and protected area financing in most developing countries where little external support from donors and conservation agencies are supporting wildlife conservation. Given that ZPWMA is now an autonomous authority, most of the generated revenue is channelled towards wildlife management and habitat protection as government does not have control over the funds it generates from trophy hunting as well as ecotourism other than taxes and some tourism levies. Before the land reform, Zimbabwe used to generate approximately US$16 million annually from trophy hunting [110], from which a substantial amount of this was allocated for wildlife conservation and habitat protection. This figure has since declined due to the demise of some critical areas, that is, private game farms and conservancies that used to contribute annually and the current issues surrounding elephant and lion hunting from the international community. In communal lands (CAMPFIRE areas), a considerable proportion of the revenue generated through trophy hunting is reserved for wildlife conservation through law enforcement and problem animal control initiatives [51]. Annually, trophy hunting contributes approximately 90% of the total revenue in CAMPFIRE areas [53]. A total of US$39 million was generated by CAMPFIRE between 1994 and 2012, of which US$22 million was allocated to communities and used for resource management (22%), household benefits (26%), and community projects (52%) [53]. It has been observed that, in CAMPFIRE areas, trophy hunting does provide incentives for local communities to conserve wildlife species and their associated habitats particularly [111, 117]. Nonetheless, CAMPFIRE has also been affected by other factors that are more related to governance and devolution issues [118]. Despite the increase in poaching, unscrupulous hunting safari operators, continued human-wildlife conflicts, reduced flow of financial benefits to producer communities, and economic decline Zimbabwe has been experiencing after the year 2000, CAMPFIRE still remains a resilient programme that incentivizes wildlife conservation [119]. Arguably, without these incentives (i.e., loss of revenue through trophy banning), most of the wildlife habitats in these vast areas would be converted into other land use options (e.g., livestock rearing and land clearing for agriculture) and most of the wildlife illegally hunted as a survival strategy by the marginalized and vulnerable communities [31, 120, 121]. Based on the opinions from interviewed experts, five emerging issues that may affect the trophy hunting industry were identified and these were all commensurate with the literature reviewed. The identified critical emerging issues arising from wildlife conservation that may affect the sustainability of trophy hunting as a practice at national or local level include (1) continuous population decline of key species in their usual range [37, 122, 123], (2) illegal hunting [38, 84, 124], habitat loss, and fragmentation [40, 125], (3) human population growth and encroachment into wildlife habitats [126, 127], (4) redundant quota setting approaches, wildlife-based land reform policies [80, 106, 128, 129], and (5) poor conservation financing and reduced law enforcement capacity [84, 96]. In Zimbabwe, at local or national scale, these issues occur in three land tenure systems in various forms and magnitude and do cascade to regional and global scales (Figure 4). Figure 4 Representation of scales (national and local, regional and global) influencing trophy hunting as a conservation tool in Zimbabwe. Local scales are influenced by the three land tenure (i.e., state, community, and private land) systems in Zimbabwe. Existing feedbacks are indicated by arrows where solid dark arrows show strong influences (top down, global to local level) and broken lines show weak influences (bottom up, local to global level). Adapted from Giller et al. [54]. Illegal hunting through poisoning has been a serious challenge in Zimbabwe [38, 95] as it has resulted in loss of other species, for example, vultures [130, 131]. However, illegal hunting benefits accrue to only a few people whereas those for sport hunting are broad-based benefits that contribute towards local community development, conservation financing, and the national economy at large. On the other hand, hunting indirectly in the park triggers source and sink dynamics of trophy individuals between the park and hunting area and adverse effects on wildlife populations in protected areas [132]. Incidences where trophy hunting is thought to have been conducted along the boundaries of protected areas have been reported for lions and other carnivores in western Zimbabwe [133] and northern Zimbabwe [134]. We argue that there may be a lack of proper monitoring systems and implementation of some policies in Zimbabwe that prohibits trophy hunting within the stipulated 400 m of the park boundary. To address this challenge, there is need to (i) revisit the buffer zone concept surrounding protected areas and evaluate its applicability and usefulness in conservation efforts in line with the land redistribution policies and (ii) develop and implement more rigorous policies near boundaries and within buffer zones to reduce encroachment into protected areas. Though the quota system used in trophy hunting is based on ecological theory [16], there are some cases where the quota setting process does lack the scientific rigor due to absence of empirical data requisite for such important decision making processes [117]. Most of the experts viewed the quota setting process in Zimbabwe as overly relaying on opinions of stakeholders and not based on the monitoring data on population sizes thus compromising the sustainability of the process. Similarly there have been reports on the decline in trophy size of hunted species in some cases in Zimbabwe [97] as has also been the case with other regional countries, that is, South Africa [98, 99, 135], western Tanzania [136], and Zambia [137]. It is somehow believed that there seems to be a lack of implementation of age based harvesting strategies as required by the Zimbabwean policies on trophy hunting [58]. Nonetheless, we suggest that the use of the quota system may be problematic as has also been observed in global fish catch declines in aquatic ecosystems where the approach has been widely used [138]. Due to these challenges, we question the sustainability of quota system used for harvesting regimes used in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe. The fixed quota system is unfortunately believed to cause catastrophic overharvesting of wildlife species and can be a very risky harvesting strategy [90]. The quota setting process in Zimbabwe could be strengthened by ensuring that (1) reliable ecological data (e.g., animal population estimates) is used for all the decisions for allocating quota and not based on past experiences or other motivations, (2) decisions on quotas are based on the estimates of old or mature trophy individuals in a population instead of using the entire population estimate, and (3) the fixed quota policy is repealed and replaced with a flexible and sustainable approach that does not force safari operators to hunt nontrophy individuals as a way of satisfying the fixed quota requirements. At regional level, that is, Sub-Saharan Africa, the effectiveness of trophy hunting as a tool that enhances wildlife conservation incentives is hampered by the lack of adequate political, legal, and governance instruments [12, 110]. We consider the regional disparity in conservation policy related to hunting to be attributed to lack of sufficient scientific data in decision and support tools. In wildlife conservation, weak policy instruments, governance, and control systems may result in a decline in wildlife species due to despondence by local communities which triggers to some extent illegal activities [139]. On the other hand, global and regional issues that influence trophy hunting are mostly concerned about global politics, policy issues [140, 141], and illegal trade and trafficking of wildlife products [142–144]. Some key species especially elephant and lions are governed internationally through a quota system through CITES and tend to reduce impact on these species. However, over the years, international pressures to ban trophy hunting have been mounting to worrying levels [49] and have influenced policies of many countries, for example, Botswana, Kenya, United States of America, and Zambia. These policy changes are worrisome as they may compromise the suitability of wildlife conservation as a suitable land use option especially by local communities at local level. Recently, the media framing of trophy hunting has been negative and emotive following the killing of “Cecil” the lion in Zimbabwe [35]. Morality and ethical issues are also becoming more poised to influence trophy hunting as a practice given the hype and intensity of debates on social media platforms at global level [43, 145]. Several nonhunting pressure groups have since intensified the need to ban trophy hunting completely as it is viewed as unethical and a practice that may push key species to extinction if not stopped. However, such international pronouncements may seriously affect wildlife conservation at local level and may lead to wildlife declines through illegal hunting and habitat loss [49, 110]. 3.11. Options and Implications for Conservation Regionally, conservationists have modified a program that was meant to finance rhinoceros ear-notching, microchipping, and tissue collection to create a new concept that embraces the principle of trophy hunting, that is, darting safaris [87] branded as the “green bullet concept” [146]. There exist such opportunities for the trophy hunting industry in Zimbabwe particularly in well-developed private concessions. However, this concept requires strict policies and guidelines as it is prone to abuse by corrupt and unethical hunters as observed in South Africa [87]. Although darting safaris may be considered as an alternative to lethal trophy hunting practices for key wildlife species [146], the practice of repeated chemical immobilizers on the same animal by scrupulous “hunters” may result in long-term physiological impacts on the targeted species [147, 148], and as such its applicability needs to be assessed over time for sustainability. However, there is an opportunity cost associated with conserving wildlife and their habitats over other land use options (e.g., livestock production and farming) and suitable livelihoods forms. We propose the need for a regional and international wildlife conservation credit system similar to the carbon credit applied under climate change [149, 150]. The wildlife conservation credit could be considered as part of the payments for ecosystem services [30, 151], for those who decide to avoid trophy hunting and support nonconsumptive forms of wildlife utilization. Nonetheless, ecotourism on its own may not be enough to support the conservation as has been observed in some underperforming protected areas [116]. Currently, conservation financing in protected areas is done through revenue from ecotourism activities, trophy hunting as well as live sales of wildlife species. There is no financial support from government “treasury” as in other countries thus making ecotourism and trophy hunting the key sources of revenue for conservation in Zimbabwe. We however argue that, in cases where diversification of park financing options exists, conservation financing may not necessarily need to depend on revenue from trophy hunting. Examples of such diversification options may include public private partnerships (e.g., Umfurudzi Park, Pioneer Africa Corporation [152]) and international support from conservation societies (e.g., Gonarezhou National Park, Frankfurt Zoological Society [84]). Similarly, Di Minin et al. [110] suggest the use of net conservation benefits which involves (a) imposing mandatory levies on safari operators to generate funds that are further invested directly into the wildlife conservation trust funds for conservation and management and (b) use of eco-labelling and certification schemes adopted for trophies originating from areas that contribute to broader biodiversity conservation and respect animal welfare concerns. More holistic approaches that will promote wildlife and habitat conservation as well as empowering the local people in a sustainable manner ought to be sought for in order to promote biodiversity conservation. Here we present a conceptual framework showing the significance of trophy hunting to conservation and rural development as well as alternative forms of revenue generation through an alternative form and natural resources product diversification (Figure 5). Figure 5 Conceptual framework showing the significance of trophy hunting to conservation and rural development as well as alternative forms of revenue generation through natural resources product diversification. Notes: UP denotes Umfurudzi Safari Area, MT: Malilangwe Trust, and BC: Bubiana Conservancy, in Zimbabwe. There is need to strengthen the biological sustainability and adaptive management involving planning, monitoring, and reporting of trophy hunting related information in private, community, and state land. In light of this view, there is need for mandatory (1) capacity building and population viability analysis to ensure that trophy hunting off-takes will not affect population growth of target species, (2) detailed population management plans submitted to the management authority before extension of permits, and (3) scientific biosampling of hunted animals, for molecular genetics, teeth for age analysis, full morphometrics, and disease screening [46]. Some of the emerging local issues could be addressed by ensuring that accountable and efficient governance systems are enacted and implemented as well as introducing the independent certification of hunting operators [12, 153]. Accountability from stakeholders would entail (a) full disclosure to the public of all data collected and levied amounts (i.e., trophy fees, daily rates), although personal details of proponents may be held by government legislators, (b) constituting independent observers or monitors, placed randomly and without forewarning on safari hunts as they occur, and (c) imposing stiffer penalties (including withdrawal of operator’s license) on perpetrators found engaging in unethical hunting activities and illegal practices [110]. 4. Conclusion In this paper, we explored the Zimbabwean perspective of trophy hunting by examining the following: (1) evolution of trophy hunting and related policies, (2) trophy hunting administration and governance, (3) significance of trophy hunting in conservation financing, and (4) emerging challenges in trophy hunting industry and future interventions for Zimbabwe. We found that the policies related to trophy hunting and conservation in Zimbabwe constantly evolved in response to local and international needs. Similarly, the governance of trophy hunting has also evolved with time due to local, regional, and international pressure though there is still need to strengthen associated institutional frameworks to retain the integrity of the industry and its sustainability. There is convincing evidence that trophy hunting plays a crucial role in creating incentives for conservation for especially rural communities sharing space with wildlife as well as financing wildlife conservation activities ranging from law enforcement and habitat protection for community, private, and state run conservation areas in Zimbabwe. We found that trophy hunting in Zimbabwe seems to be affected by weak administrative and governance systems and lack of capacity and financing for planning, monitoring, and reporting for adaptive management. We conclude that trophy hunting still plays an important role in wildlife conservation in developing economies where conservation financing is limited due to fiscal constraints. As such, we recommend (i) adapting some innovative measures in harvesting strategies aimed at maintaining viable wildlife populations (i.e., adoption of adaptive harvesting management strategies), (ii) rebranding of trophy hunting image and portrayal to reflect its contribution to conservation and rural community development, (iii) the need to promote net conservation benefits for positive conservation efforts, and (iv) promoting the use of wildlife conservation credits for the opportunity costs associated with reducing off-take levels through trophy hunting. Competing Interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. Acknowledgments This work was supported by Chinhoyi University of Technology, Grant no. PG4122. The authors are grateful to Mr. Clive Stockil, Dr. Bruce Clegg, Mr. Charles Jonga, Mr. George Pangeti, Dr. Hillary Madzikanda, Mr. T. Gotosa, Mr. Tinaapi H. Madiri, Mr. Exeverino Chinoitezvi, and Mr. Jan Stander for the insightful discussions. They extend their thanks to Mellinda Rushinga, Admire Chanyandura, and Augustine Jeke for their help in data collection. They are also grateful to Chido Meda for the assistance in manuscript preparation. G. R. Damm, “Recreational trophy hunting: ‘what do we know and what should we do?’,” in Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting—A Guide to Best Practices from around the World, R. D. Baldus, G. R. Damm, and K. Wollscheid, Eds., pp. 5–11, International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, 2008. A. Chigwenya and D. Manatsa, “The history of natural resource management in Zimbabwe: a chronicle of how sustainable resource management has remained an elusive concept,” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 102–115, 2007. Canopy, Code of ethics to be observed by professional hunters in Zimbabwe, In: Canopy, Issue no. 2, The house Journal of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2001. R. D. Baldus, “Wildlife: can pay its way or must be subsidized?” in Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting-A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World, R. D. Baldus, G. R. Damm, and K. Wollscheid, Eds., pp. 12–16, International Council for Game & Wildlife Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary, 2008. P. A. Lindsey, “Trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa: economic scale and conservation significance,” in Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting-A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World, R. D. Baldus, G. R. Damm, and K. Wollscheid, Eds., pp. 41–47, International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary, 2008. R. Baldus and A. E. Cauldwell, “Tourist hunting and it's role in development of wildlife management areas in Tanzania,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Game Ranching Symposium, Paris, France, July 2004.	5, 16]. However, there are concerns that over time trophy hunting may lead to loss of species if not properly regulated [17]. Some researchers argue that, by its nature, trophy hunting is meant to remove only a few individuals, mostly those that have past their prime reproductive time and as such should not compromise the viability of wildlife species [18–20]. Trophy hunting may contribute immensely to wildlife conservation and rural development if proper institutional and governance structures are in place to uphold the founding principles [3]. Research has shown that trophy hunting is known to create incentives for the conservation of threatened and endangered species as well as their habitats [21–24] and is considered as a market-based intervention to conservation in most countries endowed with diverse wildlife resources [25, 26]. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers conservation to be largely characterized by sustainable utilization of resources for rural development under which the trophy hunting concept falls [27, 28]. Trophy hunting as a form of sustainable use is a strong economic instrument that not only incentivizes conservation but also contributes to rural development through integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in most tropical countries [6, 29, 30]. For example, in Zimbabwe, the trophy hunting industry grew rapidly upon its inception of in the 1980s in marginalized and vulnerable communities in Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) areas as well as protected areas [31–33]. Nonetheless, the trophy hunting industry took a massive slump after the year 2000 due to the land acquisition and reform programme which resulted in the loss of wildlife in most private land where trophy hunting was previously practiced [34]. The industry has somewhat recovered but is also being affected by the restrictive policies by the United States of America and some European countries limiting the importation of some trophy specimens by hunters [35].	yes
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://africageographic.com/stories/trophy-hunting-in-the-context-of-community-conservation/	Trophy hunting in the context of community conservation - Africa ...	Trophy hunting in the context of community conservation Trophy hunting is often the subject of heated debates. The hunting of predators is a particularly sensitive topic, often described as a cruel, needless practice that has no conservation value for the species concerned. Trophy hunters, on the other hand, claim that hunting predators is an essential part of conservation outside of national parks. Here then, is an example of how trophy hunting can be of benefit to conservation if formulated properly and managed strictly. The notes in this blog post refer to a particular area in Namibia (Kunene) and do not speak to trophy hunting operations elsewhere. As with most hotly contested issues, trophy hunting is more complex than it first appears. Typically, two main questions regarding trophy hunting arise: 1) is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation? 2) Is it providing substantial benefits for local people? I believe that the Namibian government has a good trophy hunting system in place, which keeps corruption to a minimum and provides direct benefits to local people. I therefore use the Namibian system as an example of how trophy hunting can benefit conservation and local communities in Africa. There are two distinct types of farmland in Namibia – communal and commercial farms. In the commercial farming areas, land is parceled up into privately owned farms that may be used for livestock, game farming, hunting or ecotourism. In the communal areas, the land is owned by the state, but inhabited by people who farm with cattle, sheep and goats. Although trophy hunting on commercial farms in Namibia is worthy of consideration as part of the hunting debate, I will focus here on communal farmlands. Although Namibia is currently hailed as an outstanding example of conservation in Africa, this was not always the case. In the 1980s, illegal hunting by foreigners and locals was rife in the communal lands now known as the Kunene and Caprivi/Zambezi regions. Poaching was rife, and the very idea of conservation was met with hostility, as it was seen as yet another means of oppression by the apartheid government. This situation changed with new legislation by the independent Namibian government in 1996. The essence of this legislation was to give Namibians living in communal areas rights to utilise their wildlife sustainably and to benefit directly from ecotourism in their regions. The main prerequisite for these rights was that the people formed local institutions to manage and conserve wildlife within self-defined areas; these institutions are known as conservancies. Democratically elected committees run the conservancies to manage the wildlife and money from wildlife-related activities within their boundaries. Through their conservancies, local people can now charge trophy hunters and ecotourism operators for using the peoples’ natural resources. Today, community conservation in Namibia can be compared to a three-legged pot (or ‘potjie’), which has three supporting ‘legs’. These legs are local ownership, ecotourism and sustainable use. Local ownership of wildlife is the most important of these legs, providing the foundation for the other two legs. Ecotourism and sustainable use (including, but not limited to, trophy hunting) are the two main income-generating avenues for Kunene conservancies. The relative importance of these two legs varies from one conservancy to another. Three of the five conservancies in the southern Kunene sub-region, with whom I work closely, have a stable income from hunting and ecotourism; the fourth relies only on hunting, and the fifth relies solely on ecotourism. The first three indicated that roughly one-third of their income (R120 000-150 000 per year) is derived from trophy hunting, the rest coming from ecotourism and other forms of wildlife hunting (e.g. for meat). Together, these conservancies manage 10 835 km2, home to approximately 5 900 people. The conservancy which currently relies exclusively on trophy hunting generates R100 000 annually but is in the process of building an ecotourism lodge to increase its income-generating potential. One of the main reasons this conservancy has been slow to realise its ecotourism potential is that it is not as scenic as the other conservancies in the region. Thus, investors have started with the more spectacular conservancies, leaving this one to depend on hunting. Without trophy hunting, this conservancy – covering 2 290 km2, home to 1 300 people – would simply not exist. Finally, one conservancy has chosen to rely solely on income from ecotourism and not to allow any kind of hunting in their area. The reasons for this decision are multiple, but it is important to note that the local people decided to use only ecotourism. This is the smallest of the five conservancies (286 km2, home to 230 people), yet it is a hotspot for ecotourism, as it has a famous rock art site within its boundary. Several lodges and a campsite operate within this relatively small area, and there is simply not enough space to include trophy hunting – most eco-tourists do not appreciate gunshots! Simply put, it made more sense for this conservancy to rely on ecotourism alone. The main species hunted in all conservancies are antelope. As illogical as it may sound, allowing conservancies to kill antelope has been the primary reason for the recent increase in the range and population numbers of antelope species in the region. Hunting in the Kunene region has shifted from being an uncontrolled, illegal past-time for many local people to being a controlled, legal form of income generation from a small number of foreign hunters. After recovering from severe drought and intense poaching in the 1980s, wildlife populations increased and started stabilising after the establishment of communal conservancies. From 2003-2011, annual road-based game counts have shown that the main prey species in the Kunene region (springbok, gemsbok and mountain zebra) have either maintained their population numbers or increased. The number of springbok seen on annual game counts in the Kunene region of Namibia. Photograph courtesy of ≠Khoadi-//Hoas Conservancy. Data used with permission from the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO).The numbers of gemsbok and mountain zebra seen on annual game counts in the Kunene region of Namibia. Photograph courtesy of ≠Khoadi-//Hoas Conservancy. Data used with permission from the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO). Each conservancy is granted a hunting quota of game animals by the government; they then reach a bilateral agreement with a trophy-hunting operator. In this agreement, the trophy hunter agrees to pay a certain amount for each antelope shot in the conservancy (amongst other conditions). The conservancy sends one or more of its employees with the hunting operator and client when on safari to ensure that they comply with the terms of the agreement. The conservancy then records the number of animals shot by the hunter and ensures that he pays them for what he shoots and that he does not shoot more than the agreed quota. So what does trophy hunting in the context of community conservation mean for conservation, especially for carnivore conservation? As outlined above, controlled trophy hunting of prey species has led to an increase and stabilisation in their populations, which support the predator populations. The lion population, which is well studied and monitored by the Desert Lion Conservation and Research project, has increased from approximately 20 individuals to over 130 during the time that conservancies have operated in the region. One of the lions monitored by Desert Lion Conservation and Research project. Conservancy game guards regularly patrol their conservancies and report all sightings of predators and incidents of livestock losses to predators. The data they have produced indicate that other predator populations have responded positively to conservation in the Kunene conservancies. Although these data do not indicate absolute numbers of predators, one can confidently say that predator sightings are increasing in the region. The number of cheetah, spotted hyaena and black-backed jackal sightings recorded by conservancies in the Kunene region of Namibia. Data used with permission from the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO).The number of caracal, leopard and lion sightings recorded by conservancies in the Kunene region of Namibia. Data used with permission from the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO). Besides the fact that predators now have more to eat in communal conservancies than previously, they have also been directly conserved through the conservancy system. Conservancies are allowed to sell a limited number of predator species as trophies each year, with the quota once again determined by the government. Two of the abovementioned conservancies support lion populations and may thus be granted one lion as a trophy per year. Trophy hunters pay US$ 8000 and US$ 9000 per lion, per their agreements with the respective conservancies. Similarly, four conservancies charge their hunters US$ 2000 – US$ 4000 for a leopard and US$ 1300 – US$ 2000 for a cheetah. These two species are not always successfully hunted, so there may be several years where no leopards or cheetahs are shot in these conservancies, even though they are provided quotas for them. The hunters and conservancy employees after a leopard hunt. Photograph courtesy of ≠Khoadi-//Hoas Conservancy. Trophy hunting carnivores is more complex than hunting their prey species, and it may be argued that the species considered above are worth more than the ‘price tag’ they are given by trophy hunting. Carnivore populations are also sensitive to overhunting and may thus decline if trophy hunting is not strictly controlled and monitored. However, the situation with carnivores is further complicated by human-predator conflict. As most of the conservancies’ occupants are livestock farmers, the presence of a healthy predator population represents the potential for loss of income. Conservancies in the Kunene region have reported increasing livestock losses, which match the increase of predators shown above. The number of livestock losses reported by farming communities living in conservancies in the Kunene region of Namibia. Data used with permission from the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO). In two conservancies, I investigated the livestock losses in more detail for 2010-2012. Farmers lost livestock (cattle, donkeys, horses, sheep and goats) to the value of N$ 91 000 per year in one conservancy and N$ 196 600 per year in the other. Both conservancies support the full gamut of predator species (i.e. all cat species, hyenas, jackals and baboons). They have thus occasionally sold lion, leopard and cheetah to their respective trophy hunters. The fact that these predators have a direct value is thus a primary argument that conservancy managers use to pacify their members who regularly lose valuable livestock to these species. Furthermore, the value given to predators by trophy hunters is much easier to explain to local farmers than the nebulous concept that eco-tourists enjoy seeing these species. Although the value of lions as trophies is an important argument for their conservation, the conservationists in the region are continually working to find other ways to place a tangible value on the species. These ideas include charging tourists to the region per lion sighting and/or employing local people to act as ‘lion guides’. Replacing lion trophy hunting with strategies depending solely on ecotourism may be in the pipeline, but these ideas will only be realised if the ecotourism industry fully supports them. In the meantime, however, we continue to use the lion’s trophy ‘price tag’ as an incentive for their conservation. If a blanket ban were to be placed on hunting the species, or if the hunting market were reduced (i.e. if the U.S.A. places lions on their list of endangered species), we would lose this bargaining chip. The consequences of not responding to human-predator conflict in an immediate, tangible way can be severe for farmers and predators. Showing that predators have real value to rural livestock farmers is not an easy task, even within a working system. In cases where predators cause severe or continued losses, farmers may destroy the ‘problem animals’ themselves without waiting for government-approved hunting permits. These are lose-lose situations where farmers lose many livestock and predators are destroyed in retaliation, with no financial gain. Curbing the number of these incidents is the real challenge for carnivore conservationists in Africa. Moving beyond the conservation of carnivores, we must remember that conservancies cover portions of a larger ecosystem. The existence of conservancies means that species such as elephant and rhino threatened with poaching across the rest of Africa find a haven in Namibia. This protection is based entirely on the principle of local ownership – the communities living in conservancies are the legal owners of the wildlife they live with. As legal owners, they can use many species through sustainable trophy hunting. Creating laws that dismiss these ownership rights will undermine the best example of community conservation in Africa. Travel with us. Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early / late and a few kilometres off course and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity? Browse our famous packages for experience-based safaris, search for our current special offers and check out our camps & lodges for the best prices. Gail Thomson is a carnivore conservationist and science communicator who has worked in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana on human-carnivore conflict, community conservation and wildlife monitoring. Her published scientific work includes journal articles, chapters in scientific books and technical reports. She edits and writes for Conservation Namibia as part of her consulting work for the Namibian Chamber of Environment.	Trophy hunting in the context of community conservation Trophy hunting is often the subject of heated debates. The hunting of predators is a particularly sensitive topic, often described as a cruel, needless practice that has no conservation value for the species concerned. Trophy hunters, on the other hand, claim that hunting predators is an essential part of conservation outside of national parks. Here then, is an example of how trophy hunting can be of benefit to conservation if formulated properly and managed strictly. The notes in this blog post refer to a particular area in Namibia (Kunene) and do not speak to trophy hunting operations elsewhere. As with most hotly contested issues, trophy hunting is more complex than it first appears. Typically, two main questions regarding trophy hunting arise: 1) is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation? 2) Is it providing substantial benefits for local people? I believe that the Namibian government has a good trophy hunting system in place, which keeps corruption to a minimum and provides direct benefits to local people. I therefore use the Namibian system as an example of how trophy hunting can benefit conservation and local communities in Africa. There are two distinct types of farmland in Namibia – communal and commercial farms. In the commercial farming areas, land is parceled up into privately owned farms that may be used for livestock, game farming, hunting or ecotourism. In the communal areas, the land is owned by the state, but inhabited by people who farm with cattle, sheep and goats. Although trophy hunting on commercial farms in Namibia is worthy of consideration as part of the hunting debate, I will focus here on communal farmlands. Although Namibia is currently hailed as an outstanding example of conservation in Africa, this was not always the case. In the 1980s, illegal hunting by foreigners and locals was rife in the communal lands now known as the Kunene and Caprivi/Zambezi regions. Poaching was rife, and the very idea of conservation was met with hostility, as it was seen as yet another means of oppression by the apartheid government. This situation changed with new legislation by the independent Namibian government in 1996.	yes
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://globalnews.ca/news/2979154/trophy-hunting-aids-in-the-conservation-of-lions-study/	Trophy hunting aids in the conservation of lions: study \| Globalnews.ca	The researchers specifically studied lion trends in Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve, where the grounds are divided into blocks with different tourism companies holding various hunting rights. Hunting in the park operates on both long-term (10 years or longer) and short-term allocations of hunting areas to companies. About 35 per cent of Tanzania’s land is protected. However, on that land — except parts that are designated a National Park as well as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area — trophy hunting is allowed. This accounts for some 305,000 square kilometres or 86 per cent of protected land. The reason for the contrast, the researchers concluded, was that companies with long-term allocations managed them better due to long-term outlook. Story continues below advertisement While trophy hunting may be distasteful for some people, this isn’t the first time it’s been claimed that such practices can aid in conservation: some have cited the need for trophy hunting to help fund conservation efforts. In a National Geographic opinion piece, Melissa Simpson, director of the Safari Club International Foundation wrote,“As with the regulated hunters in the United States, the regulated hunters in Africa make a vital contribution to conservation efforts, primarily through the revenues their hunting expeditions generate for local communities and wildlife resource agencies.” Another argument for trophy hunting is that the practice helps conserve natural land that might otherwise be used for agricultural means.	The researchers specifically studied lion trends in Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve, where the grounds are divided into blocks with different tourism companies holding various hunting rights. Hunting in the park operates on both long-term (10 years or longer) and short-term allocations of hunting areas to companies. About 35 per cent of Tanzania’s land is protected. However, on that land — except parts that are designated a National Park as well as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area — trophy hunting is allowed. This accounts for some 305,000 square kilometres or 86 per cent of protected land. The reason for the contrast, the researchers concluded, was that companies with long-term allocations managed them better due to long-term outlook. Story continues below advertisement While trophy hunting may be distasteful for some people, this isn’t the first time it’s been claimed that such practices can aid in conservation: some have cited the need for trophy hunting to help fund conservation efforts. In a National Geographic opinion piece, Melissa Simpson, director of the Safari Club International Foundation wrote,“As with the regulated hunters in the United States, the regulated hunters in Africa make a vital contribution to conservation efforts, primarily through the revenues their hunting expeditions generate for local communities and wildlife resource agencies.” Another argument for trophy hunting is that the practice helps conserve natural land that might otherwise be used for agricultural means.	yes
Conservation	Is trophy hunting beneficial for conservation?	yes_statement	"trophy" "hunting" is "beneficial" for "conservation".. "trophy" "hunting" contributes to "conservation" efforts.	https://www.huntingecologist.com/trophyhunting.html	Trophy Hunting for Biodiversity - THE HUNTING ECOLOGIST	The Take home Message Arguments about the conservation value of trophy hunting almost exclusively revolve around the species being hunted, and tend to rely heavily on anecdotes and emotion. Scientific evidence that trophy hunting is a net positive or net negative for the species hunted is fairly weak, and not particularly convincing. The strong inferential evidence that scientists like to see in the best science certainly isn't available. A much more likely benefit of trophy hunting in places like Africa is that it serves as the impetus for private landowners to maintain large swaths of land in a semi-natural or natural state, thereby providing habitat for potentially thousands of species of insects, plants, small mammals, birds, and reptiles. The full story I'm not particularly convinced that trophy hunting either helps or hurts populations of trophy species like lions. The role of trophy hunting in conservation has become perhaps the most controversial topic in conservation and environmental circles in the last few years. Clearly, trophy hunting has been a hot topic for decades, but social media seems to have intensified bickering over the practice. Everyone has an opinion, and as with most “conversations” that happen online, it seems the camps have become increasingly polarized over time. Nuance seems to escape those on both sides of the argument. It’s fair to say that I have strong opinions about trophy hunting. I’m an obsessive hunter and a PhD-level ecologist and conservation biologist. I lived and conducted research in South Africa for more than two years and married a South African biologist who did research on leopards and gemsbok (an antelope popular among hunters). Given the aim of this website, I clearly think way too much about the intersection of hunting and conservation. What might surprise you is that my personal opinion and professional worldview on trophy hunting differ, and probably not in the way you would predict. As a hunter, I despise the idea of trophy hunting. Killing an animal for the purposes of hanging it on the wall for bragging rights is unfathomable to me. You won't find any taxidermy in our house and I am very judicious about the pictures of harvested animals I post online. I find treating a harvested animal as a trophy to be unsavory. Americans and Europeans trophy hunting in Africa or Southeast Asia bothers me even more. The idea of traveling to another country to harvest their natural resources for bragging rights is a practice couched squarely in a long colonial history of exploitation. I find it morally questionable on many levels. Conversely, in my professional capacity as an ecologist and conservation biologist, I recognize that trophy hunting can lead to positive conservation outcomes in some instances. This means I'm often forced to reconcile this scientific worldview with my personal feelings on trophy hunting. Understanding why I support trophy hunting for its conservation benefits might help explain how I do this. I doubt my worldview will sway any hardliners on either side of the argument, but what follows is my reasoning for professionally supporting a practice I personally despise. The arguments you commonly see supporting trophy hunting are not the reason I support trophy hunting in Africa. I find those arguments to be tenuous and ineffective. The most common argument is a rehash of something called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, although that terminology is rarely used in this context. The short version as it relates to trophy hunting is that hunters pay for the privilege to pursue and harvest an animal. That money finds its way back into conservation and local communities, thereby leading to positive conservation outcomes for the species being hunted. The idea is that loss of a few individuals to hunting benefits the species as a whole. Shoot one black rhino to save the rest. The advocates of this argument, and there are many, will go to great lengths to prop up the idea that trophy hunting raises huge amounts of money while downplaying any negative aspects of removing animals from the population. This and other common arguments are unconvincing to me because they lack strong inferential evidence that trophy hunting in places like Africa is a actually a net positive for commonly hunted species. The positives must outweigh the negatives, and that is really difficult to demonstrate. In fact, most of these arguments, even in the scientific literature, boil down to observations or anecdotes. Documenting the dollars trophy hunters spend or even that some of those dollars do make it to conservation agencies is a far cry from demonstrating a net positive benefit of trophy hunting on the species being hunted. Retelling the story of large declines in wildlife in Kenya after they implemented a hunting ban amounts to an anecdote with a sample size of one, even if it is a well documented anecdote. So at the risk of angering some colleagues, I have to say that I find the scientific literature about the effects of trophy hunting on the hunted species to be pretty weak. Much of this has to do with my rather nerdy scientific opinion about how we best acquire "good" knowledge. I teach a class about how we acquire knowledge and what types of studies render the strongest evidence. Really strong evidence about the net effect of trophy hunting, either positive or negative, is pretty rare. Importantly, I'm not sure it's possible to ever conduct scientific studies about the effects of trophy hunting on the species being hunted that would rise to the level of inferential power we see in the best published science on other topics. Part of this can be chalked up to practical limitations. These are really hard questions to address because it’s next to impossible to set up a controlled study on trophy hunting when the intensity of hunting pressure is determined by governments. There will always be political and societal considerations that don't allow for the study a scientist would design in a perfect world. Even though we are often forced to make management decisions based on the best available science, we have to remember that the best available science is not necessarily good science. Frankly, that's where I think we're at in our understanding of the effects of trophy hunting on the hunted species. The best available science suggests trophy hunting is probably a slight positive for the hunted species, but that's a very tenuous conclusion. It's understandable that most arguments about trophy hunting revolve around the species actually hunted given the charismatic nature of species pursued by trophy hunters. Instead, the reason I support trophy hunting for conservation is that it provides financial incentives for private landowners to maintain large swaths of land in a natural or semi-natural state. Game farms with hunting concessions exist because of trophy hunting, but their most tangible conservation function is that they provide habitat for thousands or tens of thousands of native plant and animal species that might otherwise receive little protection. These secondary benefits of trophy hunting for non-game species are both far more likely to be true and have much higher potential to be documented in a scientifically sound manner than arguments that trophy hunting benefits the hunted species. There are a few reasons for this, but simplest comes down to the feasibility of conducting experiments on the topic. I can think of dozens of high quality projects to address questions about the biodiversity value of land protected for trophy hunting. This is key to me as a scientist. I can foresee a time when we have strong evidence trophy hunting is beneficial for biodiversity. I find it hard to imagine the same will ever be true about evidence trophy hunting benefits the hunted species. Game farms are likely to be especially important for conserving biodiversity in places where public land is limited. For example, my wife grew up in a sparsely populated province called the Free State, which can best be described to an American as the Kansas of South Africa. In the Free State, and the neighboring Northern Cape, the few national parks are located in environmentally unique areas like the Kalahari Desert or the Namaqualand. Outside national parks and a few smaller provincial parks, the remaining natural habitats are found mostly on private ranches used for either ecotourism or trophy hunting. Otherwise, you’ll find vast expanses of land dedicated to row crops and livestock grazing. The conservation relevance of game farms in this region is not that they provide habitat for lions, eland, and gemsbok, but instead that they provide habitat for elephant shrews, sunbirds, dung beetles, snakes, and native plants. The Free State of South Africa is an agricultural region defined by large swaths of row crops and livestock grazing. Outside parks and game ranches, natural habitat is often limited to those rocky areas that are difficult to farm. Now imagine the ramifications for biodiversity in places like the Free State if trophy hunting becomes illegal. A common refrain among those opposed to trophy hunting is that game ranches could replace hunting with non-consumptive forms of recreation, like ecotourism and photo safaris. This sounds great, and I wish it were true, but it ignores some very real practical limitations. For example, many game ranches are only equipped to maintain species like antelope, not the large megafauna most ecotourists from the US or Europe want to see. The fences necessary to keep lions, rhinos, and elephants would alone require investments well into the millions of dollars for a large game ranch. Even assuming a game ranch could afford the capital investment necessary for upgrades, it's not clear such a switch would be profitable. The ecotourism industry in southern African countries is well established, and there isn’t an obvious need for a glut of new ranches dedicated to ecotourism. Until someone can demonstrate where all the new tourists would come from to keep newly converted ranches in business, the ecotourism model is not financially viable for most of them. Unfortunately, for many hunting concessions, the financial alternative to trophy hunting probably isn’t ecotourism, it’s farming or ranching or mining. Most game farms aren't constructed to maintain the "big five" species like elephants, rhinos, and lions. Instead, fences like this are common, which are more than adequate for common game species like antelope, giraffes, and some more dangerous species like Cape buffalo. This particular ranch is a breeding ranch that sells game to other farms, including hunting concessions. Thus, the loss of trophy hunting would mean the land use on many ranches would change dramatically. While this would certainly lower the overall number of lions or eland, it likely wouldn’t lead to the extinction of these species because they are also found in public parks and on private ecotourism ranches across southern and eastern Africa. Most game species are large, with wide geographical ranges, so they can be protected in many parks across many countries. Apart from a few rare antelope species and heavily poached species like rhinos, populations of large animals on hunting ranches are usually peripheral to the broader conservation efforts for those species. Conversely, many plants and small animals have highly localized ranges. The beetle or lizard you find on one game farm is likely to be a different species than you would find on a national park 50 or 100 or 200 miles away. Private lands can serve as the strongholds for species with smaller ranges. The conversion of hunting ranches to agriculture or ranching would undoubtedly lead to the extinction of some of these species, many of which scientists probably haven’t even had a chance to name yet. And that alone is the reason I professionally support some trophy hunting in southern and eastern Africa even though I personally despise the practice. I recognize that my interest in the viability of localized plant and animal populations is far from universal. I’m an ecologist and conservation biologist; it is literally my job to care about such things. The diversity of plants and small animals just isn’t something most people think about when you mention conservation, but from a biodiversity standpoint, those species are vital. There a perhaps a few hundred large, charismatic species most people think of when you mention wildlife. There are thousands of species of small mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish that are unfamiliar to most people, as well as millions of species of insects and plants. This is where we will lose most of the biodiversity over the next century. I'm not sure why you don't see this argument regularly outside scientific circles. Sure, it pops up here and there, but it's an argument that conservation biologists need to be making over and over again to the public. Getting into shouting matches with animal rights activists about whether killing Cecil the Lion was a positive or negative thing for lions in general is a pointless endeavor. It will only serve to strengthen the resolve of those who don't want to recognize the conservation benefits of trophy hunting. The biodiversity benefits of trophy hunting can be documented and might actually change a few minds of people on the fence about trophy hunting. It seems like a much more valuable use of time and research money to me.	There will always be political and societal considerations that don't allow for the study a scientist would design in a perfect world. Even though we are often forced to make management decisions based on the best available science, we have to remember that the best available science is not necessarily good science. Frankly, that's where I think we're at in our understanding of the effects of trophy hunting on the hunted species. The best available science suggests trophy hunting is probably a slight positive for the hunted species, but that's a very tenuous conclusion. It's understandable that most arguments about trophy hunting revolve around the species actually hunted given the charismatic nature of species pursued by trophy hunters. Instead, the reason I support trophy hunting for conservation is that it provides financial incentives for private landowners to maintain large swaths of land in a natural or semi-natural state. Game farms with hunting concessions exist because of trophy hunting, but their most tangible conservation function is that they provide habitat for thousands or tens of thousands of native plant and animal species that might otherwise receive little protection. These secondary benefits of trophy hunting for non-game species are both far more likely to be true and have much higher potential to be documented in a scientifically sound manner than arguments that trophy hunting benefits the hunted species. There are a few reasons for this, but simplest comes down to the feasibility of conducting experiments on the topic. I can think of dozens of high quality projects to address questions about the biodiversity value of land protected for trophy hunting. This is key to me as a scientist. I can foresee a time when we have strong evidence trophy hunting is beneficial for biodiversity. I find it hard to imagine the same will ever be true about evidence trophy hunting benefits the hunted species. Game farms are likely to be especially important for conserving biodiversity in places where public land is limited. For example, my wife grew up in a sparsely populated province called the Free State, which can best be described to an American as the Kansas of South Africa. In the Free State, and the neighboring Northern Cape, the few national parks are located in environmentally unique areas like the Kalahari Desert or the Namaqualand.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://insightglobal.com/blog/unlimited-pto-policy-pros-and-cons/	10 Pros of an Unlimited PTO Policy - Insight Global	10 Pros of an Unlimited PTO Policy Some companies are implementing unlimited PTO (paid time off) policies to attract talent and give current employees more flexibility in their lives. But is it the right move for your company? Are you implementing this because other companies are, or are you doing so because it will have a benefit on your employees’ lives? And you also might be asking, How does unlimited PTO work in the first place? These answers depend on many factors, so let’s explore a bit more. Below, we will explain the pros and cons of unlimited PTO in hopes that it helps you make a more intelligent decision when deciding whether or not to switch your company to it. What is the meaning of unlimited PTO? An unlimited PTO (paid time off) policy allows employees to take vacation time and personal leave when they want and need. Employees are not limited to a specific number of days or hours off per year under this kind of policy. However, it doesn’t mean that an employee can take off as much unapproved time as they want. You should still have a communication and approval system in place with an unlimited PTO policy. For the employee, this makes it easier to plan out vacations and other personal plans. It also means that they are not constantly fretting about how many days they have left before taking time off or running out of vacation hours because the year is almost over. There are other flexible PTO policies that can be more attractive to employees than typical limited policy that starts around 10 paid days off per year and increases with tenure but aren’t full unlimited PTO. For this exercise, though, we’ll go through some advantages and potential disadvantages of a full unlimited PTO policy in your company. Outside of strict monetary and HR reasons, you’ll find unlimited PTO can be good for company culture, relationships among employees, and more. In any case, your PTO policy should focus on making sure employees have enough flexibility in their schedule and time off to remain productive and in your organization. 10 Pros of unlimited PTO Let’s go over some of the pros this policy offers both for employees and employers. For Employees Employees want an unlimited PTO policy from their employer. A Metlife study found that the majority of employees — over 70% — want an unlimited PTO policy, noting that it would help create a “deeper level of care” with talent. So as you consider implementing an unlimited PTO policy employees, here are some of the reasons they may want one: 1. More Flexibility Since employees can request time off without worry about how much PTO they’ve accrued or how much is in their bank, they can have a more flexible work environment. This beneficial to both parties. This flexibility ensures talent stays happy, rested, and unlimited PTO can help toward giving employees a proper work-life balance. Having the flexibility to schedule vacations at any time during the year is beneficial for employees. This means that they can take more trips and enjoy their life without having to worry about running out of vacation days or wasting them because they aren’t going to be able to use them in a timely manner. 2. Boosts morale/retention Allowing employees to take time off without feeling guilty or worrying about job security can boost morale. This may lead to higher retention rates for your company as well. The lack of pressure also means that employees will feel better about coming to work. Retaining existing staff members might become easier when offering unlimited paid time off. It provides more freedom in deciding how much vacation an employee wants to take at any given point in their career path. Unlimited paid leave also allows full-time salaried workers and hourly employees — like retail store managers who work on commission — to benefit from increased flexibility without compromising pay structure. 3. Improves performance Research across many years has shown that employees can be more productive when they take more time off. This is great for the employee because it can lead to better performance reviews, career advancement, and higher pay. Employees should have a chance to take breathers from work and not get burnt out. 4. Don’t have to worry about saving PTO for one vacation Employees can feel comfortable taking time off whenever necessary if they don’t have to worry about saving their PTO for just one vacation. This can increase productivity because employees no longer feel pressured to choose between work and life events like anniversaries, weddings, and graduations. Unlimited PTO allows employees to enjoy all of these occasions when scheduled out and approved. 5. No pressure to work while sick Employees don’t have to feel pressure to work while sick because they can take time off without consequences. Your employees’ health and well-being is vital to the productivity and culture of your company. They can take better care of themselves without having to worry about dipping into a PTO or sick leave pool a couple of days at a time. You don’t want your employees working when sick, anyway. If an employee feels the need to come into work when sick, they can spread illnesses around the company, which results in lost productivity in more than just a single person. For Employers Compared to over 70% of employees who would like an unlimited PTO policy, Bloomberg reports that roughly around just 10% of companies have adopted one. This could be due to hesitations of breaking from the norm or they provide for an industry where they don’t feel this type of policy would increase productivity. Whatever the reason, let’s look at some advantages of unlimited PTO for employers: 6. Creates a trusting environment This policy creates an environment of trust between prospective employers and employees. The employee hones a sense of confidence that their employer believes in them to accomplish tasks while also taking deserved vacations and time off. Nothing builds trust more than knowing you can take time off without repercussion, creating a better work-life balance. 7. Can be used as a recruiting tool Remember how a majority of workers want unlimited PTO but an extreme minority of companies offer it? In that scenario, offering unlimited PTO can be seen as a perk and help employers attract talent. Word can spread quickly about your company in a positive manner. All of this can be used to bring in fresh talent to work for your company. 8. It may be cost-effective Unlimited PTO could possibly be cost-effective and can even save money for the employer. With this system, businesses have lower turnover rates because employees could be more likely to stay with a company that provides unlimited PTO. Regular resignations in a company can be costly due to the time and resources it takes to find a replacement. On the flip side, there is fact that companies don’t have to pay out time off when an employee leaves or is terminated. Under typical limited time off policies with rollovers, an employee can accrue large amounts of PTO over many years. One may choose to not take time off for years, and they may save up hundreds of hours of PTO in that time. When they leave the company, they are owed that money, which could mean months of salary (in addition to having to pay to backfill the role). Having an unlimited PTO policy would encourage that kind of employee to take time off regularly, and the company wouldn’t have to pay out any PTO at the end of employment. 9. Can increase in productivity With unlimited time off, employees are more likely to be productive. Employees who know that they can take a break whenever they want are less stressed and will feel more fulfilled in their daily tasks. Many studies have shown vacations lead to higher morale and productivity among employees, so they should be encouraged by supervising staff, too. That higher morale and higher-engaged employees can help increase productivity and reduce stress levels in the workplace, too. 10. It can boost your culture initiatives If your company has initiatives about employee mental health, but you only offer 10 days off total per year to employees, are you truly worried about their mental well-being? An unlimited PTO policy can back up statements and initiatives your company has that encourage a work-life balance. That will require lots of communication and guidance from supervisors and executives (as we’ll discuss in a moment), but when implemented well, it can really show employees how much you care about them. Cons of unlimited PTO Not every policy is perfect, and unlimited PTO can have its downsides for both employees and employers. However, with proper communication, a positive culture, and clear expectations, these kinds of downsides can be avoided. For Employees No clear expectations or checks in place A problem can arise when there are no clear expectations for when an employee should use their unlimited PTO. If you decide to offer unlimited PTO, make sure to set a clear company policy of this benefit. That way everyone knows how to enjoy their vacation days without abusing the policy. It’s meant to give everyone flexibility and comfort within the organization–not give everyone three months of vacation time every year. There should be a couple of forms of communication/approval in place when you have an unlimited PTO policy: Explain what an average PTO request may look like General guidelines for how long and how often PTO requests are approved without question There should still be an approval process and tracking system for when employees are taking time off Pressure to not use PTO if management/leaders don’t Employees can feel pressure not to not take if they see that management and leaders aren’t taking time off themselves. This puts employees in a difficult position where they may feel like they need to take less time off, even if they need it. This defeats the whole purpose. Management should lead by example and show employees what taking useful and needed time off, both for personal and leisure activities, looks like across the year. For Employers Some of the cons for the employers are: Employees could abuse their unlimited PTO With unlimited paid time off, employees might take advantage of taking extended breaks, affecting productivity. Work still needs to get done, and unlimited PTO isn’t meant to offer every employee months off per year. This is why it’s vital to communicate clear expectations of an unlimited time off policy. Could cause scheduling conflicts Employers may have to deal with many employees using PTO simultaneously, and that could cause a problem if multiple leaders or important team members are off a critical times. If a problem like this arises, you can approach team members and ask if they are flexible with when they take their vacation in order to make sure there is needed coverage. (This should only be broached if absolutely necessary.) If not, you can at least prep in advance for these absences. Employees may take less time off with open PTO Another potential con for employers is that employees might take less time off if they know it’s unlimited. One study showed that employees with unlimited PTO don’t really take more days off than those with a typical limited PTO plan (on average). This means employees may not get the breaks they need, which could lead to them becoming burnt out or unproductive. If they think supervisors are constantly monitoring their PTO, they make take fewer vacations and general time off. You should encourage employees to take the time. It’ll benefit your organization in the long run. Conclusion In the end, unlimited PTO might not be for every company or employee. It’s essential to assess your company’s priorities and see how an unlimited PTO policy would affect your retention rates and overall morale. There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to managing work-life balance. If you are interested in learning more about ways you can improve culture in your organization, contact Compass, Insight Global’s culture consulting branch!	So as you consider implementing an unlimited PTO policy employees, here are some of the reasons they may want one: 1. More Flexibility Since employees can request time off without worry about how much PTO they’ve accrued or how much is in their bank, they can have a more flexible work environment. This beneficial to both parties. This flexibility ensures talent stays happy, rested, and unlimited PTO can help toward giving employees a proper work-life balance. Having the flexibility to schedule vacations at any time during the year is beneficial for employees. This means that they can take more trips and enjoy their life without having to worry about running out of vacation days or wasting them because they aren’t going to be able to use them in a timely manner. 2. Boosts morale/retention Allowing employees to take time off without feeling guilty or worrying about job security can boost morale. This may lead to higher retention rates for your company as well. The lack of pressure also means that employees will feel better about coming to work. Retaining existing staff members might become easier when offering unlimited paid time off. It provides more freedom in deciding how much vacation an employee wants to take at any given point in their career path. Unlimited paid leave also allows full-time salaried workers and hourly employees — like retail store managers who work on commission — to benefit from increased flexibility without compromising pay structure. 3. Improves performance Research across many years has shown that employees can be more productive when they take more time off. This is great for the employee because it can lead to better performance reviews, career advancement, and higher pay. Employees should have a chance to take breathers from work and not get burnt out. 4. Don’t have to worry about saving PTO for one vacation Employees can feel comfortable taking time off whenever necessary if they don’t have to worry about saving their PTO for just one vacation.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/unlimited-vacation-policy-under-scrutiny-by-california-court-of-appeal	“Unlimited” Vacation Policy Under Scrutiny by California Court of ...	“Unlimited” Vacation Policy Under Scrutiny by California Court of Appeal California law does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off/vacation pay. However, when employers choose to do so, certain rules apply. Labor Code Section 227.3 requires employers to pay out all accrued, unused vacation pay as vested wages at the time of termination. Employers must also keep track of the accrual and use of vacation days. This can be challenging, especially in a digital age in which many exempt employees read and respond to emails, take phone calls, or otherwise conduct at least some work-related business nearly every day, even while technically “on vacation.” These realities can further complicate tracking and use of vacation days, making it unclear whether employees ever take a full day in which they are completely “off.” The Growing Popularity of “Unlimited” Vacation Policies In recent years, many employers have adopted “unlimited” vacation policies, offering flexibility by granting exempt employees increased freedom about when and how to work. While the terms of unlimited vacation policies are varied, the general goal is to allow exempt employees to take differing amounts of time off so that each employee has discretion to organize his or her time while still performing job duties effectively. For example, some employees may prefer to work longer hours and on weekends to permit more frequent and longer vacations throughout the year. Other employees may take fewer and shorter vacations to avoid working evenings and weekends. Thus, employees are trusted to fulfill their overall job responsibilities – the requirements of which vary by industry and role – but are largely free to come and go as they please. Such arrangements are mutually beneficial to employees and employers alike. Employers are relieved of burdensome tracking and recordkeeping requirements and employees can enjoy increased autonomy in balancing and scheduling work and leisure. The Court of Appeal Rejects “Unlimited” Label for Vacation Policy In the first published opinion to address an unlimited vacation policy, the Court of Appeal’s April 1st decision is no joke - and is nearly 60 pages long! Instead, the ruling is cause for employers to carefully review their unlimited policies against this new guidance. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. (“EF”), the three plaintiffs were full-time, exempt, salaried area managers who ran educational and cultural exchange programs for international students across the United States. The plaintiffs’ job duties for the non-profit included hiring, training, and working with staff to recruit host families for the students and to operate the programs. While EF’s employee handbook contained a vacation policy for most employees providing a fixed amount of vacation days accrued each month based on length of service, this policy did not apply to the plaintiff managers. Instead, the plaintiffs were subject to an informal, unwritten policy in which they could take time off with pay, but they did not accrue vacation days. The plaintiffs also did not have to use EF’s online system to request time off or to track the number of days they had taken. Instead, they were required to notify their supervisors before taking time off. The plaintiffs testified that they were never told that they had “unlimited” vacation – only how to request and take time off (they apparently never asked how much they could take, but were able to take as much as they needed each year). While taking time off during EF’s peak season was “strongly discouraged,” it was approved in some circumstances. Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs’ ability to take vacation was not literally “unlimited” in the broadest sense of the word. The clear intent of EF’s policy is identical to most employers that offer “unlimited” vacation policies. That is, it would be absurd to suggest that an employee might take six months of vacation per year. But the Court was unimpressed and did EF no favors. EF’s “Unlimited” Policy Was Not Actually Unlimited and Instead Had an “Implied Cap” The Court decided that EF’s policy was not truly unlimited, but instead that it merely provided an “undefined” amount of vacation. In this particular case, while the plaintiffs were generally aware of how to request and take time off, the Court found against EF mainly because: (a) EF failed to inform the plaintiffs that they had unlimited vacation; (b) EF did not have a formal, written “unlimited” vacation policy; and (c) EF’s policy was not unlimited “in practice.” These facts led to the finding that EF had failed to define the limitations on time off. The only good news is that the Court limited its holding to the facts presented by EF’s policy, making it theoretically possible that other employers’ unlimited vacation policies might fare better if challenged. Specifically, the Court found that EF’s policy had an “implied limit” because, in practice, EF actually expected the plaintiffs to take vacation in the range typically available to corporate employees at EF, i.e., between two and four weeks, as opposed to an actual “unlimited” amount. The Court acknowledged, in a footnote, that by “unlimited” it was not suggesting that EF intended to permit plaintiffs to take vacation “365 days a year” but nonetheless held that “one would expect unlimited time off policies at least to afford employees the ability to take longer or more frequent periods of time off than a traditional accrual policy or allow employees to work fewer hours in lieu of having more vacation days.” The Court’s statement is unrealistic, as many employees may choose to take a similar amount of vacation even under an unlimited policy for a variety of reasons. However, employers should not be penalized based on how employees choose to use their vacation time, or risk having their policies invalidated simply because employees end up taking similar amounts of vacation time to those subject to limited, accrual-based vacation policies. The Court noted that the plaintiffs typically took about two weeks of vacation each year, and never sought or received more than four weeks, and even cited one of the plaintiff’s testimony that “the restrictions of the job probably wouldn’t have allowed her to take unlimited time off because she would not have been able to complete all her duties.” The Court’s observations are troubling because they suggest that the validity of a vacation policy hinges in part on how employees choose to use it, rather than focusing on the fairness and lawfulness of the terms of the policy itself. The Court concluded that “the record simply does not show plaintiffs reaped the benefits that [employers] contend unlimited time off policies provide to employees” and that no evidence showed that the plaintiffs’ schedule permitted – or that EF would have approved – more than a few weeks off at a time. Accordingly, the Court found that EF’s policy had “an implied ‘cap’ and was by no means ‘unlimited.’” As a consequence, EF was required to pay out vacation wages to the plaintiffs, all of whom had left EF’s employment. The amounts owed were determined essentially as if plaintiffs had been subject to the accrual policy set forth in EF’s handbook. In other words, the Court completely disregarded EF’s unlimited policy and instead awarded the plaintiffs vacation pay damages pursuant to a policy that undisputedly did not apply to them because the behaviors of the parties resulted in a similar amount of paid vacation being used. Guidance For Unlimited Vacation Policies In General Despite rejecting EF’s policy, the Court offered guidance for crafting “truly” unlimited time off policies, suggesting they might be lawful if they are in writing and that such a written policy: clearly provides that employees’ ability to take paid time off is not a form of additional wages for services performed, but perhaps part of the employer’s promise to provide a flexible work schedule – including employees’ ability to decide when and how much time to take off; spells out the rights and obligations of both employee and employer and the consequences of failing to schedule time off; in practice allows sufficient opportunity for employees to take time off, or work fewer hours in lieu of taking time off; and is administered fairly so that it neither becomes a de facto ‘use it or lose it policy’ nor results in inequities, such as where one employees works many hours, taking minimal time off, and another workers fewer hours, and takes more time off. The Court concluded by stating that “unlimited paid time off under such a policy – depending on the facts of the case – very well may not constitute deferred compensation for past services requiring payment on termination under section 227.3.” Key Takeaways For Employers This is a terrible decision for employers. The Court’s guidance allows employees/plaintiffs to challenge virtually any unlimited vacation policy on the grounds that, in practice, it was not clearly communicated or that it somehow resulted in unfairness when applied. The factors are subjective and problematic on multiple levels, including the apparent emphasis on the number of hours worked. For example, the “more versus fewer” hours emphasis runs directly contrary to the notion that exempt employees are not evaluated or paid for their hours worked, but instead for their overall services to the employer. The suggestion that evaluating the hours worked for exempt employees negates the concept and benefit of exempt status. In addition, the Court ignores the realistic limitations that job responsibilities place on the concept of “unlimited” vacation. “Unlimited” vacation means flexibility around time off, not necessarily more time off. But the Court falls prey to the trap of interpreting the term far too literally and to the point of absurdity. In scrutinizing unlimited vacation, and the motivations behind their adoption, the Court ignores the potential for employee abuse of standard vacation accrual, which is why many employers implemented unlimited policies in the first place. For example, exempt employees subject to accrual-based vacation policies often collect the maximum amount of accrued vacation wages at termination, despite having enjoyed the fruits of multiple vacations over the course of many years. This is achieved by the technical act of “working” some minimal amount each day, even if the employee spent the majority of certain weeks, for example, enjoying a relaxing beach vacation. Even though there may not always be malicious intent, i.e., employees are dutifully managing their responsibilities by briefly checking in on work, the employer can still unfairly pay the price in the form of weeks of additional salary at termination for every such employee, due to the illusion of having taken no time “off.” Sometimes, freeing both employees and employers of the hassle of tracking vacation accrual and use is a win for everyone, but the Court’s decision dealt a significant blow to such freedom. Employers should carefully review any unlimited paid time off policies currently in place to be sure they are in writing and include the factors listed above, including expressly disclaiming any entitlement to wages earned for time off/vacation. Employers should also consider simply characterizing such policies as offering a flexible work schedule as opposed to vacation or paid time off. Unfortunately, the Court’s decision does not provide sufficient clarity to guarantee that a particular policy will ultimately be found to be lawful, but at least some guidance is available to avoid the most obvious challenges that befell the employer in this case. About CDF For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego. About the Editor in Chief Sacramento Office Managing Partner and Chair of CDF’s Traditional Labor Law Practice Group. Mark has been practicing labor and employment law in California for thirty years. His practice has a special emphasis on the representation of California employers in union-management relations and handling federal and state court litigation and administrative matters triggered by all types of employment-related disputes. He is also adept at providing creative and practical legal advice to help minimize the risks inherent in employing workers in California. He recently named “Sacramento Lawyer of the Year” in Employment Law-Management for 2021 by Best Lawyers®. > Full Bio> Email Call 916.361.0991	“Unlimited” Vacation Policy Under Scrutiny by California Court of Appeal California law does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off/vacation pay. However, when employers choose to do so, certain rules apply. Labor Code Section 227.3 requires employers to pay out all accrued, unused vacation pay as vested wages at the time of termination. Employers must also keep track of the accrual and use of vacation days. This can be challenging, especially in a digital age in which many exempt employees read and respond to emails, take phone calls, or otherwise conduct at least some work-related business nearly every day, even while technically “on vacation.” These realities can further complicate tracking and use of vacation days, making it unclear whether employees ever take a full day in which they are completely “off.” The Growing Popularity of “Unlimited” Vacation Policies In recent years, many employers have adopted “unlimited” vacation policies, offering flexibility by granting exempt employees increased freedom about when and how to work. While the terms of unlimited vacation policies are varied, the general goal is to allow exempt employees to take differing amounts of time off so that each employee has discretion to organize his or her time while still performing job duties effectively. For example, some employees may prefer to work longer hours and on weekends to permit more frequent and longer vacations throughout the year. Other employees may take fewer and shorter vacations to avoid working evenings and weekends. Thus, employees are trusted to fulfill their overall job responsibilities – the requirements of which vary by industry and role – but are largely free to come and go as they please. Such arrangements are mutually beneficial to employees and employers alike. Employers are relieved of burdensome tracking and recordkeeping requirements and employees can enjoy increased autonomy in balancing and scheduling work and leisure. The Court of Appeal Rejects “Unlimited” Label for Vacation Policy In the first published opinion to address an unlimited vacation policy, the Court of Appeal’s April 1st decision is no joke - and is nearly 60 pages long!	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://abcnews.go.com/Business/unlimited-vacation-policies-work-culture/story?id=20086369	Workers Walk Line in Employer's Unlimited Vacation Policies - ABC ...	Workers Walk Line in Employer's Unlimited Vacation Policies Linda Devito, director, marketing partnerships at XO Group Inc. in New York City, says her company's unlimited vacation policy creates a culture of employee accountability. Courtesy Linda Devito Aug. 29, 2013 -- This Labor Day weekend, Linda Devito is taking an extended vacation to the Caribbean, which isn't going to count against her vacation days. She's not traveling for a work trip and her trip extends past the observed federal holiday. But Devito's not counting: Her employer has an unlimited vacation policy, a policy that is trending beyond the bounds of tech companies. Instead of a standard two-week vacation policy, Devito, 36, director of marketing partnerships for the XO Group, Inc., says employees at her media company communicate closely with one another and their managers to make sure the time off doesn't interrupt work. "You just get what you have to get done. You're accountable to your team. You don't want to let your team down. You want to collaborate," she said. Devito, who has worked for the company for six years, said the unlimited vacation policy makes sense for the XO Group. The company's business premise celebrates life stages in various forms. Based in New York City, the company owns the wedding magazine The Knot, WeddingChannel.com, first-time parenting website The Bump and newlywed resource The Nest. The unlimited vacation system, which was implemented in January 2010, contributes to a culture of "accountability," she said. The company does not keep track of the average number of vacation days per worker. But can workers take the culture of accountability too far and feel pressured not to take vacation days at all? Not in her office, Devito says. A recent survey at XO Group asked employees if they felt like they are taking advantage of the unlimited vacation policy. Most people answered affirmatively and shared anecdotal answers, explaining that they are spreading their vacation days throughout the year. "When you have a set number of vacation days, people cram it in," she said. "They say, 'I have to take the rest of my days because they won't roll over next year.' They fight for the last couple of days of the year." While vacation days are flexible, working remotely is not a strong part of XO Group's culture. However, a large portion of the company's local sales force works from home. Doug Schade, a recruiter at WinterWyman in Waltham, Mass., estimates that about 10 percent of the tech companies he works with offer unlimited vacation, but he admits that's just an anecdotal estimate. "Some of my co-workers thought that was high and others thought that was too low," he said. Tech companies like Netflix boast that they have no vacation policy at all. Netflix explains on its website that an employee pointed out, "We don't track hours worked per day or per week, so why are we tracking days of vacation per year?" "We should focus on what people get done, not on how many days worked," Netflix explains. "Just as we don't have a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday policy, we don't need a vacation policy. There is also no clothing policy at Netflix, but no one comes to work naked. Lesson: You don't need policies for everything." Lotte Bailyn, professor of management, emeritus, at the MIT Sloan School of Management, is skeptical that these unlimited policies are beneficial to employees. She recently published a column in Quartz titled "Unlimited Vacation Time Is Better in Theory Than in Practice." "Vacations are very important," Bailyn said. "But as indicated in the piece, making them unlimited works only if there are accepted standards for everyone, including the bosses." A better scheme than unlimited vacation days, she says, would be to mandate a few weeks of vacation and then allow up to a number of more weeks over that. "Informal standards are probably hard to achieve," she explains. Bailyn said companies in which the culture is "right" will benefit. "Those who just copy a fad will not," she said. The Boston Globe reported that Best Buy is another example, but a company spokeswoman said the company does not offer unlimited vacation days. However, it has a "generous" vacation policy with paid time-off days that can be used for any reason, calculated on tenure. In March, the electronics retailer abandoned its flexible work program, Results Oriented Work Environment, which allowed workers to control their schedules at the Richfield, Minn. headquarters. Best Buy CEO Hubert Joly explained in an op-ed at the time, "This program was based on the premise that the right leadership style is always delegation. It operated on the assumption that if an employee's objectives were agreed to, the manager should always delegate to the employee how those objectives were met. Well, anyone who has led a team knows that delegation is not always the most effective leadership style."	Workers Walk Line in Employer's Unlimited Vacation Policies Linda Devito, director, marketing partnerships at XO Group Inc. in New York City, says her company's unlimited vacation policy creates a culture of employee accountability. Courtesy Linda Devito Aug. 29, 2013 -- This Labor Day weekend, Linda Devito is taking an extended vacation to the Caribbean, which isn't going to count against her vacation days. She's not traveling for a work trip and her trip extends past the observed federal holiday. But Devito's not counting: Her employer has an unlimited vacation policy, a policy that is trending beyond the bounds of tech companies. Instead of a standard two-week vacation policy, Devito, 36, director of marketing partnerships for the XO Group, Inc., says employees at her media company communicate closely with one another and their managers to make sure the time off doesn't interrupt work. "You just get what you have to get done. You're accountable to your team. You don't want to let your team down. You want to collaborate," she said. Devito, who has worked for the company for six years, said the unlimited vacation policy makes sense for the XO Group. The company's business premise celebrates life stages in various forms. Based in New York City, the company owns the wedding magazine The Knot, WeddingChannel.com, first-time parenting website The Bump and newlywed resource The Nest. The unlimited vacation system, which was implemented in January 2010, contributes to a culture of "accountability," she said. The company does not keep track of the average number of vacation days per worker. But can workers take the culture of accountability too far and feel pressured not to take vacation days at all? Not in her office, Devito says. A recent survey at XO Group asked employees if they felt like they are taking advantage of the unlimited vacation policy. Most people answered affirmatively and shared anecdotal answers, explaining that they are spreading their vacation days throughout the year.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.wework.com/ideas/professional-development/unlimited-vacation-policy-pros-cons	Unlimited Vacation Policy Pros & Cons \| Ideas by We	Unlimited vacation policy pros and cons There is a new (granted, it’s small) trend that’s moving through some cutting-edge companies: unlimited vacation policies. There are numerous companies that are trying out an open vacation policy. For some, it’s working well, but not so much for others. We’re going to take some time to explore the best parts of having an unlimited vacation policy and the dark side. We’ll even give you some tips on how to best implement an open vacation policy if you’re ready to jump on board and provide this awesome benefit to your staff. Companies with unlimited vacation Like we said, this is a small trend, with only about 1 or 2 percent of employers offering an open vacation policy for their employees. The companies with an unlimited vacation policy are most often tech companies and agencies that have heavy competition for a narrow talent pool, and they use this benefit to recruit the best talent. Some of the companies who currently offer employees unlimited vacation are: ZenPayroll Netflix VMWare Workday Riot Games LinkedIn Virgin Hubspot GrubHub Evernote General Electric Grant Thornton Many of the companies with unlimited vacation don’t even track how many days off their employees take. American work culture Many companies are concerned and don’t implement an unlimited vacation policy because employees may abuse the privilege. However, American work culture likely won’t allow that. A 2014 Glassdoor survey found that the average American employee uses only half of his or her vacation days. Moreover, 61 percent work during their vacations. Analysis from Project: Time Off has found that from 1976 to 2000, American workers used an average of 20.3 days off per year. In 2013, that number dropped to just 16 days per year. That’s almost an entire workweek less of time off than 13 years before. Not convinced Americans work too much? There’s more. American employees tend to miss three notable events a year because of work. Project: Time Off found that 1 in 10 Americans misses a funeral because of work. A change to an unlimited vacation policy might be good for American work culture. Additionally, studies have shown that with companies that have implemented unlimited vacation policies, employees aren’t taking off much more time than they were before. Most employees take equal or less time off with an unlimited vacation policy. What has changed is that employees take time off in spurts of days, not weeks. People take four-day weekends or a few days here and there. The U.S. is the only developed country that doesn’t legally mandate paid vacation or holidays for employees. The average American employee receives 13 vacation days and 8 paid holidays. For most European employees, they receive 20 vacation days and 13 paid holidays. Mini case study of companies with unlimited vacation When Mammoth decided to implement an unlimited vacation policy, they agreed to try it for a year and then evaluate. We won’t keep you waiting: The employees considered it one of their most valued benefits. In a survey Mammoth conducted, the unlimited vacation policy was ranked third, after health insurance and 401(k). The unlimited vacation policy was more important to employees at Mammoth than vision or dental insurance. Mammoth wasn’t that surprised that the open vacation policy was popular with employees, but they were surprised that employees took roughly the same amount of vacation days as they did under the traditional system. Mammoth found that the majority of their employees averaged three weeks of paid time off, plus 10 paid holidays under the unlimited vacation policy. The silent message in an open vacation policy An open vacation policy says much more to employees than just “you can take off as many days as you’d like!” There are a few hidden messages in an unlimited vacation policy. An open vacation policy allows a company to acknowledge their employees as human. It tells employees the company understands that they have needs and interests beyond work, and sometimes those can’t be scheduled in advance. Another silent message the unlimited vacation policy conveys is that the company trusts its employees. The company is instilling trust in each employee that he or she will complete the work regardless of the amount of time the employee takes off. The third silent message that employees receive with an open vacation policy is that they can be an individual. Each person needs a different amount of time off. We all have different work styles and different personal lives. These patterns might also shift from year to year, depending on what’s going on in our personal lives. An open vacation policy allows for these shifts to happen naturally. Tips to implement an unlimited vacation policy Putting an unlimited vacation policy in place isn’t an easy decision, and the transition isn’t always smooth.Give it a name. For some companies, calling it an “unlimited vacation policy” doesn’t work. Consider terms such as “flexible,” “self-managed,” or “personalized” when naming your policy. 1. Anchor in culture. Before starting an open vacation policy, consider why you’re doing it and how it benefits and fits the established company culture 2. Communicate. An open vacation policy is a two-way street. By giving employees flexibility with their time off, employees should return that with hard work and investment in the company mission. The organization should thrive just as employees do. 3. Provide guidelines. Companies that implemented unlimited vacation policies with no guidelines often found that employees took less time. Though a maximum or minimum shouldn’t be provided, give employees guidelines on how to take time off, when time can’t be taken off, and who can approve time off, if anyone needs to. 4. Focus on contribution. Instead of hours worked, focus on what employees are contributing. The focus shouldn’t be on how many hours a week each employee worked but if he or she completed what was needed of him or her and contributed to the success of the company. 5. Don’t focus on abuse. The point of an unlimited vacation policy is freedom and trust, so don’t put the focus on what happens if the policy is abused. Trust that employees won’t abuse the privilege. 6. Discuss plans. When possible, employees should communicate when they plan to take time off and for how long. Even if the plan allows for a short notice, this is a kindness that fellow employees and managers appreciate. 7. Celebrate with a launch. When the company puts an unlimited vacation policy in place, there should be a celebration and a launch. The launch should be full of information, guidelines, communication, training sessions, and Q&A. If your company isn’t quite ready for an unlimited vacation policy, consider a shift in thinking first. Instead of giving employees a ceiling or a cap for the vacation days, give them a floor. Have a minimum number of days that employees should take off and encourage them to do so. Make time off a part of the company culture. How an unlimited vacation policy benefits the company An unlimited vacation policy isn’t only beneficial to employees—it also benefits the company. We’ve already discussed how the policy instills goodwill in the company from employees, but there’s another benefit. Companies with unlimited vacation don’t have to track how much employees are owed for unused vacation time. And they don’t have to pay employees who quit or are laid off for unused vacation time. Per employee, this could save the company an average of $1,898, according to Project: Time Off. In one year, U.S. companies carried forward $65.6 billion in accrued paid time off. The dark side of unlimited vacation policy As with all things, there are a few negatives with an unlimited vacation policy. Some companies that implemented open vacation policies have actually revoked them; they don’t work for every company. Tribune Publishing rescinded their unlimited vacation policy after employees complained they felt their vacation days were being taken away. Some even threatened to sue over the lost monetary value of their accrued vacation days. Kickstarter is another company that did away with their unlimited vacation policy. When Kickstarter found out their employees were taking fewer days off under their unlimited policy, they knew something was wrong. Some employees have also raised concerns that open vacation policies are unfair to more senior employees. American work culture has typically used vacation time as a reward for years of service. For some companies, the unlimited vacation policy simply won’t jive with the company culture. Consider companies that thrive on hourly work. When a company has a client-centric structure, it may not be possible to implement a policy of this kind. Each company has a unique culture that must be encouraged, whether that means instating an unlimited vacation policy or sticking with traditional structure. Interested in workspace? Get in touch. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.	Though a maximum or minimum shouldn’t be provided, give employees guidelines on how to take time off, when time can’t be taken off, and who can approve time off, if anyone needs to. 4. Focus on contribution. Instead of hours worked, focus on what employees are contributing. The focus shouldn’t be on how many hours a week each employee worked but if he or she completed what was needed of him or her and contributed to the success of the company. 5. Don’t focus on abuse. The point of an unlimited vacation policy is freedom and trust, so don’t put the focus on what happens if the policy is abused. Trust that employees won’t abuse the privilege. 6. Discuss plans. When possible, employees should communicate when they plan to take time off and for how long. Even if the plan allows for a short notice, this is a kindness that fellow employees and managers appreciate. 7. Celebrate with a launch. When the company puts an unlimited vacation policy in place, there should be a celebration and a launch. The launch should be full of information, guidelines, communication, training sessions, and Q&A. If your company isn’t quite ready for an unlimited vacation policy, consider a shift in thinking first. Instead of giving employees a ceiling or a cap for the vacation days, give them a floor. Have a minimum number of days that employees should take off and encourage them to do so. Make time off a part of the company culture. How an unlimited vacation policy benefits the company An unlimited vacation policy isn’t only beneficial to employees—it also benefits the company. We’ve already discussed how the policy instills goodwill in the company from employees, but there’s another benefit. Companies with unlimited vacation don’t have to track how much employees are owed for unused vacation time. And they don’t have to pay employees who quit or are laid off for unused vacation time. Per employee, this could save the company an average of $1,898, according to Project: Time Off.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unlimited-vacation-policy-saumya-yadav	Unlimited Vacation Policy	Unlimited Vacation Policy Saumya Yadav Outreach Specialist at CuteHR Unlimited vacation policies have been a topic of discussion among many employers and employees. While some companies have already adopted this policy, others are still hesitant to implement it. The concept of unlimited vacation sounds appealing to many employees, as it gives them the freedom to take time off whenever they need it. However, it also raises some concerns about how it can be managed effectively and how it could potentially affect the company's productivity. What is Unlimited Vacation? Employees who are covered by an unlimited vacation policy, sometimes referred to as flexible time off or discretionary time off, are free to take as much time off as they need without regard to a set number of days or an accumulation schedule. Instead of having a specific number of vacation days or personal days, employees can take time off when needed and for as long as they need it, as long as it does not affect their work or the company's operations. The Benefits Of Unlimited Vacation Unlimited vacation policies have many benefits for both employers and employees. Here are some of the advantages of implementing this policy: Employee Satisfaction and Retention: Unlimited vacation policies can improve employee satisfaction and retention. When employees have the freedom to take time off when they need it, they feel more in control of their work-life balance. They are also less likely to experience burnout, stress, and other negative effects of overworking. This leads to a more satisfied and engaged workforce, which in turn leads to higher retention rates. Increased Productivity: Contrary to what some may think, unlimited vacation policies can actually increase productivity. When employees have the freedom to take time off when they need it, they are more likely to come back to work refreshed, energized, and focused. They are also more likely to be productive when they are at work, as they do not feel the need to take unnecessary sick or mental health days. Cost Savings: Unlimited vacation policies can also save companies money. When employees take time off, they are not getting paid, which means the company is not incurring any additional costs. This can be especially beneficial for small businesses that may not have the resources to provide extensive benefits packages. The Challenges of Unlimited Vacation While unlimited vacation policies have many benefits, they also come with some challenges. The following are some possible negative effects of enacting this policy: Difficulty in Managing Time Off: One of the biggest challenges of unlimited vacation policies is managing time off effectively. Without a specific number of days, it can be difficult to track how much time off employees are taking and when they are taking it. This can create staffing issues, particularly if multiple employees take time off at the same time. Lack of Structure: Unlimited vacation policies can also create a lack of structure in the workplace. When employees have the freedom to take time off whenever they want, it can be difficult to plan projects, meetings, and other important work events. This can lead to missed deadlines and a lack of productivity. Misuse of Time Off: Finally, there is a risk that employees may misuse the unlimited vacation policy. They could take too much vacation time, which might result in less production and responsibility. They may also take time off without proper notice, which can lead to staffing issues and project delays. Implementing An Unlimited Vacation Policy If you are considering implementing an unlimited vacation policy in your workplace, there are some key steps you can take to ensure its success. Here are some tips for implementing an effective unlimited vacation policy: Set Clear Expectations: Make sure your employees understand the expectations around the unlimited vacation policy. They should know how much notice they need to give, how to request time off, and how their time off will be tracked. You should also be clear about how much time off is reasonable and what the consequences are for taking too much time off or misusing the policy. Communicate Frequently: Communication is key when implementing an unlimited vacation policy. Make sure you are frequently communicating with your employees to ensure they are aware of any changes to the policy and to address any concerns or questions they may have. Track Time Off: It is important to track the time off your employees are taking, even with an unlimited vacation policy. This can help you ensure that employees are not taking too much time off or abusing the policy. To keep track of your vacation time, you may use tools such as time-tracking software. Create a System for Time Off Requests: Creating a system for time-off requests can help you manage time effectively. In order to facilitate time off requests and make sure that no one else's schedule clashes with their own, you may use software or a scheduling tool. Lead by Example: Finally, it is important to set an example when implementing an unlimited vacation policy. If you are taking time off frequently or misusing the policy, your employees may be more likely to do the same. Make sure you are setting an example for your team and holding yourself and others responsible for adhering to the policy. Conclusion Unlimited vacation policies have the potential to be a game changer in the workplace, providing employees with the freedom and flexibility they need to maintain a healthy work-life balance. However, implementing this policy requires careful consideration and planning. By setting clear expectations, communicating frequently, tracking time off, creating a system for time off requests, and leading by example, you can successfully implement an unlimited vacation policy in your workplace. The key is to balance the benefits of the policy with the challenges and ensure that the policy is being used effectively to improve both employee satisfaction and productivity.#unlimited#vacation#paidtimeoff	Unlimited Vacation Policy Saumya Yadav Outreach Specialist at CuteHR Unlimited vacation policies have been a topic of discussion among many employers and employees. While some companies have already adopted this policy, others are still hesitant to implement it. The concept of unlimited vacation sounds appealing to many employees, as it gives them the freedom to take time off whenever they need it. However, it also raises some concerns about how it can be managed effectively and how it could potentially affect the company's productivity. What is Unlimited Vacation? Employees who are covered by an unlimited vacation policy, sometimes referred to as flexible time off or discretionary time off, are free to take as much time off as they need without regard to a set number of days or an accumulation schedule. Instead of having a specific number of vacation days or personal days, employees can take time off when needed and for as long as they need it, as long as it does not affect their work or the company's operations. The Benefits Of Unlimited Vacation Unlimited vacation policies have many benefits for both employers and employees. Here are some of the advantages of implementing this policy: Employee Satisfaction and Retention: Unlimited vacation policies can improve employee satisfaction and retention. When employees have the freedom to take time off when they need it, they feel more in control of their work-life balance. They are also less likely to experience burnout, stress, and other negative effects of overworking. This leads to a more satisfied and engaged workforce, which in turn leads to higher retention rates. Increased Productivity: Contrary to what some may think, unlimited vacation policies can actually increase productivity. When employees have the freedom to take time off when they need it, they are more likely to come back to work refreshed, energized, and focused. They are also more likely to be productive when they are at work, as they do not feel the need to take unnecessary sick or mental health days. Cost Savings: Unlimited vacation policies can also save companies money. When employees take time off, they are not getting paid, which means the company is not incurring any additional costs. This can be especially beneficial for small businesses that may not have the resources to provide extensive benefits packages.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.jotform.com/blog/unlimited-vacations-myth/	Unlimited vacation days: the newest fad of startups \| The Jotform Blog	With the effects of proper vacation time so beneficial and important to health, the popular startup fad of “unlimited vacation days” sounds like a dream come true. With endless vacation days, a mid-day office Caribbean daydream could become reality, 3 times a year. Unfortunately, what tends to happen with these “no policy” vacation policies is that employees end up taking less time than those with fixed vacation policies. The “No Policy” Policy What does unlimited vacation days mean, exactly? “Our vacation policy is ‘take vacation’,” says Netflix, one of the first notable American companies to implement an unlimited vacation policy. “We don’t have any rules or forms around how many weeks per year.” Virgin CEO Richard Branson also has implemented an unlimited vacation policy for his company. “Treat people as human beings, give them that flexibility, and I don’t think they’ll abuse it,” commented Richard on the policy. Traditionally, employees are allotted a certain amount of vacation days per year. “The average American worker receives 10 days of paid vacation per year. European countries, by contrast, mandate that employers offer at least 20 days a year. Some EU countries have even upped the requirement to 25 and 30 days.” – source Compared to other countries, the U.S. average is a pretty measly number. Furthermore, these 10 average days are not even guaranteed — there is no law on minimum vacation days, it is up to employers to determine those numbers. With such sad statistics, it is no wonder why some companies have decided to make a dramatic statement about changing the way their employees vacation. Unfortunately, there are quite a few reasons why an unlimited vacation policy actually leads to more work. The sad reality behind unlimited vacation days On the face, unlimited vacation may sound reasonable. After all, we’re all adults, so we shouldn’t have to ask to take a vacation when we know we need it just as we shouldn’t have to ask to use the bathroom when nature calls. And ambiguity isn’t the only problem with unlimited vacation days. Culture has a huge impact on how employers view their vacation policy. Take the U.S. average. Working almost 500 more hours per year than French workers, America is also the only country that does not offer mandatory paid vacation days, paid sick days, and mandatory paid parental leave. This pressure to work, work, work can make employees wary of taking advantage of the meager vacation days they are allotted (if any). Plan ahead — how to create a successful vacation policy The freeness of an open-ended vacation policy quickly falls apart upon closer inspection. But the limited, 10 days a year isn’t ideal either. A successful vacation policy might fall somewhere right in the middle. At Jotform, there is always a lot of work to be done. And, in order for that work to be done successfully, I know myself and my employees need time off to stay refreshed. While we’ve yet to build a daydreaming room at Jotform, we do believe in giving our employees paid time off. We put some healthy pressure on our staff to actually use their vacation days, too. Vacations are a must for everyone at JotForm. No exceptions. We also encourage people to work with their peak hours. Our flex time policy allows everyone to come in early or start later. As long as they spend most of the day with their team, tackling projects and building momentum together, they can honor their own rhythms. When they originally ran into issues with the “no policy” policy, they knew something had to change. They decided to keep the “unlimited” idea, but with a new rule. They added a minimum amount of vacation days — 3 weeks per year. That solved the issue of ambiguity and uncertainty with how many days were allowed. And they even started offering employees $1,000 to take a vacation, which showed appreciation and changed the company culture in a positive way. When employees feel appreciated by their employers, they will have more loyalty to the company and find more joy in the work they are doing. One of the best ways to show appreciation to your employers is through adequate time off. When employees at Buffer saw their managers taking vacations, were offered bonuses for vacationing, and had a general number to go off when wondering how many days were appropriate, they felt at ease in taking a vacation when they needed. Company culture Every business is different. That’s both an opportunity and a challenge. Like any relationship, it has to be nurtured. It will change and evolve, so it helps to stay open. Be flexible. But also, understand what matters most deeply. Don’t compromise anything that’s truly essential to your business or your values. Culture matters. I’ve learned that if you appreciate your employees and the work they do, the better they will work and the happier they will be in the office. Vacation time and its myriad of health benefits is a massively important issue and something that, when done right, will build trust between you and your employees. All of us feel like we need a week-long Caribbean dream vacation here and there; having the possibility to take that dream vacation without fear of backlash from employers and fellow employees is one of the greatest things you can offer your employees. Aytekin Tank is the founder and CEO of Jotform and the bestselling author of Automate Your Busywork. A developer by trade but a storyteller by heart, he writes about his journey as an entrepreneur and shares advice for other startups. He loves to hear from Jotform users. You can reach Aytekin from his official website aytekintank.com.	With the effects of proper vacation time so beneficial and important to health, the popular startup fad of “unlimited vacation days” sounds like a dream come true. With endless vacation days, a mid-day office Caribbean daydream could become reality, 3 times a year. Unfortunately, what tends to happen with these “no policy” vacation policies is that employees end up taking less time than those with fixed vacation policies. The “No Policy” Policy What does unlimited vacation days mean, exactly? “Our vacation policy is ‘take vacation’,” says Netflix, one of the first notable American companies to implement an unlimited vacation policy. “We don’t have any rules or forms around how many weeks per year.” Virgin CEO Richard Branson also has implemented an unlimited vacation policy for his company. “Treat people as human beings, give them that flexibility, and I don’t think they’ll abuse it,” commented Richard on the policy. Traditionally, employees are allotted a certain amount of vacation days per year. “The average American worker receives 10 days of paid vacation per year. European countries, by contrast, mandate that employers offer at least 20 days a year. Some EU countries have even upped the requirement to 25 and 30 days.” – source Compared to other countries, the U.S. average is a pretty measly number. Furthermore, these 10 average days are not even guaranteed — there is no law on minimum vacation days, it is up to employers to determine those numbers. With such sad statistics, it is no wonder why some companies have decided to make a dramatic statement about changing the way their employees vacation. Unfortunately, there are quite a few reasons why an unlimited vacation policy actually leads to more work. The sad reality behind unlimited vacation days On the face, unlimited vacation may sound reasonable. After all, we’re all adults, so we shouldn’t have to ask to take a vacation when we know we need it just as we shouldn’t have to ask to use the bathroom when nature calls. And ambiguity isn’t the only problem with unlimited vacation days.	no
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://helloflamingo.com/unlimited-vacation-policy/	Why the Unlimited Vacation Policy is the Future of Paid Time Off ...	Why the Unlimited Vacation Policy is the Future of Paid Time Off In the US, there are no federal laws governing the amount of paid vacation days employees are allowed. The average number of vacation days given to workers sits around 10 per year, after 1 year of employment, significantly lower than most other areas of the world. Yet while some companies continue to skimp over the amount of paid leave offered to their employees, this new trend veers in the other direction. We’re talking about an unlimited vacation policy. This policy offers superior flexibility and autonomy to workers, making it a more progressive way to run a team. And though doubters claim that this is a productivity killer, most organizations that use an unlimited vacation policy find the opposite is true. Read on to learn more about how unlimited vacation is empowering a more positive workforce. Trending: data shows, over a two year period, 32% of US workers went more than 12 months without taking a sick day. Click here to read more, and learn why that’s a problem. How Does Unlimited Vacation Work? This kind of leave policy might also go by a range of different terms, such as open vacation, unlimited PTO, open PTO, flexible vacation or “use what you need” paid time off. These are all the same; employees simply have no cap on their paid time off allowance. The idea is that employees can request and take paid leave as they normally would, but they won’t be limited to a certain number of days of paid leave per year. In essence, an unlimited PTO policy could work a number of ways, depending on how the company wants to structure it, such as: No limit on all paid leave Unlimited sick leave, limit on paid vacation days Limit on paid leave, but unlimited unpaid leave days The first option is the one that is trending the most today, and the one that’s getting the most attention. The key to making unlimited vacation work is to switch from judging employees on attendance to judging based on production. Realistically, it doesn’t matter if someone works 5 days a week or 3, if they both produce the same results. An unlimited vacation policy puts that into practice. Employees are allowed to take essentially as much time off as they wish, as long as the work gets done. This is empowering to the worker, as they’re less likely to feel like they’re being micromanaged. It’s also beneficial for the business because employees have a more solid incentive to get actual work done – if I hit my KPIs, I can go on vacation as much as I want. In traditional workplaces, it’s all too common to see employees turn up every day and simply count down the hours until they clock out, and end up getting very little done. What Does Unlimited Vacation Mean? Is it Really Unlimited? Many see unlimited vacation as an “anything goes” leave policy, which is not quite accurate. There is no hard limit on vacation days in an unlimited PTO policy. But that’s not to say that employees can jet off on leave any time they want, or that they can disappear on a six month paid vacation. There are still conditions and fair use in place for employees in regards to paid leave. The exact conditions are up to the company to decide for itself, but here are some rules that may need to be followed: There may be a limit on the length of time one can take off all at once. A minimum number of days’ notice required for requesting leave (you can’t say “I’m on vacation from tomorrow, thanks”). Fair use: meaning, while there might not be a limit on the number of days you can take off, employees can’t take a crazy amount of leave, like six months of the year for example. The employer, manager, or HR team will track and address any cases where the unlimited vacation policy may be getting abused, and an employee takes more than their fair share. So, the short answer is, unlimited vacation is unlimited… within reason. It’s not a free for all, and there are still rules. Why Would You Give Your Employees Unlimited Vacation Time? It’s fair to question why a company would be so generous in terms of paying staff not to work. On the face of it, it seems to make little economic or business sense. But there are some significant benefits if you look a little deeper. The flexibility and autonomy offered to employees is one selling point. Unlimited vacation gives people the freedom they need to be healthy, happy, and live their best lives. It can go wrong if you offer it to the wrong people, but if you’ve got the right people in your team, it will elevate them to a whole new level. Greater freedom for employees gives them more of an opportunity to build a positive work-life balance, which will almost certainly affect their work in a positive way. Combine the personal benefits for employees with the company’s need to switch to performance-based KPIs, and organizations that institute an unlimited vacation policy most often see a boost in productivity, rather than any loss from the increase in paid leave days. Further Reading: along with vacation time, several other employee benefits consistently rank at the top of those most valued and sought-after by job seekers. Learn what they are in this post: Is There Any Downside to Unlimited PTO? No one’s claiming that an unlimited vacation policy is perfect. It comes with a few downsides and risks. The most obvious risk is abuse. If you offer unlimited vacation days to employees, there’s always the chance that some people can take far too much time off. To prevent abuse, it’s important to make sure your team is given clear, production-driven KPIs. That way, if someone tries to abuse the unlimited vacation policy, they only risk setting themselves behind. However, this can also go the other way. There are a number of examples where employees in a company with an unlimited vacation policy to take less leave. This is because the employee might feel more pressure to show up to work, due to fear of being seen as taking advantage of the system. When you have a set number of vacation days, it’s clear how much time off you’re expected to take. But with unlimited vacation, it’s difficult to know how much is too much, and when it might start to show you in a negative light. What’s more, some companies end up putting pressure on employees to take as little vacation time as possible, even though it’s technically “unlimited”. To truly get the most out of your unlimited vacation policy, make sure there’s no underlying pressure on employees to neglect their vacation days, and work to create a culture that doesn’t stigmatize asking for time off. It also might be a good idea to set minimum expectations for annual leave, like HubSpot does with their “two weeks to infinity” unlimited vacation policy. Related: See how Flamingo’s leave tracker makes it a cinch for Slack teams to manage time off. Is the Administrative Burden Better or Worse with Unlimited Paid Time Off? Consider the burden on the company’s admin or HR team with an unlimited PTO policy, which can be positive or negative. On the positive side, unlimited vacation requires less day-to-day management. Each leave can be counted under the unlimited PTO policy, rather than categorizing leaves as things like sick leave, bereavement, personal days, vacation, etc. Also, unlimited time off means there are no unused vacation days at the end of the year needing to be used, paid out or carried over. Not needing to pay employees for unused time off can also offer big cost savings to the company. However, consider there may be some admin work involved in this area when switching over to an unlimited vacation policy. If you have employees with accrued vacation time, this could cause an issue. The company would most likely need to pay out any unused vacation time before the new policy officially comes into effect. Run a more productive team with Flamingo. The Verdict: Is an Unlimited Vacation Policy Right for Your Business? Offering unlimited paid time off is not going to make sense for every company. Such a policy may not work for service-based companies, as having staff on leave more often could affect their ability to serve customers or clients. Along the same lines, unlimited vacation is not suitable for companies that pay their employees hourly, rather than a fixed weekly/monthly salary. It may also be more difficult to transition to unlimited vacation if paid leave makes up a great deal of your company’s hierarchy/bonus structure. But for many companies, any growing pains of switching to an unlimited vacation policy are worth it. A flexible vacation policy empowers your team to get the rest and time away from work they need to stay healthy, happy, and productive. As a result, you’re going to see these employees stick around longer, reducing turnover costs. Recruitment is also easier with a more generous and open vacation policy. Top job seekers with multiple options will be more likely to take a job that offers unlimited vacation than one with a rigid and outdated paid leave policy. It’s not going to be long until it’s commonplace to make employee wellbeing a priority. When that happens, unlimited vacation policies will be closer to the rule than the exception.	A minimum number of days’ notice required for requesting leave (you can’t say “I’m on vacation from tomorrow, thanks”). Fair use: meaning, while there might not be a limit on the number of days you can take off, employees can’t take a crazy amount of leave, like six months of the year for example. The employer, manager, or HR team will track and address any cases where the unlimited vacation policy may be getting abused, and an employee takes more than their fair share. So, the short answer is, unlimited vacation is unlimited… within reason. It’s not a free for all, and there are still rules. Why Would You Give Your Employees Unlimited Vacation Time? It’s fair to question why a company would be so generous in terms of paying staff not to work. On the face of it, it seems to make little economic or business sense. But there are some significant benefits if you look a little deeper. The flexibility and autonomy offered to employees is one selling point. Unlimited vacation gives people the freedom they need to be healthy, happy, and live their best lives. It can go wrong if you offer it to the wrong people, but if you’ve got the right people in your team, it will elevate them to a whole new level. Greater freedom for employees gives them more of an opportunity to build a positive work-life balance, which will almost certainly affect their work in a positive way. Combine the personal benefits for employees with the company’s need to switch to performance-based KPIs, and organizations that institute an unlimited vacation policy most often see a boost in productivity, rather than any loss from the increase in paid leave days. Further Reading: along with vacation time, several other employee benefits consistently rank at the top of those most valued and sought-after by job seekers. Learn what they are in this post: Is There Any Downside to Unlimited PTO? No one’s claiming that an unlimited vacation policy is perfect.	yes
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	yes_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cfos-beware-unlimited-vacation-bad-fix-unused-susan-snipes-sphr-cpp	CFOs Beware: Unlimited Vacation Is A Bad Fix for Unused Vacation ...	Susan Snipes GPHR, SPHR, MS HRM - Fractional Human Resources, Global HR Advisor This article was originally published on SmartPTO’s blog. To receive early access to information and updates on how to make a change in your organization, sign up for our blog and be a part of something big at smartpto.com. Unused vacation liability compromises cash flow and creditworthiness. You have seen the lingering liability of unused vacation time on your company’s balance sheet. And you are likely aware that the problem is not unique to your company or to your employees. But how serious and prevalent is the problem? Since the late 1990s, there has been a measurable, steady decline in vacation usage. Oxford Economics, in conjunction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that Americans took on average one week less vacation in 2016 than they did in 1996. This reduction in vacation usage has proven problematic for employers. An online survey by Gfk found that US companies had about $272 billion in vacation liability sitting on their collective balance sheets in 2016. This number was up 21 percent since 2015. ADP, a global payroll and HR solutions company, was adding $50 million a year to its liabilities due to unused vacation time. If you support a smaller company that is still in growth mode or seeking outside investments, then you are particularly impacted by unused vacation liability. When money is shown on your company’s balance sheets as a liability, it cannot be allocated towards investments like improvements and new assets to help the business grow and perform better financially. It also makes the company appear less favorable in the event of a merger or acquisition. Popular “solutions” fail to solve the real problem Historically, most companies have not effectively addressed the issue of vacation liability. Figure 1. adapted from Figure 16 on page 21 of World at Work’s 2014 publication Paid Time Off Programs and Practices. Paying it out Paying out any unused vacation gets the liability off the books, but it does not solve the many hidden costs of unused vacation. When employees have the option to receive cash in lieu of paid time off, it incentivizes them not to take vacations. This can have health, safety and productivity implications. World at Work’s 2014 survey on vacation practices (see Figure 1) revealed that relatively few companies go this route. Forfeiting Adopting a “use it or lose it” policy where employees forfeit any unused vacation at the end of the year resets the vacation liability to zero for the next year but does nothing to address the liability in the current year. Companies may adopt this type of policy in hopes that employees will be compelled to use their vacation time. This strategy often results in too many people requesting time off at the end of the year, which can create conflict with workloads and deadlines. There are even a few states in which “use it or lose it” policies are unlawful because vacation pay is considered to be deferred wages to which employees are entitled. The survey found this to be the second least utilized method. Rolling it over The most popular method, according to the survey, is allowing some or all unused vacation to carry over to the next calendar year. This only prolongs the liability. Employees may also build up vacation time to use in the event of a layoff, job elimination or reduction in force, effectively using their vacation bank as a savings account. Employees are more likely to experience burnout, and employers are exposed to the related risks. No balance An emerging practice that has received much media attention in recent years is the use of “unlimited” or “self-managed” vacation where employees have no official balance and no vacation accrual. While this policy does keep vacation liabilities off the balance sheet, employees may react poorly to the news of such a policy. Tribune Publishing, for example, had to rescind their new unlimited time off policy after only 8 days due to negative employee feedback. Unlimited PTO also does not encourage employees to take vacations. According to research conducted by SHRM, only 1% of employers offered unlimited paid time off in 2017. Do you want to receive information and updates on how to make a change in your organization? Sign up and be a part of something big at smartpto.com. Who really benefits from this accounting strategy? Unlimited vacation has been touted as an amazing perk to attract talent and promote accountability with a “work hard, play hard” philosophy. You may have even considered it for your organization. Despite the hype, unlimited vacation has not proven to be more beneficial to employees. Several companies, including Kickstarter that implemented unlimited vacation policies, found that their employees took about the same amount of vacation as they did before the switch. Observations and informal surveys from HR professionals like Bruce Elliot, SHRM’s Manager of Compensation and Benefits, confirm that even when employees have the option to take as much time as they want, they don’t. There are, however, several ways in which companies benefit from such policies. And these advantages might tempt you to try this insufficient strategy. With an unlimited vacation policy, the need for your company to track and account for vacation usage is greatly reduced or eliminated. This lowers costs associated with administrative time spent on vacation tracking. You do not have to account for it financially because there is no way to account for something unlimited. Under an unlimited vacation policy, your company avoids having to pay out any unused vacation time when an employee leaves the organization. Since how much time off an employee gets to take under an unlimited vacation policy is unclear, many employees may shy away from taking time off out of fear that expectations might not be met. Employees also are only able to take time off that is approved by the company. The combination of employees being hesitant to request time off and employers failing to approve it when requested might eventually result in less vacation being used under an unlimited policy. Unlimited policies work especially against employees at companies’ that chiefly employ billable professionals (e.g. Attorney’s, CPAs, Engineers). These companies’ business models prevent employees from taking time off away from work, fully “unplugged.” Since their employees have to answer phone calls and emails and even attend meetings while on vacation, it is easy to make their vacations “unlimited”. What are some forward-thinking companies already doing? Vacation Incentives Forward-thinking companies get that it’s in everyone’s best interest to encourage employees to take vacations. Real vacations. And these companies offer additional perks to incentivize the practice. FullContact, a cloud-based contact-management software company, offers their employees a $7,500 vacation bonus. In order to receive the bonus, employees must disconnect completely from work. If they do any work at all, including checking emails, while on vacation, they do not get the money. Software company MOZ reimburses their employees up to $3,000 a year for their vacations. Marriott International offers hotel and vacation package discounts to its employees. Many other companies have similar vacation enhancing perks that are designed to address the underlying problem of people not taking vacations. Mandatory Vacation According to Ernst & Young, a risk assurance and financial consulting firm, the employees most likely to commit fraud are tenured employees with a long history of not taking their annual leave. They recommend that employers require employees to take at least 2 consecutive weeks of vacation each year. Anthology, a recruiting platform, introduced a mandatory vacation policy to reduce the risks associate with employee burnout. Several other companies have implemented mandatory vacation policies to get their US employees to take their vacations. Balsamiq, a company that aids with software design, used to have an “unlimited” vacation policy, but it didn’t work. Employees were not taking enough vacation time. To get employees to take time off, the company implemented a policy that employees must take at least 20 days off work each year. At Authentic Jobs, employees are required to take 12 holidays and 15 vacation days each year. And BareMetrics, a SAAS analytics company, has a minimum vacation policy that requires employees to take at least 4 weeksoff with a least one week-or-longer vacation. Vacation deprivation comes with hidden costs While unlimited vacation gets vacation liability off your balance sheet, there are far greater costs resulting from unused vacation. Heavy workloads that result in burnout could be reduced by the productivity gains from employees taking vacations. According to the Harvard Business Review, 94% of vacations result in a positive ROI for employees’ energy and outlook. Project Time Off cites that 89% of managers agree that employees who use their vacation time use fewer sick days and are less likely to burn out. In the Huffington Post’s article on the costs of turnover, they cite evidence that losing and replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 16-213% of the employee’s annual salary. Since managers and executives are statistically the least likely to take a vacation and may be more likely to burn out, the vacation-related turnover costs can be extremely high. It’s time to do what works When it comes to addressing the costs of unused vacation time, companies that enforce vacation limits and balance adherence miss the mark. Success occurs through a culture of required and incentivized vacations. By shifting the focus of vacation policies from restrictions to results, you can best reduce or eliminate your company’s unused vacation liability. I can tell you put a lot into this article! I have been researching pros and cons for a couple of years and this is one of the best at listing the pitfalls! Every employee thinks it is a great incentive, but when productivity is tied to allowing time off, people tend not to take needed time away. Thanks for this!	This only prolongs the liability. Employees may also build up vacation time to use in the event of a layoff, job elimination or reduction in force, effectively using their vacation bank as a savings account. Employees are more likely to experience burnout, and employers are exposed to the related risks. No balance An emerging practice that has received much media attention in recent years is the use of “unlimited” or “self-managed” vacation where employees have no official balance and no vacation accrual. While this policy does keep vacation liabilities off the balance sheet, employees may react poorly to the news of such a policy. Tribune Publishing, for example, had to rescind their new unlimited time off policy after only 8 days due to negative employee feedback. Unlimited PTO also does not encourage employees to take vacations. According to research conducted by SHRM, only 1% of employers offered unlimited paid time off in 2017. Do you want to receive information and updates on how to make a change in your organization? Sign up and be a part of something big at smartpto.com. Who really benefits from this accounting strategy? Unlimited vacation has been touted as an amazing perk to attract talent and promote accountability with a “work hard, play hard” philosophy. You may have even considered it for your organization. Despite the hype, unlimited vacation has not proven to be more beneficial to employees. Several companies, including Kickstarter that implemented unlimited vacation policies, found that their employees took about the same amount of vacation as they did before the switch. Observations and informal surveys from HR professionals like Bruce Elliot, SHRM’s Manager of Compensation and Benefits, confirm that even when employees have the option to take as much time as they want, they don’t. There are, however, several ways in which companies benefit from such policies. And these advantages might tempt you to try this insufficient strategy. With an unlimited vacation policy, the need for your company to track and account for vacation usage is greatly reduced or eliminated. This lowers costs associated with administrative time spent on vacation tracking.	no
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	no_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is not "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" do not benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/04/05/13-employee-benefits-that-dont-actually-work/	13 Employee Benefits That Don't Actually Work	Employees love benefits. They like to feel valued and appreciated by the company they work for. But, when these benefits are nothing more than a gimmick, they can have the opposite effect and make employees wonder if they are really getting anything at all in reward for their hard work and constant efforts. Employee job satisfaction has been constantly dropping over the last 20 years, with compensation and benefits among the top factors for the downward trend. As employers look to save money and cut costs, benefits are often the first thing to go even when they don’t intrinsically offer any mutual benefit to the employee/employer relationship. From unlimited vacation time to employee discount programs, empty job titles and more, here are several employee benefits that are simply gimmicks and don’t actually benefit the workforce in any way, according to 13 members of Forbes Coaches Council. Unlimited vacation tends to lead to employees taking less vacation, at least in North America. With no use-it-or-lose-it driver, most knowledge workers will keep working in order to serve commitments to customers and peers. It takes more chutzpah to ask for significant time off when all vacation is "at your manager's discretion." - Ronica Roth, CA Technologies 3. Employee Discount Programs Employee discount programs fundamentally don't work because they are about generating revenue for the company through the partnerships. Rarely are the services offered the best deals and rarely are they what the business' employees want. So the company can say it's offering a benefit and if the employee chooses not to use it, that's their choice. - Larry Boyer, Success Rockets LLC 4. A Culture Based On Fun And Good Times When a company touts Taco Tuesday and a beer tap in the break room as the reason someone should be eager to work there, your brand becomes diluted. While these are fun extras, messaging a culture of professional development, upward mobility and growth reflects positively on talent acquisition and retention efforts, as well as client support. No one is interested in doing business with a frat house. - Jeanna McGinnis, Mentor Happy 5. The Offer Of Secure Employment Recruiters and hiring managers indicating long-term employment relationships help the applicant make the decisions to become employees. The reality is, there is no crystal ball forecasting this security. You can, however, do your own research and know your labor market and industry. The research will help you see the future, and investing in your own self and career will help realize it. - Gayle Draper, Intentional Careers and Human Resources I have never found Employee of the Month programs to be beneficial. While it may make one person feel special for a short period of time, it serves as a demotivator for anyone else who has been doing a great job. I have always encouraged my clients and companies to be more instantaneous in their approach to recognition. Why wait to reward someone when doing it now will provide a better and longer lasting impact? - Dan Ryan, Ryan Search & Consulting 7. The 'Top Dog' When faced with earning at the top of the pay grade, employees become disenfranchised as there's no room for growth. Leaders who appease by promising they're the "top paid and most senior" compound the issue and create more distrust. Instead, work together, seeking new ways to validate and reward that the employee will find valuable. - Christine J. Culbertson (Boyle), Coach Christine 8. Special Titles I just finished working with a client. As we reviewed their company structure it seemed like everybody had a unique title. The president told me that most of the positions were really the same. The different titles were a way to make them feel good; a benefit. That reminded me of the "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy. It creates risk when it comes to discrimination and other HR regulations. Titles should mean something and they should be earned. - Brad Federman, F&H Solutions Group 9. Meals, Wi-Fi And Dogs Benefits that appear to encourage employees to work longer hours could backfire. For example, Google has offered free food, free buses with Wi-Fi that transport employees to and from work, and the ability to bring their dog to work. Some employees felt that the Wi-Fi on the buses was designed to encourage them to work during their transit and that meals were meant to incentivize them to work later. - Lisa Barrington, Barrington Coaching 10. Foosball Tables Many companies opt for modern workspaces equipped with snacks and foosball tables. The intention is to inspire the workforce to feel more engaged at work. The result is meager because what employees really want is to feel purpose and passion for what they do. If the organization does not tap into a greater purpose at the leadership level, a foosball table is just another unnecessary expenditure. - Indira Jerez, INNERtia Project 11. Paying Cell Phone Bills On the surface, paying an expensive cell phone bill sounds like a great benefit. After all, that has the effect of increased compensation. However, it doesn't come without strings attached, since it usually means you are always on call. You feel like you should be taking calls or answering emails 24/7. Most people are better off if they can truly leave work at work. - Donald Hatter, Donald Hatter Inc. 12. Avoid “One Size Fits All” Many companies understand the benefit of growth/development plans for individuals. In theory, this is great; however, if companies are using “one size fits all” plans, they become like any other perfunctory process and are not truly successful. Have a framework or plan for growth/development, train leaders to be flexible, adaptable and ask for input from the individuals. - Michelle Braden, MSBCoach, LLC 13. Open Air Forums A few career clients of mine commented that a company's "open forum" turned into a kind of public surveillance vehicle to surface problem employees among the management staff. That didn't sit well with people who later found out what they said in these forums was used against them during evaluation time. If you are an employer, make sure your open forums are indeed open. Employees? Beware. - John M. O'Connor, Career Pro Inc.	Employees love benefits. They like to feel valued and appreciated by the company they work for. But, when these benefits are nothing more than a gimmick, they can have the opposite effect and make employees wonder if they are really getting anything at all in reward for their hard work and constant efforts. Employee job satisfaction has been constantly dropping over the last 20 years, with compensation and benefits among the top factors for the downward trend. As employers look to save money and cut costs, benefits are often the first thing to go even when they don’t intrinsically offer any mutual benefit to the employee/employer relationship. From unlimited vacation time to employee discount programs, empty job titles and more, here are several employee benefits that are simply gimmicks and don’t actually benefit the workforce in any way, according to 13 members of Forbes Coaches Council. Unlimited vacation tends to lead to employees taking less vacation, at least in North America. With no use-it-or-lose-it driver, most knowledge workers will keep working in order to serve commitments to customers and peers. It takes more chutzpah to ask for significant time off when all vacation is "at your manager's discretion." - Ronica Roth, CA Technologies 3. Employee Discount Programs Employee discount programs fundamentally don't work because they are about generating revenue for the company through the partnerships. Rarely are the services offered the best deals and rarely are they what the business' employees want. So the company can say it's offering a benefit and if the employee chooses not to use it, that's their choice. - Larry Boyer, Success Rockets LLC 4. A Culture Based On Fun And Good Times When a company touts Taco Tuesday and a beer tap in the break room as the reason someone should be eager to work there, your brand becomes diluted. While these are fun extras, messaging a culture of professional development, upward mobility and growth reflects positively on talent acquisition and retention efforts, as well as client support. No one is interested in doing business with a frat house. - Jeanna McGinnis, Mentor Happy 5.	no
Work-Life Balance	Is unlimited vacation time beneficial for employees?	no_statement	"unlimited" "vacation" "time" is not "beneficial" for "employees".. "employees" do not benefit from "unlimited" "vacation" "time".	https://smartpto.com/unlimited-vacation/	Stop Using Unlimited Vacation as a Fix for Unused Vacation Liability	Unused Vacation Liability Compromises Cash Flow and Creditworthiness You have seen the lingering liability of unused vacation time on your company’s balance sheet. And you are likely aware that the problem is not unique to your company or to your employees. But how serious and prevalent is the problem? Since the late 1990s, there has been a measurable, steady decline in vacation usage. Oxford Economics, in conjunction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that Americans took on average one week less vacation in 2016 than they did in 1996. This reduction in vacation usage has proven problematic for employers. An online survey by Gfk found that US companies had about $272 billion in vacation liability sitting on their collective balance sheets in 2016. This number was up 21 percent since 2015. ADP, a global payroll and HR solutions company, was adding $50 million a year to its liabilities due to unused vacation time. If you support a smaller company that is still in growth mode or seeking outside investments, then you are particularly impacted by unused vacation liability. When money is shown on your company’s balance sheets as a liability, it cannot be allocated towards investments like improvements and new assets to help the business grow and perform better financially. It also makes the company appear less favorable in the event of a merger or acquisition. Popular “Solutions” Fail to Solve the Real Problem Historically, most companies have not effectively addressed the issue of vacation liability. Paying It Out Paying out any unused vacation gets the liability off the books, but it does not solve the many hidden costs of unused vacation. When employees have the option to receive cash in lieu of paid time off, it incentivizes them not to take vacations. This can have health, safety and productivity implications. World at Work’s 2014 survey on vacation practices (see Figure 1) revealed that relatively few companies go this route. Forfeiting Adopting a “use it or lose it” policy where employees forfeit any unused vacation at the end of the year resets the vacation liability to zero for the next year but does nothing to address the liability in the current year. Companies may adopt this type of policy in hopes that employees will be compelled to use their vacation time. This strategy often results in too many people requesting time off at the end of the year, which can create conflict with workloads and deadlines. There are even a few states in which “use it or lose it” policies are unlawful because vacation pay is considered to be deferred wages to which employees are entitled. The survey found this to be the second least utilized method. Rolling it Over The most popular method, according to the survey, is allowing some or all unused vacation to carry over to the next calendar year. This only prolongs the liability. Employees may also build up vacation time to use in the event of a layoff, job elimination or reduction in force, effectively using their vacation bank as a savings account. Employees are more likely to experience burnout, and employers are exposed to the related risks. No Balance An emerging practice that has received much media attention in recent years is the use of “unlimited” or “self-managed” vacation where employees have no official balance and no vacation accrual. While this policy does keep vacation liabilities off the balance sheet, employees may react poorly to the news of such a policy. Tribune Publishing, for example, had to rescind their new unlimited time off policy after only 8 days due to negative employee feedback. Unlimited PTO also does not encourage employees to take vacations. According to research conducted by SHRM, only 1% of employers offered unlimited paid time off in 2017. Who Really Benefits From This Accounting Strategy? Unlimited vacation has been touted as an amazing perk to attract talent and promote accountability with a “work hard, play hard” philosophy. You may have even considered it for your organization. Despite the hype, unlimited vacation has not proven to be more beneficial to employees. Several companies, including Kickstarter that implemented unlimited vacation policies, found that their employees took about the same amount of vacation as they did before the switch. Observations and informal surveys from HR professionals like Bruce Elliot, SHRM’s Manager of Compensation and Benefits, confirm that even when employees have the option to take as much time as they want, they don’t. There are, however, several ways in which companies benefit from such policies. And these advantages might tempt you to try this insufficient strategy. With an unlimited vacation policy, the need for your company to track and account for vacation usage is greatly reduced or eliminated. This lowers costs associated with administrative time spent on vacation tracking. You do not have to account for it financially because there is no way to account for something unlimited. Under an unlimited vacation policy, your company avoids having to pay out any unused vacation time when an employee leaves the organization. Since how much time off an employee gets to take under an unlimited vacation policy is unclear, many employees may shy away from taking time off out of fear that expectations might not be met. Employees also are only able to take time off that is approved by the company. The combination of employees being hesitant to request time off and employers failing to approve it when requested might eventually result in less vacation being used under an unlimited policy. Unlimited policies work especially against employees at companies’ that chiefly employ billable professionals (e.g. Attorney’s, CPAs, Engineers). These companies’ business models prevent employees from taking time off away from work, fully “unplugged.” Since their employees have to answer phone calls and emails and even attend meetings while on vacation, it is easy to make their vacations “unlimited”. What are Some Forward-Thinking Companies Already Doing? Vacation Incentives Forward-thinking companies get that it’s in everyone’s best interest to encourage employees to take vacations. Real vacations. And these companies offer additional perks to incentivize the practice. FullContact, a cloud-based contact-management software company, offers their employees a $7,500 vacation bonus. In order to receive the bonus, employees must disconnect completely from work. If they do any work at all, including checking emails, while on vacation, they do not get the money. Software company MOZ reimburses their employees up to $3,000 a year for their vacations. Marriott International offers hotel and vacation package discounts to its employees. Many other companies have similar vacation enhancing perks that are designed to address the underlying problem of people not taking vacations. Mandatory Vacation According to Ernst & Young, a risk assurance and financial consulting firm, the employees most likely to commit fraud are tenured employees with a long history of not taking their annual leave. They recommend that employers require employees to take at least 2 consecutive weeks of vacation each year. Anthology, a recruiting platform, introduced a mandatory vacation policy to reduce the risks associate with employee burnout. Several other companies have implemented mandatory vacation policies to get their US employees to take their vacations. Balsamiq, a company that aids with software design, used to have an “unlimited” vacation policy, but it didn’t work. Employees were not taking enough vacation time. To get employees to take time off, the company implemented a policy that employees must take at least 20 days off work each year. At Authentic Jobs, employees are required to take 12 holidays and 15 vacation days each year. And BareMetrics, a SAAS analytics company, has a minimum vacation policy that requires employees to take at least 4 weeks off with a least one week-or-longer vacation. Vacation Deprivation Comes With Hidden Costs While unlimited vacation gets vacation liability off your balance sheet, there are far greater costs resulting from unused vacation. Heavy workloads that result in burnout could be reduced by the productivity gains from employees taking vacations. According to the Harvard Business Review, 94% of vacations result in a positive ROI for employees’ energy and outlook. Project Time Off cites that 89% of managers agree that employees who use their vacation time use fewer sick days and are less likely to burn out. In the Huffington Post’s article on the costs of turnover, they cite evidence that losing and replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 16-213% of the employee’s annual salary. Since managers and executives are statistically the least likely to take a vacation and may be more likely to burn out, the vacation-related turnover costs can be extremely high. It’s Time to do What Works When it comes to addressing the costs of unused vacation time, companies that enforce vacation limits and balance adherence miss the mark. Success occurs through a culture of required and incentivized vacations. By shifting the focus of vacation policies from restrictions to results, you can best reduce or eliminate your company’s unused vacation liability. About Susan S Primary Sidebar Our Vision For organizations, the success of teams and the ability to maintain a highly motivated workforce, are the most important success factors. Worklife quality-based tools will be as common as CRM is today.	While this policy does keep vacation liabilities off the balance sheet, employees may react poorly to the news of such a policy. Tribune Publishing, for example, had to rescind their new unlimited time off policy after only 8 days due to negative employee feedback. Unlimited PTO also does not encourage employees to take vacations. According to research conducted by SHRM, only 1% of employers offered unlimited paid time off in 2017. Who Really Benefits From This Accounting Strategy? Unlimited vacation has been touted as an amazing perk to attract talent and promote accountability with a “work hard, play hard” philosophy. You may have even considered it for your organization. Despite the hype, unlimited vacation has not proven to be more beneficial to employees. Several companies, including Kickstarter that implemented unlimited vacation policies, found that their employees took about the same amount of vacation as they did before the switch. Observations and informal surveys from HR professionals like Bruce Elliot, SHRM’s Manager of Compensation and Benefits, confirm that even when employees have the option to take as much time as they want, they don’t. There are, however, several ways in which companies benefit from such policies. And these advantages might tempt you to try this insufficient strategy. With an unlimited vacation policy, the need for your company to track and account for vacation usage is greatly reduced or eliminated. This lowers costs associated with administrative time spent on vacation tracking. You do not have to account for it financially because there is no way to account for something unlimited. Under an unlimited vacation policy, your company avoids having to pay out any unused vacation time when an employee leaves the organization. Since how much time off an employee gets to take under an unlimited vacation policy is unclear, many employees may shy away from taking time off out of fear that expectations might not be met. Employees also are only able to take time off that is approved by the company. The combination of employees being hesitant to request time off and employers failing to approve it when requested might eventually result in less vacation being used under an unlimited policy.	no
Trichology	Is using hair oil beneficial for all hair types?	yes_statement	using "hair" "oil" is "beneficial" for all "hair" "types".. "hair" "oil" provides benefits for all "hair" "types".	https://www.shuuemuraartofhair-usa.com/discover/5-reasons-you-should-be-using-hair-oils.html	Why You Should Use Hair Oils \| Shu Uemura Art of Hair	the ultimate in avant-garde luxury, shu uemura art of hair fuses unique natural ingredients with trailblazing science, and the experience of the world’s most inspired hairstylists, to offer the absolute artistry of beautiful hair. why you should use hair oils Hair oils have many benefits, and can be used with all hair types. Hair oil is a great multi-purpose product that adds shine, nourishment, softness, and protection to any hair type. Discover recommended hair oils that are perfect for your hair type by using our quick guide to hair oils below. what are the benefits of hair oils? We hear hair stylists and celebrities rave about hair oil products, like our Essence Absolue Hair Oil Collection, but what are the benefits? Hair oils are beneficial to all hair types, providing moisture, shine, and control. The universality of hair oils allow them to work with all hair types from colored hair and oily hair, to damaged hair, dry hair, among other hair concerns. They also provide heat protection for various styling needs. Different types of hair oils use different ingredients to provide the desired level of moisture and shine. Camellia oil is a rapidly trending ingredient that originates from Toshima, Japan, where seeds are handpicked from the camellia flower and transformed into a nourishing oil. Camellia oil has been used for centuries for its nourishing properties to enhance moisture and shine. recommended hair oils for your hair type hair oil for curly hair Hair oils are perfect for curly hair girls, given that curls tend to dry and frizz easily. Applying a small amount of Essence Absolue Nourishing Protective hair oil to each curl helps define and fix frizzy curls, leaving them shiny and smooth. hair oil for fine hair Although women with fine hair are wary of oils weighing their hair down, fine hair still needs healthy nourishment. Apply a lightweight hair oil such as Essence Absolue Nourishing Protective hair oil to fine hair sparingly, making sure to stay away from the scalp and roots. Brush the oil through to distribute evenly and without buildup. hair oils for oily hair A common myth is that hair oil is not intended for greasy or oily hair. High quality hair oils balance the scalp’s natural oils and effectively draw out impurities – as the saying goes, “oil removes oil.” Our precious ingredient, Onsen inspired ferment is known for its purification properties. sign up to the newsletter yes, I want to receive promotional emails from shu uemura art of hair and other L'Oréal brands. By clicking Continue, I confirm I am a US resident, 16+, agree to shu uemura art of hair’s Terms of Use. I have read and acknowledge shu uemura art of hair’s Privacy Policy and Notice of Financial Incentives. I understand I may unsubscribe from promotional emails at any time.	why you should use hair oils Hair oils have many benefits, and can be used with all hair types. Hair oil is a great multi-purpose product that adds shine, nourishment, softness, and protection to any hair type. Discover recommended hair oils that are perfect for your hair type by using our quick guide to hair oils below. what are the benefits of hair oils? We hear hair stylists and celebrities rave about hair oil products, like our Essence Absolue Hair Oil Collection, but what are the benefits? Hair oils are beneficial to all hair types, providing moisture, shine, and control. The universality of hair oils allow them to work with all hair types from colored hair and oily hair, to damaged hair, dry hair, among other hair concerns. They also provide heat protection for various styling needs. Different types of hair oils use different ingredients to provide the desired level of moisture and shine. Camellia oil is a rapidly trending ingredient that originates from Toshima, Japan, where seeds are handpicked from the camellia flower and transformed into a nourishing oil. Camellia oil has been used for centuries for its nourishing properties to enhance moisture and shine. recommended hair oils for your hair type hair oil for curly hair Hair oils are perfect for curly hair girls, given that curls tend to dry and frizz easily. Applying a small amount of Essence Absolue Nourishing Protective hair oil to each curl helps define and fix frizzy curls, leaving them shiny and smooth. hair oil for fine hair Although women with fine hair are wary of oils weighing their hair down, fine hair still needs healthy nourishment.	yes
Trichology	Is using hair oil beneficial for all hair types?	yes_statement	using "hair" "oil" is "beneficial" for all "hair" "types".. "hair" "oil" provides benefits for all "hair" "types".	https://hairstory.com/blogs/news/best-natural-hair-oils-for-healthy-hair-and-scalp-hairstory	Best Natural Hair Oils for Healthy Hair and Scalp \| Hairstory	Everything To Know About the Best Hair Oils for Natural Healthy Hair Commonly used to moisturize and style, hair oil has made a name for itself thanks to the endless benefits it provides for all hair types – especially those with natural texture. Whether you currently usehair oilin your routine or have only seen it in stores, there’s a lot you need to know about hair oil to use it properly. Below, we take a look at the benefits of using hair oil and the types that work best for natural hair. Oil might seem intimidating, but once you’re familiar with how to use it, this small change is likely to make a big impact on your overall hair health and texture. What is Hair Oil? Hair oil is a moisturizing product that you can apply to smooth frizz, add shine, manage hydration, and mask damage. But why do you need a dedicated product if your hair naturally produces oil? As Jasmine Merinsky, a Toronto-based hairstylist, explained toHuffPost, “Similar to skin, we need oil to have healthy, strong hair. Oil lubricates the outer cuticle and strengthens the inner core by providing moisture to help keep the bonds strong.” Celebrity Stylist Mark Townsend toldForbes, “The benefit in most of the oils is all the fatty acids, which replace the lipids in your hair when it starts to get really fine. Right before it splits, there’s nothing holding it together, and all those lipids need to be replaced.” Some oils also offerheat protection, which can shield your hair from the damage and frizz caused by styling tools. So if you find yourself wondering “why is my hair so frizzy?” oil may be part of the solution. What Is Natural Hair Care? Natural hair care can mean different things to different people. To some, it involves using products that are derived from natural sources, such as plants. Most hair oils are natural, made from flowers, seeds, or nuts. However, natural hair care can also refer to embracing and nurturing your natural hair texture – in other words, its state is unaltered by chemical processes, like relaxers or texturizers. While everyone has a natural texture, the term “natural texture hair” typically applies to natural Black hair, which, depending onwhat type of curly hair you have, can range from wavy to kinky orcoily. While anyone can use hair oils, they’re particularly beneficial for those with natural texture, which is often dry and coarse. The Best Natural Hair Oils for Healthy Hair and Scalp The benefits of hair oils are clear – but what is the best natural hair oil? Below, find a few oils that work especially well for natural textures. 1. Jojoba Oil Jojoba oil is known for its similarity to the sebum our body already produces. It’s so similar, in fact, that when usingjojoba oil for hair, our body can’t differentiate it from our natural oils, so it absorbs more easily. You might have heard about Jojoba oil in skincare products such as cuticle oils, but its other talent is working wonders for your hair. Jojoba is a humectant, which means it helps retain and preserve moisture. It’s rich in vitamins and minerals that nourish hair, including vitamins C, B, E, copper, and zinc. Jojoba oil contains a natural form of vitamin E, which is an antioxidant. It can also help strengthen your strands and prevent breakage. Sunflower seed oil is especially great for natural texture hair, which is often coarse and deceptively fragile. The oil helps hair retain moisture and makes it softer and easier to manage. While lightweight, Sunflower seed oil is an effective treatment for frizz and split ends. 3. Evening Primrose Oil Evening Primrose is a flowering plant that’s primarily found in North America and Europe. The oil derived from this plant is a common ingredient in health supplements, topical treatments, and beauty products, andhas been shownto treat a wide range of health issues, from skin problems like eczema and acne to more significant challenges like high blood pressure and nerve pain. This is because the oil is rich in fatty acids, which have anti-inflammatory effects. Even in hair, Evening Primrose oil has anti-inflammatory properties, so it can be soothing on an inflamed scalp. It also fights oxidative stress and promotes healthy cell growth, which can lead to longer and stronger strands. 4. Babassu Oil Babassu oil is made from a tree found in the rain forests of South America – where it’s often used for cooking and medicine. In some ways, Babassu oil is similar to coconut oil. It’s solid at room temperature, but melts at body temperature, making it ideal for use in skin and body products. Babassu oil is packed with antioxidants and healthy fats, but it’s surprisingly lightweight, which makes it ideal for use on natural texture hair. It boosts volume and moisture without adding greasiness. 5. Safflower Seed Oil Safflower seed oil is often confused with Sunflower seed oil, but the former is made from the seed of the Safflower plant, which is known for its bright orange and yellow blooms. Safflower oil is high in oleic acid, or monounsaturated fatty acid, which allows it to easily penetrate the hair cuticle. It prevents protein loss and creates a healthy environment for growth, so using it regularly may result in healthier, stronger, and longer strands. Safflower seed oil is particularly good to use before heat styling, because it has a high smoke point; oils with a low smoke point may allow heat tools to essentially fry your hair. 6. Argan Oil Argan oil is a popular ingredient in skin and hair care products (includingNew Wash Deep) because it’s full of fatty acids that support hydration. Argan oil is also rich in vitamin E, which can help prevent dryness and frizz. It contains linoleic acid (omega-9) and oleic acid (omega-6) whichhelp retain moisture. As an added benefit, argan oil hasbeen shownto protect hair from sun damage. Hair oil can be beneficial for all types, but it’s particularly great for natural texture hair, which is often curly, coarse, and prone to dryness and breakage. Choosing the best natural hair oil for healthier hair and scalp comes down to your unique texture and the benefits you want to achieve. Curly Hair Oils: Which Oils Work Best for Curly Hair? Most natural texture hair is curly, and when it comes totaking care of curly hair, the key is keeping it moisturized and therefore hydrated. Curls tend to be dry and more prone to frizz, breakage, dullness, and a lack of definition. According toRefinery29, “There are two main types of hair oils: sealing and moisturizing. Sealing oils (think jojoba) lock in moisture, meaning that you'll need to start with wet to damp hair beforehand for them to really work. Moisturizing oils (we're talking coconut, olive, or avocado) are heavier than sealing oils and can be used alone to moisturize the hair.” Sealing oils work to restore curly hair to its best state, keeping it shiny, hydrated, and strong, while moisturizing oils can be used as a deep conditioning or leave-in treatment. However, as heavier oils, they also come with some downsides – primarily, they can be difficult to wash out. To completely dissolve and rinse them out, you typically have to use a detergent-based shampoo, which strips your hair of its natural moisture and protective barriers. That creates the need to replace that moisture by adding oil again, resulting in a vicious cycle. For an all-in-one option, opt for a styling oil, like Hair Oil, which contains a blend of natural oils and can be used on damp or dry hair to lock in moisture, seal ends, smooth frizz, and prevent future damage. It’s also easy to wash out, especially with New Wash, a gentle,non-detergent cleanserthat is specifically formulated to dissolve oil without stripping your scalp of its natural moisture barrier. Which Oils Work Best For Dry Hair? When creating a hair oil routine for dry hair, base the type of oil to use on the texture and porosity of your strands. Natural hair, which is often curly, is generally highly porous, which means that it absorbs and loses moisture easily. The bends and waves of curls also make it difficult for the natural oils of your scalp to work their way down the hair shaft. High porosity hair can benefit from heavier, moisturizing oils – just be aware of how much you use. However, some natural hair can also befineand thin, which would benefit from a lightweight oil that doesn’t weigh down your style or make it greasy, like Jojoba or Sunflower. Again, a blend of oils likeHairstory Hair Oilcan help you reap the benefits of multiple oils. Getting Naturally Gorgeous Hair Hair oil is a game-changer for natural texture. It strengthens and hydrates, protects against heat damage, combats frizz, and adds shine. And there are so many ways to use it! In addition to working it through your hair to smooth and soften, try adding a few drops to yourstyling productsfor a dose of moisture and malleability. Make sure there are oils in your cleanser, too;all New Wash types, for example, contain a mixture of Jojoba, Sunflower, Evening Primrose, Peppermint, vegetable, and Argan oils. Now that you have the full scoop on how to add oils to yourhair care routine, there’s no need to be intimidated. In fact, we’re guessing you’ll be in love with your shinier, healthier, naturally gorgeous hair – and you’ll never look back. Sources: Brucculieri, Julia. “The Best Way To Use Hair Oil, According To Experts.” Huffpost, 21 February 2019.URL.	Everything To Know About the Best Hair Oils for Natural Healthy Hair Commonly used to moisturize and style, hair oil has made a name for itself thanks to the endless benefits it provides for all hair types – especially those with natural texture. Whether you currently usehair oilin your routine or have only seen it in stores, there’s a lot you need to know about hair oil to use it properly. Below, we take a look at the benefits of using hair oil and the types that work best for natural hair. Oil might seem intimidating, but once you’re familiar with how to use it, this small change is likely to make a big impact on your overall hair health and texture. What is Hair Oil? Hair oil is a moisturizing product that you can apply to smooth frizz, add shine, manage hydration, and mask damage. But why do you need a dedicated product if your hair naturally produces oil? As Jasmine Merinsky, a Toronto-based hairstylist, explained toHuffPost, “Similar to skin, we need oil to have healthy, strong hair. Oil lubricates the outer cuticle and strengthens the inner core by providing moisture to help keep the bonds strong.” Celebrity Stylist Mark Townsend toldForbes, “The benefit in most of the oils is all the fatty acids, which replace the lipids in your hair when it starts to get really fine. Right before it splits, there’s nothing holding it together, and all those lipids need to be replaced.” Some oils also offerheat protection, which can shield your hair from the damage and frizz caused by styling tools. So if you find yourself wondering “why is my hair so frizzy?” oil may be part of the solution. What Is Natural Hair Care? Natural hair care can mean different things to different people. To some, it involves using products that are derived from natural sources, such as plants. Most hair oils are natural, made from flowers, seeds, or nuts. However, natural hair care can also refer to embracing and nurturing your natural hair texture – in other words, its state is unaltered by chemical processes, like relaxers or texturizers.	yes
Trichology	Is using hair oil beneficial for all hair types?	yes_statement	using "hair" "oil" is "beneficial" for all "hair" "types".. "hair" "oil" provides benefits for all "hair" "types".	https://www.sltrib.com/sponsored/2023/02/13/14-best-jojoba-oils-hair/	14 Best Jojoba oils for hair	14 Best Jojoba oils for hair Sponsored: We’ve rounded up the 14 best jojoba oils for hair so you can find the perfect one for your needs. (Grooming Playbook) 14 Best Jojoba oils for hair. By Grooming Playbook \| Feb. 14, 2023, 4:15 a.m. When it comes to taking care of your hair, there’s no better way than using jojoba oil. This precious liquid gold has long been a favorite of beauty buffs who are serious about their locks. Jojoba oil is packed with vitamins and minerals that nourish the scalp and keep hair looking and feeling healthy. Jojoba oil is non-greasy and lightweight, so it won’t weigh down your strands or leave behind any greasy residue. With all these benefits, it’s no wonder jojoba oil is a go-to product for many people. But with so many options out there, how do you know which one to choose? We’ve rounded up the 14 best jojoba oils for hair so you can find the perfect one for your needs. What to Look for When shopping for jojoba oil, you’ll want to look for a cold-pressed or expeller-pressed product, as these methods preserve more of the oil’s beneficial vitamins and nutrients. You’ll also want to make sure you’re getting a high quality oil, as lower-grade products can contain chemicals, additives, and even fillers that can damage your hair. Look for organic labels, pure ingredients lists, and vegan-friendly formulas to ensure the best possible results. Once you’ve found the right oil, you can start using it on your hair immediately. Start with a small amount and use more as needed, depending on the length and thickness of your tresses. Now let’s dive into our top 14 picks! Here are the best jojoba oils for hair. With regular use, the oil repairs split ends and restores shine to dull locks. It even protects against sun damage. But that’s not all—this wonderous product can be used as body oil, too. Its lightweight formula absorbs quickly and deeply moisturizes skin for a soft, healthy glow. 2. VERB Moringa + Jojoba Treatment Oil (Verb) The oil is a great choice for those looking to combat frizz, reduce split ends, and add sultry shine. Introducing the VERB Moringa + Jojoba Treatment Oil. This combination of two natural ingredients nourishes and protects your hair from environmental damage. The oil is a great choice for those looking to combat frizz, reduce split ends, and add sultry shine. Moringa, high in antioxidants and vitamins, is known to reinforce and strengthen the hair shaft from root to tip. Jojoba helps keep your scalp healthy and hydrated. Together these two oils provide deep nourishment for happy and healthy hair. Using this oil is incredibly easy. After showering, put a couple drops of the oil in your damp hair, and massage all the way through. Try out a few different amounts of oil for personal preference, and go from there. If you want extra conditioning, use the VERB Moringa + Jojoba Treatment Oil as an overnight treatment or pre-shampoo treatment. Simply apply a generous amount before bed or before shampooing (use a shower cap if you want to contain the moisture), leave it on for an hour (or overnight), and then rinse out. (Being Frenshe) With regular use, you’ll see softer, smoother, more manageable hair in no time. Introducing Frenshe Shea Butter with Jojoba and Radiance Oil for Dry Hair! It’s a fortifying blend of all-natural ingredients that will quickly become your secret weapon to restoring softness and shine to dry, damaged hair. Not only is it good for adding moisture, but their unique blend of shea butter, jojoba oil, and radiance oil protects your hair from the detrimental effects of heat styling. So what’s in this “radiance oil” apart from jojoba and shea butter? Safflower oil, cedarwood oil, bergamot oil, ylang ylang oil, and mandarin oil, loaded with critical fatty acids and vitamins, round out the list. Their shea butter blend is also great for taming frizz, restoring elasticity, and giving your hair a healthy shine. You can trust that this formula will keep your hair healthy, soft, and manageable. Just apply a small amount of the shea butter blend to wet or dry hair, and massage it into your strands. You can use it as a leave-in conditioner or to control frizz, depending on your needs. With regular use, you’ll see softer, smoother, more manageable hair in no time. 4. Now Foods Jojoba Oil (Now Foods) Not only does it have hydrating and moisturizing properties, but it’s rich in vitamins B, C, and E, as well as minerals like copper, zinc and chromium. Now Foods Jojoba Oil is a great addition to any hair care routine. It’s made from the seeds of the jojoba shrub, native to Southwestern North America. Not only does it have hydrating and moisturizing properties, but it’s rich in vitamins B, C, and E, as well as minerals like copper, zinc and chromium. These vitamins and minerals nourish the scalp and hair follicles, creating stronger, shinier strands in the process. Jojoba oil can be used as a conditioner or hot oil treatment after shampooing for extra smoothness. It can also be applied directly to the scalp to reduce dandruff and other scalp problems. Finally, jojoba oil can protect hair from damage caused by hot styling tools like straighteners and curling irons. If you want your hair to look its best in no time at all, give Now Foods Jojoba Oil a try. 5. Chagrin Valley’s Jojoba Grapeseed Hair Oil (Chagrin Valley) It’s also great for all hair types, so you can use it without worrying about having a greasy scalp or weighing down your locks. Chagrin Valley’s Jojoba Grapeseed Hair Oil is all the natural goodness you need. This luxurious, lightweight oil is packed with nourishing vitamins, minerals, key fatty acids, and antioxidants to protect your hair from environmental damage. It keeps your scalp hydrated and healthy while adding shine and strength to your tresses. It’s also great for all hair types, so you can use it without worrying about having a greasy scalp or weighing down your locks. Chagrin Valley’s Jojoba Grapeseed Hair Oil is also great for protecting hair from humidity and heat damage. Its natural antioxidants protect the scalp, while its lightweight texture creates a barrier over your hair that holds in hydration and adds shine. So why should you use Chagrin Valley’s Jojoba Grapeseed Hair Oil? Well, it’s a great way to keep your hair looking and feeling healthy without the need for harsh chemicals or treatments. It’s lightweight, nourishing, and can be used on all hair types, no matter how dry or damaged your tresses are. It’s an affordable and easy way to give your hair the extra TLC it needs. 6. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil (Allpa Botanicals) The best way to use Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is to massage it into your scalp and leave it overnight. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is a nourishing and healthy choice for your hair that hydrates, conditions, and protects the scalp. It’s packed with vitamins A & E, which promote healthy hair growth. The lightweight, non-greasy formula makes it perfect for all types of hair. The best way to use Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is to massage it into your scalp and leave it overnight. Not only will this help the oil deeply absorb into your scalp, but it also gives your hair a boost of nourishment and protection. The jojoba oil will create a protective barrier around your hair follicles, preventing any damage to your recovering locks. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is also great for styling your hair. The lightweight formula won’t weigh your hair down and creates a smooth, glossy finish. Say goodbye to frizz and flyaways! The oil includes tea tree, a powerful essential oil with antifungal and antibacterial properties that fight scalp infections and dandruff. Jojoba is an effective moisturizer that protects the scalp from damage caused by harsh elements like heat and humidity. To use Cantu Tea Tree & Jojoba Hair & Scalp Oil, apply a small amount to clean, damp hair or scalp, and massage it in for a few minutes. Use more oil as needed, but don’t overdo it, as the oil can cause build up if used too liberally. For an extra treat, use the oil as an overnight scalp treatment. 8. La Tierra Sagrada Jojoba Hair Medicine (La Tierra Sagrada) With regular use of La Tierra Sagrada Jojoba Hair Medicine, expect improved strength and shine, as well as a reduction of split ends. The ingredients in La Tierra Sagrada Jojoba Hair Medicine have been carefully chosen for their beneficial properties. Jojoba oil is an awesome source of protein that aids in moisturizing and nourishing your scalp and hair, while the other botanicals provide antioxidant protection and prevent free radical damage. With regular use of La Tierra Sagrada Jojoba Hair Medicine, expect improved strength and shine, as well as a reduction of split ends. Using La Tierra Sagrada Jojoba Hair Medicine is easy: Just massage it into your scalp, and work through the ends of your hair. Leave it in for five minutes, then rinse out with warm water. 9. The Jojoba Company Australian Jojoba (The Jojoba Company) The oil itself is composed of over 98% wax esters, making it the closest plant-based lipid to your skin’s natural sebum. The Jojoba Company Australian Jojoba is a revolutionary product that offers an array of benefits for skin, hair, and nails. It is derived from the seeds of the jojoba shrub, which has been used for centuries by indigenous people all over the word to treat skin ailments. The Jojoba Company Australian Jojoba has been a leader in premium quality jojoba products since the ‘90s. All their products are made with ethically sourced Australian jojoba grown on sustainable farms and tested to meet the highest standards of purity and quality. The oil itself is composed of over 98% wax esters, making it the closest plant-based lipid to your skin’s natural sebum. This unique jojoba oil has many incredible benefits, including the ability to regulate oil production in your skin and hair, hydrate without clogging pores or leaving a greasy residue, protect against environmental pollutants, and even reduce the appearance of greys. It is also non-comedogenic, meaning it won’t irritate your scalp. It’s suitable for all hair types and can be used daily in place of other haircare. 10. Fable and Roots HoliRoots™ Pre-wash Hair Treatment Oil (Fable and Mane) go ahead and treat yourself to some good root care with HoliRoots™ Pre-wash Hair Treatment Oil. HoliRoots™ Pre-wash Hair Treatment Oil is a fable for your hair. This oil treatment takes good care of the roots, making your hair look healthier and shinier than ever. Their secret ingredient is jojoba oil, which protects, nourishes, and moisturizes the scalp, making it ideal for those with dry or damaged hair. It is also known to improve blood circulation, resulting in thicker and healthier hair follicles. The oil also contains ashwagandha, an Indian ginseng that acts as an adaptogen to strengthen the scalp, while the other eastern powerhouse, dashmool, calms the scalp. Castor oil increases blood flow to the scalp and stimulates hair growth. With regular use of HoliRoots™ Pre-wash Hair Treatment Oil, you’ll keep your hair looking its best. So go ahead and treat yourself to some good root care with HoliRoots™ Pre-wash Hair Treatment Oil. It will be one of the best decisions you made this year. 11. PATTERN Jojoba Oil Hair Serum (Pattern) This serum is packed full of nourishing ingredients, like jojoba oil, which tame and soften hair. Looking to add some extra shine and softness to your hair? Look no further than PATTERN Jojoba Oil Hair Serum. This serum is packed full of nourishing ingredients, like jojoba oil, which tame and soften hair. Rosemary leaf extract stimulates scalp circulation to promote healthy hair growth, while avocado oil protects your locks from environmental damage caused by the sun, pollutants, or harsh weather. Honey, also used in the formula, is a natural humectant, meaning it attracts moisture from the air onto your tresses—perfect for those with dry and brittle strands. This serum is free of sulfates and parabens, so you can feel good about what you’re putting on your hair. When should you use PATTERN Jojoba Oil Hair Serum? Every time you style your hair! Work a few drops of the serum into damp hair before blow drying and styling, or smooth through dry strands to add a little extra shine. We recommend using this product on a daily basis to get the most out of its nourishing benefits. (SheaMoisture) This serum contains our favorite ingredient, jojoba oil, which provides the natural shine you’ve been looking for without the harsh chemicals. Introducing SHEA MOISTURE’s Jojoba Oil & Ucuuba Butter Track Tension Relief Serum with Castor Seed Oil! Not only does this product offer a delightful scent of sweet honey, but it is oh-so powerful for your hair. This serum contains our favorite ingredient, jojoba oil, which provides the natural shine you’ve been looking for without the harsh chemicals. But what is ucuuba butter? Ucuuba butter is a natural and sustainable oil that comes from the seed of the Brazilian fruit tree, virola surinamensis. It’s packed full of essential fatty acids, vitamin E, and other antioxidants that nourish and protect your hair. Ucuuba butter has incredible moisturizing properties that keep your scalp hydrated and healthy, reducing flakiness and dryness. This serum combats tension from using heated styling tools like curling irons, blow dryers, and flat irons. With the addition of avocado oil, this serum makes it easier to manage your hair without worrying about breakage or damaging its natural texture. Using the SHEA MOISTURE Jojoba Oil & Ucuuba Butter Tension Relief Serum is simple! Start by applying a few pumps of the serum onto damp, freshly washed hair, and work it through from roots to tips. After you’ve applied the serum, use your fingers to massage into your scalp, and then style as desired. 13. PUROLEO Jojoba Oil for Hair & Face (PUROLEO) PUROLEO Jojoba Oil is the perfect multitasking oil. Whether you’re using it as a face moisturizer, an after-shampoo conditioner, or a styling treatment, this 100% natural jojoba oil will nourish and hydrate all types of skin and hair. PUROLEO Jojoba Oil is the perfect multitasking oil. Whether you’re using it as a face moisturizer, an after-shampoo conditioner, or a styling treatment, this 100% natural jojoba oil will nourish and hydrate all types of skin and hair. To use, simply massage a few drops into your hair and scalp or face, then leave it in for at least 5-10 minutes before rinsing. You know by now that the benefits of jojoba oil are endless: the high vitamin E content protects the skin from environmental damage and improves circulation; it’s rich in antioxidants, which reduce inflammation and fight bacteria, making it ideal for treating acne and breakouts; it’s even great for taming frizz and flyaways while restoring shine and smoothness to dull locks. Finally, its moisturizing properties lock moisture into the hair shaft, leaving hair feeling soft and revitalized. So, whether you’re looking for a nourishing face oil, a deep conditioning treatment, or a styling aid, PUROLEO Jojoba Oil is the perfect choice! 14. CurlMix Organic Hair Growth Serum for Curly Hair with Jojoba Oil (CurlMix) With its unique blend of jojoba oil, aloe vera, and other nutrient-rich ingredients, it’s the perfect for keeping your curls looking and feeling great. The CurlMix Organic Hair Growth Serum for Curly Hair with Jojoba Oil is designed to make your curls look healthier, stronger, and more vibrant in no time. Whether you’re looking to promote hair growth or just maintain healthy curls, this serum has you covered. Bonus JVN Complete Nourishing Shine Drops (JVN) This all-star lineup of lightweight ingredients will help you achieve healthier, shinier hair that’s full of life. JVN’s Complete Nourishing Shine Drops Oil is formulated with an exclusive blend of nature-inspired ingredients. Jojoba oil and sunflower seed oil form the base, which locks in moisture while providing intense nourishment. There is a dose of coconut oil, avocado oil, and argan oil—all packed with essential fatty acids and antioxidants to protect the hair from environmental damage. The blend of lavender, peppermint, and rosemary essential oils nourishes the scalp and provides a soothing effect. Together, this all-star lineup of lightweight ingredients will help you achieve healthier, shinier hair that’s full of life. Sutra Beauty Rejuvenating Hair Serum (Sutra) This all-natural ingredient is packed with fatty acids that repair split ends and add a beautiful sheen to your locks. The Sutra Beauty Rejuvenating Hair Serum is packed with natural, effective ingredients that offer both immediate and long-term benefits to your hair. First up is macadamia seed oil, which restores moisture, shine, and elasticity to dry, brittle strands. It also locks in color for those with colored hair. Next, we have olive oil, packed with vitamins and minerals that create strong, healthy strands from the inside out. Then there’s castor oil—this superstar ingredient is rich in fatty acids, which nourish and protect the hair. It also reduces frizz and leaves your hair smooth and shiny. Finally, we’ve included coconut oil for added moisture and strength. This all-natural ingredient is packed with fatty acids that repair split ends and add a beautiful sheen to your locks. So there you have it: four natural ingredients that promise to nourish and protect your hair, leaving you with beautiful, healthy locks. DIY Treatments DIY jojoba oil treatments are a great way to bring out the natural beauty of and hair. Plus, it’s easy to use! All you need is some jojoba oil and a few other ingredients that you can find in your kitchen. Here’s how to make a DIY jojoba oil treatment for your skin, hair, or nails: 1. Start by combining two teaspoons of jojoba oil with one teaspoon of honey and one tablespoon of oatmeal. 2. Mix the ingredients together until they form a thick paste. 3. Apply the paste to your skin, hair, or nails in an even layer. Let it sit for 10-15 minutes before rinsing it off with warm water. Customize your DIY jojoba oil treatment by adding other ingredients like avocado, olive oil, or lavender essential oil. Go ahead and experiment with different recipes to find the one that works best for you! With jojoba oil, you can easily take care of your skin and hair at home. Happy treating!	’s lightweight, nourishing, and can be used on all hair types, no matter how dry or damaged your tresses are. It’s an affordable and easy way to give your hair the extra TLC it needs. 6. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil (Allpa Botanicals) The best way to use Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is to massage it into your scalp and leave it overnight. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is a nourishing and healthy choice for your hair that hydrates, conditions, and protects the scalp. It’s packed with vitamins A & E, which promote healthy hair growth. The lightweight, non-greasy formula makes it perfect for all types of hair. The best way to use Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is to massage it into your scalp and leave it overnight. Not only will this help the oil deeply absorb into your scalp, but it also gives your hair a boost of nourishment and protection. The jojoba oil will create a protective barrier around your hair follicles, preventing any damage to your recovering locks. Allpa Botanicals Jojoba Hair Oil is also great for styling your hair. The lightweight formula won’t weigh your hair down and creates a smooth, glossy finish. Say goodbye to frizz and flyaways! The oil includes tea tree, a powerful essential oil with antifungal and antibacterial properties that fight scalp infections and dandruff. Jojoba is an effective moisturizer that protects the scalp from damage caused by harsh elements like heat and humidity. To use Cantu Tea Tree & Jojoba Hair & Scalp Oil, apply a small amount to clean, damp hair or scalp, and massage it in for a few minutes. Use more oil as needed, but don’t overdo it, as the oil can cause build up if used too liberally. For an extra treat, use the oil as an overnight scalp treatment. 8.	yes
Trichology	Is using hair oil beneficial for all hair types?	yes_statement	using "hair" "oil" is "beneficial" for all "hair" "types".. "hair" "oil" provides benefits for all "hair" "types".	https://www.stbotanica.com/blog/best-hair-oil-for-different-hair-type	Unexplored Hair Oiling Benefits Of Hair Oils For Different Hair Types ...	Guide To Choose the Best Oil for Your Hair Type Oils can help improve blood circulation. Using the right haircare products can really take your mane game to the next level. Massage your scalp at least twice or thrice a week using the right hair oil. Following a dedicated haircare routine will solve your hair-related concerns and leave you with glossy and healthy strands. Here is a guide to choosing the best oil for your hair type. Is It Important To Oil Your Hair? Yes, it is important to oil your hair. Massaging your scalp twice or thrice a week helps improve blood circulation and improve hair growth. Regularly massaging your scalp will help you to answer all your queries on how to stop hair fall and breakage. Hair Oiling Benefits Using a natural hair oil has its own share of benefits. Follow your grandmother’s advice and never skip your weekly oil massage session as this activity has a host of advantages that will blow you away. Here are some key benefits of oiling your hair. Hair Oiling Helps In Hair Strengthening Oiling your hair weekly provides a plethora of advantages. It will not only help in increasing the tensile strength of your hair but will also reduce frizziness and prevent hair breakage. A complete win-win situation. Massage your scalp gently in a circular motion for 4-5 minutes and reap the benefits of this activity. Hair Oiling Helps In Hair Protection Oiling becomes even more important for those who frequently style their hair or use heat tools. The oil forms a protective coating on the hair shaft and comes very useful when people subject their hair to styling and other procedures. Oiling your hair with a hydrating oil ensures that your hair remains strong, soft and protected. Hair Oiling Helps In Hair Growth Massaging your scalp with a natural hair oil stimulates the circulation of blood to the scalp. This in turn helps bring a ton of nutrients to the scalp, hence nourishing the hair in the process. Plus, massaging the scalp also relieves stress which is a major cause for hairfall. Hair Oiling Helps To Prevent Frizzy Hair Hair oils are known to create a physical barrier around the hair. This protects the hair from damage and also prevents the loss of moisture. With the presence of moisture, your hair will look shiny, bouncy and frizz-free as opposed to dull and dry. Massaging your hair with a hydrating oil will ensure that you have more good hair days than bad. Types of Hair Oil Which oil is the best for hair? The answer totally depends on your hair type and hair-related concerns. Here are two different types of hair oils that you need to know about. Hair Oil Type 1- Pure Oils These contain only one ingredient like almond oil or coconut oil. It’s best to opt for cold-pressed and organic oils. Hair Oil Type 2- Mixed Oils You can also opt for an oil that contains multiple oils like argan oil, olive oil, grape seed oil, and tea tree oil. This is great for all hair types, especially straight hair and damaged hair. How To Choose The Best Hair Oil For All Hair Types Here are different hair types and oils that will be suitable for you depending on your hair type. Hair Oil For Dry Hair The best way to hydrate dry hair is to use a good hair oil. Make sure to hydrate your strands with a nourishing product to soothe and tame your hair. You can massage your scalp at least twice a week with moisturising oils like Moroccan argan oil, coconut oil, and castor oil. These are the best oils for dry hair. Wait for at least a few hours before washing your hair. Both Moroccan argan oil and coconut oil are extremely beneficial for your hair. St.Botanica’s Castor Oil is an elixir for dry hair. It’s rich in fatty acids that help boost hair growth. This hair growth oil also helps prevent hair fall and controls hair breakage. It is power-packed with vital vitamins and minerals that can help strengthen your strands. It prevents dryness and frizz, leaving you with glossy and hydrated hair. Hair Oil For Oily Scalp & Hair An oily scalp is one of the most common hair problems. Those who have an oily scalp and hair type, should opt for a hair oil that balances your sebum level and thoroughly nourishes your strands. Always make sure to choose lightweight oils for hair nourishment at home. The St.Botanica Sweet Almond Oil is made to look after the health of your skin, hair, and scalp. This almond oil is extracted by cold-pressing and is a great option for those with oily hair. It helps your strands gain strength and volume. Hair Oil For Curly Hair Curly hair is more prone to dryness and breakage. It is all the more important to nourish your hair and choose products that don’t strip your hair off its natural oils. Opt for oils like Olive oil and Jamaican castor oil which are the best oils for curly hair. These oils will moisturise your strands from inside-out. The St.Botanica Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil is rich in fatty acids that are known to amplify the texture of your curly locks. It is rich in essential vitamins and minerals that help protect your curls from environmental stressors. Regular usage can also help strengthen your hair and enhance elasticity. Olive Oil helps keep your hair hydrated by strengthening the moisture barrier of your strands. St.Botanica’s Jamaican Castor Oil helps support longer and thicker hair. It stimulates blood flow on the scalp and strengthens the roots. It also prevents dandruff, dry skin, and itchy scalp, while boosting volume and adding strength to your hair. This hair strengthening oil also prevents breakage and split ends, giving your hair an overall healthy appearance. Hair Oil For Straight Hair Even straight hair needs all the TLC there is. Massage your scalp with a nourishing oil at least twice a week to make it manageable and frizz-free. This will promote blood circulation and increase hair growth. Castor oil and olive oil are some of the best oils for straight hair. St.Botanica’s Sesame Oil is beneficial for your hair and promotes hair growth. This cold-pressed oil is power-packed with vital vitamins and minerals that can help achieve healthy hair. This oil also prevents premature greying of hair strands. It is rich in fatty acids that can help soften your hair and make it manageable. It helps to combat dry skin and hair and prevent flakiness. Hair Oil For Damaged Hair Environmental factors, heat-styling, and colouring are some of the most common causes that can lead to hair damage. But fret not, choosing the right hair oil can help you repair your strands. Opt for nourishing oils, like red onion oil and bhringraj & amla oil, which will soothe your scalp and moisturise your strands. 8 Best Oils for Your Hair Type Nourish your hair with the best oils. Here are some amazing hair oils for your strands. Using these oils will pamper and nourish your hair. 1- Moroccan Argan Hair Oil Moroccan Argan Oil for hair is packed with natural ingredients to nourish your hair like never before. Moroccan Argan Oil is rich in fatty acids, Vitamin A, Vitamin D, and Vitamin E. All these nutrients help revitalise the scalp and promote healthy hair growth. 2- Onion Hair Oil Onion oil contains sulfur that helps elevate the overall appearance of your mane. This onion oil for hair growth will naturally condition your strands and help give them the integral volume. The concoction of vital oils will help add lustre to your mane and protect them from sun damage and free radicals. 3- Coconut Hair Oil Coconut oil prevents dry skin and reduces dandruff on the hair. It also moisturises the skin and helps heal patchy and rough skin. Coconut oil for hair moisturises hair and scalp indeed from a long time. 4- Olive Hair Oil Olive oil for hair undoubtedly has inimitable benefits. Made from the fruits of the Olive tree, this oil is rich in fatty acids that are known to boost hair growth. 5- Almond Hair Oil Almond Oil is an age-old ingredient to nutrify your hair and scalp along with your skin. It helps brighten out the complexion as it can even out the skin tone and give you a long-lasting brilliance. 6- Bhringraj & Amla Hair Oil This hair oil is formulated to promote hair growth and prevent hair damage for all hair types. Bhringraj and Amla strengthen your hair shafts and makes them healthier and stronger. 7- Castor Hair Oil Castor oil is an elixir for beautiful hair. The oil is rich in omega 6 and 9, which helps prevent hair fall and prevents hair breakage. 8- Jojoba Hair Oil Jojoba oil assists in making the hair strong and adds lustre to the tresses. Jojoba Oil for hair profoundly helps moisturise the strands and makes it smooth and soft. Things To Consider While Using Natural Oil In Your Hair You should always keep in mind a few things before using a natural oil. Here are some things you need to consider before going for natural oil. Keep in mind your hair type and concerns. Steer clear of mineral oils, sulphates, parabens, and silicones. Choose natural ingredients that will nourish your scalp. Make sure to massage your scalp twice a week. Conclusion There are different types of hair oils. Choose an oil that suits your hair type. Massage your scalp twice or thrice a week to promote hair growth and hydrate your strands. Oils like castor oil, olive oil, almond oil, onion oil, and argan oil are some great options for your hair.	This protects the hair from damage and also prevents the loss of moisture. With the presence of moisture, your hair will look shiny, bouncy and frizz-free as opposed to dull and dry. Massaging your hair with a hydrating oil will ensure that you have more good hair days than bad. Types of Hair Oil Which oil is the best for hair? The answer totally depends on your hair type and hair-related concerns. Here are two different types of hair oils that you need to know about. Hair Oil Type 1- Pure Oils These contain only one ingredient like almond oil or coconut oil. It’s best to opt for cold-pressed and organic oils. Hair Oil Type 2- Mixed Oils You can also opt for an oil that contains multiple oils like argan oil, olive oil, grape seed oil, and tea tree oil. This is great for all hair types, especially straight hair and damaged hair. How To Choose The Best Hair Oil For All Hair Types Here are different hair types and oils that will be suitable for you depending on your hair type. Hair Oil For Dry Hair The best way to hydrate dry hair is to use a good hair oil. Make sure to hydrate your strands with a nourishing product to soothe and tame your hair. You can massage your scalp at least twice a week with moisturising oils like Moroccan argan oil, coconut oil, and castor oil. These are the best oils for dry hair. Wait for at least a few hours before washing your hair. Both Moroccan argan oil and coconut oil are extremely beneficial for your hair. St.Botanica’s Castor Oil is an elixir for dry hair. It’s rich in fatty acids that help boost hair growth. This hair growth oil also helps prevent hair fall and controls hair breakage. It is power-packed with vital vitamins and minerals that can help strengthen your strands. It prevents dryness and frizz, leaving you with glossy and hydrated hair.	yes
Trichology	Is using hair oil beneficial for all hair types?	yes_statement	using "hair" "oil" is "beneficial" for all "hair" "types".. "hair" "oil" provides benefits for all "hair" "types".	https://www.healthshots.com/beauty/hair-care/these-10-magical-hair-oils-will-boost-hair-growth-and-make-your-mane-thick-and-long/	10 hair growth oils that can help your mane grow long and strong ...	Oiling your hair is necessary if you want healthy hair. Thankfully, these 10 hair growth oils can help you out. Your hair goes through a lot. Right from pollution to humidity, there are plenty of factors that damage your tresses. We know it can get difficult to care for your hair on a hectic schedule, but thanks to this work-from-home status quo you can tap away with your computer with masques or oil in your hair. In order to be strong, healthy, and shiny your hair needs the proper nourishment. Much like the rest of your body, your hair needs nutrients to grow. While you can obviously bring some changes in your diet to nourish your hair from the inside out, you cannot ignore oiling. In fact, here are some hair growth oils that can make all the difference to your mane: 1. Coconut oil One of the most popular oils that you cannot miss is coconut oil. No matter where you might live, coconut oil for hair is available across the country and even the globe! It is rich in vitamin E and antioxidants, which promote hair growth and makes your scalp and hair healthy. This oil also works great for all hair types. Coconut oil is a big YES when it comes to hair growth. Image courtesy: Shutterstock 2. Almond oil A study published in the journal Annals of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences has shown that almond extracts promote hair growth in mice. Vitamin E and magnesium present in it also facilitates hair growth. Along with applying it on your hair, you can also consume edible almond oil if your hair is too dry. It helps in sealing in the moisture, thus preventing hair loss. Almond oil is all that you need for great hair. Image courtesy: Shutterstock 3. Argan oil Argan oil goes through minimum processing which makes it the best natural solution for your hair woes. It is also rich in vitamin E and antioxidants, which helps in restoring and replenishing the nutrients of the hair. This oil is great for people with dry and frizzy hair. Track your health on the go ! Download Healthshots App 4. Onion oil A study published in The Journal of Dermatology has shown that applying onion juice or oil to the scalp helps in the regrowth of hair. The benefits of onion oil for hair started showing in the research participants within just two weeks. 5. Castor oil This oil is rich in antioxidants and ricinoleic acid which has circulation-boosting properties. The ricinoleic acid also enhances the health of hair follicles which in turns promote hair growth. Make castor oil a part of your hair care regime and you won’t regret! Image courtesy: Shutterstock. 6. Lavender oil A study published in the journal Toxicological Research found that lavender oil facilitates hair growth when applied on mice. The fur or hair in mice also grew fuller and thicker after applying lavender oil. It also increases the number of hair follicles promoting regrowth of hair which can help in pattern baldness. 7. Grapeseed oil Though not very popular in India, grapeseed oil is very beneficial for hair growth. It is rich in antioxidants, emollients, and nutrients that facilitate hair growth. Apart from promoting hair growth it also strengthens hair and revitalises the growth of hair follicles. 8. Sesame oil Like other hair growth oils, sesame oil is also rich in vitamin E. Sesame oil is widely used in many ayurvedic remedies for hair growth. Extracted from sesame seeds, it boosts hair growth and is great for those who are looking for hair regrowth. 9. Tea tree Tea tree oil is an antibacterial and antimicrobial oil which helps in unclogging hair follicles and nourishing it from the roots. A study conducted in 2013, and published in the journal Drug Design, Development and Therapy found that mixing tea tree oil with minoxidil was more effective in promoting hair growth than just minoxidil alone. 10. Brahmi oil This oil rejuvenates and thickens the hair follicles and helps in strengthening the hair from the roots. Massaging it on the scalp promotes hair growth. It also has cooling properties which can help you get rid of dandruff.	Oiling your hair is necessary if you want healthy hair. Thankfully, these 10 hair growth oils can help you out. Your hair goes through a lot. Right from pollution to humidity, there are plenty of factors that damage your tresses. We know it can get difficult to care for your hair on a hectic schedule, but thanks to this work-from-home status quo you can tap away with your computer with masques or oil in your hair. In order to be strong, healthy, and shiny your hair needs the proper nourishment. Much like the rest of your body, your hair needs nutrients to grow. While you can obviously bring some changes in your diet to nourish your hair from the inside out, you cannot ignore oiling. In fact, here are some hair growth oils that can make all the difference to your mane: 1. Coconut oil One of the most popular oils that you cannot miss is coconut oil. No matter where you might live, coconut oil for hair is available across the country and even the globe! It is rich in vitamin E and antioxidants, which promote hair growth and makes your scalp and hair healthy. This oil also works great for all hair types. Coconut oil is a big YES when it comes to hair growth. Image courtesy: Shutterstock 2. Almond oil A study published in the journal Annals of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences has shown that almond extracts promote hair growth in mice. Vitamin E and magnesium present in it also facilitates hair growth. Along with applying it on your hair, you can also consume edible almond oil if your hair is too dry. It helps in sealing in the moisture, thus preventing hair loss. Almond oil is all that you need for great hair. Image courtesy: Shutterstock 3. Argan oil Argan oil goes through minimum processing which makes it the best natural solution for your hair woes. It is also rich in vitamin E and antioxidants, which helps in restoring and replenishing the nutrients of the hair. This oil is great for people with dry and frizzy hair. Track your health on the go !	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-to-know-about-vegan-leather	What Is Vegan Leather? What It Is Made of and Where to Buy It	Vegan leather is a material made from plant-based or sustainable sources. It is an eco-friendly replacement for animal leather. It has rapidly gained popularity in the mainstream fashion industry. It is used to make clothes like jackets and accessories like bags.Â Read on to learn about vegan leather, what it's made of, its benefits, and more. What Is Vegan Leather? Vegan leather is artificial, synthetic, or âfauxâ leather made from agricultural waste products and sustainable biomaterials. It can also be made from polymers like polyurethane and other recyclable materials. Vegan leather is an alternative to animal leather and is made without using any animal products. It's environmentally friendly, biodegradable, and animal-cruelty-free. What Is Vegan Leather Made of? Raw materials for vegan leather usually come from agricultural waste sources. Some of the materials most commonly used to manufacture vegan leather are: Polyurethane and polyvinyl chloride. Synthetic leather is made using recycled plastic materials like polyurethane and polyvinyl chloride. Many people choose to avoid this kind of vegan leather, as its manufacture contributes to the depletion of fossil fuels. Cork. Cork is a great alternative to plastics and animal skin for making vegan leather. Manufacturers can even get it from corkwood trees without damaging the trees. Cactus. Cactus is another innovative animal-skin replacement used to make vegan leather.Â Kombucha cellulose or SCOBY.Kombucha, or kelp tea, is a fermented sweet drink made using a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast, also called a SCOBY. The bacteria and yeast share nutrients and ferment the tea. Over time, they multiply and form a mass of cellulose, called a âmother.âÂ The mother floats on top of the liquid and takes the shape of the container. Within a few weeks, it grows as much as 10 millimeters thick. The mass of cellulose is harvested to make new batches of kombucha. However, it can also be used to make fully biodegradable leather. After harvesting the mother, manufacturers wash, oil, and air-dry it to obtain a flexible, leathery sheet. They then cut the material in strips and stitch, glue, or mold it into new shapes. Mushroom.Mushrooms grow through a network of threads called mycelium. Manufacturers use it to make vegan leather. The mycelium grows within a few weeks and can be easily processed using mild acid, alcohol, and vegetable dyes to modify it. The material is then compressed, dried, and textured for use. Mushroom or mycelium leather closely resembles animal leather in appearance and strength. Yeast collagen. Biofabricated vegan leather can be made using the skin protein collagen obtained from yeast in a laboratory. Silicone. Silicone leather is made from refined silicone material. It is similar to plastic-based materials, but more eco-friendly and durable. Bacterial cellulose and agricultural waste. Similar to SCOBY, bacterial cellulose can also be harvested, dried, and used to make vegan leather. Agricultural waste like maple leaf pulp, apple peels, and fruit pulp can be good sources of bacterial cellulose. Vegan Leather vs. Leather: What Is The Difference? Conventional leather is a warm, breathable, durable, and flexible material made from animal skin. It is used to make clothes like jackets, shoes, belts, bags, and other accessories. However, leather production comes with several environmental and ethical concerns. Harvesting leather from skin requires farming. Farms house cattle for meat, dairy, and leather production. Some farms may cut corners with respect to the well-being of their livestock in order to produce large quantities of goods. Additionally, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that farming produces approximately 14% of all greenhouse emissions caused by human activity. This includes the traditional leather industry, which has a huge carbon footprint and is not environmentally sustainable. Leather making and tanning require a lot of resources, including energy and water, which can lead to waste. It uses chemicals like chromium salts, which create toxic wastewater that pollutes land and water alike. Vegan leather is easier to make and requires fewer resources than animal leather. Its production is energy and water-efficient. Manufacturers make vegan leather in many ways and process it to resemble conventional leather in strength, texture, and appearance. Vegan leather requires low-cost natural fibers, agricultural waste products, and recyclable materials, making it both environmentally friendly and animal friendly.Â But faux leather made with plastics isnât 100% biodegradable, and large-scale production of plastic-based vegan leathers produces an amount of waste comparable to traditional leather manufacturing. That's a big part of why non-plastic vegan leathers are on the rise. Where to Buy Vegan Leather? Many of your favorite brands offer vegan or sustainable fashion alternatives. You can find vegan leather products like clothes and accessories at their outlets. You can also find them on online shopping websites. When you buy products, check for the certified vegan leather logo. Certification assures that the vegan leather contains no animal products and that no animal testing is done during manufacture. It also provides verification from the manufacturer that the certified vegan leather is ethically produced. How to Care for Vegan Leather? Animal leather is sensitive to water and light. You must take good care of your leather products in order to maintain them.Â In contrast, vegan leather requires little or no maintenance. The material is resistant to stains and is not sensitive to water or UV light. It is strong and flexible. It doesnât break or wear easily. It's still important to treat it with care because it's vulnerable to puncturing and tearing. Show Sources SOURCES: AIP Conference Proceedings: âEnvironmentally friendly and animal free leather: Fabrication and characterization,â âVegan leather: An eco-friendly material for sustainable fashion towards environmental awareness.â Chemical & Engineering News: âSustainable materials make a play for the vegan leather market.â Journal of Functional Biomaterials: âDesign of a Naturally Dyed and Waterproof Biotechnological Leather from Reconstituted Cellulose.â Michigan Technology University: âEconomic Sustainability Analysis of Natural Leather Industry, And Its Alternative Advancements.â PETA: âVegan Leather: What It Is and Why It Belongs in Your Closet.â QUT: âGrowing vegan leather from kombucha.â RMIT University: âVegan leather made from mushrooms could mould the future of sustainable fashion.â University of Colorado Boulder: âBiomaterials: What is SCOBY Leather?â University of Hawaiâi News: ââVegan leatherâ study by students gains international attention.â Vegan.org: âWhat is the Certified Vegan Logo?â	Leather making and tanning require a lot of resources, including energy and water, which can lead to waste. It uses chemicals like chromium salts, which create toxic wastewater that pollutes land and water alike. Vegan leather is easier to make and requires fewer resources than animal leather. Its production is energy and water-efficient. Manufacturers make vegan leather in many ways and process it to resemble conventional leather in strength, texture, and appearance. Vegan leather requires low-cost natural fibers, agricultural waste products, and recyclable materials, making it both environmentally friendly and animal friendly. Â But faux leather made with plastics isnât 100% biodegradable, and large-scale production of plastic-based vegan leathers produces an amount of waste comparable to traditional leather manufacturing. That's a big part of why non-plastic vegan leathers are on the rise. Where to Buy Vegan Leather? Many of your favorite brands offer vegan or sustainable fashion alternatives. You can find vegan leather products like clothes and accessories at their outlets. You can also find them on online shopping websites. When you buy products, check for the certified vegan leather logo. Certification assures that the vegan leather contains no animal products and that no animal testing is done during manufacture. It also provides verification from the manufacturer that the certified vegan leather is ethically produced. How to Care for Vegan Leather? Animal leather is sensitive to water and light. You must take good care of your leather products in order to maintain them. Â In contrast, vegan leather requires little or no maintenance. The material is resistant to stains and is not sensitive to water or UV light. It is strong and flexible. It doesnât break or wear easily. It's still important to treat it with care because it's vulnerable to puncturing and tearing. Show Sources SOURCES: AIP Conference Proceedings: âEnvironmentally friendly and animal free leather: Fabrication and characterization,â âVegan leather:	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://hozencollection.com/blogs/hozen-blog/what-is-eco-leather-why-it-belongs-in-your-closet	What Is Eco-Leather? How Is It Made? Will It Last? We Have The ...	Eco Leather: What It Is and Why It Belongs in Your Closet Eco-leather is a sustainable, environmentally-friendly answer to traditional animal leather. Post written by Mish Barber Way. It’s no secret that we all love leather. It’s luxurious, soft, stylish, yet incredibly durable. There’s a reason humans have relied on leather to adorn our lives for centuries. It’s perfection. However, the costs to the environment and the process in which leather becomes - well, leather - are not so perfect. As our culture grows more environmentally conscious and focused on sustainable living, we have started to curb our fashion and manufacturing choices to save the earth we love. Leather is no exception, which is why eco-leather is a sustainable, environmentally-friendly answer to traditional animal leather. Is Leather Eco-Friendly? What is eco-leather? Simply put, eco-leather is any leather alternative that does not come from an animal. Most eco-leather is made from plant-based material or vinyl. According to some, eco-leather can even sometimes include leather that comes from animals as long as it’s been tanned and dyed with vegetal-based materials instead of harsh toxic chemicals. Is leather eco friendly? Some leather aficionados argue that real animal leather is never eco-friendly because cows not only admit so much C02, but that, for the most part, raising cattle is done in unethical ways. (Did you know one pair of leather shoes costs our air 10kg of C02? That doesn’t seem like a lot, but when you count all the feet on this earth, those zeroes go on and on and on.) What Is Eco Leather Made Of? The truest form of eco-leather is made from vegan materials that mimic the feel and look of real leather. Two of the most popular are PVC or Polyvinyl Chloride, (which you may also recognize from your dad’s garage), and PU or Polyurethane. PVC is made from fabric leather backing, topped with a foam layer, then skin layer, and finally, finished with a plastic surface coating. Whereas PU can be fabricated with other sustainable, eco-friendly materials, such as bio-polyoil to create a soft, durable alternative to real leather. PU even wrinkles and feels just like natural leather. Plus, PU uses no plastics and does not create dioxins, so it’s technically one of the greenest forms of eco-leather. Aside from all the environmental pluses of PU, you really can’t beat how supple, soft, and strong it is. Most consumers can’t even tell the difference between PU and animal leather at first touch. It’s wearable, luxurious, and guilt-free. It’s tough to choose between PVC and PU, but it really depends on what you are looking for in your leather products. PVC boasts a multi-layered structure, which means it is a lot more durable than PU leather. (PVC is commonly used for upholstery and other leather pieces that are prone to nicks and stains.) PU leather is much softer with a natural feel that mimics animal leather. If you are looking for that buttery-soft leather backpack or a stand-out statement piece, then PU eco-leather is better suited for you. Another less popular, but perhaps wilder, form of eco-leather is Piñatex. This vegan leather is made from pineapple remnants -- literally the shavings off of the skin of pineapple plants, which are then coated and repurposed. Piñatex was developed in the Philippines, but has grown in popularity over the last few years and spread into the worldwide eco-friendly fashion scene. How Long Does Eco Leather Last? When shopping for eco-leather, you have to trust the label. It’s important you read all the product details to make sure that the purse or shoes you are buying are 100 percent eco-friendly. Some shoppers are worried that eco-leather won’t have the same longevity as genuine cow leather, but the truth is that eco-leather is less likely to crack, peel, stain, or fade from UV light. Because there are no plastics used in PU eco-leather, it won’t get that brittle, breakable feel that plastic products often do after being exposed to the elements. Maintenance is much easier with PU than with animal leather. Most eco-leather can be cleaned easily with a rag and warm water, whereas animal leather can begin to crack over time as moisture remains in the material. Bottom line: there’s a reason that eco-leather has surpassed its four-legged counterpart in durability, touch, and sustainability. We aren’t saying that you have to throw away all the leather in your closet right now, (who doesn’t appreciate some beautiful vintage leather?) But before you go shopping for that perfect motorcycle jacket, or all vegan bags, consider eco-leather. Your closet and Mother Earth will thank you for it.	According to some, eco-leather can even sometimes include leather that comes from animals as long as it’s been tanned and dyed with vegetal-based materials instead of harsh toxic chemicals. Is leather eco friendly? Some leather aficionados argue that real animal leather is never eco-friendly because cows not only admit so much C02, but that, for the most part, raising cattle is done in unethical ways. (Did you know one pair of leather shoes costs our air 10kg of C02? That doesn’t seem like a lot, but when you count all the feet on this earth, those zeroes go on and on and on.) What Is Eco Leather Made Of? The truest form of eco-leather is made from vegan materials that mimic the feel and look of real leather. Two of the most popular are PVC or Polyvinyl Chloride, (which you may also recognize from your dad’s garage), and PU or Polyurethane. PVC is made from fabric leather backing, topped with a foam layer, then skin layer, and finally, finished with a plastic surface coating. Whereas PU can be fabricated with other sustainable, eco-friendly materials, such as bio-polyoil to create a soft, durable alternative to real leather. PU even wrinkles and feels just like natural leather. Plus, PU uses no plastics and does not create dioxins, so it’s technically one of the greenest forms of eco-leather. Aside from all the environmental pluses of PU, you really can’t beat how supple, soft, and strong it is. Most consumers can’t even tell the difference between PU and animal leather at first touch. It’s wearable, luxurious, and guilt-free. It’s tough to choose between PVC and PU, but it really depends on what you are looking for in your leather products. PVC boasts a multi-layered structure, which means it is a lot more durable than PU leather.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.watsonwolfe.com/2018/09/22/what-is-vegan-leather/	What is Vegan Leather? All You Need to Know About Vegan ...	What is Vegan Leather? Vegan leather, also known as faux leather, has gained significant popularity in recent years as a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional animal-based leather. As the demand for eco-friendly and cruelty-free fashion and accessories grows, vegan leather has emerged as a viable option for those seeking stylish and conscious choices. This comprehensive guide aims to provide a deep understanding of vegan leather, its manufacturing processes, environmental impact, and its wide-ranging applications. What is Vegan Leather? Vegan leather refers to a synthetic material designed to mimic the look, feel, and durability of traditional animal-based leather. Unlike animal leather, vegan leather is created without the use of animal hides, making it a cruelty-free and ethical alternative. Vegan leather can be made from various materials, including synthetic polymers such as polyurethane (PU) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as well as plant-based materials like cork, pineapple fibres, corn, apple peels, and mushrooms. Manufacturing Processes of Vegan Leather The manufacturing processes of vegan leather can vary depending on the type of material used. Synthetic vegan leather, such as PU and PVC, is typically created through a combination of chemical treatments, coating, and bonding of layers. Plant-based vegan leather involves the extraction of fibres from sustainable sources, followed by a processing phase that transforms these raw materials into a usable fabric. Innovative techniques such as 3D printing and biofabrication are also being explored to create vegan leather materials. Types of Vegan Leather Polyurethane (PU) Leather: PU leather is a common type of synthetic vegan leather. It is created by coating a fabric base, such as polyester, with a layer of polyurethane. PU leather offers a leather-like texture and appearance, and it can be manufactured to resemble various animal leathers, such as smooth grain, suede, or patent finishes. It is often used in clothing, handbags, footwear, and upholstery. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Leather: PVC leather, also known as vinyl leather, is another synthetic vegan leather option. It is made by applying a layer of PVC to a fabric base. PVC leather is known for its durability, water resistance, and affordability. However, the production and disposal of PVC-based materials raises environmental concerns due to the release of toxic chemicals during manufacturing and the difficulty of recycling. PVC is a material derived from salt and oil. The electrolysis of saltwater produces chlorine, which is combined with ethylene (obtained from oil). PVC is one of the most toxic plastics produced on Earth. In addition to containing cadmium, mercury, chlorine and lead, PVC also releases dioxins. Dioxins are a group of chemically related compounds that are persistent environmental pollutants (POPs). They can cause problems with reproduction, development, and the immune system. They can also disrupt hormones and lead to cancer. As persistent environmental pollutants (POPs), dioxins can remain in the environment for many years. In addition, some additives to PVC can be toxic to the consumer. Conscious fashion brands no longer use PVC. Stella McCartney ceased the use of all PVC plastics in 2010 and was instrumental in bringing about change. By 2016, all Kering brands (who at that time had a stake in the brand, had stopped using PVC (1). This synthetic material is cheap, so many companies still use it. Cork leather: Made from the bark of the cork oak tree, cork leather is lightweight, water-resistant, and has a unique texture. The cork industry is sustainable and environmentally friendly. Cork oak trees are not harmed during the harvesting of their bark, and they require very little water to grow. The cork bark is regenerative too so the cork can be harvested from the same tree every nine years. Cork leather is a versatile material used to create various fashion items including bags and purses to shoes and belts. Unlike animal leather, the process to make cork leather is completely chemical free. Corn leather: Created from the oil that is extracted from field corn, a non-food grade corn that is not used as a food crop. The oil is used to produce a strong base fabric before being combined with Polyurethane (PU) to create a highly durable, low impact material. Corn leather features heavily in the Watson & Wolfe collection. There are many different textures and finishes, each suitable for different applications. Piñatex: Derived from pineapple leaves, Piñatex offers a leather-like texture and is used in bags, shoes, and accessories. Piñatex is created by felting the long cellulose fibres from pineapple leaves to create a non-woven substrate. It is composed of a mixture of these pineapple fibres, PLA (Polylactic acid), and petroleum-based resins. As with all the other bio-based materials Piñatex is not biodegradable but it is made without any of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals used in animal leather production. Apple leather: Created by extracting the cellulose from apple peels and cores discarded by the food industry and blending them with polymers. The result is a durable, sustainable leather-like material that can be used to make clothing, accessories, and other items. In the process to make Apple leather, the cores and skins are puréed and dehydrated until almost all the moisture has gone. The dried purée turns into a flexible, leathery sheet which is combined with PU to create the final material. Apple leather is an innovative and sustainable alternative. Mushroom leather: Developed through the cultivation of mycelium, the vegetative part of a fungus. Mycelium can be grown in almost any kind of agriculture waste. It is highly sustainable because it can be made and treated without using polluting substances. At the end of its life, mushroom leather is completely biodegradable and compostable. It is extremely light-weight and flexible too, which makes it effective for a wide range of products. Cactus leather: The process for making the award-winning Cactus leather material involves using the young leaves of the prickly pear cactus. These leaves are harvested from organically grown cactus plants which require very little water to grow. They are cleaned, mashed, and left in the sun to dry for three days before being processed into the final material. A belt and wallet made with corn leather - Watson & Wolfe Environmental Impact of Vegan Leather Reduction of Animal Cruelty: One of the primary advantages of vegan leather is its avoidance of animal cruelty associated with traditional leather production. Vegan leather offers an ethical alternative for those who choose to abstain from using animal products. Reduced Environmental Footprint: Vegan leather production generally has a lower environmental impact compared to traditional leather. The use of synthetic materials and plant-based alternatives reduces the reliance on animal agriculture, land use, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with traditional leather production. The Amazon rainforest, in Brazil, is home to over 1 million Indigenous people, protectors of one of the most biodiverse places on earth. Brazil also has the largest cattle herd in the world with over 215 million animals. 80% of bovine leather from Brazil is exported, accounting for $1.1 billion of revenue in 2020. However, satellite data links one the biggest exporters of leather in Brazil to 200K acres of deforestation in the Amazon in the last two years (fact at 2021). Scientists predict that the loss of just 4% more rainforest in the Amazon will cause a 'tipping point' and irreversible global consequences. Recycling and End-of-Life Considerations: While synthetic vegan leather presents challenges in terms of end-of-life disposal, efforts are being made to improve recycling methods and create biodegradable alternatives. Plant-based vegan leathers often have better biodegradability and compostability, contributing to a more sustainable lifecycle. Benefits of Vegan Leather Cruelty-Free and Ethical: Vegan leather offers a compassionate alternative to traditional leather, as no animals are harmed in its production. It appeals to individuals who prioritise ethical and cruelty-free fashion choices. Versatility and Fashion Trends: Vegan leather provides a versatile material for fashion and design. It can be crafted into various textures, finishes, and colours, catering to diverse fashion trends and personal styles. Drawbacks and Limitations of Vegan Leather While vegan leather offers many advantages, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. Some of the drawbacks include: Synthetic vegan leathers may not be as durable as traditional leather and can show signs of wear over time. The production of synthetic vegan leathers involves the use of chemicals and fossil fuels, which can have environmental impacts during the manufacturing process. Recycling and disposal of synthetic vegan leathers can be challenging, as they are not easily biodegradable. Caring for Vegan Leather Products Cleaning and Maintenance: Vegan leather products should be cleaned with mild, non-abrasive soap and water or a special vegan leather cleaner. Avoid using harsh chemicals or abrasive scrubbing, as they can damage the surface. Regular maintenance, such as wiping with a soft cloth and storing properly, can prolong the lifespan of vegan leather items. Storage Tips: To preserve the quality of vegan leather products, store them in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Avoid folding or compressing items for extended periods to prevent creasing. Comparing Vegan Leather with Traditional Leather A common misconception is that cow leather is a natural, organic material and therefore better for the environment. The impact cannot be measured just by looking at the environmental aspects of production. It is important to consider the processes involved, the pollution created and the impact from cradle to gate. The impact on animals globally is just as important when considering what materials to buy. More than one billion animals including cows, pigs, sheep, goats, snakes, alligators, ostriches, kangaroos, and even dogs and cats are cruelly slaughtered for their skins every year. Vegan leather and traditional leather have distinct characteristics and considerations. Some key points of comparison include: Style and versatility: Both vegan leather and traditional leather offer a wide range of options, allowing consumers to choose based on their preferences. The Future of Vegan Leather The fashion industry is one of the world’s largest polluters, coming in second after the oil industry. The spotlight has been on manufacturers, designers, and retailers to make environmentally friendly choices when developing and crafting their collections. According to a 2007 global study called Pulse of the Fashion Industry, animal-based materials occupy three of the top five most polluting materials used in fashion. The ‘cradle to gate environmental impact’ study compared each type of fibre and its impact on chemistry, global warming and water scarcity, and cow leather was found to be most damaging of all the fibres. In the same study, it was determined that faux leathers contribute just one third of environmental impact compared to cow leather. As sustainability and ethical considerations continue to shape consumer choices, the future of vegan leather looks promising. Ongoing research and development are focused on improving the durability, performance, and environmental impact of vegan leather materials. Innovations such as lab-grown leather and biofabrication techniques hold promise for creating more sustainable alternatives in the future. Conclusion Vegan leather offers a sustainable and cruelty-free alternative to traditional leather. By understanding the manufacturing processes, environmental impact, and benefits of vegan leather, individuals can make informed choices when it comes to their fashion and lifestyle preferences. With the increasing availability of vegan leather products and the continuous advancements in materials and technologies, the world of fashion is embracing a more compassionate and eco-friendly future.	Avoid using harsh chemicals or abrasive scrubbing, as they can damage the surface. Regular maintenance, such as wiping with a soft cloth and storing properly, can prolong the lifespan of vegan leather items. Storage Tips: To preserve the quality of vegan leather products, store them in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Avoid folding or compressing items for extended periods to prevent creasing. Comparing Vegan Leather with Traditional Leather A common misconception is that cow leather is a natural, organic material and therefore better for the environment. The impact cannot be measured just by looking at the environmental aspects of production. It is important to consider the processes involved, the pollution created and the impact from cradle to gate. The impact on animals globally is just as important when considering what materials to buy. More than one billion animals including cows, pigs, sheep, goats, snakes, alligators, ostriches, kangaroos, and even dogs and cats are cruelly slaughtered for their skins every year. Vegan leather and traditional leather have distinct characteristics and considerations. Some key points of comparison include: Style and versatility: Both vegan leather and traditional leather offer a wide range of options, allowing consumers to choose based on their preferences. The Future of Vegan Leather The fashion industry is one of the world’s largest polluters, coming in second after the oil industry. The spotlight has been on manufacturers, designers, and retailers to make environmentally friendly choices when developing and crafting their collections. According to a 2007 global study called Pulse of the Fashion Industry, animal-based materials occupy three of the top five most polluting materials used in fashion. The ‘cradle to gate environmental impact’ study compared each type of fibre and its impact on chemistry, global warming and water scarcity, and cow leather was found to be most damaging of all the fibres. In the same study, it was determined that faux leathers contribute just one third of environmental impact compared to cow leather.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.sustainablejungle.com/sustainable-fashion/vegan-leather-sustainable/	What Is Vegan Leather And Is It Sustainable?	What Is Vegan Leather And Is It Sustainable? You may be asking “What is vegan leather? It’s not like I eat my clothes!” When something is vegan, it doesn’t just relate to the food you eat. Veganism is an ethos and a lifestyle that prohibits the use and consumption of animals for entertainment, products, and food. Vegan leather embodies this philosophy by keeping the cows out of your clutch—but is vegan leather sustainable? While the ethical credentials of faux leather are pretty obvious (cough cough, no animals are killed), its sustainability is not so black and white. Cruelty-free alternatives to leather are better from an animal-welfare perspective, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t cruel to our planet. There’s a lot of nuances involved, and it’s one of the more complex fabrics where the sustainability aspect is just as convoluted. Let’s slide into some vegan sandals as we stroll towards a more holistic understanding of what sustainable faux vegan leather really is. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) releases toxic chemicals during its production phase and requires plasticizers like endocrine-disrupting phthalates to make them flexible enough to get into those pleather leggings. According to the WHO and US Center for Disease Control, PVC has been linked to all kinds of health problems, like cancer, developmental disorders, infertility, Type II diabetes, heart and liver disease, CNS, and other respiratory disorders. On the environmental side, there is NO safe way to dispose of PVC. Recycling it requires tons of equally bad chemicals–leading to an abysmal 0.25% recycling rate—and trashing it means they’ll all just leach into the Earth for centuries. PU, or polyurethane, is still associated with a chemical-intensive production process, but it’s slightly better because it can at least be recycled mechanically (through shredding into small bits) rather than chemically. If you’re sold on a specific vegan handbag that doesn’t come in plant based options, PU (especially when recycled materials are used) is the better choice over PVC. Still, there are even better substitutes to be had in the form of plant-based leather. Plant-Based Vegan Leathers Your best bet is to accessorize with the 3rd P of eco friendly vegan leather: plants. From fungi to fruit peels, innovative faux leather fabrics use plants and other bio-based materials—though these are sometimes combined with a little plastic for durability and weather resistance. Still, a little is better than a lot. 2. Vegan Leather Vs Real Leather Image by Kylee Alons via Unsplash Before we begin judging the merits of vegan leather, let’s first look at the impact of that which it seeks to replace: real leather made from animal skins. The way we approach the question, “Is vegan leather sustainable?”, is to look at all of the ways regular leather is not. Leather is one of the oldest and longest used fabrics throughout history, but its impacts are devastating—and not just for the animals getting turned into that luxury handbag. Animals Leather means dead animals. There’s no way around it. Even upcycled leather, the most sustainable form of leather, was still once a living being. Hence the quotations around “ethical” leather“. You need your skin for survival, and so do the cows, pigs, goats, sheep, crocodiles, and ostriches (to name just a few) that end up being used for the latest fashion trends. Billions of animals are killed every year for leather fashion accessories and the like, so contrary to common belief, leather is often not a by-product of the meat and dairy industry. Planet Traditional animal leather may be a natural material, but its cradle-to-grave environmental impact is bleak. Animal leather is associated with a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions beginning at the farming level—which is far higher than other animal fabrics like wool and silk. It contributes to damaged water sources, water scarcity, and has been associated with eutrophication (agricultural runoff that causes nutrient overload in natural bodies of water). We then have to consider the chemicals required to tan the leather. There are around 250 different chemicals and heavy metals—primarily chromium, arsenic, and cyanide—-used in traditional leather tanning. These chemicals have been linked time and time again to increased risks of cancer and other severe health effects. This natural fiber (which would take hundreds of years to break down even in raw form) is rendered non-biodegradable by the use of chemical treatments. People The tanning process doesn’t happen in a bubble; it needs workers, meaning each and every tannery worker is exposed to those harmful chemicals day in and day out. From the overt health problems (mainly skin and respiratory diseases) to the fact that many of these people work extended hours without a decent living wage or regulated work environment, the leather industry joins other fashion industries (like diamonds) for their slew of ethical issues. So, is vegan leather more sustainable than real leather? Yes, but the bar is pretty low, which is why we should instead be asking: how sustainable is vegan leather compared to real leather? 3. Is Vegan Leather Eco Friendly? Image by Karolina Grabowska via Pexels on Canva Pro In light of conventional leather standards (or lack thereof), it doesn’t take much for almost any sustainable vegan leather fabric to have a smaller environmental hoofprint than its tanned alternative. Off the bat, vegan leather means no animals were harmed. Beyond that, however, the matter of how sustainable is vegan leather is determined by what it’s made of. How environmentally friendly is vegan leather? As previously mentioned, two of the most used faux leather alternatives are PVC or PU plastics. Derived from fossil fuels that, truthfully, gives eco friendly faux vegan leather a bad name because they are certainly not eco friendly. Due to the near-impossibility of recycling, PVC in particular yields the highest carbon footprint vegan leather alternative. Because it is still a relatively young, growing industry, there also isn’t much information on supply chains for most vegan leather manufacturing—therefore we often can’t draw conclusions about worker conditions or fair pay. For that, you’ll need to look at the traceability and information provided by individual brands using these materials. Still, according to the Higg Materials Sustainability Index, cow leather averages a 10x greater impact than vegan leathers. So on a relative basis, the most we can say is that vegan leather is more eco friendly than traditional leather. But again, that does not mean vegan leather is actually eco-friendly. How durable is vegan leather? One of the downsides to vegan leather is that it’s less durable than its counterpart. If it’s plastic-based, some say it’ll last two to five years on average, though there are reviews that claim longer for items like handbags that see less wear and tear. Keep in mind that when the vegan leather contains plastic, it’s not biodegradable and will release small plastic particles as it decomposes. What about when it’s raining? Is vegan leather waterproof? The positive side to using plastic is that, in most cases, it makes it waterproof, which is why it’s found in even sustainable rain jackets (though cork leather is waterproof sans plastic). Some plant-based vegan leather alternatives will have similar life spans (two to five years) but owe their longevity to a plastic coating that keeps them looking good for longer. Without any plastic, you can expect less durability and a shorter life span. Unfortunately, there’s a tradeoff between plastic-free and durability. Which is a good illustration in this ‘ecospace’, broadly speaking, of how there’s no one size fits all. But rather a matter of what aligns with your personal values. If ethics, durability, and sustainability are of equal importance to you, an upcycled or recycled leather product might be the best bet . Before you make the call, let’s moo-ve away from cows and plastics to the best sustainable vegan leathers. 4. Vegan Leather Fabrics Image by marchenko_family via Canva Pro Pleather is so last season and if you want to know what’s the most eco friendly vegan leather, it’s time to grow your plant knowledge. They make for the lowest impact vegan leathers—and there’s no shortage of options. Piñatex: Piñatex is just one type of sustainable vegan leather that’s revolutionizing the fashion industry, particularly among vegan shoe brands. It’s made from pineapple leaves, a normally-wasted byproduct that typically gets burned by the fruit industry. The pineapple fibers have surprising strength and flexibility, and as Piñatex is made from waste, its production requires no additional agricultural inputs or water. Plus, it provides an additional income stream for the communities involved in pineapple farming. Unfortunately, it is coated with a petroleum-based material for greater durability, making it non-biodegradable, but they are working to develop a biodegradable resin alternative. Frutmat: Frutmat, otherwise known as apple leather or Pellemela (in Italy where it’s produced), is similar to Piñatex, but it is made using wasted scraps such as peels and cores from the apple juice industry. Mirum: Mirum is a high-performance material made from 100% natural inputs and 0% plastic. It takes things like coconut and vegetable oil waste and combines it with cork and hemp waste to make a leather-like product. If you’re a kombucha flavoring enthusiast, you’ll recognize it as the live culture used to make the fermented tea beverage. SCOBY is basically just a mushy blob of bacteria, and if it’s dried flat, it becomes a leather-like material. To make SCOBY leather water resistant, beeswax is sometimes used on the top layer, so keep this in mind as this version is not 100% vegan. Cactus: This new-to-the-scene, eco-friendly cactus leather is derived from leaves of nopal cactus which grows abundantly in Mexico and needs virtually no water to thrive. It is one of the most durable vegan leathers, lasting nearly 10 years. Desserto makes its products with recycled polyester and cotton, so this means it is only semi-biodegradable, but we hope to see creative minds utilizing more sustainable materials in the future. Sustainable Faux Vegan Leathers of the Future If you think those natural vegan leathers sound futuristic, that’s just the tip of the tannery. While these experimental vegan leathers aren’t ready to roll out on a full-scale production level quite yet, we could eventually see a completely animal-free culture. Modern Meadow’s Zoa material is bio-engineered to look, feel, and stretch exactly like leather. It could be a few years until we see this on shelves, but get excited because it’s no doubt a game changer. Green fashion entrepreneur Alice Genberg has developed a vegan leather made from used coffee grounds. We’ve seen something similar before with S.Cafe, a yarn spun from recycled coffee grounds, so a leather-like version isn’t too hard to imagine. Similarly, Tômtex is a leather alternative made from combining wasted seafood shells and coffee grounds. Mylo, by Bolt Threads Technology, is a low impact vegan leather that’s grown from mycelium (the root structure of mushrooms). Its production has less environmental impact and doesn’t use solvents like dimethylformamide (DMF), which is found in other types of synthetic leather. 5. What Is The Most Sustainable Vegan Leather? Image by curtoicurto via Getty Images on Canva Pro As you can see, vegan leather is made from nearly anything and everything, from plants to paper to popular probiotic beverages—but what’s the most sustainable vegan leather? As we’ve already established, plant-based leathers are superior to plastic-based ones, but beyond that the most eco friendly vegan leather is that which: 1. Already exists. Those made from recycled materials or industry byproducts get extra sustainability points. 2. Lasts for years to come. As with all sustainable fabrics, the final answer to the question, “How eco friendly is vegan leather?” largely depends on you, the consumer. Keeping things around and in circulation is arguably the most critical consideration in sustainability, so if you buy a pair of vegan leather shoes that aren’t waterproof, maybe don’t wear them on a day when rain is forecast. Take care of your vegan leather products through proper cleaning and storage to ensure the materials last as long as possible—before eventually being responsibly laid to rest in your indoor compost bin. Final Thoughts On How Sustainable Is Vegan Leather As with many trending ec fabrics, like modal and bamboo, the sustainability of vegan leather exists on a spectrum that leaves a lot of room for greenwashing. Vegan leather certainly isn’t perfect, but there is no reason to use animals for fashion—and the rapid innovation and improvement of the sustainability of newer vegan leather technology just makes it more of a no brainer. So as you think of creating an ethical and environmentally aware wardrobe or muse with friends while cooking up some mushrooms, spread the word on mushroom (and all other) vegan leather. Have a fashion bestie who may need to level up on their ethical fabric education? Share this article with them so they too can wear a cruelty-free wardrobe. I feel like you didn’t gave leather a fair evaluation. No, it’s not biodegradable, but leather goods last a really long time. There are environmentally cleaner ways to raise and process leather. I am very excited about new alternatives, but I’m guessing that vegetable tanned, ethically produced leather would beat PVC or PU. To me, they would be a more fair comparison. I’m also gobsmacked that a PVC or PU handbag for instance costs as much if not more than a leather one. The trouble I’m having is finding out where I can buy these new fabrics. I’ve seen the piñatex website for example, but practically everything is sold out (despite it containing 10% polyurethane binder/matrix) with a shipping price to Australia of some 98 Euros!! (which is twice as dear as the actual fabric). It’s not economical to buy one or two metres of fabric like that… Sustainable Jungle acknowledges the Bunurong / BoonWurrung people as the Traditional Owners of this country, pays tribute to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this land, and gives respect to the Elders past, present and emerging.	We then have to consider the chemicals required to tan the leather. There are around 250 different chemicals and heavy metals—primarily chromium, arsenic, and cyanide—-used in traditional leather tanning. These chemicals have been linked time and time again to increased risks of cancer and other severe health effects. This natural fiber (which would take hundreds of years to break down even in raw form) is rendered non-biodegradable by the use of chemical treatments. People The tanning process doesn’t happen in a bubble; it needs workers, meaning each and every tannery worker is exposed to those harmful chemicals day in and day out. From the overt health problems (mainly skin and respiratory diseases) to the fact that many of these people work extended hours without a decent living wage or regulated work environment, the leather industry joins other fashion industries (like diamonds) for their slew of ethical issues. So, is vegan leather more sustainable than real leather? Yes, but the bar is pretty low, which is why we should instead be asking: how sustainable is vegan leather compared to real leather? 3. Is Vegan Leather Eco Friendly? Image by Karolina Grabowska via Pexels on Canva Pro In light of conventional leather standards (or lack thereof), it doesn’t take much for almost any sustainable vegan leather fabric to have a smaller environmental hoofprint than its tanned alternative. Off the bat, vegan leather means no animals were harmed. Beyond that, however, the matter of how sustainable is vegan leather is determined by what it’s made of. How environmentally friendly is vegan leather? As previously mentioned, two of the most used faux leather alternatives are PVC or PU plastics. Derived from fossil fuels that, truthfully, gives eco friendly faux vegan leather a bad name because they are certainly not eco friendly.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://ethicalmadeeasy.com/is-vegan-leather-actually-better-for-the-environment/	What Is Vegan Leather, and Is Vegan Leather Sustainable?	Is Vegan Leather actually better for the environment? Since October 2018, searches for “vegan leather” have skyrocketed by 119%. Turns out it’s not only vegan food the world is hungry for, but vegan fashion too. High street brands, like Topshop, are embracing vegan leathers’ debut, and even Dr Martens have launched an animal friendly version of their globally adored classic boot. Vegan leather seems like the obvious ethical and environmentally friendly approach to a US$40 billion leather industry that mistreats animals, exposes workers to harmful chemicals, and pollutes. Written by Jasmine Mayhead. Since October 2018, searches for “vegan leather” have skyrocketed by 119%. Turns out it’s not only vegan food the world is hungry for, but vegan fashion too. High street brands, like Topshop, are embracing vegan leathers’ debut, and even Dr Martens have launched an animal friendly version of their globally adored classic boot. Vegan leather seems like the obvious ethical and environmentally friendly approach to a US$40 billion leather industry that mistreats animals, exposes workers to harmful chemicals, and pollutes. But we’re calling vegan leather’s bluff. Vegan leather isn’t always best for the planet, workers, or animals. Not-So-Great Vegan Leather We all know conventional leather is made from animal hide (that’s their skin by the way), so to put it simply: vegan leather is not. Vegan leather is made from anything that does not come from an animal, but serves the same purpose as leather. It generally looks and feels the same too. The trouble is, vegan leather is most often made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyurethane. Both of these materials are made from fossil fuels and take many centuries to break down. Does that sound environmentally friendly to you? To make it worse, PVC is very rigid, so a phthalate is added to make it flexible and wearable. “What’s a phthalate?” We’re glad you asked. Phthalates are highly toxic for the human body and the surrounding environment. They’re even banned in several countries! It’s kind of a no brainer that you wouldn’t want a banned chemical on your handbag or leather belt, right? Although PU is most popular these days (celebrate the small wins!), PVC is still used to create faux leather products, and the combination of plastic and chemicals is less than ideal. All this, and we haven’t even discussed the impact vegan leather production can have on the workers who make the products. These workers can breathe in damaging chemicals for 12+ hours a day. If these chemicals get into surrounding waterways, the villages nearby can also be at risk of increased cancer rates and other serious illnesses, too. Plastic based vegan leather is not great for you, workers, or the planet. But don’t bow your head and give up on vegan leather just yet; not all vegan leather is nasty. Good Vegan Leather The rise in demand for vegan leather that a) doesn’t come from animals and b) doesn’t hurt the environment has pushed designers to find sustainable and ethical leather alternatives in order to keep up with consumer demand. The practice of crafting cowhide into a wearable leather has been around for centuries (some even suggest since 1200BC!), but with new technology and innovation, we’re using all sorts of resources to make fabrics that act just like leather, minus the animal. The vegan leather industry is an innovative one. Vegan leather can be made from many plant-based fibres, including pineapple leaves (Pinatex), cactus (Desserto leather), cork, mushrooms, coconut husks, kombucha scobies, mango, seaweed and apple peels. Lab-grown leathers like MYLO, an “unleather” material made from mycelium, are also bursting onto the fashion scene. Because these fibres are often bi-products of the food industry, they’re not creating a demand for a resource or extracting more from the planet, rather using up what would have otherwise been thrown away. For example, Pinatex is made from pineapple waste. A pineapple plant only flowers and produces a fruit once, so its stem and leaves are usually wasted. Pinatex is made from the fibre in pineapple leaves, and the rest of the plant is composted. Plant based, waste-reducing leather alternatives are a win for both vegans and environmentalists. Please note: it sucks, but you cannot always jump for joy when it comes to eco-friendly vegan leathers. Sometimes, these awesome biodegradable materials are fused with non-biodegradable chemicals in an effort to increase quality. Although this isn’t always the case, try to ensure when purchasing eco-friendly vegan leathers, they are really what they say they are. You can trust our vegan leather brands with this. Leather leather Now we know what vegan leather is, let’s get back to our old mate: leather. In the current climate, leather is usually a co-product of the meat industry. This means animals are not culled solely for their hide, but the hide is a bi-product, sold to leather producers for a small amount. The price of leather is generally not high enough for anyone to make money culling animals for leather alone, but it’s a small income stream and the leather does not go to waste. Unfortunately, the treatment of these animals varies from country to country and factory to factory. If you are okay with wearing animal products, it’s best to know where the leather is from, so you can rest assured the animal was killed humanely. For example, New Zealand has strict animal welfare rules, whereas countries like China and Thailand do not. From here, it’s also important to consider the impact of agriculture on the planet. The Global Fashion Agenda predict that cow leather has the greatest environmental impact, ranking above synthetic leathers and even polyester. This is due to the impact of cows on the land, including the emissions of greenhouse gases, contamination of surrounding bodies of water, and depletion of natural resources faster than they can be replenished. Though this research only assesses cradle to gate (up until the materials are ready to be made into a product) and does not assess the environmental impact of the product throughout its lifetime and post use, it’s important to acknowledge the potentially damaging effects of real leather – even though it’s a biodegradable co-product. If you’re okay with donning animal products, wearing a co-product of the animal industry may be an option. It’s totally up to you. But what about production and the tanning process? For a cow hide to turn into a wearable handbag that does not rot, it must be treated and crafted – otherwise we’d all look a bit like Lady Gaga and her Meat Dress. This process is called tanning. Tanning involves removing water molecules from the hide and soaking it in dehydrating natural tannins or minerals (most commonly chromium sulphate), which replace the molecules and bind the particles together with the collagen present. Essentially, tanning is the process of turning a cow’s skin into a material beautiful enough for you to want to carry over your arm in public. There are two main ways tanning is practiced. 01. Vegetable tanned leather The OG tanning method, vegetable tanned leather uses vegetable tannins to displace water in the tanning process. Tannins occur naturally in certain plants, so they ensure the leather is completely biodegradable. Vegetable tanning is done by hand over several months. Because of the material and thoughtful craftsmanship, most vegetable tanned products will last decades, even centuries. Although vegetable tanning is best for longevity and the reduction of chemicals, the process requires a lot of water which can be wasteful if it’s not recycled and reused. Sustainable vegetable tanneries get around this by collecting their rainwater, and treating used water to carry out the tanning process over and over again. 02. Chrome tanned leather Vegetable tanning takes a lot of time, so naturally, humans found a chemical process to replace the natural resources and speed things up. Hurray for us (sarcasm intended). Chromium sulphate is the most commonly used compound in the chrome tanning process. Chrome ions replace the water molecules, and if the tanning plant does not have a filtering process, the toxic wastewater can affect surrounding water systems and soil. Sure, chrome tanning may use less water than vegetable tanning, but the final product does not last as long, and has a significantly negative effect on the environment. Some chrome tanneries recognise their impact, and reduce this by using a closed loop system to ensure chemicals are not leached into the environment. They may also implement strict policies to avoid workers ever coming into contact with the chemicals too. If you’ve gotten this far down our (slightly lengthy) comparison of vegan versus conventional leather, good job. You’re probably as confused as us. Currently, leather is like the relationship with the ex who still lives with you: very complicated. The best way to shop for leather, regardless of whether it’s vegan or not, is to first consider how long it will last, how many times you will use the product, and who made it. Educate yourself on how the leather is made, and purchase the item if you personally sit well with the story behind it. Second hand leather, both vegan and not, is a middle ground many leather consumers choose to stick to. Sustainable fashion is not black and white, and the vegan leather debate is the perfect reminder. If you’re scouting a second hand shop, chances are, labels may have fallen off in the garment’s previous life. It’s up to you to determine what type of leather the product is. Here are a few hints. The product is most likely a plastic leather if it: Smells fishy Smells strangely like chemicals Looks shiny Seems waterproof (place a drop of water on the leather, if it’s plastic, it won’t absorb) Has perfectly machine cut edges The product is most likely real leather if it: Has imperfections (variations) in colouring and markings Wrinkles when you squish it Smells natural and musty Has raw and varied edges Looks worn Slowly absorbs water Bags are a main leather commodity. With this in mind… here are places to shop for veganleather bags we trust: It’s also important to understand how to take care of your leather products, vegan or otherwise. The Only Ethical Care Guide You’ll Ever Need For Your Clothes gives you a few tips on our how to take care of your leather products so you can continue to enjoy them for years to come. Ethical fashion Brand directory and sustainable lifestyle platform Ethical Made Easy is the hub for all things ethical living. We help conscious consumers navigate ethical fashion, homewares, beauty and more with our ethical brand directory; we offer insightful, well-researched articles about the things that matter to you; and we provide you with simple, digestible, non-judgemental tips and resources to help you adopt a more ethical lifestyle. That’s why we’re one of the most trusted sources for ethical fashion, homewares and beauty in Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world. Here you’ll find resources and articles that will teach you about plastic waste, living wages, garment workers, cost per wear, sustainable fashion, ethical production, natural dye, artisan workers, vegan leather, natural materials, fibres, the circular economy, sewing, op-shopping, and the list goes on and on. Our brand directory makes it easier for you to find ethical alternatives in a range of different categories from womenswear, menswear and childrenswear depending on your location and values. Whether you’re new to ethical and sustainable fashion, you’re already on your way to a more ethical lifestyle and you need some extra tips, or you are an eco-warrior who’s looking to further your education, there’s something here for everyone. We’re making it easier to create a better future with small incremental steps and conscious living. We can’t wait to bring you our go-to ethical lifestyle platform for a better world and a better future.	Is Vegan Leather actually better for the environment? Since October 2018, searches for “vegan leather” have skyrocketed by 119%. Turns out it’s not only vegan food the world is hungry for, but vegan fashion too. High street brands, like Topshop, are embracing vegan leathers’ debut, and even Dr Martens have launched an animal friendly version of their globally adored classic boot. Vegan leather seems like the obvious ethical and environmentally friendly approach to a US$40 billion leather industry that mistreats animals, exposes workers to harmful chemicals, and pollutes. Written by Jasmine Mayhead. Since October 2018, searches for “vegan leather” have skyrocketed by 119%. Turns out it’s not only vegan food the world is hungry for, but vegan fashion too. High street brands, like Topshop, are embracing vegan leathers’ debut, and even Dr Martens have launched an animal friendly version of their globally adored classic boot. Vegan leather seems like the obvious ethical and environmentally friendly approach to a US$40 billion leather industry that mistreats animals, exposes workers to harmful chemicals, and pollutes. But we’re calling vegan leather’s bluff. Vegan leather isn’t always best for the planet, workers, or animals. Not-So-Great Vegan Leather We all know conventional leather is made from animal hide (that’s their skin by the way), so to put it simply: vegan leather is not. Vegan leather is made from anything that does not come from an animal, but serves the same purpose as leather. It generally looks and feels the same too. The trouble is, vegan leather is most often made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyurethane. Both of these materials are made from fossil fuels and take many centuries to break down. Does that sound environmentally friendly to you? To make it worse, PVC is very rigid, so a phthalate is added to make it flexible and wearable. “What’s a phthalate?”	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.jejunemagazine.com/home/voes-co	Voes & Co's Cactus Leather Boots: The Eco-Friendly Alternative to ...	Desiree Dupuis, the visionary founder of Voes & Co, is launching an exciting new line of boots this month made from an innovative and sustainable material: cactus leather. These stylish Chelsea Boots are not only fashion-forward, but they're also eco-friendly and animal-free. Desiree's mission to create a kinder and more sustainable alternative to animal-derived leather began over a decade ago when she became vegan after reading the book "Skinny Bitch." As a lifelong lover of fashion, especially shoes, she was determined to create a brand that aligned with her values. "I was frustrated with the lack of designer footwear options available on the market. It was quite challenging for me to find nice designer shoes that were not made of leather or suede", she explains. While there are already vegan leather shoes on the market, they're typically made from entirely synthetic materials. However, Voes & Co is different. Desiree is committed to utilizing plant-based materials in her products, and cactus leather is just the beginning. She is always looking for new and innovative ways to create stylish and sustainable fashion. Desiree Voes But what makes cactus leather so revolutionary? For starters, it uses a fraction of the water needed to produce traditional leather. While it takes an estimated 2,000 gallons of water to make just one cowhide, cactus leather requires significantly less. This makes it a much more sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternative. The material used in Voes & Co's Chelsea Boots is made out of cactus leather. The boots are put together by Ahimsa, a vegan manufacturer in Franca, Brazil. The boots are currently only available online through the Voes & Co website and the aBillion marketplace. Not only is cactus leather a more sustainable alternative, but it's also incredibly versatile. The texture and feel of cactus leather is very similar to animal-derived leather, making it an ideal material for high-quality footwear. The Chelsea Boots are just the first of different styles that Desiree plans to create using cactus leather and other plant-based materials. Desiree's dedication to sustainability extends beyond just the materials she uses. She is also committed to creating a more ethical supply chain. That's why Voes & Co works with partners who share their values and are committed to fair labor practices. For those who are passionate about animal rights and the environment, these boots are a must-have. Not only are they stylish and high-quality, but they also provide consumers with a more conscious and ethical option when it comes to fashion. By supporting Voes & Co, consumers are taking a step towards a more sustainable future. Desiree's innovative approach to fashion has begun to caught the attention of media outlets, and she's quickly becoming a leading figure in the sustainable fashion industry. With Voes & Co, she's creating a brand that not only looks good, but also does good. In the future, Desiree plans to expand her line of products to include more styles of footwear, as well as accessories and clothing. With her focus on sustainability and ethical practices, there's no doubt that Voes & Co will continue to be a driving force in the fashion industry for years to come.	Desiree Dupuis, the visionary founder of Voes & Co, is launching an exciting new line of boots this month made from an innovative and sustainable material: cactus leather. These stylish Chelsea Boots are not only fashion-forward, but they're also eco-friendly and animal-free. Desiree's mission to create a kinder and more sustainable alternative to animal-derived leather began over a decade ago when she became vegan after reading the book "Skinny Bitch." As a lifelong lover of fashion, especially shoes, she was determined to create a brand that aligned with her values. "I was frustrated with the lack of designer footwear options available on the market. It was quite challenging for me to find nice designer shoes that were not made of leather or suede", she explains. While there are already vegan leather shoes on the market, they're typically made from entirely synthetic materials. However, Voes & Co is different. Desiree is committed to utilizing plant-based materials in her products, and cactus leather is just the beginning. She is always looking for new and innovative ways to create stylish and sustainable fashion. Desiree Voes But what makes cactus leather so revolutionary? For starters, it uses a fraction of the water needed to produce traditional leather. While it takes an estimated 2,000 gallons of water to make just one cowhide, cactus leather requires significantly less. This makes it a much more sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternative. The material used in Voes & Co's Chelsea Boots is made out of cactus leather. The boots are put together by Ahimsa, a vegan manufacturer in Franca, Brazil. The boots are currently only available online through the Voes & Co website and the aBillion marketplace. Not only is cactus leather a more sustainable alternative, but it's also incredibly versatile. The texture and feel of cactus leather is very similar to animal-derived leather, making it an ideal material for high-quality footwear.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://planthide.com/general-vegan-info/sustainable-vegan-leather-options/	Sustainable Vegan Leather? Some are Better Than Others	However, in some cases, vegan leather materials aren’t exactly environmentally friendly. Few brands are using eco-friendly vegan leather as the primary material used in product creation. With this being the case, the industry needs more sustainable eco-friendly vegan leather materials as fashion chooses ethical options. Vegan fashion is on the rise, with increasing inquiries up 75% year over year, as per global fashion search engine Lyst. Thus, more brands are turning to vegan alternatives to meet this demand. At Plant Hide, we handcraft vegan leather wallets for men and women. And we’re developing our product line more and more each day! But is it time to celebrate? Not yet. It’s still premature. Many of these brands are incorporating cheap vegan leather that’s environmentally devastating when it comes time to dispose of it. Many are still wondering if vegan leather substitutes are actually better for the environment than real leather. In most cases, the answer is “no.” But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take strides towards making eco-friendly vegan leather commonplace in the fashion industry. We need to look at the fundamental materials of vegan leather and how it’s made. This is how we can evaluate its sustainability. Not So Eco-Friendly Vegan Leather Options Generally speaking, Polyurethane (PU) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are the two most popular plastic polymers used to make vegan leather. What is PVC leather? PVC leather, also known as Vinyl, is crafted from fabric leather backing, a foam layer, a skin layer, and a plastic-based surface coating. While this is an animal-free material, it has a set of issues worth considering. Does PVC leather peel? No, PVC leather does not peel. This is a fabric that’s coated with PVC material, which means the PVC leather isn’t capable of peeling off. But other issues surrounding this vegan leather material make it undesirable for fashionistas interested in living a cruelty-free lifestyle. Is PVC leather safe? PVC leather is not safe. This material emits dioxins, which are hazardous in enclosed spaces and even more so if they’re burnt. Plasticizers like phthalates are often used to make the material flexible. They can be highly toxic depending on the form of phthalate used. Greenpeace has called PVC leather the “single-most environmentally damaging form of plastic.” What is PU leather? PU leather, on the other hand, has a much broader range of quality, toxicity, and pricing than PVC. But, like PVC leather, it takes years to break down completely and releases poisonous gases and chemicals. Is PU leather real leather? PU leather is real leather, but not in the traditional sense. This is synthetic leather created using polyurethane, which is a plastic that offers a comparable feel and aesthetic to leather while remaining “cruelty-free,’ to some degree. But, of course, while this material is technically cruelty-free, it’s important to note the environmental impact it has makes it anything but. Is PU leather any good? This might be biased, but PU leather isn’t so great. It’s usually used for faux leather sofas because it’s easy to clean and has a nice feel to it. But if you’re concerned about the environment, PU leather isn’t a good option. Does PU leather last? PU lasts a bit too long in our opinion. Plastic clothing and accessories made from PU leather pose a risk both before and after its lifetime because it may end up in water or a landfill. This is unsustainable because it takes years to decay (500 years or sometimes more). Furthermore, it releases hazardous chemicals into the environment. The microfiber sheds and threatens human life, as well. This is why we have microplastics throughout the food chain. In fact, micro-plastic pollution is a major problem because it requires a lot of water, resources, and chemicals to process and manufacture the material, which has a negative effect on the environment. The environmental friendliness of faux leather is a little worrying when you realize the negative environmental effects of extracting fossil fuels and using chemicals, non-natural dyes, and unnecessary quantities of water to make a non-biodegradable synthetic leather. Does this mean that there’s no type of leather that you can actually enjoy without feeling guilty? No. Let’s take a look at some of the best alternatives to traditional leather. These environmentally-friendly vegan leathers offer unique designs made by Mother Nature herself. Each piece is sustainably preserved and packaged in paper to minimize plastic waste. Teak leaf leather and coffee bean leather creation involve dying the leaves or beans first to add some color. Then, the material is sun-dried. Once it’s dry, Plant Hide’s artisans use a machine that laminates the material with a non-toxic biofilm to preserve it and make it more durable. This also makes the leaf leather waterproof. Plant Hide’s vegan leather products last for years. But when all is said and done, you don’t have to worry about how long it takes for these products to deteriorate in a landfill. The materials break down much faster than plastic and traditional leather products, which translates to minimal environmental impact. Mushroom Vegan Leather is Eco-friendly Grade Zero makes MuSkin mushroom vegan leather from the caps of mushrooms. The company uses all-natural methods to ensure that the mushrooms are turned into a leather-like texture without producing harmful byproducts. MuSkin is water repellent and long-lasting, in addition to being eco-friendly and cruelty-free. Mylo is another mushroom-based faux leather that is fully biodegradable. Mirum Leather Mirum is made by Natural Fiber Welding, an Illinois-based company that makes biodegradable goods out of natural materials including waste cork, hemp, coconut, and vegetable oil. The blends this company makes are compressed into a pattern and texture that resembles leather. However, since it is still far from the mainstream market, it is unknown to what degree it can look or last like animal leather. Mirum is creating high-performance plant-based material with a goal to use 100% natural inputs without using any plastic. The durable material Mirum leather is a hybrid composite material that incorporates virgin and recycled plant matter. With raw inputs and finished materials that aren’t coated in polyurethane or PVC, these eco-friendly materials are some of the most sustainable available. In a world that continues to use plastic, Mirum leather material aims to change that. After years of research, the company found that sustainable resources can scale in a way that replaces synthetic plastics globally. With this in mind, the team at Mirum is creating high-performance materials that come from plants rather than fossil resources. Concluding on Vegan Leather Sustainability It’s important to note that alternative leather solutions exist. But while these are 100 percent vegan leather materials, some have significant environmental and health impacts that we should consider. The key here is to consider these materials’ entire life cycles. Yet, at this point, these unsustainable vegan leather materials aren’t established in the retail industry. This is something we’re working to change. The issue with most textile alternatives, as with most sustainable solutions, lies in the various stages of the supply chain. Designing and sourcing cruelty-free vegan leather materials is just a temporary fix if their eventual disposal leads to an unbalanced environment. If you’re considering using vegan leather, keep this information in mind. While many companies are creating alternatives to leather, only some are actually considering their environmental impact and the impact on our health. Lesley Murr Lesley R. Murr, American vegan activist and writer, travels throughout Southeast Asia exploring vegan cuisine and eco-friendly product producers. She blogs about vegan health, recipes, and products. Her passion for animals guides her writings, and she's currently based out of Belmont, California.	However, in some cases, vegan leather materials aren’t exactly environmentally friendly. Few brands are using eco-friendly vegan leather as the primary material used in product creation. With this being the case, the industry needs more sustainable eco-friendly vegan leather materials as fashion chooses ethical options. Vegan fashion is on the rise, with increasing inquiries up 75% year over year, as per global fashion search engine Lyst. Thus, more brands are turning to vegan alternatives to meet this demand. At Plant Hide, we handcraft vegan leather wallets for men and women. And we’re developing our product line more and more each day! But is it time to celebrate? Not yet. It’s still premature. Many of these brands are incorporating cheap vegan leather that’s environmentally devastating when it comes time to dispose of it. Many are still wondering if vegan leather substitutes are actually better for the environment than real leather. In most cases, the answer is “no.” But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take strides towards making eco-friendly vegan leather commonplace in the fashion industry. We need to look at the fundamental materials of vegan leather and how it’s made. This is how we can evaluate its sustainability. Not So Eco-Friendly Vegan Leather Options Generally speaking, Polyurethane (PU) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are the two most popular plastic polymers used to make vegan leather. What is PVC leather? PVC leather, also known as Vinyl, is crafted from fabric leather backing, a foam layer, a skin layer, and a plastic-based surface coating. While this is an animal-free material, it has a set of issues worth considering. Does PVC leather peel? No, PVC leather does not peel. This is a fabric that’s coated with PVC material, which means the PVC leather isn’t capable of peeling off.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://kerikit.com/blogs/news/what-is-pu-leather-and-does-vegan-leather-help-the-environment	What is PU leather and does vegan leather help the environment ...	What is PU leather and does vegan leather help the environment? Puleather, pleather, veganleatheror, polyurethaneleather, is anartificial form ofleatherthat is made from thermoplastic polymer and while it is often boasted as being 100% vegan and much better for the environment than normalleatherthis is often not the case. There are many downsides to polyurethaneleatherthat are often overlooked. So we wanted to share some advice with you so that when you are shopping for your next handbag you have a better understanding ofwhatyou are buying and can decide which is best, a polyurethane bag or aleatherbag? At KeriKit we are always investigating and researching new materials which are being introduced to the world of accessories and offer a much better solution for the environment such as apple, cork, mushroom and cactusleatherto name a few. While we eat meat, leather is actually one of the most sustainable materials we can use to make bags as not only is it a bi-product of the meat industry, it is durable, lasts longer than a plastic / PU bag and is biodegradable too. You can find out more about our leather bags here Whilst we do focus a lot on leather, KeriKit is proud to offer new and innovative leather free options of our best selling styles such as recycled nylonleatherbagsfor example. In this article I will break it all down for you and hopefully make it easier for you to come to your own verdict on the sustainability of veganleather,leatherand other sustainableleatheroptions. WhatisPULeather? Since all of the materials that are used to make polyurethaneleatherare man-made and synthetic, it is technically regarded as being100% vegan. This is obviously a major selling point in today’s market where there is more of a concern for sustainability than ever before. The biggest advantage of veganleatheris that no animals are harmed during production and this makes it an attractive option to many modern consumers. Polyurethaneleatheris also much cheaper to produce than normalleatherand so it has become readily available in many products, including handbags. So if veganleatheris ticking all the right boxes, why shouldn’t you buy it over a, ‘less sustainable’, traditionalleatherbag? Well the first major disadvantage of polyurethaneleatheris the significant downgrade in quality. This supposedly sustainablevegan alternative toleatheris nowhere near as durable as a normalleatherbag. Additionally, unlike a realleatherbag, polyurethane products will become worn and cracked overtime, meaning that aPUleatherhandbag is unlikely to last as long as a traditionalleatherbag. Whereas traditionalleatherwill last for many years and actually tends to develop a nice lustre with use,PUtends to perish long before you want it to and then there is only one place left for it - Landfill! VeganLeather: So much better for the environment, right? Maybe not. The biggest and most importantdisadvantage of polyurethaneleatheris that despite requiring less resources to make, it does not decompose after use and therefore should not be regarded as sustainable! When products made ofpolyurethaneleathergo to landfill, after a very long time, they will start to break down. When this happens the polyurethane releases phthalates into the air which are harmful to breathe in. Yes, veganleatherproducts do not require animals to be harmed in order to be produced, however it can cause irritation in the lungs of humans and other organisms including animals. Environmentally-FriendlyLeatherOptions If you’re looking for a sustainable alternative toPUleather, navigating the shops can be an absolute minefield. Not allveganleatheris made the same and this can make things very confusing. For example, some veganleatherproducts might be made out of natural plant based alternatives such as pineapple, apple or mushroomleather. Whereas others will be marketed as vegan but are not actually sustainable at all due to the plastic toxins they are releasing into the environment during and after their use. It is estimated that around 13 tonnes of artificial plastic fibres end up in the sea every year. Additionally, since polyurethaneleatherproducts take an extremely long time to break down, they can actually be even moreharmful to the environmentthan traditionalleathers, believe it or not. This is a prime example of greenwashing, it's real and you should be wary of it. Just because something is marketed as being vegan, it does NOT mean that it also benefits the environment. Just as there are veganleatherslikePUleatherwhich do not help the environment, there are also traditionalleathersthat are better for the environment. For example, our Signature collection includesleather handbags made from anakedleathermeaning that there are fewer chemicals, chrome and water used in theleathertanning process. Plus, our traditionalleatheris also high quality and ourleatherbags are designed to last a lifetime, making this a greatsustainableleatherbagoption. Recycled Nylon Vs VeganPULeather The easiest solution to this whole sustainableleatherordeal is to just avoid polyurethaneleatherentirely, instead maybe opt for a recycled nylon made from plastic bottled for your veganleatheralternative. Although nylon is still a synthetic material, our nylon collection is made from recycled materials, to help create a more circular economy and reduce the environmental impact of ourleatherbags. Take ourSustainable Nylon Backpacksfor example, its designer quality, beautiful and practical, lightweight and perfect for work, parenting and travel. Other alternatives will be available soon on our website as we look at other options to offer our lovely customers. So, if you really want a stylish veganleather-esque bag but you don’t want it at the cost of environmental damage, ourRecycled Nylon Collectionis justwhatyou’ve been waiting for.	What is PU leather and does vegan leather help the environment? Puleather, pleather, veganleatheror, polyurethaneleather, is anartificial form ofleatherthat is made from thermoplastic polymer and while it is often boasted as being 100% vegan and much better for the environment than normalleatherthis is often not the case. There are many downsides to polyurethaneleatherthat are often overlooked. So we wanted to share some advice with you so that when you are shopping for your next handbag you have a better understanding ofwhatyou are buying and can decide which is best, a polyurethane bag or aleatherbag? At KeriKit we are always investigating and researching new materials which are being introduced to the world of accessories and offer a much better solution for the environment such as apple, cork, mushroom and cactusleatherto name a few. While we eat meat, leather is actually one of the most sustainable materials we can use to make bags as not only is it a bi-product of the meat industry, it is durable, lasts longer than a plastic / PU bag and is biodegradable too. You can find out more about our leather bags here Whilst we do focus a lot on leather, KeriKit is proud to offer new and innovative leather free options of our best selling styles such as recycled nylonleatherbagsfor example. In this article I will break it all down for you and hopefully make it easier for you to come to your own verdict on the sustainability of veganleather,leatherand other sustainableleatheroptions. WhatisPULeather? Since all of the materials that are used to make polyurethaneleatherare man-made and synthetic, it is technically regarded as being100% vegan. This is obviously a major selling point in today’s market where there is more of a concern for sustainability than ever before. The biggest advantage of veganleatheris that no animals are harmed during production and this makes it an attractive option to many modern consumers.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://causeartist.com/what-is-vegan-leather/	What is Vegan Leather? - Causeartist	What is Vegan Leather? Leather is a material that has been used for thousands of years for its durability, strength, and flexibility. However, in recent years, there has been a growing demand for more ethical and sustainable alternatives to animal-based leather. This has led to the development of vegan leather, which is a synthetic material that mimics the look and feel of leather without using any animal products. According to a 2019-20 report by Grand View Research, the global synthetic leather market size was valued at USD 33.7 billion in 2021 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.0% from 2022 to 2030. The production of animal leather is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, vegan leather has a much lower environmental impact, as it requires less water, energy, and chemicals to produce. In addition, one survey by Nielsen mentions 39% of consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products, and 73% of millennials are willing to pay extra for products that are environmentally friendly. So, what exactly is vegan leather, and how is it made? Types of Vegan Leather There are several types of vegan leather, including: Mushroom Leather – Mycelium naturally forms a solid foam that can be compressed into a leather-like material. But compressed mycelium, also known as mushroom leather, does not offer the performance and strength of animal- and synthetic leathers. Fine Mycelium™ – Fine Mycelium engineers mycelium cells as they grow to create three dimensional structures that are densely entwined and inherently strong; Fine Mycelium is a patented process to grow materials with superior strength, durability and performance compared to animal leather. PVC Leather: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) leather is another type of synthetic leather that is made by coating a fabric base with a layer of PVC. This material is also known as vinyl leather. Microfiber Leather: Microfiber leather is a type of vegan leather that is made by combining microfiber materials with a binder to create a leather-like material. Cork Leather: Cork leather is made from the bark of cork trees. The bark is harvested without harming the tree, making this a sustainable and eco-friendly option. Piñatex: Piñatex is a relatively new type of vegan leather that is made from the fibers of pineapple leaves. This material is not only animal-friendly, but it is also sustainable and biodegradable. Apple Leather – Apple leather is a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to traditional animal leather. It is made from the leftover material of apple juice production, which is then processed to create a material that looks and feels like real leather. How Is Vegan Leather Made? The production process for vegan leather varies depending on the type of material being used. However, in general, vegan leather is made by coating a fabric base with a layer of synthetic material that mimics the texture and appearance of leather. For example, PU leather is made by coating a fabric base with a layer of polyurethane. This material is then embossed with a texture that resembles leather. PVC leather is made using a similar process, but with a layer of PVC instead of polyurethane. Microfiber leather is made by combining microfiber materials with a binder to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. This material is then embossed with a texture that resembles leather. Cork leather is made by harvesting the bark of cork trees. The bark is then boiled and flattened to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. Piñatex is made from the fibers of pineapple leaves. The fibers are harvested, washed, and then processed to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. Apple leather is derived from the residue of apple juice manufacturing and is subjected to a process that results in a material that mimics the texture and appearance of real leather. This groundbreaking material is not only kind to animals but also biodegradable and devoid of toxic substances. Benefits of Vegan Leather There are several benefits to using vegan leather instead of animal-based leather. Some of these benefits include: Animal-Friendly: Vegan leather is made without using any animal products, making it a more ethical choice for those who want to avoid animal cruelty. Sustainable: Many types of vegan leather, such as cork leather and piñatex, are made from sustainable and renewable materials. This makes them a more environmentally-friendly choice compared to animal-based leather. Affordable: Vegan leather is often more affordable than animal-based leather, making it a more accessible option for those who want the look and feel of leather without the high cost. Customizable: Vegan leather can be produced in a wide range of colors and textures, making it a more customizable option compared to animal-based leather. Durable: Vegan leather is often just as durable and long-lasting as animal-based leather, making it a practical and functional choice for a wide range of products.	For example, PU leather is made by coating a fabric base with a layer of polyurethane. This material is then embossed with a texture that resembles leather. PVC leather is made using a similar process, but with a layer of PVC instead of polyurethane. Microfiber leather is made by combining microfiber materials with a binder to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. This material is then embossed with a texture that resembles leather. Cork leather is made by harvesting the bark of cork trees. The bark is then boiled and flattened to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. Piñatex is made from the fibers of pineapple leaves. The fibers are harvested, washed, and then processed to create a material that has a leather-like texture and appearance. Apple leather is derived from the residue of apple juice manufacturing and is subjected to a process that results in a material that mimics the texture and appearance of real leather. This groundbreaking material is not only kind to animals but also biodegradable and devoid of toxic substances. Benefits of Vegan Leather There are several benefits to using vegan leather instead of animal-based leather. Some of these benefits include: Animal-Friendly: Vegan leather is made without using any animal products, making it a more ethical choice for those who want to avoid animal cruelty. Sustainable: Many types of vegan leather, such as cork leather and piñatex, are made from sustainable and renewable materials. This makes them a more environmentally-friendly choice compared to animal-based leather. Affordable: Vegan leather is often more affordable than animal-based leather, making it a more accessible option for those who want the look and feel of leather without the high cost. Customizable: Vegan leather can be produced in a wide range of colors and textures, making it a more customizable option compared to animal-based leather.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.elle.com/fashion/a42098344/ag-jeans-sustainable-denim/	Meet the Sustainable Vegan Leather Line Of Your Dreams	Meet the Sustainable Vegan Leather Line Of Your Dreams Sustainability is big news. In addition to grabbing headlines, it’s become a huge consideration in how people shop. A recent poll found that more than a third of millennial and Gen Z shoppers want brands to create products that are eco-friendly and ethical. When it comes to natural fabrics like bamboo, cotton and wool, it’s getting easier with plenty of options for the sustainable shopper. But for the longest time, it was nearly impossible to find an alternative to leather that didn’t contain harmful chemicals. That’s changed, courtesy of AG’s latest launch, a truly sustainable vegan leather collection, dropping just in time for the holidays. Traditionally vegan leather, while cruelty-free, wasn’t the most eco-conscious choice—a fact made obvious once you looked into its process. “[Traditional vegan leather is] usually manufactured using DMF, a solvent that emits harmful chemicals and odors [during the process], exposing the workers as well as nearby communities,” says Kristy Drutman, a youth climate activist and founder of Brown Girl Green, adding, “DMF can lead to health complications and is typically not regulated to be recycled or disposed properly after use meaning it can easily [negatively affect] the surrounding communities and environments.” Andy Jackson AG’s vegan leather is a safer alternative, as it’s made from environmentally friendly organic biomass and other plant-based materials. In contrast, AG’s vegan leather is a safer alternative, as it’s made from environmentally friendly organic biomass and other plant-based materials, without using DMF during the process. Instead, the brand uses a different waterborne polyurethane that doesn't have the same toxic gas emissions or waste-water discharge. “Water-based production models that don’t rely on DMF are not only better from a public and environmental health perspective, but are also more efficient when it comes to energy usage and can result in less exhaust fumes and water consumption,” says Drutman. She also explains that by using repurposed and recycled polyester, the line can help reduce the amount of raw materials being used to create new products, which is a key point in moving towards a more sustainable future. “It’s important that brands like AG are setting the standard that hazardous chemicals do not belong on our clothes or in our bodies,” she notes. Aesthetically speaking, the pieces in AG’s vegan leather line are just as good as the technology and innovation behind it. They feel as supple and soft as traditional leather, and have the same hand-finishing techniques, making it luxurious as well. Standouts include the Santana, a modern, and on-trend take on the eighties-inspired bomber with removable sleeves. It’s important that brands like AG are setting the standard that hazardous chemicals do not belong on our clothes or in our bodies. Andy Jackson Another favorite is the Cleo trouser, which has a high-waist and straight leg—it’s sure to be your new go-to wardrobe staple. And for those who love a unisex, baggy vibe, the Sable shirt is the perfect shirt-meets-jacket that can be worn alone or layered. With prices ranging from $328 to $425, AG’s vegan leather range not only improves and innovates the vegan leather process, it’s also creating quality and beautiful pieces that’ll last for years to come. Shop some of our favorites below and check out the entire collection here.	Meet the Sustainable Vegan Leather Line Of Your Dreams Sustainability is big news. In addition to grabbing headlines, it’s become a huge consideration in how people shop. A recent poll found that more than a third of millennial and Gen Z shoppers want brands to create products that are eco-friendly and ethical. When it comes to natural fabrics like bamboo, cotton and wool, it’s getting easier with plenty of options for the sustainable shopper. But for the longest time, it was nearly impossible to find an alternative to leather that didn’t contain harmful chemicals. That’s changed, courtesy of AG’s latest launch, a truly sustainable vegan leather collection, dropping just in time for the holidays. Traditionally vegan leather, while cruelty-free, wasn’t the most eco-conscious choice—a fact made obvious once you looked into its process. “[Traditional vegan leather is] usually manufactured using DMF, a solvent that emits harmful chemicals and odors [during the process], exposing the workers as well as nearby communities,” says Kristy Drutman, a youth climate activist and founder of Brown Girl Green, adding, “DMF can lead to health complications and is typically not regulated to be recycled or disposed properly after use meaning it can easily [negatively affect] the surrounding communities and environments.” Andy Jackson AG’s vegan leather is a safer alternative, as it’s made from environmentally friendly organic biomass and other plant-based materials. In contrast, AG’s vegan leather is a safer alternative, as it’s made from environmentally friendly organic biomass and other plant-based materials, without using DMF during the process. Instead, the brand uses a different waterborne polyurethane that doesn't have the same toxic gas emissions or waste-water discharge. “Water-based production models that don’t rely on DMF are not only better from a public and environmental health perspective, but are also more efficient when it comes to energy usage and can result in less exhaust fumes and water consumption,” says Drutman.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/join-sustainable-fashion-shift-vegan-leather-stylish-ethical-zheng	Join the Sustainable Fashion Shift with Vegan Leather: Stylish, Eco ...	Jimmy Zheng 🍃 Leather has long been a staple in fashion, but with increasing concerns about ethics and the environment, the fashion industry has turned to vegan leather as a more sustainable option. In this article, we will explore what vegan leather is and how it compares to traditional leather. Vegan leather, also known as faux leather or synthetic leather, is made from a variety of materials that mimic the look and feel of animal leather without using any animal products. These materials include polyurethane (PU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and plant-based materials such as cork and pineapple leaves. The production process is one of the main differences between vegan leather and traditional leather. Traditional leather is made from animal hides that are treated with chemicals to preserve and soften the material. This process requires a large amount of water, energy, and chemicals, and often results in harmful waste products. On the other hand, vegan leather is made from materials that are easier to produce and have a lower impact on the environment. For example, PU leather is made by coating a fabric base with a layer of PU, which is a type of plastic. This process uses less water and energy than traditional leather production and produces less waste. While traditional leather is known for its durability and can last for many years if properly cared for, vegan leather may not be as durable and may require more maintenance to prevent cracking and peeling. When it comes to fashion accessories such as bags, both vegan leather and traditional leather offer a range of styles and designs. Vegan leather bags are available in a variety of colors and textures and can mimic the look and feel of high-quality leather. Traditional leather bags, however, are known for their luxury and durability and are often associated with high-end brands. As more and more brands incorporate vegan leather into their collections, it reflects a shift towards more sustainable and ethical production practices in the fashion industry. Not only is vegan leather more eco-friendly, but it also caters to a growing market of consumers who are looking for stylish and environmentally friendly options. 05 ✍ Vegan leather is a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional leather in the fashion industry. While it may not have the same durability and luxury as traditional leather, it offers a range of styles and designs that are both fashionable and eco-friendly. As the demand for sustainable and ethical fashion practices continues to grow, it is likely that we will see more and more brands incorporating vegan leather into their collections. If you're looking for stylish and sustainable fashion accessories, look no further than vegan leather! In this article, we explore what vegan leather is and how it compares to traditional leather. With increasing concerns about ethics and the environment, many fashion brands are turning to vegan leather as a more eco-friendly option. Not only is it easier to produce and has a lower impact on the environment, but it also caters to a growing market of consumers who are looking for stylish and environmentally friendly options. So if you want to stay on-trend while also making a positive impact, consider adding some vegan leather pieces to your wardrobe! Join the sustainable fashion shift with vegan leather: Stylish, Eco-friendly and Ethical alternative to traditional leather accessories	This process uses less water and energy than traditional leather production and produces less waste. While traditional leather is known for its durability and can last for many years if properly cared for, vegan leather may not be as durable and may require more maintenance to prevent cracking and peeling. When it comes to fashion accessories such as bags, both vegan leather and traditional leather offer a range of styles and designs. Vegan leather bags are available in a variety of colors and textures and can mimic the look and feel of high-quality leather. Traditional leather bags, however, are known for their luxury and durability and are often associated with high-end brands. As more and more brands incorporate vegan leather into their collections, it reflects a shift towards more sustainable and ethical production practices in the fashion industry. Not only is vegan leather more eco-friendly, but it also caters to a growing market of consumers who are looking for stylish and environmentally friendly options. 05 ✍ Vegan leather is a sustainable and ethical alternative to traditional leather in the fashion industry. While it may not have the same durability and luxury as traditional leather, it offers a range of styles and designs that are both fashionable and eco-friendly. As the demand for sustainable and ethical fashion practices continues to grow, it is likely that we will see more and more brands incorporating vegan leather into their collections. If you're looking for stylish and sustainable fashion accessories, look no further than vegan leather! In this article, we explore what vegan leather is and how it compares to traditional leather. With increasing concerns about ethics and the environment, many fashion brands are turning to vegan leather as a more eco-friendly option. Not only is it easier to produce and has a lower impact on the environment, but it also caters to a growing market of consumers who are looking for stylish and environmentally friendly options. So if you want to stay on-trend while also making a positive impact, consider adding some vegan leather pieces to your wardrobe!	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://softlinebrandpartners.com/what-is-vegan-leather-and-what-are-its-benefits-over-traditional-leather/	What is vegan leather, and what are its benefits over traditional ...	What is vegan leather, and what are its benefits over traditional leather? Vegan leather is a type of leather made without the use of any animal products. It is typically made from synthetic materials such as polyurethane or PVC or plant-based materials such as pineapple or coconut. Vegan leather has a similar appearance and texture to traditional leather and has advantages in small goods manufacturing. This article will look exclusively at vegan leather made from plant sources (plant-based leather), which has many advantages over traditional leather and PVC leather in small goods manufacturing. Advantages of using Plant-Based Leather in Manufacturing Small Goods Plant-based leathers are environmentally friendly. Vegan leather is typically less expensive to produce than traditional leather. Plant-based leather can be just as durable as animal leather. Because vegan leather is uniform, there are no scars, bug bites, tick infestations, etc., which makes the cutting yield far more predictable. The Marketability of Environmentally-Friendly Products One of the primary benefits of using vegan leather instead of traditional animal-based leather is that it is environmentally friendly. Animal agriculture is considered one of the leading causes of global warming, and producing traditional leather involves chemical processes such as tanning and dyeing. In contrast, plant-based vegan leatherette can be manufactured using more sustainable methods that do not produce harmful emissions. According to a recent report produced by First Insight and the Baker Retailing Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Consumers across all generations—from Baby Boomers to Gen Z—are now willing to spend more for sustainable products. 90% of Gen X consumers said they would be willing to spend an extra 10% or more on sustainable products. A desire to help the environment was the primary reason consumers purchase sustainable products and brands. Almost 30% say they want to improve the environment, with 23% wishing to reduce production waste, 22% wishing to reduce their carbon footprint, and 17% concerned with animal welfare. Top fashion brands like Patagonia and Native Shoes have built their brand as eco-friendly companies that put the planet first. Other companies have also been listening to consumers and have started offering sustainable products. According to a Grandview Research market report, the green technology and sustainability market is estimated to be more than 15.85 billion in 2022. It will grow at a rate of 22.4% between now and 2030. How does the price of plant-based leather compare to traditional leather? Generally, vegan leather (specifically plant-based leather) is cheaper than traditional leather. This is because products like mushrooms and pineapples require less room and time to mature than cattle, and plant-based leathers are often produced from the waste parts of plants. For example, Piñatex (leather made from pineapple leaves) uses the waste parts of pineapple plants to improve farmers’ income and promote indigenous products. Companies like Adidas and Gucci have seen the cost value of plant-based leather and are collaborating with leather manufacturers on new lines produced with mushroom leather. Other small goods manufacturers and fashion brands are turning to cactus leather, leather made from cereal crops, and even apple peal leather. Mushroom leather is still developing and is expected to become less expensive as it moves toward mass production. Bolt Threads said its mushroom fabric costs about $25 a square foot, which according to the company, puts it on par with premium calf leather. While we aren’t familiar with the $25/sqft calf leather, they feel it is competitive. However, pineapple leather is much more affordable, with a 20 sq. ft. cowhide costing around $150 and pineapple leather of the same size costing approximately $65. How does the durability of plant-based leather compare to animal leather? There is no disputing the fact that animal leather is tough. High-quality, high-end leather can last for generations if proper care is taken. However, animal leather is sensitive to fluctuations in temperature and can show stretch marks over time. Vegan leather has had a reputation for cracking, but this is primarily PVC leather. Plant-based leather shows promise as a durable alternative to animal leather. For example, due to the high cellulose content and tensile strength of pineapple leaves, products made with Piñatex are durable and long-lasting. According to one professional leather worker, the primary differences between working with animal leather and vegan leather are as follows: Comparison Animal Leather Vegan Leather Appearance Visual Imperfections Uniform Finishing Durability More durable in the long term Less delicate in the short-term Cleaning Needs specialized cleaning care It can be cleaned with a wide variety of alcohol-based products Malleability Stretches and Shrinks Naturally It can be structurally damaged with too much form manipulation Small goods manufacturers will find that plant-based leather can be a durable choice for certain small leather goods. The uniform finishing and easy cleaning work well for handbags, wallets, and leather embellishments. Are there any drawbacks to using plant-based leather in small goods manufacturing? We would be remiss if we didn’t mention some of the drawbacks to using plant-based vegan leather in small goods manufacturing. For example, plant-based leather is still being developed, and while prices are dropping, new sources may be similar to animal leather in price. Some consumer reviews mention that vegan leather (PVC and plant-based) is less breathable or malleable than traditional leather, which absorbs water. Traditional leather tends to soften, but plant-based malleability stays consistent, and some vegan leather (primarily PVC) cracks over time. Vegan leather can also be more challenging to work with and is often less forgiving than real leather when it comes to mistakes. In summary, plant-based leather is an excellent choice for small goods manufacturers looking for an environmentally friendly, less expensive, and durable option. If you are interested in using plant-based leather in your manufacturing process, contact Softline Brand Partners. We would be happy to discuss the options with you and help you get started with these sustainable materials. Looking for a Trusted Brand Partner? Contact us today. ABOUT We are a vertically-integrated design and manufacturing firm and an industry leading producer of soft goods. With factories operating both domestically and abroad, we are able to work within a wide range of specifications, with many strategic partners, from startups to Fortune 500 companies.	What is vegan leather, and what are its benefits over traditional leather? Vegan leather is a type of leather made without the use of any animal products. It is typically made from synthetic materials such as polyurethane or PVC or plant-based materials such as pineapple or coconut. Vegan leather has a similar appearance and texture to traditional leather and has advantages in small goods manufacturing. This article will look exclusively at vegan leather made from plant sources (plant-based leather), which has many advantages over traditional leather and PVC leather in small goods manufacturing. Advantages of using Plant-Based Leather in Manufacturing Small Goods Plant-based leathers are environmentally friendly. Vegan leather is typically less expensive to produce than traditional leather. Plant-based leather can be just as durable as animal leather. Because vegan leather is uniform, there are no scars, bug bites, tick infestations, etc., which makes the cutting yield far more predictable. The Marketability of Environmentally-Friendly Products One of the primary benefits of using vegan leather instead of traditional animal-based leather is that it is environmentally friendly. Animal agriculture is considered one of the leading causes of global warming, and producing traditional leather involves chemical processes such as tanning and dyeing. In contrast, plant-based vegan leatherette can be manufactured using more sustainable methods that do not produce harmful emissions. According to a recent report produced by First Insight and the Baker Retailing Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Consumers across all generations—from Baby Boomers to Gen Z—are now willing to spend more for sustainable products. 90% of Gen X consumers said they would be willing to spend an extra 10% or more on sustainable products. A desire to help the environment was the primary reason consumers purchase sustainable products and brands. Almost 30% say they want to improve the environment, with 23% wishing to reduce production waste, 22% wishing to reduce their carbon footprint, and 17% concerned with animal welfare.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://sohasurfshop.com/blogs/news/vegan-leather-cushion-slide-the-perfect-combination-of-style-and-sustainability	Vegan Leather Cushion Slide: The Perfect Combination of Style and ...	Are you looking for a stylish and eco-friendly footwear option? Look no further than the Vegan Leather Cushion Slide. This innovative product combines fashion and sustainability, making it the ideal choice for conscious consumers. In this blog post, we will explore the benefits of vegan leather and why the Cushion Vista Hi is a must-have addition to your wardrobe. What is Vegan Leather? Vegan leather, also known as faux leather or synthetic leather, is a cruelty-free alternative to traditional animal leather. It is made from various materials such as polyurethane (PU) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which are more sustainable and environmentally friendly options. Vegan leather mimics the look and feel of real leather, providing a luxurious and stylish appeal without harming animals. Why Choose Vegan Leather? There are several compelling reasons to choose vegan leather over traditional leather. First and foremost, it is a cruelty-free option that aligns with ethical values. By opting for vegan leather, you are making a conscious decision to protect animals and promote a more compassionate fashion industry. Moreover, vegan leather is more sustainable than its animal-derived counterpart. The production of traditional leather involves harmful chemicals and extensive water usage, contributing to environmental degradation. On the other hand, vegan leather production requires fewer resources and generates lower carbon emissions, making it a more eco-friendly choice. The Cushion Vista Hi: Style and Comfort Combined Now, let's talk about the star of the show - the Cushion Vista Hi. These vegan leather cushion slides offer the perfect blend of style and comfort. With their sleek design and cushioned sole, they are the ideal footwear for both casual and dressy occasions. Whether you're strolling along the beach or attending a summer soirée, the Cushion Vista Hi provides the ultimate comfort and support. The cushioned sole ensures a soft and cozy feel, while the vegan leather upper adds a touch of elegance to any outfit. Why Should You Buy the Cushion Vista Hi? When it comes to footwear, quality and sustainability are paramount. The Cushion Vista Hi excels in both areas. By choosing this product, you are investing in a durable and long-lasting pair of slides that will withstand the test of time. Additionally, the Cushion Vista Hi is crafted from high-quality vegan leather, ensuring that no animals were harmed in the manufacturing process. By supporting cruelty-free fashion, you are contributing to a more compassionate and sustainable future. So why wait? Step up your fashion game with the Cushion Vista Hi and make a statement for style and sustainability. Visit our website to purchase your pair today! Upgrade Your Style with the Cushion Vista Hi Ready to elevate your footwear collection? Look no further than the Cushion Vista Hi. With its combination of style, comfort, and sustainability, it's a game-changer in the fashion industry. Don't miss out on this must-have accessory!	Are you looking for a stylish and eco-friendly footwear option? Look no further than the Vegan Leather Cushion Slide. This innovative product combines fashion and sustainability, making it the ideal choice for conscious consumers. In this blog post, we will explore the benefits of vegan leather and why the Cushion Vista Hi is a must-have addition to your wardrobe. What is Vegan Leather? Vegan leather, also known as faux leather or synthetic leather, is a cruelty-free alternative to traditional animal leather. It is made from various materials such as polyurethane (PU) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which are more sustainable and environmentally friendly options. Vegan leather mimics the look and feel of real leather, providing a luxurious and stylish appeal without harming animals. Why Choose Vegan Leather? There are several compelling reasons to choose vegan leather over traditional leather. First and foremost, it is a cruelty-free option that aligns with ethical values. By opting for vegan leather, you are making a conscious decision to protect animals and promote a more compassionate fashion industry. Moreover, vegan leather is more sustainable than its animal-derived counterpart. The production of traditional leather involves harmful chemicals and extensive water usage, contributing to environmental degradation. On the other hand, vegan leather production requires fewer resources and generates lower carbon emissions, making it a more eco-friendly choice. The Cushion Vista Hi: Style and Comfort Combined Now, let's talk about the star of the show - the Cushion Vista Hi. These vegan leather cushion slides offer the perfect blend of style and comfort. With their sleek design and cushioned sole, they are the ideal footwear for both casual and dressy occasions. Whether you're strolling along the beach or attending a summer soirée, the Cushion Vista Hi provides the ultimate comfort and support. The cushioned sole ensures a soft and cozy feel, while the vegan leather upper adds a touch of elegance to any outfit.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vegan-leather-market-size-share-trends-opportunities-analysis-ashley	Vegan Leather Market Size, Share, Trends, Opportunities Analysis ...	Ashley Hancock Market Research The Global Vegan Leather Market was valued at USD 61.5 Million in 2022 and is projected to reach USD 106.0 Million by 2030 at a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 9.5% between 2023 and 2030. The vegan leather market is a rapidly growing industry that provides an alternative to traditional animal-based leather products. Vegan leather is a synthetic material made from a variety of plant-based sources such as pineapple leaves, cork, apple peels, and mushroom fibers. It is a more sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to traditional leather, which is made from animal hides that are typically treated with harmful chemicals. The market for vegan leather products has seen significant growth in recent years, driven by increasing consumer awareness of sustainability and animal welfare issues. The fashion industry, in particular, has seen a surge in demand for vegan leather products, with many high-end designers incorporating these materials into their collections. Vegan Leather Market Dynamics Consumer Awareness and Demand: There has been a significant increase in consumer awareness regarding sustainability and animal welfare issues. Consumers are increasingly looking for eco-friendly and cruelty-free alternatives to traditional leather products, driving demand for vegan leather. Technological Advancements: The development of new technologies has played a key role in the growth of the vegan leather market. Innovations in materials science and manufacturing have led to the development of new plant-based materials that closely mimic the look and feel of traditional leather. Availability of Raw Materials: The availability of raw materials such as pineapple leaves, cork, and apple peels has also contributed to the growth of the vegan leather market. These materials are abundant and can be sustainably sourced, making them an attractive option for manufacturers. Environmental Regulations: Stringent environmental regulations on the use of toxic chemicals in leather tanning have also contributed to the growth of the vegan leather market. Vegan leather does not require the use of harmful chemicals, making it a more environmentally friendly option. Competitive Landscape: The vegan leather market is becoming increasingly competitive, with new players entering the market and established players expanding their product portfolios. This is leading to innovation and driving down prices, making vegan leather more accessible to consumers. The fashion industry is the largest end-use segment for vegan leather products, accounting for the highest revenue share in 2020. The increasing demand for eco-friendly and sustainable fashion products is driving the growth of this segment. Synthetic leather is the most commonly used material for vegan leather products, accounting for the largest revenue share in 2020. However, plant-based materials such as pineapple leaves, cork, and apple peels are gaining popularity due to their sustainability and eco-friendliness. Asia Pacific is the largest regional market for vegan leather products, accounting for the highest revenue share in 2020. The increasing demand for eco-friendly and sustainable products, coupled with the growing fashion industry, is driving the growth of this market in the region. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a mixed impact on the vegan leather market. While the pandemic has led to supply chain disruptions and reduced consumer spending, it has also increased awareness of sustainability and eco-friendliness, driving demand for vegan leather products. Top Trends Use of Sustainable and Innovative Materials: There is a growing trend towards the use of sustainable and innovative plant-based materials for vegan leather products. Pineapple leaves, cork, apple peels, and mushroom fibers are some of the materials that are gaining popularity due to their eco-friendliness and unique properties. Technological Advancements: Advances in materials science and manufacturing are leading to the development of new and improved vegan leather products. For example, biotechnology is being used to create leather-like materials from fungi and bacteria. Fashion Industry Collaboration: High-end fashion designers are collaborating with vegan leather manufacturers to create eco-friendly and sustainable collections. This is leading to increased visibility and demand for vegan leather products. Circular Economy: The concept of the circular economy, where products are designed to be reused and recycled, is gaining popularity in the vegan leather market. Manufacturers are developing closed-loop systems where waste materials are recycled and reused to create new products. Transparency and Traceability: Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social impact of their purchases. As a result, there is a growing trend towards transparency and traceability in the vegan leather market, where manufacturers provide detailed information about the materials and production processes used to create their products. Vegan leather, also known as faux leather or synthetic leather, is a type of material that is designed to look and feel like traditional animal leather, but is made from synthetic or plant-based materials instead. Vegan leather can be made from various materials such as polyurethane (PU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and microfiber. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards using sustainable and eco-friendly plant-based materials such as pineapple leaves, cork, and apple peels for vegan leather. Vegan leather is often used as a more ethical and sustainable alternative to traditional leather, as it does not involve animal hides and does not require the same level of environmentally harmful processing. Vegan leather is used in various products, including shoes, bags, clothing, and furniture. Cost: The cost of producing vegan leather is often higher than traditional leather, making it less accessible to consumers. The use of sustainable and innovative plant-based materials can also increase the cost of production. Quality and Durability: Vegan leather products are often criticized for their lower quality and durability than traditional leather. However, advances in materials science and manufacturing are leading to the development of vegan leather products that are more durable and of higher quality. Limited Availability: Despite the growing popularity of vegan leather, it is still not as widely available as traditional leather products. This can limit the options available to consumers and make it difficult for manufacturers to scale up production. Consumer Perception: While many consumers are attracted to the idea of eco-friendly and sustainable products, some still perceive that vegan leather products are of lower quality and less stylish than traditional leather products. This can make it challenging for manufacturers to market their products to a wider audience. Lack of Standardization: There currently needs to be a standard definition of vegan leather, and different manufacturers may use different materials and production processes. This can make it difficult for consumers to know what they are buying and for manufacturers to ensure consistent product quality. Key Questions Answered in Vegan Leather Market Report What is the current size of the vegan leather market, and what are the expected growth rates over the next few years? What are the primary drivers of demand for vegan leather, and how are they changing over time? What are the main materials used in vegan leather, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Who are the leading players in the vegan leather market, and what are their market shares and competitive strategies? Which regions are seeing the highest demand for vegan leather, and what are the factors driving this demand? How is consumer awareness of vegan leather evolving, and what are the main factors that influence purchasing decisions? What are the main challenges facing the vegan leather market, and how can they be addressed? What are the most promising opportunities for growth in the vegan leather market, and how can businesses capitalize on them? How are government regulations and environmental concerns impacting the vegan leather market? What are the latest trends and innovations in the vegan leather market, and how are they shaping the future of the industry? Vegan Leather Market Opportunities Growing Demand for Sustainable and Ethical Products: There is a growing trend towards sustainable and ethical products, including vegan leather. This trend is driven by consumers concerned about their purchases' environmental impact and want to make more responsible choices. Increasing Innovation: Advances in materials science and manufacturing are leading to developing new and innovative plant-based materials for vegan leather products. These materials offer unique properties and can be tailored to specific applications, opening up new opportunities for product development and differentiation. Collaboration with Fashion Industry: High-end fashion designers are increasingly collaborating with vegan leather manufacturers to create eco-friendly and sustainable collections. This leads to increased visibility and demand for vegan leather products and opportunities for manufacturers to expand into new markets. Expansion into New Product Categories: While vegan leather is commonly used in the fashion industry, there are opportunities to expand into other categories such as automotive and furniture. As consumers become more aware of the environmental impact of their purchases, there is increasing demand for eco-friendly and sustainable products in all areas of life. Expansion into New Geographies: While the vegan leather market is currently concentrated in developed countries, emerging markets have potential for growth. As these markets become more affluent and environmentally conscious, there will likely be increased demand for sustainable and ethical products, including vegan leather. Vegan Leather Market Recommendation Embrace Sustainability: The vegan leather market is closely tied to the growing trend towards sustainable and eco-friendly products. By adopting sustainable business practices, such as using renewable energy sources and reducing waste, businesses can position themselves as leaders in the industry and appeal to environmentally conscious consumers. Invest in Research and Development: The vegan leather market is still evolving, and there is a lot of room for innovation in terms of materials, production processes, and product design. By investing in research and development, businesses can stay ahead of the curve and differentiate themselves from competitors. Collaborate with Fashion Designers: High-end fashion designers are increasingly interested in incorporating sustainable and eco-friendly materials into their collections, including vegan leather. By collaborating with fashion designers, businesses can gain visibility and access new markets. Focus on Quality and Durability: One of the challenges facing the vegan leather market is the perception that vegan leather products are of lower quality and less durable than traditional leather products. By focusing on quality and durability, businesses can overcome this perception and gain the trust of consumers. Educate Consumers: Many consumers are still unfamiliar with vegan leather and may not understand the benefits of using sustainable and eco-friendly materials. By educating consumers about the benefits of vegan leather and the environmental impact of traditional leather production, businesses can help to increase demand for their products. Vegan Leather Market Regional Analysis North America: The vegan leather market in North America is driven by the growing demand for sustainable and eco-friendly products, particularly among millennials and Gen Z consumers. The United States is the largest market in the region, followed by Canada. Europe: Europe is one of the largest markets for vegan leather, with countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom leading the way. The region's strict environmental regulations and consumer preferences for sustainable and ethical products are driving demand for vegan leather. Asia-Pacific: The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest-growing market for vegan leather, with significant demand coming from countries such as China, India, and Japan. The region's large population, rising disposable incomes, and growing awareness of environmental issues contribute to the market's growth. Latin America: The vegan leather market is relatively small but growing rapidly, with Brazil and Mexico leading the way. The region's growing middle class and increasing interest in sustainable and ethical products drive demand for vegan leather. Middle East and Africa: The vegan leather market in the Middle East and Africa is still in its early stages. However, there is growing interest in sustainable and eco-friendly products, particularly among younger consumers. The United Arab Emirates and South Africa are two of the largest markets in the region.	Vegan Leather Market Dynamics Consumer Awareness and Demand: There has been a significant increase in consumer awareness regarding sustainability and animal welfare issues. Consumers are increasingly looking for eco-friendly and cruelty-free alternatives to traditional leather products, driving demand for vegan leather. Technological Advancements: The development of new technologies has played a key role in the growth of the vegan leather market. Innovations in materials science and manufacturing have led to the development of new plant-based materials that closely mimic the look and feel of traditional leather. Availability of Raw Materials: The availability of raw materials such as pineapple leaves, cork, and apple peels has also contributed to the growth of the vegan leather market. These materials are abundant and can be sustainably sourced, making them an attractive option for manufacturers. Environmental Regulations: Stringent environmental regulations on the use of toxic chemicals in leather tanning have also contributed to the growth of the vegan leather market. Vegan leather does not require the use of harmful chemicals, making it a more environmentally friendly option. Competitive Landscape: The vegan leather market is becoming increasingly competitive, with new players entering the market and established players expanding their product portfolios. This is leading to innovation and driving down prices, making vegan leather more accessible to consumers. The fashion industry is the largest end-use segment for vegan leather products, accounting for the highest revenue share in 2020. The increasing demand for eco-friendly and sustainable fashion products is driving the growth of this segment. Synthetic leather is the most commonly used material for vegan leather products, accounting for the largest revenue share in 2020. However, plant-based materials such as pineapple leaves, cork, and apple peels are gaining popularity due to their sustainability and eco-friendliness. Asia Pacific is the largest regional market for vegan leather products, accounting for the highest revenue share in 2020.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	yes_statement	"vegan" "leather" is "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" is a sustainable and eco-"friendly" alternative to traditional "leather".	https://thetechfashionista.com/desserto-cactus-vegan-leather/	Sustainable, Eco-Friendly Cactus Vegan Leather: What Is Desserto?	Sustainable, Eco-Friendly Cactus Vegan Leather: What Is Desserto? Sustainable, Eco-Friendly Cactus Vegan Leather: What Is Desserto? Cactus is green, and so is the future. Ever since the Desserto® cactus vegan leather was introduced, it has been the go-to sustainable and eco-friendly material for some designers looking to create new items. If you’re looking for an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional vegan leather that’s also durable, then look no further than this revolutionary, innovative textile. This article will talk about how this material is created, why it’s so great, and what you should know before making your purchase decision. The problem with most vegan leather Some people don’t realize that many materials classified as vegan leather consist of plastic, like PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and PU (polyurethane). These materials are not environmentally friendly because they are not biodegradable. What’s more, they contain toxic chemicals that can be harmful to our health. Aware of the problems that synthetic leather production causes, engineers and materials experts have tried to design a vegan option that is eco-friendly and biodegradable. One example of these innovative materials is cactus leather. Let me explain to you about the first, and so far only, one, ever created. How is Desserto vegan leather different? Adrián López Velarde and Marte Cázarez, two Mexican entrepreneurs with a passion for sustainable materials, saw the leather problem in industries like furniture, automotive, and fashion and set out to create a solution. As a result of this interest, the founders decided to leave their jobs, start their company, Adriano Di Marti, and dedicate all their time to developing a vegan alternative to leather made from the nopal plant, a type of cactus, which they called Desserto. It took the creators two years of research and development before they could produce a marketable material. Before trying nopal, they assessed creating the material using similar plants such as aloe vera and agave, but they remained with nopal because of its added benefits. When creating a new, plant-based sustainable material, they realized that evaluating several aspects concerning agriculture is essential. They analyzed factors such as how much water the plants consume, the type and amount of land they need to grow, herbicides and fertilizers, etc., and how the biodiversity is affected by growing that plant. The nopal cactus is massively abundant in Mexico. It grows naturally, and it doesn’t need any herbicides or pesticides. Nopal doesn’t even need a drop of water to grow because it is a hygroscopic plant, which means it grows thanks to the humidity of the environment; hence it doesn’t need an irrigation system like other crops. Nopal checked all the marks. Nopal is a type of cactus that grows naturally in Mexico, without the need for irrigation. With this process, they also offer an opportunity to local farmers to learn new techniques and skills, which eventually creates new jobs and increases the value of the nopal. Today, Desserto is a highly sustainable alternative to leather made from cactus. It is often distinguished by its extraordinary softness at touch while offering excellent performance. It’s suitable for various applications, and it complies with the most rigorous quality and environmental standards. Apart from the properties mentioned above, Desserto is flexible, breathable, and durable, as it can last up to 10 years. How is Desserto cactus vegan leather made? The cactus plants to make Desserto are grown in Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The mature leaves are selected and cut without killing the plant; the new leaves grow every 6 to 8 months, which allows for frequent harvesting cycles. After cutting them, the mature leaves are cleaned, mashed, and dried out in the sun for three days, aiming to achieve the perfect humidity levels. So, there’s no additional energy used in the drying process. After the protein from the plant is obtained, it gets colored with GOTs certified pigments and added some non-toxic chemicals such as bio-polyurethane. The final product is up to 68% natural and organic. The rest is composed of recycled polyester and cotton for added strength and durability. It takes approximately three leaves of cactus to create one linear meter of Desserto. Is Desserto cactus vegan leather sustainable? In short, yes, Desserto is one of the most sustainable vegan leather alternatives that exist in the market today. To evaluate why it is sustainable, let’s look at the unique properties of the raw material, the nopal cactus. The cactus plantation is perennial, meaning that it’s only planted one time, and the plantation lasts for eight years. It’s different from other plantations like corn that must be cultivated, harvested, and cultivated annually. Cactus also absorb CO2, which they take at night because it only opens its stoma when the environment is fresh. The plant makes oxygen and takes in water that comes from morning dew. The nopal plant has unique characteristics that make it inherently sustainable. To produce 1 kilogram of dry material, other plants need an average of 1,000 liters or about 265 gallons. Cactus only needs 200 liters (about 53 gallons) to produce the same amount; the cactus has a natural process that absorbs water through its stems and leaves. It’s worth mentioning that the nopal used to make Desserto can only come from certified organic plantations, awarded as USDA organic and VCS. Since the harvest is fully organic, they use natural fertilizers and never apply herbicides or pesticides; this preserves biodiversity and creates a sustainable ecosystem for animals and plants. All leftover cactus material not used in the process is exported or sold nationally in the food industry. Nothing goes to waste. How to care for cactus vegan leather? To maintain your product clean and good-looking, use a mild soap and water solution and remove the excess completely using a white cotton cloth damped with water. Dry the surface with a dry white cloth. The light colors might require more frequent cleaning. For spills such as beer, wine, juices, soft drinks, coffee, or tea, simply clean the stain with a solution of liquid shampoo and water and rinse with a cloth soaked in water to remove the excess altogether. Clean the spill as soon as possible. Do not clean with solvents such as alcohol, acetone, paint thinner, bleach, oil, vinegar, waxes, silicones, or detergent cleaners, as they can cause permanent damage to the material. Cactus vengan leather FAQs Is cactus leather durable? Yes, it’s very durable, and it can last up to ten years. Is cactus leather biodegradable? Desserto cactus leather is partly biodegradable. Is cactus leather waterproof? Cactus leather is water-resistant but not necessarily waterproof. Final thoughts Vegan leather alternatives are a must for eco-conscious fashionistas and sustainable consumers. Desserto is an emerging example of this environmentally-friendly trend in the industry, and it’s not only good for your conscience—it looks great too! About The Author Thalia is the creator of The Tech Fashionista, a website committed to bridging the gap between technology, sustainability, and fashion. Thalia grew up with a passion for creating engaging material for her audience. Her love for fashion and technology inspired her to build something that would help individuals find their style while keeping up with innovation.	Sustainable, Eco-Friendly Cactus Vegan Leather: What Is Desserto? Sustainable, Eco-Friendly Cactus Vegan Leather: What Is Desserto? Cactus is green, and so is the future. Ever since the Desserto® cactus vegan leather was introduced, it has been the go-to sustainable and eco-friendly material for some designers looking to create new items. If you’re looking for an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional vegan leather that’s also durable, then look no further than this revolutionary, innovative textile. This article will talk about how this material is created, why it’s so great, and what you should know before making your purchase decision. The problem with most vegan leather Some people don’t realize that many materials classified as vegan leather consist of plastic, like PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and PU (polyurethane). These materials are not environmentally friendly because they are not biodegradable. What’s more, they contain toxic chemicals that can be harmful to our health. Aware of the problems that synthetic leather production causes, engineers and materials experts have tried to design a vegan option that is eco-friendly and biodegradable. One example of these innovative materials is cactus leather. Let me explain to you about the first, and so far only, one, ever created. How is Desserto vegan leather different? Adrián López Velarde and Marte Cázarez, two Mexican entrepreneurs with a passion for sustainable materials, saw the leather problem in industries like furniture, automotive, and fashion and set out to create a solution. As a result of this interest, the founders decided to leave their jobs, start their company, Adriano Di Marti, and dedicate all their time to developing a vegan alternative to leather made from the nopal plant, a type of cactus, which they called Desserto. It took the creators two years of research and development before they could produce a marketable material.	yes
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://www.popsci.com/environment/leather-sustainability-ethics/	Is 'vegan' leather really better for the planet? \| Popular Science	Is ‘vegan’ leather really better for the planet? Vegan leather may sound more sustainable than its animal-based counterpart, but that's not always the case. SevenStorm JUHASZIMRUS from Pexels SHARE One of the only things that seems more timeless than a leather jacket is the debate over the ethics of its iconic material. Leather, mostly made from the hides of cattle and calves, is highly contested in the fashion industry, along with real animal fur and feathers. Veganism and using fewer animal products, whether in food or in fashion, is often touted as a sustainable solution. However, some industry experts and environmentalists argue that leather is a difficult material to find a high-quality sustainable dupe for. Though consuming less meat and dairy and having a more plant-focused diet has been proven to be better for the environment, consumers can be misled to assume that all things vegan, including pleather, are sustainable. Most mainstream vegan leathers are largely made from polyurethane leather (PU leather) which is not sustainable or even biodegradable. Tanja Hester, environmental activist, writer, and the author of Wallet Activism says that the idea of “vegan leather” is just greenwashing. “It’s truly just plastic, which is rarely recycled and in vegan leather form it’s impossible to recycle—there’s essentially no sustainable vegan leather,” she says. PU leather is a thermoplastic polymer and is mainly used in vegan shoes and furniture. Other vegan leathers are polyvinyl chloride aka PVC leather. Both often come with the threat of micro-plastic pollution due to the amount of energy, water, and chemicals used to produce fake leather materials. The plastics release harmful toxins during manufacturing that can get into the air and into water. Some of the plastics can even release some toxins later when worn down. Hester says animal-loving consumers should instead search for second-hand, high-quality leather items like boots or bags that can last for years. She says that long-lasting materials are better than cheap vegan leathers that will sit around in a landfill for centuries. “It’s understandable that many people are drawn to vegan leather because they care about animal welfare, but they’d certainly make a different choice if they understood that it’s really just plastic made from petroleum,” she says. “It’s a product that poisons workers involved in its production.” Ana Kannan, the founder and CEO of Toward, an ethical and sustainably-minded luxury shopping marketplace, argues that there may not be any truly sustainable leather option. One is fast-fashion quality and filled with plastics, while the other comes from the pollution-heavy livestock industry. There is no perfect solution to alternative leather, she says, if what’s most accessible on the market is made up of plastics. However, some brands have already begun developing solutions to keep pleather out of the landfill once a jacket or purse is no longer used. “Stella McCartney is a great example. They’re using KOBA, which uses [about] 40 recycled polyester,” she says. “There’s also the option of regenerated leather—basically [animal] leather that’s been used before.” [Related: What actually happens to the clothes you donate depends on where you live.] Kannan says she is also excited about plant-based leather. There are several companies including one called Piñatex that takes the long fibers of pineapple leaves and felts them together to create the leather-like material. Since pineapple plants are only grown for the fruit, the pineapple-based leather uses up parts of the plant that would otherwise be thrown away. Libie Motchan, the co-founder of Fulton, a company that makes insoles for shoes using sustainable cactus leather, says that customers often respond to the product with wanting to learn more about the environmental impacts and quality of the sustainable materials. “I didn’t realize how much consumers care about it and how much they’re willing to prioritize and ask questions and understand where their products are coming from,” she says. Consumer inquiries have led Motchan to test materials for biodegradability and compostability, unlike real leather products that don’t biodegrade if processed with chrome or other metals. “We’re starting a life cycle analysis of the products I think that’ll give us more insight into its end to end of life and impact,” she says. “We felt there was an opportunity to innovate.” When in doubt, start by shopping in your own closet or buying second-hand before heading out for a new leather jacket, fake or real. If you really need something new, do your research to find something that fits your style and moral code—demand for more sustainable products is the ultimate fuel for better, more environmentally-friendly products.	Is ‘vegan’ leather really better for the planet? Vegan leather may sound more sustainable than its animal-based counterpart, but that's not always the case. SevenStorm JUHASZIMRUS from Pexels SHARE One of the only things that seems more timeless than a leather jacket is the debate over the ethics of its iconic material. Leather, mostly made from the hides of cattle and calves, is highly contested in the fashion industry, along with real animal fur and feathers. Veganism and using fewer animal products, whether in food or in fashion, is often touted as a sustainable solution. However, some industry experts and environmentalists argue that leather is a difficult material to find a high-quality sustainable dupe for. Though consuming less meat and dairy and having a more plant-focused diet has been proven to be better for the environment, consumers can be misled to assume that all things vegan, including pleather, are sustainable. Most mainstream vegan leathers are largely made from polyurethane leather (PU leather) which is not sustainable or even biodegradable. Tanja Hester, environmental activist, writer, and the author of Wallet Activism says that the idea of “vegan leather” is just greenwashing. “It’s truly just plastic, which is rarely recycled and in vegan leather form it’s impossible to recycle—there’s essentially no sustainable vegan leather,” she says. PU leather is a thermoplastic polymer and is mainly used in vegan shoes and furniture. Other vegan leathers are polyvinyl chloride aka PVC leather. Both often come with the threat of micro-plastic pollution due to the amount of energy, water, and chemicals used to produce fake leather materials. The plastics release harmful toxins during manufacturing that can get into the air and into water. Some of the plastics can even release some toxins later when worn down.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://mahileather.com/blogs/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-vegan-leather	All You Need To Know About Vegan Leather \| What is it? How is it ...	All You Need To Know About Vegan Leather Table of Contents Vegan leather and faux leather are the same thing – essentially a fake 'leather' material that does not use animal skin. There is a range of materials that can be used to make vegan leather including synthetics like plastic and natural materials such as cork. The most commonly used materials for synthetic leathers are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyurethane (PU), which are plastic based materials. Another term for fake leather is “pleather” which comes from the term plastic leather. These two commonly used synthetic materials in particular have raised questions about the safety and dangers of vegan leather to the environment. Very few vegan leathers are made from natural materials although it is possible to find more eco friendly products made from materials like cork(check out our new cork collectionorlearn more about cork here), kelp and even pineapple leaves. How is Vegan Leather Made? Synthetic leather is produced with different chemicals and a totally different industrial process to real leather. Bonding together a plastic coating to a fabric backing is the most common way to make faux leather; the types of plastic used in these coatings vary and this is what defines whether or not it is eco friendly. Although PVC is in much less use than it was in the 1960’s and 70’s, it can still be found in the composition of some vegan leather. PVC releases dioxins, which are potentially dangerous in confined spaces and especially dangerous if burnt. It also uses plasticisers such as phthalates to make it flexible. Depending on the type of phthalate used, they’re extremely toxic. It has been described by Greenpeace as the “single most environmentally damaging type of plastic”. The more modern and slightly less damaging plastic is PU, which is constantly being technically developed to reduce its flaws such as the hazardous toxins it releases during manufacturing and the oil based polymers it’s made with which make use of fossil fuels. What Does Vegan Leather Smell Like? Vegan/Faux leather that is made with PVC or PU often has a very strange smell from the chemicals. It’s often described as a 'fishy' smell and can often be very hard to get rid especially while trying not to ruin the material. PVC can also outgas dangerous toxins that give off this nasty smell. What Does Vegan Leather Look Like? Vegan leather comes in several different forms and qualities, so some are more 'leather-like' than others. Generally speaking, and focusing on good quality vegan leather, there isn’t that much difference to real leather. However, as vegan leather is synthetic, it doesn’t form a patina like real leather does when ageing and it is much less breathable as the pores that are printed onto the surface of pleather are artificial. Vegan Versus Real Leather: The main concern for most people when deciding between vegan and real leather is the impact it has on animals and the environment. However, whilst the term vegan leather might imply an environmentally friendly product, this is not always the case. Is Vegan Leather Good For The Environment? Faux leather is known as vegan leather because the material used is never from animal skins but although this is a huge benefit for animal activists, the manufacture of synthetic leather is not beneficial to the environment or humans due to the toxins in the plastics used to make them. The manufacture and disposal of PVC-based synthetics let out hazardous dioxins, which can cause developmental and reproductive issues and even cause cancer. The synthetics used in vegan leathers also don’t fully biodegrade, although they can be broken down to a degree, they can also release toxic particles and phthalates, which can affect the health of animals and the environment. Is Vegan Leather Better Than Real Leather? Quality and durability are also important things to consider when comparing vegan and real leather. Vegan leather is often a lot thinner than real leather and much more light weight which is great for fashion as it makes it potentially easier to work with, however it also makes it less durable than real leather. A real, good quality leather can last decades when cared for, whereas you might only get a year or so out of a pair of shoes made from good quality faux leather. This is an important factor when deciding between fake leather and real leather as the environmental impact of replacing a fake leather product multiple times is arguably more damaging than the purchase of one real leather item. Synthetic leathers also wear out very unattractively whereas real leather ages over time and forms a patina, which is considered to add character to leather. Faux leather, especially PVC based, isn’t breathable either where as real leather has pores through which skin is able to breathe. So for clothing items such as jackets, vegan leather can be uncomfortable when worn for long periods of time. In addition to environmental factors, faux leather is typically a lot cheaper than real leather products. This is because it’s cheaper to produce synthetic plastic leather than it is to produce real leather. The craftsmanship of leather products is a highly skilled job and bespoke leather products such as sofas, jackets and luggage can be thousands of dollars. Manufacturers are able to command these prices because they are considered both high quality and highly durable. Maintaining Vegan Leather As vegan leather is made with a plastic coating, it is already waterproof. This makes it easier to clean by using a mild detergent or just by wiping it with a damp cloth, however it also means that conditioning products can’t penetrate it to stop it from drying up and cracking, which can happen if the fake leather is in the sun a lot and also if it’s a particularly poor quality material. However, you can get certain products, which will cover the surface of the plastic to prevent high temperatures and sun rays from cracking the surface. Such products can also help to soften the material. How To Repair Vegan Leather You can replace or patch up the damaged area with a faux leather repair kit that can be bought online - they’re easy to use and suited to different types of faux leather. Is Vegan Leather Good Quality? Vegan leather can come in different standards of quality and as with real leather, the higher the quality, the longer it will last. Faux leather is generally a lot cheaper and of a lower quality to real leather, even at a high standard. Vegan leather is ultimately much less durable than real leather and tends to be thinner so it’s not uncommon for it to tear or scuff badly over time. How To Unwrinkle Vegan Leather It is important that you do not try to iron wrinkled vegan leather by putting the iron directly onto the material. The method you should use to remove wrinkles depends on the quality of the material – because synthetic 'pleathers' have plastic in them, they do not mix well with heat and it can often ruin the product completely. High quality faux leathers can be steamed to remove wrinkles if protected with a sheet, towel or lining as they are much more forgiving against heat however there still should be a lot of care taken when doing this. It is important that you don’t heat your fake leather for more than 30 seconds. How to Shrink Vegan Leather Method:1. Wash the item in your washing machine on warm to clean off the article and prevent any contamination from 'baking' into the plastic material of the pleather. 2. Put the polyurethane item into an old pillowcase and tie off the top with a shoelace or piece of string to prevent it from falling out. Materials like this may get hot enough to stick to the dryer’s drum, damaging the jacket and making a mess, so avoid this happening at all costs. 3. Set the dryer on high. Let the cycle go for about an hour. Allow the jacket to cool off and then test fit it. Repeat the cycle as needed, using progressively shorter drying times until satisfied. Can You Stretch Vegan Leather Faux leather does stretch, but not as much as real leather. You need to be careful when trying to stretch fake leather because it increases the risk of it cracking, so it’s best to avoid it all together. Can You Distress Vegan Leather? Trying to distress faux leather will more often than not result in damaging the item. Most people tend to create a distressed affect on faux leather using thin layers of acrylic/fabric paints – thick layers can result in the vegan leather cracking and peeling the top layer entirely. Be sure to use paints/dyes suitable for the material, as solvents often eat away at pleather. Remember to test the paint on a small inconspicuous area of the product first before applying all over. How to Dye Vegan Leather Faux leather is not as permeable as real leather, which means the material cannot easily absorb coloured dye. Therefore, even after dyeing your faux leather product you should be aware that the process will most likely need to be repeated throughout the products life span as the colour wears off over time. Method: 1. Prepare the pleather surface by wiping it down with a clean cloth to remove any dust or dirt particles. For a thorough clean, it’s recommended to wipe the product down with pure alcohol. 2. Once clean and dry your vegan leather product is ready to be dyed with upholstery paint. Please see the instructions on the paint product for the recommended drying time. Remember to test the paint on a small inconspicuous area of the product first before applying all over. How to Soften Vegan Leather Vegan leather is less permeable than real leather, and therefore traditional leather conditioning products have little impact on softening the material. Vinyl conditioner is typically recommended to soften faux leather, and should be applied with a soft cloth in small circular motions. Excess conditioner should then be removed with a clean cloth before leaving the product to dry. The process can be repeated until the level of softness desired is achieved. Written by Camilla Shep 5 comments I found this article to be informative. It is easy to discover the impacts of animal slaughter and leather tanning. I wanted to know the impacts of production of vegan leather. I am seeing a lot of fashion items coming out being offered in this medium. I have to agree that it sounds to me like this is a marketing term as anything that is not leather is in essence, plastic coated fabric, imitation leather and as it has been correctly called for many years, pleather. I guess maybe they thought that name, although correct did not sound as “cool” or easy to sell. My experience with buying items like this is that they have never stood up to wear in the way that leather does. Not even to a tenth of what leather does. If you are a person like me who keeps a majority of their shoes, boots, jackets and handbags, leather seems like a much better investment for both me and the Earth. I have handbags and shoes that I purchased (and still use) from the past several decades. I bought some of these recently made “high quality” vegan bags (unless they didn’t make them 5 yrs ago). Even with very good care the bags disintegrated within a season of use, cracked and peeled. What good is saving animals if you have to replace these items every season? SusieMay 18, 2020 IT IS INTERESTING TO KNOW OF VEGAN FABRICS MADE FROM CACTUS. I AM INTERESTED TO DEVELOP THIS MANUFACTURING. CAN I HAVE A CONSULTANT WHO CAN ADVISE & GUIDE ME. MANGALA RANKAMay 18, 2020 The word ‘leather’ according to the Oxford dictionary is the material made by tanning or otherwise dressing hides. (Hides are the skins of animals) Anything made from synthetics or natural cork cannot be called leather. I therefore believe that ‘Vegan leather’ is a term created by marketing experts to convince Vegans they are getting a product as good as the real thing. Terry VladMay 26, 2019 Vegan “leather” is, like all products made from petroleum, far more toxic to Life than natural materials treated, cured and prepared with natural products without any petroleum derivatives or products in them. Whether or not modern plastics fabrication is less toxic than it used to be, it remains more dangerous to Life than natural, REAL leather. Really, the problem lies in the maniacal nature of consumer culture. Yes, purchase things when you need them but be sensible and reasonable about being a consumer. Choose natural products that, when cared for, last decades or centuries. There needs to be an end to living chemically and in a death bath of petroleum. GabriellaMarch 26, 2018 Leather sellers often describe vegan leather as toxic, poor quality, lacking the variety and colors of “real leather”, and as overall a poor investment. In reality, even inorganic modern vegan leathers are made from similar materials as all other synthetic materials and plastics, which have become much less toxic, while horrible toxic chemicals are used in leather processing, as well as the factory-animal farming industry. Vegan leathers come in a variety of colors and textures, as much as animal-based leathers, and often are easier to care and maintain. The quality in terms of look and durability of vegan leather has improved dramatically, as the demand for its use in fashion, as opposed to utilitarian functions, has increased. At this point the often the only way to tell it apart from real leather is to examine the backing. Like animal-based leather, it longevity is tied to how well its conditioned and maintained.	Although PVC is in much less use than it was in the 1960’s and 70’s, it can still be found in the composition of some vegan leather. PVC releases dioxins, which are potentially dangerous in confined spaces and especially dangerous if burnt. It also uses plasticisers such as phthalates to make it flexible. Depending on the type of phthalate used, they’re extremely toxic. It has been described by Greenpeace as the “single most environmentally damaging type of plastic”. The more modern and slightly less damaging plastic is PU, which is constantly being technically developed to reduce its flaws such as the hazardous toxins it releases during manufacturing and the oil based polymers it’s made with which make use of fossil fuels. What Does Vegan Leather Smell Like? Vegan/Faux leather that is made with PVC or PU often has a very strange smell from the chemicals. It’s often described as a 'fishy' smell and can often be very hard to get rid especially while trying not to ruin the material. PVC can also outgas dangerous toxins that give off this nasty smell. What Does Vegan Leather Look Like? Vegan leather comes in several different forms and qualities, so some are more 'leather-like' than others. Generally speaking, and focusing on good quality vegan leather, there isn’t that much difference to real leather. However, as vegan leather is synthetic, it doesn’t form a patina like real leather does when ageing and it is much less breathable as the pores that are printed onto the surface of pleather are artificial. Vegan Versus Real Leather: The main concern for most people when deciding between vegan and real leather is the impact it has on animals and the environment. However, whilst the term vegan leather might imply an environmentally friendly product, this is not always the case.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://www.alisedesign.com/blogs/blog/why-vegan-leather-is-bad-for-the-environment	Why Vegan Leather is Bad for the Environment - Alise Design	Why Vegan Leather is Bad for the Environment Many people choose to buy vegan leather bags because they believe that it is a more environmentally friendly option than leather made from animal skin. However, the truth is that vegan leather bags can actually be very bad for the environment. While vegan leather diaper bags are a trendy choice for new parents, many people don't realize that they are made from toxic PVC. PVC, or polyvinyl chloride, is a type of plastic that contains harmful chemicals like phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). These chemicals can leach into the food and beverages we consume, and they have been linked to a variety of health problems, including cancer. vegan leather is made from PU, or polyurethane, which is another type of plastic. While PU leather does not contain the same harmful chemicals as PVC leather, it still releases microplastics into the environment when it breaks down. Microplastics are a major pollution problem, and they can end up in our oceans, where they adversely affect marine life. The process of making vegan leather requires large amounts of energy and water, and the materials used are often not biodegradable. PVC production releases dioxins, which are linked to a variety of health problems including cancer, reproductive damage, and immune system disruption. What's more, vegan leather often contains phthalates, which are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with the body's natural hormone function. In addition, most vegan leather bags are made in China, where environmental regulations are lax and worker rights are poor. As a result, buying a vegan leather bag can actually have a negative impact on the environment. If you are looking for a more sustainable option, consider choosing a leather bag that is made from sustainable materials such as vegetable-tanned leather or water buffalo hide. These bags will last longer and have a smaller environmental footprint than vegan leather bags. So if vegan leather is bad for the environment, how what are the options? When it comes to leather, there are two main types of tanning: vegetable-tanned leather and chrome-tanned leather. Most leather on the market today is chrome-tanned, which is cheaper and faster than vegetable-tanning. However, vegetable-tanning is a more sustainable option, as it uses less energy and produces fewer harmful chemicals. Vegetable-tanning is a centuries-old process that uses tannins derived from plants to tan the leather. The leather is placed in a solution of tannins and then left to soak for several weeks. This process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, but it results in a sturdy, durable leather that will last for years. Additionally, vegetable-tanned leather is biodegradable. When it breaks down, it will do so without releasing harmful chemicals into the environment. Chromium-tanned leather and vegan leather, on the other hand, can take hundreds of years to break down completely, and while doing so may release toxic chemicals into the soil and water. Chrome-tanning was developed in the late 1800s as a way to speed up the tanning process. Leather is tanned using chromium salts, which are much harsher on the environment than tannins. In addition, chrome-tanned leather is not as durable as vegetable-tanned leather, meaning it will need to be replaced more often. For these reasons, vegetable-tanned leather is the more sustainable choice for products like leather diaper bags. It may cost more upfront, but it will last longer and have a smaller environmental impact. So, if you're looking for a leather diaper bag that is both durable and sustainable, be sure to choose one that is vegetable-tanned. Your child will thank you for it!	The process of making vegan leather requires large amounts of energy and water, and the materials used are often not biodegradable. PVC production releases dioxins, which are linked to a variety of health problems including cancer, reproductive damage, and immune system disruption. What's more, vegan leather often contains phthalates, which are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with the body's natural hormone function. In addition, most vegan leather bags are made in China, where environmental regulations are lax and worker rights are poor. As a result, buying a vegan leather bag can actually have a negative impact on the environment. If you are looking for a more sustainable option, consider choosing a leather bag that is made from sustainable materials such as vegetable-tanned leather or water buffalo hide. These bags will last longer and have a smaller environmental footprint than vegan leather bags. So if vegan leather is bad for the environment, how what are the options? When it comes to leather, there are two main types of tanning: vegetable-tanned leather and chrome-tanned leather. Most leather on the market today is chrome-tanned, which is cheaper and faster than vegetable-tanning. However, vegetable-tanning is a more sustainable option, as it uses less energy and produces fewer harmful chemicals. Vegetable-tanning is a centuries-old process that uses tannins derived from plants to tan the leather. The leather is placed in a solution of tannins and then left to soak for several weeks. This process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, but it results in a sturdy, durable leather that will last for years. Additionally, vegetable-tanned leather is biodegradable. When it breaks down, it will do so without releasing harmful chemicals into the environment. Chromium-tanned leather and vegan leather, on the other hand, can take hundreds of years to break down completely, and while doing so may release toxic chemicals into the soil and water.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/is-vegan-leather-better/	Vegan Leather: Better Than Animal Leather? \| Gentleman's Gazette	Vegan Leather: Better Than Animal Leather? When you buy something using the affiliate links on our site, we may earn a small commission. The movement toward more sustainable living has skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and clothing is no exception. Hence, vegan leather has become popular–but what are its true environmental benefits, and how does it stack up against genuine leather? Read on to learn what it’s made from, how it ages, and a good deal more! Traditional leather from animals is omnipresent in the menswear space. Still, it also has a massive impact environmentally, and there have been lots of voices questioning whether it’s ethical to have real leather. Obviously, an animal has to die before you can make real leather, so some people refuse to wear it. Even though other people claim it’s just a byproduct of meat production, there is still a demand for non-animal leather alternatives. Of course, sustainability and environmental ethics can be tricky subjects, and we try to dig a little deeper so you can more easily understand what vegan leather is and what it’s not. Leather – most of what’s depicted here is cowhide. What is Animal Leather? Before we dive into vegan leather, let’s first define what leather is in the first place. It’s one of the oldest clothing materials known to man and dates back over 400,000 years. Basically, it is a treated hide (large skin) or skin (small skin) that is tanned with tannins so it won’t rot, will be flexible, and can be made into shoes, accessories, and clothing. Aniline-Dyed Leather For most of the time of leather production, tannins were produced by way of natural materials such as bark or urine. Only relatively recently have chromium salts taken over. And today, the majority of leathers are tanned with chrome salts simply because it’s a much faster process. What is Vegan Leather? On the other hand, vegan leather is a much more recent invention and has been around for a little over a century–though this timeframe depends on the definition being used, which is disputed. At a very base level, vegan leather is anything that looks or feels somewhat like leather, but that is not based on animal products. It’s very closely associated with the veganist movement, which tries to abstain from using animal products to de-commodify animal lives. Pleather is relatively cheaper than real leather. A more outdated term for “vegan leather” is “artificial leather.” At the time of its creation, there was not really that vegan mindset behind it. It was simply a way to cut costs and maybe produce leather jackets for much less money than it would traditionally cost. Its other terms include “faux leather,” “imitation leather,” “leatherette,” or “pleather.” Frankly, they’re all used interchangeably. Although, technically, some people argue that leatherette and pleather should be separated. So, they’re, strictly speaking, plastic-based leather alternatives. More and more people consider sustainability in their wardrobes. So, in a nutshell, all vegan leather is artificial leather, but not all artificial leathers are vegan. With the increased popularity of the vegan diet, people have also thought more outside the box and have considered what they put in their bodies and what they put on their feet. So, the interest in vegan leather has definitely increased since the early 2000s or 2010s. We believe that a sustainable, green wardrobe goes way beyond just the materials used, but also longevity plays a big part in that, which we discuss more in another post. It’s easy to claim that traditional leather is not environmentally sustainable. The whole thing is a bit more complex. So, let’s take a closer look at it. How is Animal Leather Made? Worldwide, over a billion animals are killed each year that are part of leather production. This includes most animals that are primarily there for meat production, such as cows, pigs, goats, and sheep. In this large case, the leather is just a byproduct of meat production. Baby Alligator Hides & Shoehorn Then, there are exotic skins like alligators, kangaroo, ostriches, or other animals like snakes. The primary reason for killing the animal is the skin so that it can be made into leather. Yes, there are many places where you can get crocodile meat, kangaroo meat, and snake meat, but it’s not commonly eaten meat–at least, not in the Western Hemisphere today. So, if the goal is to prevent the killing of animals, meat consumption has to go down in line with leather production. Otherwise, if you just stop wearing leather goods, you end up with more animal waste. Hides piled up outside the tannery around 1900 Tanning Animal Leather Introduces More Pollutants Apart from that, tanning real leather is dirty. Also, all these animals and cows have to graze somewhere, so they’re also partially responsible for deforestation on our planet. That, in turn, can reduce biodiversity and create greenhouse emission gases. Cows, for example, produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Of course, all the sulfides acids, and chromium salts used during tanning and making of the leather can impact the environment, too, if they aren’t filtered properly in specialized systems. Wet leather hides–note the blue color from the addition of chromium salts Last but not least, there’s often a solid waste leftover, such as the hair, the fat, and the tissue. The tanners we use for Fort Belvedere leather goods try to use that material and burn it in biomass energy plants just so there’s less waste. Chromium pollution from leather tanneries poses risks to the environment and to people. While most tanners in the world operate under strict conditions and environmental protection, some tanneries, especially in third-world countries, have less oversight and fewer rules. And so, there’s also more pollution. Thankfully, consumers, activists, and governments are pushing towards cleaner or more environmentally-friendly leather production. As a consumer, it can be difficult to ascertain if a leather comes from an environmentally sound tannery. Fortunately, there are organizations such as the Leather Working Group, which is a non-profit that tries to help modern tanneries be less environmentally impactful and better for our planet. How is Vegan Leather Made? So, now that you have a better idea of the impact of real leather on the planet, what’s it like when it comes to vegan leather? First, let’s talk about plastic vegan leather. Some smarty-pants will tell you that petroleum-based plastic vegan leather is actually derived from plankton and fossils and is, therefore, not truly vegan but animal-based. But, considering the millions of years in between, we consider them plastic and vegan. Practically speaking, today, most fossil fuels are not considered to be not vegan. Petroleum-based Plastic Vegan Leather The first artificial leathers were introduced in the late 19th century. At first, they were made from paper products such as pulp or mulch. In the 20th century, petroleum-based materials, in other words, plastic-based vegan leathers, became more popular. Today, there are two plastic-based production methods that are most prevalent–one is PVC, the other is PU. PVC-based Leather Production PVC stands for polyvinyl chloride, sometimes shortened to just “vinyl.” It was invented in the 1920s. Vinyl consists of a layer of PVC plastic, and then you have a plasticizer and a stabilizer based on something metallic, such as zinc. So, at the core, you have a polymer applied to a base fabric made of polyester, nylon, cotton, or other materials. This bonding process is done by machine. PVC-based Leather Processing Machine While most people are familiar with vinyl, and it has been around for over a century, it is more often now displaced by PU. PU-based Leather Production PU stands for polyurethane and was introduced in the second half of the 20th century. It consists of a layer of PU plastic polymer that is then treated with a solvent to create a certain flexibility, then applied to a base. PU-based leather is designed to be cheaper than real animal leather–not exactly to be eco-friendly. Keep in mind that some PVC and PU leathers can contain a layer of split (animal) leather because, again, the initial reason to have these leathers or leather alternatives was not to be vegan, but to just be less expensive than real leather. So, unless the product is marked specifically as 100% synthetic, it may contain animal products or byproducts. What’s the Environmental Impact of Vegan Leather? Obviously, they start as plastics, and plastic is typically made by burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and ashes. Plastic is also notorious for taking hundreds to thousands of years to degrade. Plastic, a key ingredient in creating leather alternatives, are notorious for pollution. At the end of the day, 75% to 90% of the plastic ends up in landfills or oceans, which is pretty sad. Even though plastics have been around for quite a while, the micro-shredded plastic and its impact on the environment or human bodies is not fully understood yet. Leaving that plastic content aside, if PU is produced under modern standards, there are very few other environmental impacts outside of the plastic. PVC, on the other hand, is a more serious environmental polluter. Louis Vuitton Keepall Duffle Bag (made from PVC) Hello, Louis Vuitton Weekender Keepall bag! If you’re interested in how much this PVC-based material costs you if it has an LV logo on it, you’ll find our honest review interesting. As PVC ages, it can leak chemical compounds known as “dioxins.” These can seep into the water supply and metabolize in plants, animals, and even people. They collect in organic bodies and can build up to toxic levels. Recycled plastics are being used to reduce the environmental impacts of leather production. Elevated dioxin levels in humans are associated with birth defects, cancer, developmental problems, or compromised immune systems. No, I’m not a doctor, and if you want to know all the effects, please speak to one. Fortunately, for these reasons, PVC leather is mostly phased out for clothing products these days. But, it persists in sweatshops, and can be found in many accessories. Non-Plastic Vegan Leather Options Recent innovations in PU leather production, such as using recycled or biodegradable plastics, help make it a continuously more environmentally-friendly material. But, for the time being, plastic vegan leathers are clearly not without an environmental impact, which is why there are some voices who are interested in non-plastic-based vegan leather. Most of these other vegan leathers are based on plants and plant fibers. For example, you have materials made of grape skin or fruit rinds. Even cactus leaves or pineapple tufts are used to make these leather-like materials. Some even use fungi. Of course, lots of other materials can be mulched, flattened, and then printed or colored in a way that gives you that leather-like look and feel. Leather Made of Grape Skin These industries are still in their infancy, and you as a consumer can’t just go out and buy that stuff. Because it’s early days, there’s no real scale of production. There are also quality control issues, and it’s not something that we recommend you rely on. Some of them even use petroleum-based products in a smaller quantity. But still, there are plastics involved in it. That being said, great strides have been made in the last two decades in that department. Innovative thinkers come up with new ways to have a more environmentally sound leather alternative. Modern Meadow explores “growing” leather materials from yeast. For example, there’s this lab called Modern Meadow, and they’re working on materials that are grown in a petri dish in a lab. It’s based on genetically engineered yeast that spits out collagen, which is a protein, as it ferments. This protein can then be turned into a powder, colored,made into a paste, and then into materials that are probably better than plastic-based vegan leathers. Animal Leather vs. Vegan Leather: Immediate Visuals Now that you have a better understanding of how vegan leather is made and what the environmental impact is, let’s look at the material and see how it feels, how it looks, and how it performs. A leather alternative from early 2000s Through the early 2000s, these leather alternatives were clearly inferior. You could see it, you could feel it, you could touch it. And it was really overly shiny, or it was too waxy or dull when you touched it. Sometimes, it was sticky or had a weird odor. Also, when you wear them on your skin, these materials are not breathable, so you would start sweating a lot faster. Over time, the imperfect bonding process would cause flaking, and you could see that it just didn’t age gracefully at all. Modern vegan leather with embossed skin pattern. That being said, modern vegan leather has come a long way. They have better bonding agents now, so stuff doesn’t just flake off. They try to emboss a kind of skin pattern, so it looks like your vegan leather has little pores. And while PU vegan leather can still get stuffy and is not breathable, there are other alternatives now that are relatively breathable. Patina and Colorfastness Real leather of the highest quality is a nice top grain that is tanned, that can be soft and supple, a little stiffer depending on what you’re going to use it for. It will develop a really beautiful patina over time. It is very durable. And even if you scratch it, it doesn’t look cheap and lasts for quite a while. Genuine vs. Vegan Leather: Grain Comparison In terms of looks, vegan letters have, in fact, come a long way. But, if you hold them side-by-side, the real leather still looks much better in my mind. The artificial leathers just look a bit more plastic-y even though no plastic is involved. The grain is too perfect, and there’s not this nice patina and depth of color because there’s just one layer on top. It’s not like you look into a nicely polished leather made from an animal hide or skin. The colors of vegan leather can also be flat and uniform and just lack that multi-dimensionality of a nicely-tanned leather. Just look at this classical calf in brown on the wallet below. You can see different shades of brown. On the other side, there’s blue deerskin that is softer and wrinkles differently. It’s just hard to recreate that with vegan leather. It also doesn’t absorb colored polish as well. So, if you have shoes, it’s harder to create a dark cap, for example, and lighter areas elsewhere. Some might argue that most leather is pigmented, which doesn’t reach a particularly good patina either. And you’re right, yes. But, if you look at higher quality leathers that are aniline dyed and open-pored, you can just get this fantastic patina that makes leather goods so beautiful, in my opinion. And that’s not something you can recreate on any vegan leather to this day. Versatility and Durability Animal leather also has pliability that allows it to take the shape around an object. For example, that’s how shoes are made when they’re on their last, to really take on that shape. Vegan leather does not have that quality at present. Even if you don’t mind about all the other stuff, vegan leather is obviously inferior compared to real leather in terms of durability. Items don’t take regular wear or abuse well. There’s no way to repair it or buff something out, unlike real leather where a scratch can disappear, or some oils or waxes can make it look nice again. You can’t buff or polish out wear and tear in vegan leather. Yes, there can be cheap pigmented leathers that also will flake and look horrible and age poorly. But, again, higher-quality leather will not do that. Moreover, vegan leather is not as versatile. For example, for our Fort Belvedere gloves, we use a soft, very stretchable sheepskin or a really flexible peccary so you can move your hand around, and it’s always very comfortable and functional. That same leather for a pair of shoes wouldn’t be ideal and vice versa because it wouldn’t serve that purpose. In vegan leather, you just don’t have this versatility between different hides and skins. For example, for our Fort Belvedere gloves, we use a soft, very stretchable sheepskin or a really flexible peccary so you can move your hand around, and it’s always very comfortable and functional. That same leather for a pair of shoes wouldn’t be ideal and vice versa because it wouldn’t serve that purpose. In vegan leather, you just don’t have this versatility between different hides and skins. Environmental Impacts Some might also question whether burning fossil fuels for plastic vegan leathers is so much better than having real animal leather because all the animals would die anyway because of the meat consumption in the world. So, in a nutshell, if you just consider the square footage or square meter output of material, vegan leathers are more environmentally friendly. However, if you take into consideration that vegan leather wears out a lot faster than traditional quality leather, you may get a different result. Makes sense, right? If you have to buy five, six, or seven vegan wallets compared to just one quality leather wallet, there’s a lot more waste on the vegan side. That being said, whether vegan leather is a viable alternative or not for you really is up to you. In my mind, unless you’re ethically opposed to animal leather, there is still no comparison, and animal leather beats vegan leather any time of the day in my book. Except, of course, for environmental impact per square footage. If you’ve been a follower of the Gentleman’s Gazette, we’re big proponents of the cost-per-wear or cost-per-use argument. And if you use that formula to determine environmental friendliness, animal leather is better than vegan leather. Cost per wear is also important when considering a garment’s sustainability. Other Alternatives to Vegan Leather If you want a high-quality leather good and the most minimal effect on the environment, maybe you have to buy vintage things because they’ve already been produced and resources have been used up. If you use them, you do something good for the planet rather than buying something new. Aside from that, it’s also a whole lot less expensive. Buying vintage is a way of reducing the environmental impacts of your wardrobe. Conclusion If I compare a cheap animal hide that is pigment-dyed and vegan leather, I think the comparison is more even, and I may even prefer vegan leather because of its lower environmental impact. Fortunately, I’m not in a position where I have to resort to cheap animal hides, so I just stick with quality animal-based leathers. So if you really want to go vegan, you may be better off going with natural fibers such as hemp or linen or denim or other things that you can make shoes out of, for example, than going with this kind of leather or vegan leather alternative. We’re always interested in innovation and, hopefully, one day, we can come up with a material that is better than animal leather and has a lower environmental impact. Until then, I’ll go with animal hides. Outfit Rundown Today, the only leather product I’m wearing is on my feet. It’s a pair of boat shoes from Sperry and it’s gray just like my polo shirt. A lot of times people ask, “Do you wear classic clothing all the time?” And it’s like, yes, in a way. But, classic clothing can also be a nice pair of shorts. Here you see me wearing a vintage polo, a pair of shorts. It’s like a linen fabric blended with cotton, and has this kind of madras-inspired pattern. It’s very bold and because of that, my polo shirt is also gray. This is a simple polo, with no logo from Spier & Mackay. It’s cotton. I think it’s size L. I like that it has a collar that’s like a shirt collar, not like a typical polo shirt collar. It fits me reasonably well. With a bold pair of shorts, you can’t go louder elsewhere. The only other thing I have is this kind of cool ring. It’s a custom ring, 18 karat gold with a nice stone that is purple and picks up the color of my shorts. What’s your take on animal leather versus vegan leather? Please let us know in the comments! Reader Comments Vegan leather, or whatever you want to call it, is a pure abomination. It’s crap, ersatz and not worth buying. It will never last as long as full grain leather – in any product. The morale of the story is, buy less, buy wiser, buy better quality, maybe more expensive, I agree, but the quality will remain long after the price is forgotten. When someone states that something benefits the environment I aways laugh to myself. Who cares? I certainly could care less. All this leftist propaganda stating to do this for the environment is nonsense. Buy quality and let China, India and Russia worry about the environment first. Thank you for this commentary. Frankly, I was prepared to read and dismiss it as gobbledygook. But to my mind you gave an evenhanded assessment. That said…. There can be such a thing as a vinyl covered sofa (I know—I was in my twenties in the seventies). But there’s no such thing as vegan leather—I remind my Tesla driving brother in law of that every time I see him and watch his eyes dream back to the day he sold me his 2000 Benz that smells of wood, real leather and slightly musty from a small window seal leak every time I hop aboard. So save me from the sweet nirvana of test tube invented odors and the sound sleep of never having caused something with a face to have died for my pleasure. Sorry about that last sentence. I got carried away. I need to gas up the Benz, lower the top and take a deep breath. Personally I prefer the real thing to the imitation crap. I prefer real meat instead of the plant stuff which doesn’t even come close to real meat. I prefer the real leather instead of the fake stuff and I prefer real cars instead of the electric crap that you can only drive a few hundred miles and have to recharge. This whole ecology and global warming crap is just that a big pile of steaming bull crap. Nothing fake is as good as the read thing. Excellent article and the takeaway for me is that there really cannot be any apples-apples comparison between vegan “leather” and . . . leather. It’s not an “optio”n because it’s not the same thing by any standard. One can compare a Yugo with a Bentley, but you can’t compare a tennis shoe to a radiator cap.. Another great point in the article was that there are plenty of other quality materials instead of fake leather that are vegan-friendly. Having a relative who is a vegan (for moral/ethical and not environmental reasons, which I agree with several commenters are generally a load hogwash), all of his accessories – shoes, belts, wallets, luggage, etc. are textile-based, and he dresses well. And for what it’s worth, anyone who would buy a plastic LV bag doesn’t understand luggage, quality, or money. I appreciate this very balanced article about vegan leather, though not being vegan myself. Too many market their shoes etc. as “vegan” to hide they are just made of plastic and therefore pervert the only good point veganism has, i.e. the impact on environment. I honestly hope that soon, we will be able to produce leather with the same superior quality of natural hides without any impact. This will satisfy both vegans and leather-lovers alike. I agree that this was a fair and balanced article. I am, however, skeptical that a “vegan” leather as good as the real thing is even possible, also that there will ever be any product that satisfies both sides of the debate. Further, even if such a feat should be achieved, there will always be some naysayer that has a reason to offer up some sort of protest. In the end it is up to each man to live what he believes, and surprisingly that man owes no one an explanation for his beliefs, this could minimize a lot of arguing.	Makes sense, right? If you have to buy five, six, or seven vegan wallets compared to just one quality leather wallet, there’s a lot more waste on the vegan side. That being said, whether vegan leather is a viable alternative or not for you really is up to you. In my mind, unless you’re ethically opposed to animal leather, there is still no comparison, and animal leather beats vegan leather any time of the day in my book. Except, of course, for environmental impact per square footage. If you’ve been a follower of the Gentleman’s Gazette, we’re big proponents of the cost-per-wear or cost-per-use argument. And if you use that formula to determine environmental friendliness, animal leather is better than vegan leather. Cost per wear is also important when considering a garment’s sustainability. Other Alternatives to Vegan Leather If you want a high-quality leather good and the most minimal effect on the environment, maybe you have to buy vintage things because they’ve already been produced and resources have been used up. If you use them, you do something good for the planet rather than buying something new. Aside from that, it’s also a whole lot less expensive. Buying vintage is a way of reducing the environmental impacts of your wardrobe. Conclusion If I compare a cheap animal hide that is pigment-dyed and vegan leather, I think the comparison is more even, and I may even prefer vegan leather because of its lower environmental impact. Fortunately, I’m not in a position where I have to resort to cheap animal hides, so I just stick with quality animal-based leathers. So if you really want to go vegan, you may be better off going with natural fibers such as hemp or linen or denim or other things that you can make shoes out of, for example, than going with this kind of leather or vegan leather alternative. We’re always interested in innovation and, hopefully, one day, we can come up with a material that is better than animal leather and has a lower environmental impact. Until then,	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://maverick-made.com/en-us/blogs/our-leathers-and-how-to-care-for-them/the-dangers-of-vegan-leather	The Dangers of Vegan Leather – Maverick Made.	Item added to your cart The Dangers of Vegan Leather Vegan leather, also known as synthetic leather or faux leather, is a material made to mimic the appearance and feel of real leather, but without using any animal products. It is often made from polyurethane, PVC, or microfiber, and is often used as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional leather. However, there are some potential dangers associated with vegan leather that should be considered. One concern is the environmental impact of synthetic leather. The production of synthetic materials often involves the use of chemicals and energy, which can have negative impacts on the environment. Additionally, synthetic materials are not biodegradable, which means they can accumulate in landfills and contribute to environmental pollution. Another potential danger is the potential health risks associated with synthetic materials. Some synthetic leathers, particularly those made from PVC, can contain toxic chemicals such as phthalates and heavy metals. These chemicals can be released into the environment during the production and disposal of synthetic leather products, and can also be inhaled or absorbed through the skin when the products are used. It's also worth noting that the term "vegan leather" can be misleading, as some companies may use the term to describe products that are not actually made from synthetic materials. For example, some products labeled as "vegan leather" may be made from animal products such as fish skin or reptile skin, which raises ethical concerns for vegans. Overall, it is important to carefully consider the potential dangers of vegan leather before purchasing and using these products. It is advisable to research the materials and production methods used to make the vegan leather, and to choose products that are made from sustainable, non-toxic materials whenever possible.	Item added to your cart The Dangers of Vegan Leather Vegan leather, also known as synthetic leather or faux leather, is a material made to mimic the appearance and feel of real leather, but without using any animal products. It is often made from polyurethane, PVC, or microfiber, and is often used as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional leather. However, there are some potential dangers associated with vegan leather that should be considered. One concern is the environmental impact of synthetic leather. The production of synthetic materials often involves the use of chemicals and energy, which can have negative impacts on the environment. Additionally, synthetic materials are not biodegradable, which means they can accumulate in landfills and contribute to environmental pollution. Another potential danger is the potential health risks associated with synthetic materials. Some synthetic leathers, particularly those made from PVC, can contain toxic chemicals such as phthalates and heavy metals. These chemicals can be released into the environment during the production and disposal of synthetic leather products, and can also be inhaled or absorbed through the skin when the products are used. It's also worth noting that the term "vegan leather" can be misleading, as some companies may use the term to describe products that are not actually made from synthetic materials. For example, some products labeled as "vegan leather" may be made from animal products such as fish skin or reptile skin, which raises ethical concerns for vegans. Overall, it is important to carefully consider the potential dangers of vegan leather before purchasing and using these products. It is advisable to research the materials and production methods used to make the vegan leather, and to choose products that are made from sustainable, non-toxic materials whenever possible.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://blog.v12footwear.com/leather-vs-microfibre-which-is-better-for-the-environment	Leather vs Microfibre - Which has a Smaller Carbon Footprint?	Leather vs Microfibre - Which has a Smaller Carbon Footprint? Is a vegan boot a sustainable boot? If a product is plastic, can it ever be good for the planet? Which safety boot upper has the least negative impact on the environment? In this blog, we explore all these questions, and in particular discuss the carbon footprints of leather and microfibre boot material, and draw on some expert opinion and statistics as well as our own experience to shine a light on some myths and misconceptions about sustainability and veganism in the footwear industry. First, let’s get clarity with some key definitions. Leather Most of us know that leather is the tanned and treated skin of an animal. It is used in footwear because it’s durable, breathable, provides good water-resistance - and because it’s a natural material, it is considered biodegradable. The two animals most commonly used for the production of leather in footwear uppers is cow and buffalo, although it's important to note that he leather V12 obtains for its footwear is a by-product of the meat industry, so no animal loses its life in order to supply us with our raw materials. There are many different types of leather and lots of ways it can be styled, treated or enhanced. Interested in finding out more? Head over to our blog here to learn about the different types of leather we use in our uppers. Microfibre Microfiber is synthetic material made from a mix of non-woven fabric coated with PU (polyurethane) resin. In clothing, synthetic material such as microfibre is sometimes known as ‘non-leather’ or ‘faux leather.’ Because microfibre is a substitute for leather, it’s considered ‘vegan-friendly.’ So what’s A vegan-friendly safety boot? A vegan-friendly safety boot - like any vegan-friendly product - is footwear that has been made without the useof any animal materialsuch as leather or wool. A vegan product should also not contain any animal material within smaller components and manufacturing processes such as glue for packaging. MYTH-BUSTING Because veganism and sustainability are both practices which aim to have a positive or restorative impact on the planet and the environment, they’re very often confused or lumped together. We often hear statements such as ‘sustainable products have to be vegan’ or ‘if a product isn’t vegan, it isn’t sustainable.’ We recently worked with Health and Safety Matters Magazine to conduct a LinkedIn poll asking whether people thought PPE products needed to be vegan in order to be sustainable. Interestingly, we found that nearly 20% of respondents said that they either thought sustainable footwear has to be vegan, or they didn’t know. As this is something we've done a lot of research into lately, we thought it'd be helpful for those unsure to have a bit of background information on these two things. The bottom line is that 'Vegan’ and ‘Sustainable’ are very different concepts, and we urge consumers not to get them confused, because they are responsible for very different impacts and carbon footprints on the planet. Let’s look at the differences in their definitions. Veganism The practice of avoiding the consumption or use of any product that has used animals or animal-derived material in its production. Sustainability A societal aim for the population to exist on Earth without permanently depleting its natural resources and causing harmful climate change. VEGAN FOOTWEAR ASSUMPTIONS Often the assumption is that vegan products made of material like microfibre are more environmentally friendly, but as footwear brand OluKai stated on their recent vegan footwear blog: 'It's important to remember that animal-free shoes are not always more environmentally friendly by default.’ To add to this, online product magazine Gear Patrol make the point that: ‘If lessening animal cruelty is the primary motivation behind your veganism, these shoes achieve that goal. But if general sustainability is the aim ... the situation is messier. Technically, the cheap plastic and foam flip flops that wash up on beaches around the world are vegan.’ This statement is supported by Bazaar magazine’s blog ‘Is Vegan leather worse for the environment than real leather?’ when it reveals that ‘13 million tonnes of synthetic fibres enter our oceans each year.’ However, others argue that even if you take into account the effects of plastic pollution, veganism is still better for the environment. In fact, researchers from University of Oxford calculated that global emissions would ‘decrease by 55 percent if everyone became vegan.’ LEATHER FOOTWEAR ASSUMPTIONS While Bazaar magazine’s vegan leather blog presents us with some very interesting and eye-opening information on the various biodegradable problems posed by vegan-friendly materials, it also reminds us that the leather trade is undoubtedly responsible for a significant amount of pollution andenergy use: ‘The impact of real leather is driven by land use and GHG emissions associated with animal agriculture... As a result, this plays a major role in climate change, the management of water and biodiversity.’ It’s also worth noting that the tanning process when leather is treated also features heavy energy use and the introduction of potentially harmful chemicals. TWO SIDES TO THE STORY So, it’s clear that both leather and microfibre leave an environmental footprint. And the same ‘which is better?’ dilemma occurs in many other sectors across the globe - the fruit and vegetable industry for example. Many feel that meat production is unsustainable due to the high energy and water use it's responsible for, and so have turned to a vegetarian diet. But this becomes problematic if the increased volume of fruit and vegetables they consume are imported from abroad - arguably this isn’t more sustainable because air-freighted produce generates extremely high levels of GHG emissions. Furthermore, fruit and veg is very prone to spoiling. Did you know that according to UN statistics, nearly 1/2 of all fruit & vegetables produced globally are wasted each year? And wasted products means the energy used to create them was also wasted. THE WHOLE STORY – START AND END OF LIFE There are two sides to these types of discussions. Or more specifically, two ends:the start and conclusion of the product’s life. The leather trade uses a very large number of natural resources such as water as well as energy through transportation, although some also argue that while it creates a high carbon footprint at the beginning of its life, because it's an organic material, at least leather biodegrades. With vegan leather which is polyurethane-based, the reverse is true. Its production processes are kinder to the environment and crucially the animal population, but it's true negative environmental impact comes at the end of its life, as its polyurethane construction could mean it stays on landfill for several hundred years. Therefore it's fair to say that while vegan footwear is animal-friendly, it's not necessarily earth-friendly. Similarly, some may argue that while a leather product has a much less harmful impact at the end of its life, it’s responsible for considerable pollution and energy use at the start. THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOTWEAR We’re always going to need shoes, and while it’s true that a lot vegan footwear is not always biodegradable, environmental innovation is happening all the time. Many brands are now looking into how to use natural materials such as corn, algae, mushroom and pineapple to make clothing and footwear that's both biodegradable and resilient. In the safety footwear industry where durability, pierce-resistance and protection are paramount – and in some sectors a legal requirement - it might be a little longer until a sustainable non-leather boot is developed, but if there’s one positive thing that a crisis brings, it’s ingenuity. So, who knows? Perhaps in a few years, we’ll be talking about much smaller carbon footprints for safety boots made of leather and microfibre. Watch this space! Now you know the pros and cons of both these types of fabrics and the impact they can have on the planet, the decision you make as a safety footwear user is not whether or not you make an environmental impact. It’s about knowing the type of impact you make and making your own fully-informed decision. Head to the V12 website to select your safety footwear - whether you choose leather or microfibre, we guarantee you'll be walking with safety, comfort and durability.	The leather trade uses a very large number of natural resources such as water as well as energy through transportation, although some also argue that while it creates a high carbon footprint at the beginning of its life, because it's an organic material, at least leather biodegrades. With vegan leather which is polyurethane-based, the reverse is true. Its production processes are kinder to the environment and crucially the animal population, but it's true negative environmental impact comes at the end of its life, as its polyurethane construction could mean it stays on landfill for several hundred years. Therefore it's fair to say that while vegan footwear is animal-friendly, it's not necessarily earth-friendly. Similarly, some may argue that while a leather product has a much less harmful impact at the end of its life, it’s responsible for considerable pollution and energy use at the start. THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOTWEAR We’re always going to need shoes, and while it’s true that a lot vegan footwear is not always biodegradable, environmental innovation is happening all the time. Many brands are now looking into how to use natural materials such as corn, algae, mushroom and pineapple to make clothing and footwear that's both biodegradable and resilient. In the safety footwear industry where durability, pierce-resistance and protection are paramount – and in some sectors a legal requirement - it might be a little longer until a sustainable non-leather boot is developed, but if there’s one positive thing that a crisis brings, it’s ingenuity. So, who knows? Perhaps in a few years, we’ll be talking about much smaller carbon footprints for safety boots made of leather and microfibre. Watch this space! Now you know the pros and cons of both these types of fabrics and the impact they can have on the planet, the decision you make as a safety footwear user is not whether or not you make an environmental impact. It’s about knowing the type of impact you make and making your own fully-informed decision.	no
Veganism	Is vegan leather environmentally friendly?	no_statement	"vegan" "leather" is not "environmentally" "friendly".. "vegan" "leather" has a negative impact on the environment.	https://fairware.com/vegan-leather-vs-real-leather-for-the-merch-industry/	Vegan Leather Vs. Real Leather \| What To Consider For Your Merch	Product with Purpose Blog Vegan leather vs real leather for the merch industry What’s in your next promotional product marketing box? If you plan to include leather-based products in your branded-merch strategy, there are a few things worthy of consideration, especially when looking at the impacts that leather manufacturers have on the environment. Animal and cowhide leather creates huge environmental ripples in our environment. If you are thinking about using leather products for your branded merch, consider taking a more ethical approach by sourcing leather products from certified and accountable manufacturers that source their materials responsibly. In this article, we’ll explore the effects of traditional leather on our environment and look at what to consider when picking ethical leather alternatives. Environmental Impacts of Traditional Leather Production Leather comes from animals’ skins (hides). Most leather produced for the US market is made from cattle and calve hides that go through a process of tanning, crusting and finishing. Some leather goes through a process of waxing to better withstand water exposure. As you will see below, there are effects of leather manufacturing on the environment that should be considered. Trickle-down effects Did you know that cattle ranching is the top culprit of deforestation in the Amazon region? It accounts for 80% of the current deforestation and 3.4% of the current global emissions. These ranches also increase the risk of fire and degrade river systems as well as other aquatic ecosystems leading to soil erosion, river siltation and contamination with organic matter. A common misconception is that cowhides are a waste by-product of the food industry and therefore are considered by some to be ethical and eco-friendly. However, it’s not the case because, as illustrated in the boots example above, the emissions produced to prepare textiles and wear from the hides are staggering. Fresh Water Impact Cattle leather production is a labour-intensive process that uses a significant amount of water. It takes about 17,128 litres of water to produce one leather tote bag. A pair of leather boots uses 12,370 litres. When comparing water usage of leather to leather alternatives like Polyurethane Vinyl (PU leather), cowhides use as much as 14x as much water. The liquid waste from the hide tanning process can leach into local waterways, polluting the natural environment. Solution: Working with ethical manufacturers and sourcing leather alternatives The type of environmental impact that we’ve highlighted above is the reality of many traditional conventional leather manufacturers. The good news is that there are manufacturers that are disrupting the conventional approach to leather production, taking accountability for their processes to ensure that their products are made responsibly. There are sustainable alternatives to using traditional mass-produced leather. These alternatives can be made from a variety of non-animal sources, including: Polyurethane Vinyl (PU Leather) Polyvinyl Chloride Vinyl (PVC) Pineapple leaves (Piñatex) Cork Apple Peels Other fruit waste Other recycled plastics In the corporate merchandise industry, PU, PVC and Cork are the most common alternatives. We hope that over time we’ll see some of the other new and innovative materials added to our product option. Answering the question of “What is a better choice?” is complex, as we will explain below. Here are three tips to help you find the best leather products that are sustainable and responsibly made. ApPeel® Pico Journal. The eco-peel cover and paper are made from apple pulp and fibres that are emulsified into organic material, making it eco-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable and all-natural! 160 Pages, and it’s FSC Compliant. Accountability Before purchasing leather from a supplier, do your research. Are they being held accountable for their sustainability claims? See if they’re a member of the Leather Working Group, a global multi-stakeholder community committed to building a sustainable future with responsible leather. The not-for-profit drives best practices and positive social and environmental change for responsible leather production. The Leather Working Group works with farmers, environmentalists, and industry reps to use data to ensure accountability and standardization within the leather industry. But what about alternative leathers? What is Vegan leather made from? Is it plant-based, a mixture of materials, or is it mostly plastic? Most leather alternatives that are labelled Vegan leather are vinyl made from PU or PVC. Sounds like an environmentally better material when you consider the carbon and water impacts of the cattle industry. However, PU and PVC are plastic-based materials that tend to have a shorter life span and do not biodegrade. Leather biodegrades typically in 10-50 years, depending on the tanning treatments, and some won’t biodegrade at all. Be wary of Green Washing, ask for the material details and decide what’s important to you and how you’d like the material to perform. Be wary of Green Washing, ask for the material details and decide what’s important to you and how you’d like the material to perform. Plant-based leather goods Trending leather alternatives are made from plant waste (like discarded pineapple leaves, cactus, mushrooms, and apple peels). These are amazing new materials; however, they are still scarce and expensive. Over time we will see these materials appear in branded merchandise products, but until then, they are only available in the fashion and retail product streams. Merchandise Strategies Leather, even vegan leather, requires care to keep it looking like new. Your merchandise strategy could be to source a fruit leather alternative like the Apeel journals or a PU/PVC Luxury Vegan Leather (LVL) option. Not all fake leathers are created equally, so pay attention to care instructions to ensure your products hold up to wear. If it’s vegan material you desire, be sure the words like ‘leather alternative,’ ‘vegan,’ or ‘100% synthetic’ are used in your material descriptions. Depending on your values, either could be a genuine option to elevate your brand. LVL is an animal-free, ethical alternative to real leather with full-colour customization possibilities and an attractive price point. It has a fashionable cross-hatch texture and feels just as luxurious as it looks. This material is easier to wipe clean than traditional pebbled leather, so your full-colour designs will stay brighter and last longer. Sustainable use of leather in branded merch If you’re considering adding a leather product to your custom branded merch strategy in 2023, Fairware has researched for you to present your best, most environmentally friendly options. Wilson and Reilly Leather’s line of promotional products is LWG certified. This brand offers Pantone-matched colours made from the highest-quality full-grain leather, so each piece is one of a kind. Their merch line includes: Keyrings Mousepads Drink coaster set Gusset, flat, and coin pouches Dopp Kit Notebooks Make responsible leather sourcing a part of your sustainable and ethical promotional product strategy As a company with a strong Corporate Social Responsibility promise, you owe it to your stakeholders and the environment to source ethical and sustainable promotional products to minimize waste and negative environmental impacts. Whether you choose vegan leather or other sustainably sourced merch, you can make sustainability part of your promotional product strategy. Fairware can help you find the right products that are on-brand and that your prospects, customers, staff, and stakeholders will love.	We hope that over time we’ll see some of the other new and innovative materials added to our product option. Answering the question of “What is a better choice?” is complex, as we will explain below. Here are three tips to help you find the best leather products that are sustainable and responsibly made. ApPeel® Pico Journal. The eco-peel cover and paper are made from apple pulp and fibres that are emulsified into organic material, making it eco-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable and all-natural! 160 Pages, and it’s FSC Compliant. Accountability Before purchasing leather from a supplier, do your research. Are they being held accountable for their sustainability claims? See if they’re a member of the Leather Working Group, a global multi-stakeholder community committed to building a sustainable future with responsible leather. The not-for-profit drives best practices and positive social and environmental change for responsible leather production. The Leather Working Group works with farmers, environmentalists, and industry reps to use data to ensure accountability and standardization within the leather industry. But what about alternative leathers? What is Vegan leather made from? Is it plant-based, a mixture of materials, or is it mostly plastic? Most leather alternatives that are labelled Vegan leather are vinyl made from PU or PVC. Sounds like an environmentally better material when you consider the carbon and water impacts of the cattle industry. However, PU and PVC are plastic-based materials that tend to have a shorter life span and do not biodegrade. Leather biodegrades typically in 10-50 years, depending on the tanning treatments, and some won’t biodegrade at all. Be wary of Green Washing, ask for the material details and decide what’s important to you and how you’d like the material to perform. Be wary of Green Washing, ask for the material details and decide what’s important to you and how you’d like the material to perform.	no
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://www.bluejeans.com/blog/secure-video-conference	Secure Video Conferencing Platforms: How to Encrypt Web Meetings	Secure Video Conferencing Platforms: How to Encrypt Web Meetings Share Categories With the increase in virtual work, many organizations are now holding online meetings often. Security is a primary concern for such meetings because online hackers devise more creative ways to get sensitive information from companies. Hackers navigate through systems and manipulate data, leading to a data breach. Fortunately, you can take several measures to secure your meetings and keep your information confidential. Here are crucial steps to encrypting web meetings. What is a secure video call? A secure video call is an encrypted setup designed to protect information from a web meeting. It keeps communication safe, and only participants can see the details and not anyone else. How to create encrypted video calls Encrypted video calls are easy to create if you have the right skills or get quality service from a highly experienced service provider such as BlueJeans. BlueJeans website offers automated encrypted calls that can keep your communication and information safe. Consider end-to-end encryption An end to end encrypted video call is a secure form of communication that allows only users to access meetings and read messages. This is a crucial factor to consider before holding web meetings. It prevents a third party from accessing meeting information, thus, keeping communication safe. Update your video conferencing software Video conferencing software performs better when you keep updating it. Updated software comes with additional and high-end features that improve the security of your online meetings. Keep doing this often for effective communication and the safety of your information. Create unbreakable passwords Online meetings have passwords that every participant needs to use to access the meeting. Create strong passwords that are hard for anyone to break and assign everyone a unique meeting ID. Once you begin the meeting, block out intruders that you've not invited, even if they are your team members. All you want is to be sure that every participant was invited to the meeting. Limit sharing Some meetings can be open to sharing, but others need to be restricted depending on the sensitivity of the information. If the information is sensitive, limit your team from sharing meeting details. Avoid inviting people who are not on the original guest list. Rather, decide the kind of information to share with them. You should also avoid sharing the meeting invitation link for security purposes. Secure web meetings are possible if you know what is sensitive and what isn't. Enable two-factor authentication Two-factor authentication is a process where a user gains access to a website after confirming login details about two or more times. Enable this feature for secure video conferencing platforms. It is an easy and quick process, yet, one of the safest ways to secure your web meetings. Enable this feature for every participant to ensure that everyone who logs in is authorized to do so. This will minimize intruders who could gain access to the platform at the first login attempt. Research conferencing tools Before you invest in any conferencing tool, it'd be best to research intensively and ensure that the service provider is credible and reputable. The tools should have quality features that provide adequate security during web meetings. Check the websites of service providers to see what past customers say about the meeting tools. Move on with the tools when you are sure of adequate privacy and security features. Read privacy policies Reputable virtual meeting service providers have credible websites to get a wealth of information and make informed decisions. Before investing in web conferencing tools, check the provider's policy on the website and apps. Get conversant with the policies before moving on with the web tools. Choose your tools wisely Using the information above can help you secure your meetings and avoid exposing your private and sensitive data to intruders. Do due diligence in securing all your web meetings and create a safe environment for the meetings. About the Author Mike Yeomans is the Senior Digital Strategist for BlueJeans, where he is responsible for enhancing the customer facing web/digital experience, ensuring the company is at the forefront of and leveraging the latest technologies and strategies including search engine optimization (SEO) and user experience (UX).	Secure Video Conferencing Platforms: How to Encrypt Web Meetings Share Categories With the increase in virtual work, many organizations are now holding online meetings often. Security is a primary concern for such meetings because online hackers devise more creative ways to get sensitive information from companies. Hackers navigate through systems and manipulate data, leading to a data breach. Fortunately, you can take several measures to secure your meetings and keep your information confidential. Here are crucial steps to encrypting web meetings. What is a secure video call? A secure video call is an encrypted setup designed to protect information from a web meeting. It keeps communication safe, and only participants can see the details and not anyone else. How to create encrypted video calls Encrypted video calls are easy to create if you have the right skills or get quality service from a highly experienced service provider such as BlueJeans. BlueJeans website offers automated encrypted calls that can keep your communication and information safe. Consider end-to-end encryption An end to end encrypted video call is a secure form of communication that allows only users to access meetings and read messages. This is a crucial factor to consider before holding web meetings. It prevents a third party from accessing meeting information, thus, keeping communication safe. Update your video conferencing software Video conferencing software performs better when you keep updating it. Updated software comes with additional and high-end features that improve the security of your online meetings. Keep doing this often for effective communication and the safety of your information. Create unbreakable passwords Online meetings have passwords that every participant needs to use to access the meeting. Create strong passwords that are hard for anyone to break and assign everyone a unique meeting ID. Once you begin the meeting, block out intruders that you've not invited, even if they are your team members. All you want is to be sure that every participant was invited to the meeting. Limit sharing Some meetings can be open to sharing, but others need to be restricted depending on the sensitivity of the information. If the information is sensitive, limit your team from sharing meeting details. Avoid inviting people who are not on the original guest list. Rather, decide the kind of information to share with them. You should also avoid sharing the meeting invitation link for security purposes.	yes
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://trueconf.com/blog/reviews-comparisons/secure-video-conferencing-7-best-apps.html	Secure Video Conferencing: 7 Best Apps and Best Practices	Secure Video Conferencing: 7 Best Apps and Best Practices Video conferencing is a powerful tool that enables real-time, face-to-face communication with colleagues around the world. With this method of interaction, a business manager from Argentina can have a virtual meeting with the heads of his factory in China, and military officials in the Pentagon can give new orders to soldiers right on the battlefield. At the same time, security is essential for video conferencing, especially when it comes to corporate communications. If the solution for online meetings is not sufficiently protected, confidential documents and users’ personal data may be exposed to intruders. Such a situation can lead to an unpleasant or even dangerous outcome, resulting in the discrediting or closure of the organization. Video conferencing security is already protected by several laws that prioritize user privacy. Recent government regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), require healthcare providers, financial institutions, and other companies to ensure the safety of all electronic data related to their customers and patients. After the innovations, most vendors have become even more responsible for the security systems of their solutions. Here are 5 more things to help with security for video conferences: Your password must consist of at least 8 characters, including a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, and must be changed regularly every three months. IT-security experts also strongly recommend using multiple forms of authentication to log in to accounts, and also warn of the danger of reusing the same login credentials. Only install software from reliable sources that you know and trust: otherwise, you may put the computer’s security at risk. If there is such an opportunity, you can even hire a specialized software development team to help solve the problems. Regularly updating the software and operating system will help protect the devices from new viruses and malware. Thus, your personal computer or laptop, tablet or smartphone will work efficiently and the likelihood of a cyber attack will decrease significantly. Use a firewall on the devices to monitor, filter, and block any unauthorized network traffic connections. Antivirus is also important to protect against potential cyber threats and their repercussions. A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is an excellent way to protect your privacy, as all your traffic is routed through an encrypted tunnel and passes through a secure server before reaching the Internet. Thanks to VPN, you can remain anonymous if you are concerned about privacy. For example, providers like NordVPN, will help you remain anonymous if you are concerned about privacy. Types of video conferencing encryption There are several ways to encrypt your video conference traffic: the most popular being TLS, SRTP and E2EE. Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a cryptographic protocol that provides communication security and privacy over the Internet and is used in applications such as web browsing, email, instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Notably, TLS is frequently applied to protect online transactions, such as corporate credit card purchases and bank transfers. Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) is a key component of secure voice and video communication, providing end-to-end security between two parties. SRTP is used to protect the confidentiality and integrity of data as it is transmitted over a network. Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) is a key component of secure voice and video communication, providing end-to-end security between two parties. SRTP is used to protect the confidentiality and integrity of data as it is transmitted over a network. When looking for a video conferencing solution, be sure to ask if it offers E2EE. If encryption is present, then your data will be secure for as long as you use it. An overview of video conferencing solutions Ensuring the security of video conferencing requires careful selection of the solution you trust. Many vendors are quite negligent regarding user privacy, ignoring the threat of cyberattacks. That is why we have compiled a list of solutions for you that provide security using various methods of data protection, including encryption. TrueConf TrueConf is an on-premises solution that works without an internet connection and is deployed on your local area network (LAN) or virtual private network (VPN). With this video conferencing platform, users can take advantage of various collaboration opportunities, such as secure chats and content sharing. You have complete control over all communications, ensuring protection against leaks. Security In addition to the fact that the video conferencing solution operates on your company’s equipment, all media streams are encrypted according to the AES-256 standard and are transmitted over secure TLS connections. Personal data is located only within your corporate network, and only the administrator has access. Thus, TrueConf is equipped with 9 levels of protection, ranging from basic to cryptographic. Let’s understand the device of the platform in more detail: Mandatory Authorization. Unless they enter their username and password, users cannot access the TrueConf server, except for guests of public conferences. Vulnerabilities Google Meet Google Meet is a secure cloud solution that enables you to organize both individual and group video conferences. The platform offers many opportunities for collaboration, such as the well-known Jumpboard. As for the participants, Google Meet allows even unregistered guests to join the conference using the meeting code. Security The solution was initially created as a business tool in the Google Workspace suite, but eventually became available for non-commercial use. To protect personal data, the online meeting platform adheres to TLS and SSL standards for encryption at the transit level. Registered Google users also have the option to enable two-factor authentication using FIDO-compatible text messages, authentication apps, or security keys. Vulnerabilities Google Meet does not support end-to-end encryption: instead, it uses DTLS-SRTP to protect connections. However, it may be an unpleasant discovery for some that the vendor of the solution stores data on delays and performance. Such “collectible” information includes the data transfer rate, estimated bandwidth, names of conference organizers, IDs of participants, IP addresses, as well as the date and calendar ID of the meeting. Security researchers recently highlighted a vulnerability in Google Meet’s URL redirection feature, which could lead users to counterfeit domains and make them victims of cybercriminals. Furthermore, if you join a meeting from a smartphone, the audio is transmitted over the telephone network and may not be encrypted. Slack Slack is a corporate messenger that can support video chats for up to 15 users. As with other vendor services, this solution requires mandatory login to your account and uses a secure system to protect confidential data. This is explained by the fact that Slack supports integration with almost 100 third-party services, such as Dropbox, Google Drive, and even Twitter. Security Data transfer between the messenger and the Black service is carried out using reliable encryption protocols and signatures, such as TLS 1.2, AES-256 and SHA2. It is noteworthy that such a protection system only works with the consent of the user, who must approve the processing of his or her personal information. Confidential data at rest in the Slack production network is encrypted in accordance with FIPS 140-2 standards, including relational databases and file storage. At the same time, all encryption keys are stored on a secure server with restricted access. Vulnerabilities If you are going to use Slack for business purposes, you need to be aware of the associated risks. In 2015, Slack was hacked, revealing flaws in the messenger’s security system. The company announced that its system had been hacked, and the attackers had access to the database for four days, jeopardizing the privacy of its users. After the cyberattack, Slack experts also discovered suspicious activity from some accounts that had been clearly compromised by criminals. In 2019, Tenable specialists also discovered a vulnerability in the Windows version of Slack. The client application provided an opportunity to change the download destination and steal, modify, or add malware to files. The critical vulnerability also allowed for remote code execution (RCE). Hackers could gain full remote control over the Slack desktop application with a successful exploit, thereby gaining access to private channels, conversations, passwords, tokens, and keys. Skype Skype, created by Microsoft, is a free software for making video calls. The “Meet Now” option allows presenters to invite both registered participants and anyone else in general to a virtual meeting, without needing an account. As for commercial purposes, it is worth noting that Skype for Business will cease to exist on July 31, 2021. Security Skype uses AES, also known as Rijndael, which is employed by the US government to safeguard confidential information. At the same time, the encryption itself is 256-bit and has proven to be reliable. The Skype server uses 1536 or 2048-bit RSA certificates to certify users’ public keys. Vulnerabilities By default, Skype does not use end-to-end encryption, meaning that Microsoft can view all messages, calls, and files. In addition, the vendor records people’s interactions on their platform, including but not limited to: Chat history Activity status Telephone numbers Files sent and received Time and duration of calls Microsoft claims that it also collects user data from third parties, even brokers. Additionally, the corporation utilizes personal information for targeted advertising, personalization, research and development, and to improve its products. Personal data is also shared with Microsoft affiliates, subsidiaries, and suppliers. WebEx The WebEx video conferencing platform has existed since 1995 and is widely used by privacy-conscious companies in the healthcare, information technology, and financial services industries. This is partly because all three sectors had resorted to virtual meetings long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but mostly due to the solution’s reputation for maintaining strong cybersecurity. WebEx’s parent company, Cisco, has long established itself as a reliable and secure vendor for corporate interactions. Security By default, WebEx makes user data readable by the server, but it also offers additional end-to-end encryption for up to 200 users, which is more than many of its competitors. Holders of free accounts can contact customer support to further protect themselves. Despite considering the possibility of hosting an on-premises solution, the vendor offers a Cisco Meeting Server for these purposes. Vulnerabilities In 2020, Cisco engineers prepared fixes for three vulnerabilities that hackers could exploit during WebEx conferences. IBM discovered security breaches that allowed an attacker to join an online meeting as a ghost user and gain access to personal data. Therefore, a cybercriminal could discover the full names, email, and IP addresses of conference participants. WhatsApp It is highly likely that you have friends or relatives on WhatsApp, as this messenger already has over two billion users. The solution was created in 2009, but it reached its peak popularity in 2015 and even became the main means of communication in several countries, including Latin America. WhatsApp enables users to organize personal and group chats, make audio and video calls, share files, locations, and even create polls. Security To ensure privacy, the solution supports end-to-end encryption, which prevents even company employees from viewing your messages or listening to conversations. WhatsApp also allows users to enable two-step verification to further protect their personal data and send disappearing messages. Vulnerabilities In January 2021, Meta announced an update to its privacy policy, stating that WhatsApp would store personal metadata and share it with Facebook and its “family of companies” (e.g., Facebook Messenger, Instagram) starting in February of that year. Previously, users could refuse to transfer information in the settings, but now this feature is not possible. In 2022, as a result of the leak, nearly 500 million users’ personal data was released into the network. As it turned out, Meta had been storing users’ confidential information in an almost unencrypted form for many years, resulting in hackers being able to easily bypass the security system and gain access to it. In the following years, residents of 84 countries, including the United States, Italy, and France, suffered from the actions of fraudsters and criminals. Zoom Zoom is a video communication platform that offers a wide range of collaborative tools. The solution gained the most popularity in 2020 during the pandemic, as many companies and organizations started using it for remote work. It is noteworthy that many enterprises continued to use Zoom even after the lockdown was lifted, demonstrating its continued great demand. Security When using a Zoom client, video, audio, and screen sharing are protected in transit with AES-256 and a one-time key for that specific session. To further protect your privacy, the solution allows you to enable additional end-to-end encryption. Vulnerabilities “Zoombombing” is still a huge stain on the company’s reputation in terms of security. The precedent of intruders appearing in conferences and subsequently demonstrating profanity has become one of the largest hacker attacks in the history of video communication. Attackers could also send, edit, and remove chat messages, as well as remove other participants from online meetings. Secure video conferencing solutions TrueConf Google Meet Slack Skype WebEx Whatsapp Zoom Maximum number of participants 1 000 250 15 (with paid subscriptions) 100 1,000 32 1000 Free version 12 100 participants up to 60 minutes 2 100 participants up to 4 hours 100 participants up to 40 minutes 32 100 Security measures 256-bit TLS, AES, local deployment, and offline operation TLS, SSL, and two-factor authentication TLS 1.2, AES-256 and SHA2 AES-256, 1536 or 2048-bit RSA E2EE E2EE, 2-step verification AES-256, E2EE Self-hosted deployment + – – – – – – Privacy Are you ready for secure video meetings? Security is one of the most important considerations when organizing virtual meetings. Regardless of whether you are holding a conference for the first time or have been discussing work issues remotely with colleagues for a long time, the privacy of communication should remain a priority, even if it appears that there is nothing to fear. TrueConf online meeting solution offers 9 levels of user data protection, stable video communication in 4K resolution, and a wide range of collaboration tools.	Secure Video Conferencing: 7 Best Apps and Best Practices Video conferencing is a powerful tool that enables real-time, face-to-face communication with colleagues around the world. With this method of interaction, a business manager from Argentina can have a virtual meeting with the heads of his factory in China, and military officials in the Pentagon can give new orders to soldiers right on the battlefield. At the same time, security is essential for video conferencing, especially when it comes to corporate communications. If the solution for online meetings is not sufficiently protected, confidential documents and users’ personal data may be exposed to intruders. Such a situation can lead to an unpleasant or even dangerous outcome, resulting in the discrediting or closure of the organization. Video conferencing security is already protected by several laws that prioritize user privacy. Recent government regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), require healthcare providers, financial institutions, and other companies to ensure the safety of all electronic data related to their customers and patients. After the innovations, most vendors have become even more responsible for the security systems of their solutions. Here are 5 more things to help with security for video conferences: Your password must consist of at least 8 characters, including a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, and must be changed regularly every three months. IT-security experts also strongly recommend using multiple forms of authentication to log in to accounts, and also warn of the danger of reusing the same login credentials. Only install software from reliable sources that you know and trust: otherwise, you may put the computer’s security at risk. If there is such an opportunity, you can even hire a specialized software development team to help solve the problems. Regularly updating the software and operating system will help protect the devices from new viruses and malware. Thus, your personal computer or laptop, tablet or smartphone will work efficiently and the likelihood of a cyber attack will decrease significantly. Use a firewall on the devices to monitor, filter, and block any unauthorized network traffic connections. Antivirus is also important to protect against potential cyber threats and their repercussions.	yes
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://www.digigone.com/secure-multimedia-communications	Secure Communications \| Versatile, Text, Voice, and Video - Digigone	Encryption The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) specifies a Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)-approved cryptographic algorithm that can be used to protect electronic data. The AES algorithm is a symmetric block cipher that can encrypt (encipher) and decrypt (decipher) information. Encryption converts data to an unintelligible form called ciphertext; encrypting the ciphertext converts the data back into its original form, called plaintext. The AES algorithm is capable of using cryptographic keys of 128, 192, and 256 bits to encrypt and decrypt data in blocks of 128 bits. DigiGone uses the NIST approved Rjindael 256-bit AES algorithm on File and Folder Encryption as well as Packet Encryption for data sent to and from the Secured Proxy Servers. All Video, Audio, Texting and File Transfer capabilities are encrypted from end to end and all encryption and decryption takes place at each client end point. All traffic passes through the network in encrypted format. digiChat Software encryption meets the HIPAA Security Rule along with the HITECH Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Video Teleconferencing digiChat allows for peer-to-peer and peer-to-multi peer encrypted video conferencing via a “Meet Me/Chat Room” type connection concept. The “host” of the video conference may use a “Virtual Host,” which is pre-established or may create an “Ad Hoc Host,” on- the-fly, for all parties to the conference to meet. All “Guests” to the conference then provide their own personal “Username” and “Password” to access the digiChat client software. Once the software application has opened, the “Guest” enters the “Virtual Host” or “Ad Hoc Host” name for the conference, followed by the “Password” for the conference. At this point, the “Guest” is entered into the conference. The entering guest’s name is announced via a text window and all other participating guests are displayed in the text window. Each guest has the ability to observe or participate in the video conference, by clicking “ON” their video window to listen and observe and clicking on/off their camera and on/off their microphone to participate. If a participant has more than one camera connected, the software gives the ability to easily select and change cameras during the conference. There is virtually no limit to the number of Guests who may participate in a video conference. However, the speed of the PC or Smartphone processors and the capacity of the Communications Servers on which the conference is running may impact the actual number of parties who can participate or be observed at the same time. Video Streaming digiChat allows the Video Teleconferencing capability to be used for the live encrypted streaming of video and audio content from manned or unmanned video cameras for broadcasting and surveillance applications. The output from these cameras is transmitted to a Virtual or Ad Hoc Host. Parties wishing to observe or broadcast the transmission use digiChat client software to connect to the appropriate Host session. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) digiChat uses VoIP for all audio transmissions. Audio Teleconferencing digiChat allows for peer-to-peer and peer-to-multi peer encrypted audio calls and conferencing. An audio teleconference is accomplished following the same path as described, above, in the Video Teleconferencing session, except that the participant’s video window and camera are not turned on. Mixed conferences are facilitated with some participants using audio and video, video only or audio only. Instant Messaging (IM) digiChat allows for encrypted texting from any participant to all the participants. The maximum characters allowed per message are 160. File Transfer digiChat allows for any file to be transferred in encrypted format to any or all of the participants on a video or audio teleconference or streaming session. To securely transfer a file, a participant clicks on a convenient “Send File” icon, is given the choice to select or deselect which conference participants will receive the file, is then given the ability to select a file to transfer from anywhere on the computer and then upload the file to the recipients. The file sender is informed, in the IM Texting window, of which participants to whom the file is being uploaded, when each file is uploaded, and confirmation that the file was either received or rejected by each intended recipient. digiChat®User Interface Bandwidth Select™ This feature allows each user to control the amount of bandwidth used by the application. This is accomplished by “gating” the bandwidth usage at a user selected maximum of as little as 40Kbps for full use of all encrypted video, audio, IM chat and file transfer capabilities. Bandwidth Select™ is a “gate” in that the user selected bandwidth (from 40 Kbps to 500 Kbps) is the maximum the application will use. However, the application only uses what it actually needs, up to the maximum set. Bandwidth Select™ also allows you to independently set the maximum “gate” for Audio bandwidth use at either no more than 8 Kbps or no more than 12 Kbps. Frames-per-Second (FPS) Selection This feature allows each user to control the Frames-per-Second used by the application. digiChat for PC’s FPS rate may be adjusted from 5 to 30 FPS. digiChat for Smartphones may be adjusted from 5 to 15 FPS. While FPS selection effects the fluid motion of the video experience and allows an adjustment for older PC’s and Smartphones with slower processors, it also allows for Bandwidth Usage Reduction and Savings due to the fact that fewer frame updates require less bandwidth and digiChat’s Bandwidth Select™ feature is programmed to use only as much bandwidth is required, up to the user selected maximum. “Video/Audio Only” Viewing This feature allows each user to turn off their camera and/or microphone during a Video or Audio Teleconference and only view and/or listen to the conference. In this mode, the user only transmits at less than 1 Kbps and receives as little as 6-8 Kbps for an “Audio Only” conference and as little as 30-40Kbps for a Video Conference. Push-to-Talk This feature, when user activated, allows the user to use the F9 key or the left mouse button as a Push-to-Talk key. While this feature was designed to provide operational convenience in loud environments, it also reduces bandwidth costs by transmitting the 6-12 Kbps of VoIP audio ONLY when the Push-to-Talk key is depressed.	If a participant has more than one camera connected, the software gives the ability to easily select and change cameras during the conference. There is virtually no limit to the number of Guests who may participate in a video conference. However, the speed of the PC or Smartphone processors and the capacity of the Communications Servers on which the conference is running may impact the actual number of parties who can participate or be observed at the same time. Video Streaming digiChat allows the Video Teleconferencing capability to be used for the live encrypted streaming of video and audio content from manned or unmanned video cameras for broadcasting and surveillance applications. The output from these cameras is transmitted to a Virtual or Ad Hoc Host. Parties wishing to observe or broadcast the transmission use digiChat client software to connect to the appropriate Host session. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) digiChat uses VoIP for all audio transmissions. Audio Teleconferencing digiChat allows for peer-to-peer and peer-to-multi peer encrypted audio calls and conferencing. An audio teleconference is accomplished following the same path as described, above, in the Video Teleconferencing session, except that the participant’s video window and camera are not turned on. Mixed conferences are facilitated with some participants using audio and video, video only or audio only. Instant Messaging (IM) digiChat allows for encrypted texting from any participant to all the participants. The maximum characters allowed per message are 160. File Transfer digiChat allows for any file to be transferred in encrypted format to any or all of the participants on a video or audio teleconference or streaming session. To securely transfer a file, a participant clicks on a convenient “Send File” icon, is given the choice to select or deselect which conference participants will receive the file, is then given the ability to select a file to transfer from anywhere on the computer and then upload the file to the recipients. The file sender is informed, in the IM Texting window, of which participants to whom the file is being uploaded, when each file is uploaded, and confirmation that the file was either received or rejected by each intended recipient.	yes
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://livestorm.co/blog/most-secure-video-conferencing-software	5 Most Secure Video Conferencing Software for Teams: Complete ...	5 Most Secure Video Conferencing Software for Teams: Complete Guide We look at the 5 most secure video conferencing software platforms and give you tips on what to look for when choosing the most secure video conferencing tools for your team. Without a careful look at what security features a platform provides, you could be exposing your systems to a data breach, which could have far-reaching consequences for your business, clients, and partners. So to choose the most secure video conferencing software, you should know how to recognize a comprehensive security program, understand what features are most important, and know which platforms are the market leaders. This article discusses all these key points, but first, letâs look at why using insecure web conferencing software is such a risk. What are the dangers of using insecure video conferencing software? Using software without a robust program for cyber security has the potential to be hugely damaging to your business. A data breach in the form of malware or ransomware attacks could see you incur legal fees, fines, and the cost of compensating affected customers or partners. And even without any tangible harm being caused, a hack or embarrassing incident like Zoombombing can be costly to your brand. Hereâs a list of some of the ways poor security from your software provider could affect your business: Loss of business due to interruptions of your virtual event Operational issues and costs as you resolve a breach Financial cost from fines, legal fees, and settlements Damage to your reputation as a brand The publication of private and sensitive data What features do the most secure video conferencing software need? The most secure software will have a browser-based platform, digital whiteboards, question upvotes, polls, multimedia sharing, breakout rooms, event replays, integrations, and data analytics. And you can't discount a platform with great video conferencing backgrounds! Here are some of the key features any webinar host needs for safe and reliable video conferencing platform: Top secure video conferencing features Browser-based platform so itâs easy to use with no downloads required Digital whiteboard for interactive presentations and group work Question upvotes for Q&As and participant engagement Polls to get everyone involved in the debate and to gauge opinion Multimedia sharing including GIFs, videos, audio, slides, and PDFs Breakout rooms for networking, group work, and engaging activities Event replays so the whole team can be involved asynchronously Integrations and plugins for adaptable usage Data analytics so you can see how responsive attendees are Secure video conference features to look for Authentication protocols such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) and single sign-on (SSO) Data erasure so you can delete your personal data at any time Data backups for data retrieval in the case of a technical failure TLS 1.2 for end-to-end data encryption Up-time guarantee as part of the service-level agreement IDS/IPS to identify malware and protect data Accessible Qualys SSL Labs report) What certifications do your secure video conferencing tools need? Note: certifications are complex in terms of how theyâre awarded across different regions. So look for transparency on when compliance milestones are expected. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ISO 27001, (Information Security Management), and SOC 2 are great security certifications. What are the 5 best tools for video call security? Livestorm, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams are all good options for secure video conferencing software. These Zoom alternatives are known for their security features. 1. Livestorm Livestorm is an extremely secure, high-end video conferencing tool. And since itâs a browser-based platform, itâs incredibly simple to use â all you need is a link to join a call or event â so great for meetings on the fly. If you aren't familiar with what video conferencing is, you can check out this guide. What are Livestorm's video conferencing security features? Livestorm offers a private security portal where you can download all your documents and view all the security details of the video engagement platform. It has multiple data backups for swift data recovery, and offers data erasure upon request. Livestorm uses MFA and SSO authentication, the latest encryption standards for audio and video, and IDS and IPS for malware prevention and data protection. You can access Livestormâs Qualys SSL Labs report (it has an A+ rating), and Livestorm is GDPR compliant and is ISO 27001 certified! Other key features As the best video engagement platform in the video conferencing market, Livestorm has a fantastic range of engagement features, including: Live polls Question upvotes Breakout rooms Emoji reactions Miro virtual whiteboard Multimedia sharing Unlimited event recordings and replays Engagement tracking As well as its security and engagement features, Livestorm is hugely versatile, suitable for 1:1 meetings, professional training and onboarding, webinars, large-scale virtual events, and hybrid learning, among many other live events use cases. Pricing Livestorm offers all its features within the free plan. The Pro Plan is $88/month per host, billed annually. Other key features Google Meet is part of Googleâs ecosystem of apps and tools, Google Workspace, so it integrates seamlessly with Google Calendar, and is a reliable, secure video conferencing platform. While Google Meet doesnât offer all the in-room engagement features that Livestorm does, it has a webinar chat panel thatâs useful for sharing links, and a digital whiteboard. Google Meet is geared towards small video meetings and not really equipped for webinars, large training, or big video conferences. Also, it lacks the promotion and organization features that Livestorm offers â so itâs a great option as long as youâre a small team with simple video conferencing requirements. Pricing Google Workspaceâs most popular plan is Business Standard, which is $12/month per user. You can find out more about Livestorm vs Google Meet here. 3. Microsoft Teams What are Microsoft Team's video conferencing security features? As with Livestorm and Google Meet, Microsoft Teams is a highly secure platform with SSO authentication, data encryption at rest and in transit, and third-party security certificates, including ISO 27001. Other key features Teams integrates fully with Microsoft Office tools, Outlook, Word, and Excel, so itâs a great choice for businesses that already use Microsoft within their day-to-day workflows and processes. Unlike Livestorm, though, Microsoft doesnât offer all the platformâs features and functionality with its browser-based solution or its free plan. That said, Teams is a powerful video conferencing tool thatâs widely used among enterprise-level organizations with well-established in-house technical resources. Check out a complete webinar software comparison for more details. Analyze your data Analyze all of your data with Livestorm's powerful reporting features. Other key features Webex integrates with all Cisco hardware, and you can dial into a web conference call from a Cisco phone, so itâs ideal for large enterprises that already use Cisco. As a video conferencing tool, itâs functional but basic, with features like messages, whiteboards, and screen sharing but limited engagement and personalization options. If youâre hosting webinars or more interactive video conferences, youâll want a platform like Livestorm that has a few more tricks up its sleeve. Pricing Webex offers a free version thatâs limited to one user and for businesses is $22.50/month per user. Custom Enterprise plans are available for larger teams. 5. Adobe Connect What are Adobe Connectâs video conferencing security features? Similar to Livestorm, Adobe Connect is a secure video conferencing platform with SSO, TLS and AES-256 encryption. It has various compliance certifications like FedRAM, GLBA ready, SOC 2-Type 2 and ISO 27001:2013. Other key features Adobe Connect lets you personalize meeting layouts or choose from its pre-built templates. It has all the basic features of a video conferencing tool like screen and file sharing, group chat, whiteboards and breakout rooms. However, it doesnât have its own dial-in service like Cisco Webex and therefore requires more third-party integrations. Adobe Connect includes functionality for mobile devices that allows presenters to add a mini display window within the larger meeting window. Itâs ideal for remote lectures, webinars and collaboration sessions. Pricing Adobe Connect offers a free version limited to 3 participants, Meetings plan starting at $50/month per user up to 25 participants and Webinars and Learning plan starting at $130/month per user up to 1500 participants. What are the security questions to ask your video conferencing service provider? If youâre conducting independent research into what video conferencing software to use, here are some of the considerations you should be aware of when comparing platforms on security. You'll want to know if the platform has a transparent security program, does it have cyber insurance, is it fully encrypted, and does it reflect essential security principles. Does the platform have a transparent security program? The quickest and easiest way to assess video conferencing software security is to look at the platformâs security program. For a good example, you can easily look into Livestormâs security program via its security portal, which offers a highly accessible overview of certifications, access control, data security, and other key areas of security practice and compliance. Does it have cyber insurance and is business continuity guaranteed? As well as protecting your provider against the associated costs of a cyber attack, cyber insurance helps ensure a fast response time to any issues. This also plays a role in business continuity, which should be covered in your service-level agreement. For example, within Livestormâs security portal, you can see legal coverage, protections, and guarantee of product up-time in the case of a security event. Is data fully encrypted? Data encryption is a basic requirement and should be built-in to any software service. In the case of video conferencing software, Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption should be used for voice and video data. Does it reflect essential cloud security principles? For greater depth on what areas of security to consider when reviewing security features and specifications, here are some of the key principles in cloud security transparency, as recommended by the Cloud Security Alliance: Application and interface security Data security and privacy lifecycle management Identity and access management Threat and vulnerability management Interoperability and portability 6 Tips for secure video conferencing Setting up two-factor authentication and encryption and installing software patches and updates as soon as they become available are some of the best practices for ensuring secure video conferencing. Here's our checklist to enable secure video conferencing: 1. Write a video conferencing policy A video conferencing policy includes guidelines on usage, protocols for acceptable behavior, access control, data security, and if the platform you use is ISO compliant. You should aim to create a collaborative space that protects team membersâ privacy. If youâre using Livestorm, you can mention that itâs ISO 27001 certified and has a secure management system. 2. Enable two-factor authentication Two-factor authentication requires two types of credentials for access. It combines a password, PIN or biometric information, and a token or code sent to the userâs device via SMS or in-app notifications. This ensures that only authorized individuals can access the meeting and keeps your meetings. 3. Use AES encryption AES encryption is an industry standard for securely sending data over the internet. It scrambles data before itâs transmitted, making it unreadable by anyone without the decryption key, which is the password or secret key to access that file. AES encryption in video conferencing ensures no one can listen in or disrupt your confidential sessions. 4. Ask permission to record Consent is key when recording video conferences â even if itâs for internal use. Consider informing all participants that the session is being recorded and asking them to agree to the terms before you start. This ensures participants don't feel uncomfortable or violated and protects your company from potential legal issues. 5. Protect privacy with virtual backgrounds Virtual backgrounds allow you to cover up sensitive information like home addresses, your current location, or personal details if they appear in the background. Try a video conferencing solution like Livestorm that has a virtual background library with different images to suit your needs (or lets you upload your own). 6. Keep software up to date Older software versions can be vulnerable to security threats because they may not have the latest patches and updates applied. Regularly updating your video conferencing software can protect you from potential malware, viruses, and other cyber threats. Most systems update automatically, but you should always double-check to ensure you have the latest version. How to choose secure video conferencing software for your business? With so many concerns when choosing the best video conferencing software solution for your team â how user-friendly it is, its versatility, its built-in features, and integrations â itâs easy to overlook one of the most important: security. This is especially true if youâre not a technical expert, which can make identifying any security issues a challenge. If this is the case, you can make your task easier by focusing on what you can identify. Firstly, is there a transparent overview of how the web conferencing platform manages security? Next, can you see the platform's certifications and which ones they have in progress? Also, does the platform offer all the security features discussed earlier in this article, such as SSO authentication, multiple data backups, self-service data erasure, and end-to-end data encryption? With these key considerations in mind, along with the top three secure platforms â Livestorm, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams â as a point of comparison, you can ensure a safe and reliable video conferencing solution for your business. Whatâs the most secure video conferencing app? Livestorm â best for small and large-scale webinars, internal meetings, live events, and product demos Google Teams â best for small teams with simple needs Microsoft Teams â best for business using Microsoft tools, like Outlook What best practices for secure video conferencing? The safest way to ensure secure video conferencing is to use a platform with a robust and transparent security program. Once youâre using secure software for your virtual meetings and events, donât share your meeting links with anyone unnecessarily. You can also set up a waiting room so you have additional control over access to your video conferencing software. What is a safer alternative to Zoom? A safer alternative to Zoom is another video conferencing tool like Livestorm, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams. These platforms offer robust security features such as SSO authentication and data encryption and have ISO certifications. Is Google Meet or Zoom more secure? Google Meet and Zoom are secure video conferencing platforms with robust security features. But Google Meet is more secure as it uses secured RPC (remote procedure call) during live meetings and generates an encryption key for each person and meeting individually. Get started for free Create a better experience for your attendees and less stress for your team.	Regularly updating your video conferencing software can protect you from potential malware, viruses, and other cyber threats. Most systems update automatically, but you should always double-check to ensure you have the latest version. How to choose secure video conferencing software for your business? With so many concerns when choosing the best video conferencing software solution for your team â how user-friendly it is, its versatility, its built-in features, and integrations â itâs easy to overlook one of the most important: security. This is especially true if youâre not a technical expert, which can make identifying any security issues a challenge. If this is the case, you can make your task easier by focusing on what you can identify. Firstly, is there a transparent overview of how the web conferencing platform manages security? Next, can you see the platform's certifications and which ones they have in progress? Also, does the platform offer all the security features discussed earlier in this article, such as SSO authentication, multiple data backups, self-service data erasure, and end-to-end data encryption? With these key considerations in mind, along with the top three secure platforms â Livestorm, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams â as a point of comparison, you can ensure a safe and reliable video conferencing solution for your business. Whatâs the most secure video conferencing app? Livestorm â best for small and large-scale webinars, internal meetings, live events, and product demos Google Teams â best for small teams with simple needs Microsoft Teams â best for business using Microsoft tools, like Outlook What best practices for secure video conferencing? The safest way to ensure secure video conferencing is to use a platform with a robust and transparent security program. Once youâre using secure software for your virtual meetings and events, donât share your meeting links with anyone unnecessarily. You can also set up a waiting room so you have additional control over access to your video conferencing software.	yes
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://blog.wildix.com/secure-video-conferencing-best-practices-2022/	Video Conferencing Security Best Practices & Tips 2022 \| Wildix	Secure Video Conferencing: How to Meet Safely & Privately These days, there are few offices that go without a video conferencing platform of some kind. But what many workplaces forget is that video conferencing security is just as essential as being secure with conference calls, emails or any other form of remote communication. As pivotal as it is to secure your video chats, actually enforcing security is rarely easy. Plenty of businesses are tempted to simply layer security measures like firewalls or additional passwords onto web tools after the fact. However, in practice, these are fairly simple obstacles for hackers to jump over, and once they’re breached, organizations are left unprotected against illicit access to private business communications and even user data. Even for small businesses, attacks like this can be devastating, costing both immediate revenue loss and a severe drop in reputation. The crux of a secure video conferencing service isn’t simply add-ons or layered tools. The fact is, without protection built directly into the service, there won’t be any real security in conference calls you make over the web. But what does that built-in security look like? Here, we’ll explain exactly that by walking through what technology it takes to truly achieve video conferencing security. For further protection, we’ll also go through several key video conferencing security best practices. Passwords The most direct way a hacker can gain unauthorized access to video calls is simply by logging in. If users’ passwords are overly simplistic or common, it will only be a matter of time before a cyberattacker simply guesses the correct credentials. This is why any secure video conferencing platform must require users to create sufficiently long and unique passwords — especially ones with different letter cases, numbers and special characters. As any IT manager can tell you, there will always be employees who use overly simple or obvious passwords when setting up an account. To combat this, a secure conference calling service must outright reject such passwords as insufficient and require users to create longer ones. However, requiring long, complex passwords will not inherently create a secure web conferencing environment. After all, password databases are frequently hacked and leaked over the dark web, granting access to hackers just as easily. Fortunately, password databases can be kept secure through encryption from the software provider. By applying an encryption methodology — in particular, SHA512 and salt cryptography — passwords stored in databases are made to be unreadable by all except the system through complex coding. This helps ensure that even in the event of a database breach, the actual data will be unreadable and therefore unusable to hackers. Single Sign-On & Two-Factor Authentication However, in some cases, complex passwords can stand in the way of secure web conferencing. Long passwords are by design hard to remember, and as such, users may write or type them down in insecure places to remember them. Furthermore, requiring only long passwords to log in still leaves open the possibility — no matter how remote — that a hacker may guess a user’s credentials and brute force their way in. One effective answer to this is single sign-on (SSO). Instead of requiring a new password to secure your video conferencing software, single sign-on allows users to sign in using an existing account, such as via Google or Microsoft. This allows users to reuse a complex password from an account while still enjoying a secure login for additional software. Further security can be added to sign-in procedures through two-factor authentication (2FA). Here, a successful login does not immediately grant access to an account. Instead, users are then required to input a code sent to their email or phone number or a code generated by an authenticator app. Because this extra step requires access to an additional device or account, it dramatically reduces the chances of an unauthorized login. Encryption However, hackers are typically aware of the difficulty in directly accessing accounts and will rarely let these measures alone stop them. When login attempts fail, cyberattackers will most often attempt to covertly intercept video conferences — not unlike bugging a telephone to secretly listen in. The most feasible way to prevent this is to use encrypted video conferencing software. Encryption, as we said, effectively scrambles data so as to make it unreadable to unauthorized users; the more sophisticated the encryption method, the more difficult it is to decipher the data. Although video chats utilize audio and visual components, not simply text, it is still fully possible to secure conference calls through the same encryption methods. One of the most reliable of these is Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP), which uses both a random cipher key for media and a built-in means of authenticating exchanged messages. This combination of approaches prevents video from being intercepted or from being falsified by hackers. SRTP can be made even more secure by the use of Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). This is a protocol that layers messages with additional encryption that’s so complex, it can only be deciphered using the code’s original key. Then, this approach is taken a step further by sharing said key only with the other participant(s) in the video call — not with a central server or authority, which may be open to hacking. All these combined measures provide security on a direct point-to-point basis for even greater protection. WebRTC An often unsung component of secure web conferencing is WebRTC, a media exchange technology designed to share communications directly within web browsers. On top of being an important component for real-time media transfers, WebRTC is vital for achieving the most secure video conferencing platform possible as a result of its built-in security protocols. One of the most important of these safety features is also fundamental to WebRTC: the fact that it runs directly within the browser with no additional plugins. As a result, WebRTC and any associated video conferencing software will update to the latest version as soon as you update your browser. This makes it significantly faster to install the latest security protocols and helps to prevent hacks related to system vulnerabilities or exploits. Furthermore, because WebRTC runs directly in the browser without any installation on devices, it exists separately from the digital architecture of that device. This is critical for security, as this setup means WebRTC is unaffected by any installed programs or vulnerabilities on the device; any spyware, viruses or similar backdoors hackers may try to create for illegitimate access cannot reach the browser’s technology and thus will not affect a WebRTC-based platform. This is on top of the security measures WebRTC implements by design. Crucially, it features full end-to-end encryption via DTLS and SRTP, meaning that web chats using WebRTC inherently run through encrypted video conferencing software. WebRTC also establishes direct browser-to-browser connections for data transfers rather than connecting to a central server, further lowering the possibility that media can be intercepted. System Monitoring All these security measures must go hand in hand with a way to view potential or actual threats, however — otherwise, users will have no way to understand possible system vulnerabilities. This requirement is actually fairly straightforward to confirm in a piece of software: the system simply must have a tool or API for logging instances when it’s been accessed, and this must be easily accessible to local technicians. It’s even better if the system has a way of alerting security advisors if any of these entries appear to be illegitimate, of course — but more importantly, it’s downright vital that this tool issue automatic alerts to system administrators when it detects full-on intrusions. Obviously, this is in large part because techs must immediately know of any hacks the instant they occur to re-secure the system and patch vulnerabilities. But it’s also important to have constant system monitoring to stay alert against en masse system attacks known as distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. Although a secure video conferencing system should be able to prevent these at the outset by simply blocking excess traffic from the IP addresses committing the attack, it’s still crucial for administrators to see they’ve happened right away. A delay in viewing or reporting these threats only leaves room for hackers to reassess their plan of attack and return with more effective methods. Built-in tools for this monitoring are essential; for maximum effectiveness, these should include data sets and statistical breakdowns of the nature of access attempts. Even better is if the system supports integration with external monitoring tools (for example, Zabbix). The bottom line is that without measures to review access attempts and successful intrusions, it will be impossible to change and improve upon current security measures. Moderation Tools Up to now, we’ve covered tools to prevent hacks and data interception. These are all invaluable for businesses, but they’re far from the only tools necessary for secure video meetings. After all, it’s not only possible but exceedingly common for cyberattackers to simply break into web calls and disrupt proceedings (a practice commonly referred to as “Zoombombing”). To prevent such disruptions, a secure video conferencing platform must also have tools for limiting who can access conference calls, as well as tools for controlling the calls themselves. One common safeguard is to set a password on conferences, which in theory will lock out unwanted guests. For smaller conferences or internal events, this can be an essential way of ensuring privacy. For larger conferences, however, passwords are almost always shared along with meeting invites, meaning additional security measures should be available. One such method is securing video calls by allowing in only invited users — that is, users with a specific login on the video calling software. This way, anyone without explicit access permission will instantly be prevented from listening in on your call. However, even this measure is open to failure: password hacks, system vulnerabilities and unforeseen security gaps can all still let unwanted guests into video calls. That’s why every secure video calling system also needs the last resort of in-call moderation tools to maintain order and privacy within the conference. The most critical of these moderation capabilities are: Muting users’ mics (especially muting all users or all but one user) Turning off users’ video (including all for all users or all but one user) Blocking screen share attempts Removing specific users from the call Maintaining security will require all of these measures to be kept available, even if — like any last resort — it’s preferable they’re never actually used. Just consider that without capabilities like these, creating a secure web conference call becomes far more difficult in the event one or more external measures fail. Video Conferencing Security Best Practices Even with security measures such as these in place, breaches can still arise from simple human error. That’s why, on top of using effective technology to secure your web conferences, it’s critical that staff keep key video conferencing security best practices in mind at all times. Although technology should be designed with security on by default, employees always have the potential to circumvent this security, whether it’s out of ignorance or actual malice. As implied earlier, passwords and account access are at the forefront of this: if a hacker gains the login credentials for an employee account on your video calling platform, it will open up access to untold amounts of data and communications. As such, the absolute most important video conferencing security best practice is to keep passwords confidential in all cases. Employees should never share passwords over chat, email or even in calls, as hackers commonly try to trick users into handing this information over by pretending to be someone legitimate in the company (a practice known as “phishing”). So long as login credentials are kept fully private, you’ll have already done a great deal to secure your video conferences. Within video calls, there are further guidelines to follow, of course. The most important ones are: Immediately kick out suspicious callers: Unless you’re holding a wide and open forum, users you don’t recognize simply should not be part of video calls. To keep them from disrupting the call or hearing confidential information, remove them immediately. Don’t be afraid to “mute all”: Should a group of trolls enter your call, it’s critical to keep them quiet while working out how to remove them. Liberal use of “mute all” functions will help maintain order while doing so. Steer clear of suspicious links in the chat: Many hackers will plant URLs in the chat as a way of wreaking havoc even after you’ve kicked them. Because these links will always direct users to spammy or harmful sites, either advise users to not click them or, better yet, delete those messages outright. Remember to disable video and screen shares: Plenty of trolls will disrupt calls with obscene visuals in addition to excess noise. As such, moderators and hosts should always keep in mind that they can disable video or block screen shares from unwanted guests, too. Add conference limits as necessary: Passwords or user limits can be a powerful way to prevent trolls from even appearing in your video calls. When wide access isn’t a concern, consider using these as an extra safety measure. Utilize “start with mic and video off” settings: For those conferences open to a wider audience, setting the conference to initially having users muted and without video can serve as a stopgap against disruption. Know when to use webinars instead: Events with numerous attendees but only a few speakers are generally better presented as webinars than video conferences, as under webinar settings audience participation is limited. This will help keep disruptions to a minimum even without much moderation. Considering any or all of these video conferencing security best practices will add to the safety provided by effective technology. Closing Thoughts As remote and smart working continue as the standard, it’s never been more important to stay secure in conference calls and video chats. But that security is by no means limited to the calls themselves; what’s just as important is to keep the system and its associated data, including exchanged files and call recordings, safe from unauthorized access. Certain best practices will go a long way to helping in this regard, but on their own, they won’t go far enough. Built-in protocols like login protection, encryption and direct browser-to-browser connections can all work in tandem to keep all your business meetings private, even when they take place over the internet. But it’s crucial that these measures are a built-in and always-on component of that platform, rather than add-ons that can be switched off. To truly be secure in video calls, protective measures have to be an inherent aspect of the system and baked directly into its design. To see an example of a fully secure conference call app, see how security is built into Wildix, the first in-browser video conferencing tool built for sales.	Secure Video Conferencing: How to Meet Safely & Privately These days, there are few offices that go without a video conferencing platform of some kind. But what many workplaces forget is that video conferencing security is just as essential as being secure with conference calls, emails or any other form of remote communication. As pivotal as it is to secure your video chats, actually enforcing security is rarely easy. Plenty of businesses are tempted to simply layer security measures like firewalls or additional passwords onto web tools after the fact. However, in practice, these are fairly simple obstacles for hackers to jump over, and once they’re breached, organizations are left unprotected against illicit access to private business communications and even user data. Even for small businesses, attacks like this can be devastating, costing both immediate revenue loss and a severe drop in reputation. The crux of a secure video conferencing service isn’t simply add-ons or layered tools. The fact is, without protection built directly into the service, there won’t be any real security in conference calls you make over the web. But what does that built-in security look like? Here, we’ll explain exactly that by walking through what technology it takes to truly achieve video conferencing security. For further protection, we’ll also go through several key video conferencing security best practices. Passwords The most direct way a hacker can gain unauthorized access to video calls is simply by logging in. If users’ passwords are overly simplistic or common, it will only be a matter of time before a cyberattacker simply guesses the correct credentials. This is why any secure video conferencing platform must require users to create sufficiently long and unique passwords — especially ones with different letter cases, numbers and special characters. As any IT manager can tell you, there will always be employees who use overly simple or obvious passwords when setting up an account. To combat this, a secure conference calling service must outright reject such passwords as insufficient and require users to create longer ones. However, requiring long, complex passwords will not inherently create a secure web conferencing environment. After all, password databases are frequently hacked and leaked over the dark web, granting access to hackers just as easily.	no
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	yes_statement	"video" "conferencing" is a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is "secure".	https://www.zoho.com/meeting/	Online Meeting Software & Platform - Zoho Meeting	Share your screen Record and share meetings Record, replay, and share your web meeting recordings with members who could not make it to your meeting. Also, download your online meetings' recordings for offline use. Protect and moderate web meetings Host secure web conferencing sessions on our virtual meeting software by locking your meetings. Mute and remove participants, if necessary, when they no longer need to be a part of your discussion. Webinar solution Broadcast video webinars Host live video webinars and share multiple video feeds with your audience as you present. Share your screen, an application window, or another monitor's screen to support your presentation. Also, use YouTube livestreaming to reach maximum audience. Customize emails and forms Customize registration forms, webinar emails, and moderate attendees from our video meeting software. Persuade attendees to take action by directing them to any web page you want after a webinar. Interact with your audience Launch audience polls, answer questions through Q&A, let attendees get your attention through Raise Hand and encourage them to speak and present Allow to talk and Make presenter. Enjoy secure web meeting experience Zoho Meeting is committed to protecting your data and privacy while you conduct online meetings using audio, video, and screen sharing. Zoho Meeting offers multiple security features to safeguard your web meetings, such as Lock meetings, organization-level video settings, and Entry/Exit notifications. We also encrypt audio, video, and screen sharing to keep your information safe as it travels through the internet. One of the best-rated software for online meetings and webinars. 0 / 5 0 / 5 0 / 10 0 / 5 âVery useful meeting tools, as we use for Zoho for our CRM and accounts, it was an easy choice to use Zoho Meeting as well. Very good for remote demoâs.â Tolik Rozensteins Business Development Manager, Security & Vetting Solutions Ltd âWe now have several weekly team meetings that allow everyone to be in sync with each other. And for our customers we have created a series of live webinars and group meetings where they can speak directly with our team and learn about raising solitary bees.â Karl Alexander Marketing Director, Crown Bees âUpon creating webinar's in Zoho Meeting, absolutely without any effort the campaigns can be created instantly in Zoho Campaign's so we can start distributing them all in one place, within minutes. Furthermore, automatic workflow built within webinar avoids the need to create reminders and follow up's.â A secure online meeting platform for remote teams. What is an online meeting? An online meeting is a cloud-based conference that allows two or more individuals to connect and collaborate with each other remotely using an online meeting software. It can be defined as a virtual gathering where teams can discuss and exchange ideas regardless of the location. It can range from a small-scale gathering to large-scale conferences, enabling people to communicate and collaborate seamlessly. Online meeting software is a virtual platform that empowers participants to engage in real-time audio and video communication, and stay connected regardless of physical location. You can launch instant online meetings, schedule web meetings, and broadcast webinars from a virtual meeting software. What is a webinar and how does it work? Webinars are virtual group events that involve an organizer communicating and broadcasting to a set of attendees. The organizer can broadcast presentations and conduct interactive training sessions with the help of features like polls, Q&A sessions, etc. Attendees can sign up for the webinar, submit questions to the organizer, and interact with the polls to get the most out of the webinar sessions. What are the differences between a meeting and a webinar? Meetings are typically collaborative events where the host and participants engage equally using the online meeting software. They're conducted by a host and attended by participants to connect and collaborate over the web meeting software. Webinars are online group events where an organizer broadcasts presentations and training sessions to a selected group of attendees. They're informative sessions on a particular subject that are broadcast to invited attendees. Webinars can be used for remote business presentations, training sessions in educational institutions, etc. How to host an online meeting? You can host seamless online meetings and collaborate with your business teams by proper planning, Create a meeting agenda Schedule and invite participants Share screen and collaborate in real time Engage participants with polls and Q&A Track detailed meeting analytics post session How do I join an online meeting? You can join online meetings as a participant using the joining link shared by the host via email or chat. If you have the meeting key, you can access our join page or use our dedicated desktop application. You can also utilize our iOS and Android mobile apps to join online meetings. What are the benefits of web meetings? Remote collaboration is made possible with online meeting platforms, allowing people to be virtually connected quickly and easily. Online meetings help save time and effort that goes into conducting in-person meetings. Screen sharing and presenting is easier over online meetings, which helps ensure everyone is on the same page. Web conferencing - Audio and video conferencing solution with a presenter sharing their screen and collaborating with meeting participants. Why do remote teams need an online meeting tool? Online meeting platforms help remote teams communicate and collaborate efficiently, without being present in the same location. They can present ideas and interact over audio and video using online meeting software. Remote work can be managed effectively with enterprise features like organization management, custom domains, and co-branding. With hybrid work models gaining pace, online meeting platforms can help you get the most out of remote workspaces. Who uses online meeting platforms? Online meeting tools are used extensively by various sectors, from small businesses to large enterprises, NGOs, and even government organizations. Some noted sectors include: Personal use - Individuals use online meeting tools as one-stop solution for meetings, video calls, and other personal conferencing needs. Businesses - Both in-house and remote business teams use online meeting software frequently to interact and collaborate with colleagues and clients from all over the world. Educational institutions - Schools and training centers have adopted online classes to teach and connect with students using online meeting platforms. What are the key features of online meeting software tools? Some of the key features that every online meeting software should have are: How do I attend a webinar on Zoho Meeting? Organizers will send you invitations to join their webinars. They'll promote these webinars through email and social media. If you're one of their invitees, you can easily enroll and attend yourself. Zoho Meeting is available across devices. So you can attend webinars from your browser, our desktop application, or by using our dedicated mobile apps. How can organizers and attendees interact in a Zoho Meeting webinar? Zoho Meeting has features like polls, Q&A, and hand raising to allow seamless interaction between the organizer and the webinar attendees. Attendees can use the raise hand feature to grab the attention of the organizer, as well as interact with any polls. Attendees can submit relevant questions in the Q&A section, which will then be answered by the organizer either in private or during the webinar. What makes Zoho Meeting the best online meeting software for video conferencing and webinar? Zoho Meeting provides seamless audio and video conferencing features for all your meeting and webinar needs. You can become a presenter and share your screen to collaborate with other participants in meetings. And with the ability to lock meetings, you can be sure your sessions are secure. With high-quality video webinars, you can effectively broadcast presentations and conduct training sessions to large audiences â and once the webinar is over, you can analyze the session using webinar reports How secure are web meetings and webinars in Zoho Meeting? Our online meeting software is protected by DTLS-SRTP encryption with the latest TLS 1.2 protocols. The host has moderator controls to conduct secure meetings by locking meetings, muting and unmuting participants, and more. With Zoho Meeting, users can enable Two-Factor Authentication (TFA) for their account, which gives an extra level of security against brute force attacks. Learn more about Zoho Meeting's security and privacy. Do I need an account to use Zoho Meeting? If you're a participant joining a meeting, you don't need to have a Zoho Meeting account. You can join either by using the meeting link or by entering the meeting key and password. However, if you want to host a meeting or conduct a webinar, you need to create a Zoho Meeting account in advance.	Share your screen Record and share meetings Record, replay, and share your web meeting recordings with members who could not make it to your meeting. Also, download your online meetings' recordings for offline use. Protect and moderate web meetings Host secure web conferencing sessions on our virtual meeting software by locking your meetings. Mute and remove participants, if necessary, when they no longer need to be a part of your discussion. Webinar solution Broadcast video webinars Host live video webinars and share multiple video feeds with your audience as you present. Share your screen, an application window, or another monitor's screen to support your presentation. Also, use YouTube livestreaming to reach maximum audience. Customize emails and forms Customize registration forms, webinar emails, and moderate attendees from our video meeting software. Persuade attendees to take action by directing them to any web page you want after a webinar. Interact with your audience Launch audience polls, answer questions through Q&A, let attendees get your attention through Raise Hand and encourage them to speak and present Allow to talk and Make presenter. Enjoy secure web meeting experience Zoho Meeting is committed to protecting your data and privacy while you conduct online meetings using audio, video, and screen sharing. Zoho Meeting offers multiple security features to safeguard your web meetings, such as Lock meetings, organization-level video settings, and Entry/Exit notifications. We also encrypt audio, video, and screen sharing to keep your information safe as it travels through the internet. One of the best-rated software for online meetings and webinars. 0 / 5 0 / 5 0 / 10 0 / 5 âVery useful meeting tools, as we use for Zoho for our CRM and accounts, it was an easy choice to use Zoho Meeting as well. Very good for remote demoâs.â Tolik Rozensteins Business Development Manager, Security & Vetting Solutions Ltd âWe now have several weekly team meetings that allow everyone to be in sync with each other.	yes
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	no_statement	"video" "conferencing" is not a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is not "secure".	https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s713.html	713-Interviews	713 Interviews [R-07.2022] Discussions between an applicant and an examiner are often indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application. Generally, interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in an application should be promoted. Properly conducted, an interview can bridge the gap between an examiner and an applicant with regard to the substantive matters at issue in an application. Interviews often help to advance prosecution and identify patentable subject matter. The applicant and the examiner should consider the advantages of conducting an interview to advance the prosecution of a particular patent application. Positions presented during an interview should be advanced with decorum and courtesy. An interview should be granted when the nature of the case is such that the interview serves to develop or clarify outstanding issues in an application. Both applicants and examiners should understand that interview time is limited for both, and therefore they should use the interview time efficiently. Both parties should ensure the interview does not extend beyond a reasonable time and minimize interruptions during the interview. Applicants and examiners should facilitate the grouping of interviews where effective. All discussions between the applicant/practitioner and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. This includes any and all records or communications received in connection with the interview via any communication mode. This policy and other interview tips are detailed in the Interview Best Practices document which is available at www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice . Where an electronic record is created as part of the interview, e.g., a series of electronic messages, a copy of the electronic record is to be made of record in the application. Where an electronic record is not created, a summary of the interview must be made of record. 713.01 General Policy, How Conducted [R-07.2022] 37 CFR 1.133 Interviews. (a) (1) Interviews with examiners concerning applications and other matters pending before the Office must be conducted on Office premises and within Office hours, as the respective examiners may designate. Interviews will not be permitted at any other time or place without the authority of the Director. (2) An interview for the discussion of the patentability of a pending application will not occur before the first Office action, unless the application is a continuing or substitute application or the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application. (3) The examiner may require that an interview be scheduled in advance. (b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135. I. WHERE AND WHEN TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction. ii) In-person interviews with the examiner should normally be granted. In-person interviews must be conducted on the Office premises, such as in an examiner’s office, a conference room, an interview room or a video conference center, and should be held during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. iii) Interviews other than in-person interviews should be held during normal business hours and may also be held during mutually agreed upon non-traditional business hours, such as Saturday and evening hours. iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview. v) Any Examiner may, with the applicant’s consent, conduct an interview by video conferencing using the web-based collaboration tools provided by the Office. vi) Examiners who normally work remotely should arrange to hold an interview on campus if the timing can be mutually agreed upon with the applicant. In special situations the examiner will be required to travel to campus for an in-person interview. The decision on special situations will be made at the TC Director level or higher as to whether the examiner of record or another USPTO representative will be on campus for the interview. A hoteling examiner within the local commuting area of a satellite office may use that satellite office for in-person or video conference interviews. vii) Examiners working on campus may hold interviews in-person, telephonically, or via video conference. Examiners may receive requests from an applicant for an interview using video conferencing. Such requests should normally be granted. See MPEP § 713.01, subsection III below. Telework does not prevent examiners from conducting interviews via video conference or telephonically from their approved alternate worksite. II. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS Internet email, instant message system, or video conferencing shall NOT be used to conduct an exchange or communications similar to those exchanged during telephone or personal interviews unless authorization from the applicants or an attorney/agent of record has been given to use Internet communications. See MPEP § 502.03. A. Written Authorization The following is a sample written authorization which may be used by applicant: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” The Internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. B. Oral Authorization The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. III. VIDEO CONFERENCING i) A video conference is an electronic meeting, using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time. ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools. iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate. iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03. IV. SCHEDULING AND CONDUCTING AN INTERVIEW An interview should be arranged in advance to insure that the primary examiner and/or the examiner in charge of the application will be available. Use of the USPTO’s Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview -request-air-form.html is encouraged, but in the alternative, the examiner may be contacted by letter, facsimile, electronic mail, telephone or the "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) to schedule the interview. The AIR form or the PTOL-413A form may be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance and to focus on the issues to be discussed. These forms should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, the communication mode (e.g., personal, telephonic, or video conference), and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. Upon completion of the interview, a copy of the completed Interview Summary form (PTOL-413/413b) should be given to the applicant (or applicant’s attorney or agent) along with any attachments. When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705 - 705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made. When a telephone call is received by an examiner and it becomes evident that a lengthy discussion will ensue or that the examiner needs time to restudy the situation, the call should be terminated with an agreement that the examiner will call back at a specified time. Such a call and all other calls originated by the examiner should be made by use of the Office’s equipment and software. An examiner’s suggestion of allowable subject matter may justify indicating the possibility of an interview to accelerate early agreement on allowable claims. The unexpected appearance of an attorney, agent, or applicant requesting an interview without any previous notice may well justify the examiner’s refusal of the interview at that time, particularly in an involved case. An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. Thus, the attorney or agent when presenting himself or herself for an interview should be fully prepared to discuss the issues raised in the Office action. When it is obvious that the attorney or agent is not so prepared, the interview should be rescheduled. It is desirable that the attorney, agent, or applicant submit an agenda which indicates in advance what issues they desire to discuss at the interview by submitting, in writing, a proposed amendment or argument. This would permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the matters set forth in the proposed amendment. In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview. The examiner should not hesitate to state, when appropriate, that claims presented for discussion at an interview would require further search and consideration. Nor should the examiner hesitate to conclude an interview when it appears that no common ground can be reached or when it becomes apparent that the application requires further amendment or an additional action by the examiner. However, the examiner should attempt to identify issues and resolve differences during the interview as much as possible. It is the responsibility of all participants to see that the interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period, usually 30 minutes. It is the duty of the primary examiner to see that an interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period. During an interview with a pro se applicant (i.e., an applicant who is prosecuting his or her own case and is not familiar with Office procedure), the examiner may make suggestions that will advance the prosecution of this case; this lies wholly within the examiner’s discretion. Excessive time, however, should not be allowed for such interviews. Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application. Where agreement is reached as a result of an interview, applicant or applicant’s attorney or agent, as appropriate, should be advised that an amendment pursuant to the agreement should be promptly submitted. A duplicate copy of a filed amendment and/or remarks if filed in paper may be sent to the examiner in order to facilitate early consideration. A duplicate copy is unnecessary when the amendment and/or remarks are filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as the examiner will be able to quickly access such documents. See the EFS-Web Guidance and Resources page of the Office website (www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/ applying-online/about-efs-web) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05. The substance of any interview must be made of record in the application. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.04. A paper copy of any written communications or transcripts MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered. Examiners may grant one interview after final rejection. See MPEP § 713.09. V. VIEWING OF VIDEO DURING INTERVIEWS The USPTO has equipment available for viewing video from applicants during interviews with patent examiners. Attorneys or applicants wishing to show a video during an examiner interview must be able to demonstrate that the content of the video has a bearing on an outstanding issue in the application and its viewing will advance the prosecution of the application. If the video that applicant would like to display during the interview is in a format that USPTO equipment cannot display, the applicant should also bring to the interview the equipment necessary to display the video. The substance of the interview, including a summary of the content of the video must be made of record in the application. See MPEP § 713.04. VI. EXAMINATION BY EXAMINER OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW Sometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations. VII. COLLABORATION TOOLS Collaboration tools are the web-based tools provided by the USPTO and include multiple electronic communication tools such as video conferencing equipment and software. Examiners must only use USPTO-supplied equipment and software for interviews. All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. 713.02 Interviews Prior to First Official Action [R-07.2022] A request for an interview prior to the first Office action is ordinarily granted in continuing or substitute applications. In all other applications, an interview before the first Office action is encouraged where the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application. Thus, the examiner may require that an applicant requesting an interview before the first Office action provide a paper that includes a general statement of the state of the art at the time of the invention, an identification of no more than three (3) references believed to be the “closest” prior art, and an explanation as to how the broadest claim distinguishes over such references. See 37 CFR 1.133(a). Applicants seeking prioritized examination should be prepared to participate in an interview with the examiner. See MPEP § 708.02(b). I. SEARCHING IN GROUP Seeking search help in the Technology Center art unit should be permitted only with the consent of a primary examiner. II. EXPOUNDING PATENT LAW The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cannot act as an expounder of the patent law, nor as a counselor for individuals. Interviews that are solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, as by a local attorney acting for an out-of-town attorney, should not be permitted when it is apparent that any agreement that would be reached is conditional upon being satisfactory to the principal attorney. 713.04 Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record [R-07.2022] A complete written statement as to the substance of any interview (including any electronic communication that discussed the merits of an application) must be made of record in the application, whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview. The requirement may be satisfied by submitting a transcript generated during an electronic communication exchange. See 37 CFR 1.133(b) and MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01. 37 CFR 1.133 Interviews. ***** (b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135. 37 CFR 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing. All business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. The action of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews. Accordingly, examiners must complete an Interview Summary form for each interview where a matter of substance has been discussed during the interview. For an applicant-initiated interview, a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in the application file in the reply to an outstanding action or within the set period if no reply is outstanding. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make the substance of the interview of record in the application file, and it is the examiner’s responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies which bear directly on the question of patentability. For an examiner-initiated interview, it is the responsibility of the examiner to make the substance of the interview of record either on an Interview Summary form or, when the interview results in allowance of the application, by incorporating a complete record of the interview in an examiner’s amendment. The examiner should be sure to indicate whether it is necessary for the applicant to submit a substance of the interview. An examiner may use form PTOL-413/413b to record the substance of an interview. A sample Interview Summary form (PTOL-413/413b) for an applicant-initiated interview is reproduced below. A sample Interview Summary form (PTOL-413/413b) for an examiner-initiated interview is reproduced below. See subsection I below for a list of the items to be included for complete and proper recordation of an interview. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in MPEP § 812.01, or pointing out typographical errors in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures. For both applicant-initiated and examiner-initiated interviews, it is recommended the examiner begin completing an Interview Summary form in advance of the interview by identifying the rejections, claims and prior art documents to be discussed. The examiner should complete the “Issues Discussed” portion of the Interview Summary form at the conclusion of the interview. Upon completion of the interview, a copy of the Interview Summary form (PTOL-413/413b) should be given to the applicant (or applicant’s patent practitioner) along with any attachments. The Interview Summary form shall include the date the interview was held and the substance of the interview shall be properly recorded. The applicant or the applicant’s patent practitioner, as appropriate, should be provided with a copy of the Interview Summary form either at the end of the interview or by mailing it to the applicant’s correspondence address either with or prior to the next official communication. A copy of the form may be faxed or, if the Office has appropriate authorization to conduct communications via the Internet, a copy of the form may be emailed to applicant (or applicant’s attorney or agent) at the conclusion of the interview. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other circumstances dictate, the Interview Summary form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication. The Interview Summary form provides for recordation of the following information: In the case of an applicant-initiated interview, the Interview Summary form will include a reminder indicating it is the applicant’s responsibility to record the substance of the interview in the reply to an outstanding action or within the set period if no reply is outstanding. It is desirable that the examiner also orally remind the applicant of the applicant’s obligation to record the substance of the interview in each case where the interview was not initiated by the examiner. Where an interview initiated by the applicant results in the allowance of the application, the applicant is advised to file a written record of the substance of the interview as soon as possible making of record the items listed below to prevent any possible delays in the issuance of a patent. I. ITEMS REQUIRED IN A COMPLETE AND PROPER SUMMARY The complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include or be supplemented to include at least the following applicable items: (A) a brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted; (B) identification of the claims discussed; (C) identification of specific prior art discussed; (D) identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed (may refer to a copy attached to the Interview Summary form completed by the examiner); (E) the general thrust of the principal arguments of the applicant and the examiner should also be identified, even where the interview is initiated by the examiner. The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully describe those arguments which they feel were or might be persuasive to the examiner; (F) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed; (G) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview; and (H) in the case of an interview via electronic mail, a copy of the contents exchanged over the Internet MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary form is entered. II. EXAMINER TO CHECK FOR ACCURACY Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant’s record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete or accurate, the examiner may give the applicant a 2-month time period to complete the reply under 37 CFR 1.135(c) where the record of the substance of the interview is in a reply to a non-final Office action. ¶ 7.84 Amendment Is Non-Responsive to Interview The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the [2] interview. [3] Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Examiner Note: 1. In bracket 2, insert the date of the interview. 2. In bracket 3, explain the deficiencies. Applicant’s summary of what took place at the interview should be carefully checked to ensure the accuracy of any argument or statement attributed to the examiner during the interview. If there is an inaccuracy and it bears directly on the question of patentability, it should be pointed out in the next Office communication from the examiner (e.g., rejection, interview summary, or notice of allowability), wherein the examiner should set forth an accurate version of the examiner's argument or statement. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should electronically annotate the record with the indication "Interview record OK" on the paper recording the substance of the interview. Except in unusual situations, interviews with examiners are not permitted after the submission of an appeal brief or after a notice of allowability for the application has been mailed. An interview may be appropriate before applicant’s first reply when the examiner has suggested that allowable subject matter is present or where it will assist applicant in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution. Office employees are forbidden to hold either oral or written communication with an unregistered or a suspended or excluded attorney or agent regarding an application unless it is one in which said attorney or agent is the applicant. See MPEP § 105. Interviews (MPEP § 713) are frequently requested by persons whose credentials are of such informal character that there is serious question as to whether such persons are entitled to any information under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14. In general, interviews are not granted to persons who lack proper authority from the applicant or attorney or agent of record in the form of a submission on file in the application. A MERE POWER TO INSPECT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY FOR GRANTING AN INTERVIEW INVOLVING THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION. Interviews are generally not granted to registered individuals to whom there is no power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity. See MPEP § 405 for additional information and for form PTO/SB/84, Authorization to Act in a Representative Capacity. Note that pursuant to 37 CFR 11.106, a practitioner cannot authorize other registered practitioners to conduct interviews unless the client gives informed consent. Furthermore, even with informed consent, a practitioner should not authorize a nonpractitioner to conduct interviews as this could be considered aiding in the unauthorized practice of law. See 37 CFR 11.505. While a registered practitioner not of record may request an interview (if the practitioner is authorized to do so by the applicant or the attorney of record), it is recommended that a power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity be filed, preferably electronically, prior to the interview. Registered practitioners, when acting in a representative capacity, can alternatively show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A). This eliminates the need to file a power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity before having an interview. However, an interview concerning an application that has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) with an attorney or agent not of record who obtains authorization through use of the of the interview request form will be conducted based on the information and files supplied by the attorney or agent in view of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Interviews normally should not be granted unless the requesting party has authority to bind the principal concerned. The use of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34 by a third party or its representative to conduct an interview, or take other action not specifically permitted by the rules of practice in an application for patent, will be considered a violation of 37 CFR 11.18 and may result in disciplinary action if done by a practitioner. See MPEP § 410 for a discussion of violations of 37 CFR 11.18. For an interview with an examiner who does not have negotiation authority, arrangements should always include an examiner who does have such authority, and who is familiar with the application, so that authoritative agreement may be reached at the time of the interview. GROUPED INTERVIEWS For attorneys remote from the Washington, D.C. area who prefer in-person or video conference interviews, the grouped interview practice is effective. Where agreement is reached as a result of an interview, applicant or applicant’s attorney or agent, as appropriate, should be advised that an amendment pursuant to the agreement should be promptly submitted. 713.06 No Inter Partes Questions Discussed Ex Parte [R-08.2012] The examiner may not discuss inter partes questions ex parte with any of the interested parties. 713.07 Exposure of Other Cases [R-07.2022] Prior to an interview, the examiner should ensure that all files, drawings and other papers, except those necessary in the interview, are out of view. See MPEP § 101. 713.08 Demonstration, Exhibits, Models [R-07.2015] The invention in question may be exhibited or demonstrated during the interview by a model or exhibit thereof. A model or exhibit will not generally be admitted as part of the record of an application. See 37 CFR 1.91. However, a model or exhibit submitted by the applicant which complies with 37 CFR 1.91 would be made part of the application record. See MPEP §§ 608.03 and 608.03(a). If the model or exhibit is merely used for demonstration purpose during the course of the interview, it will not be made part of the record (does not comply with 37 CFR 1.91). A full description as to what was demonstrated/exhibited must be made of record in the application. See 37 CFR 1.133(b). Demonstrations of apparatus or exhibits too large to be brought into the Office may be viewed by the examiner outside of the Office (in the Washington, D.C. area) with the approval of the supervisory patent examiner. It is presumed that the witnessing of the demonstration or the reviewing of the exhibit is actually essential in the developing and clarifying of the issues involved in the application. 713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017] Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13. Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f). A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application. After an application is sent to issue, it is technically no longer under the jurisdiction of the primary examiner. 37 CFR 1.312. An interview with an examiner that would involve a detailed consideration of claims sought to be entered and perhaps entailing a discussion of the prior art for determining whether or not the claims are allowable should not be given. Obviously an applicant is not entitled to a greater degree of consideration in an amendment presented informally than is given an applicant in the consideration of an amendment when formally presented, particularly since consideration of an amendment filed under 37 CFR 1.312 cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Requests for interviews on cases where a notice of allowance has been mailed should be granted only with specific approval of the Technology Center Director upon a showing in writing of extraordinary circumstances.	“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” The Internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. B. Oral Authorization The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. III. VIDEO CONFERENCING i) A video conference is an electronic meeting, using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time. ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools. iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate. iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above.	no
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	no_statement	"video" "conferencing" is not a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is not "secure".	https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/502-03.html	MPEP 502.03: Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email ...	(E) establish a flexible Internet policy framework which can be modified, enhanced, and corrected as the USPTO, the public, and customers learn to use, and subsequently integrate, new and emerging Internet technology into existing business infrastructures and everyday activities to improve the patent application, examining, and granting functions. See Internet Usage Policy, 64 FR 33056 (June 21, 1999). The Articles of the Patent Internet Usage Policy pertinent to communications via electronic mail are summarized below. See MPEP Â§ 904.02(c) for information pertinent to Internet searching, and MPEP Â§ 707.05(e) for information pertaining to the citation of electronic documents. See also MPEP Â§ 713.04 for recordation of email interviews. I. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION (ARTICLE 4) If security and confidentiality cannot be attained for a specific use, transaction, or activity, then that specific use, transaction, or activity shall NOT be undertaken/conducted. All use of the Internet by Patent Organization employees, contractors, and consultants shall be conducted in a manner that ensures compliance with confidentiality requirements in statutes, including 35 U.S.C. 122, and regulations. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant for the USPTO to communicate with the applicant via Internet email, communications via Internet email may be used. Backup, archiving, and recovery of information sent or received via the Internet is the responsibility of individual users. The OCIO does not, and will not, as a normal practice, provide backup and recovery services for information produced, retrieved, stored, or transmitted to/from the Internet. II. COMMUNICATIONS VIA THE INTERNET AND AUTHORIZATION (ARTICLE 5) Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file." A written authorization for electronic communication may not be filed through an email communication. In limited circumstances the applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP Â§ 713.01, subsection II. A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization: "The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn." To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via EFS-Web using the document description Internet Communications Authorized or Internet Communications Authorization Withdrawn to facilitate processing. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet email, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. In such case, a printed copy of the Internet email communications MUST be entered into the Patent Application Locating and Monitoring System (PALM) and entered in the patent application file (Doc Code is EMAIL). A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by applicant to the USPTO via Internet email because a reply to an Office action must include a signature. If such a reply is submitted by applicant via Internet email, a copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet email unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. All reissue applications are open to public inspection under 37 CFR 1.11(a) and all papers relating to a reexamination proceeding which have been entered of record in the patent or reexamination file are open to public inspection under 37 CFR 1.11(d). USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicant in a reissue application or a patentee of a reexamination proceeding via Internet email unless written authorization is given by the applicant or patentee. The misrepresentation of a senderâs identity (i.e., spoofing) is a known risk when using electronic communications. Therefore, Patent Organization users have an obligation to be aware of this risk and conduct their Internet activities in compliance with established procedures. Internet email must be initiated by a registered practitioner, or an applicant in a pro se application, and sufficient information must be provided to show representative capacity in compliance with 37 CFR 1.34. Examples of such information include the attorney registration number, attorney docket number, and patent application number. Similar to the policy set forth in MPEP 100 for handling telephone calls, when responding to an email, no information should be disclosed until the identity of the requester can be adequately verified. Examiners should verify the identity of the person by checking PALM or the application file, such as checking the email address previously provided in PALM or the application. IV. USE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVICES (ARTICLE 7) Once email correspondence has been received from the applicant, as set forth in Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 4, such correspondence must be responded to appropriately. The Patent Examiner may respond to an applicantâs email correspondence by telephone, fax, or other appropriate means. V. INTERVIEWS (ARTICLE 8) Internet email and instant messaging shall NOT be used to conduct an exchange of communications similar to those exchanged during telephone or personal interviews unless a written authorization has been given under Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5 to use Internet email. In such cases, a paper copy of the Internet email or instant messaging contents MUST be made and placed in the patent application file, as required by the Federal Records Act, in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered. USPTO video conferencing tools, such as WebEx, may be used to conduct examiner interviews in both published and unpublished applications under the Patent Internet Usage Policy. Authorization by the practitioner is required and must be obtained prior to sending a meeting invite using Outlook/WebEx. Authorization is required to confirm that the practitioner is able to conduct a WebEx interview and to confirm the email address to which the invitation must be sent. The practitionerâs participation in the interview is considered consent to the use of the video conferencing tool for the interview. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools. Video conferencing communications must be hosted by USPTO personnel. No personal phones, email, PDAs, etc. may be used by USPTO employees for Official communications. VI. POLICY GUIDANCE AND CLARIFICATIONS (ARTICLE 13) Within the Patent Organization, any questions regarding Internet usage policy should be directed to the userâs immediate supervisor. Non-USPTO personnel should direct their questions to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.	A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. " A written authorization for electronic communication may not be filed through an email communication. In limited circumstances the applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP Â§ 713.01, subsection II. A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization: "The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn. " To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms.	no
Telecommunications	Is video conferencing a secure form of communication?	no_statement	"video" "conferencing" is not a "secure" "form" of "communication".. "communication" through "video" "conferencing" is not "secure".	https://www.independencepoint.com/emaildisclaimer	Email Disclaimer	emaildisclaimer Email Disclaimer Attachments to this message (“Message”) may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. Additional messages may be sent from various regions and business groups. NOTICE: All electronic communications (e.g., email instant, message, SMS, web conferencing, screen sharing, file exchanges), whether in the form of audio, video or text, and any attachments thereto (each, an "e-communication"), are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errors in transmitting or receiving an e-communication. If you receive an e-communication but are not an intended recipient, please notify Sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies of the e-communication, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in the e-communication is prohibited. E-communications are not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any location where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation, or which would subject Sender to any registration requirement within such location. E-communications may contain third-party links that, upon clicking on them, will direct you to a third-party website, which may have different privacy policies and levels of security than what Sender provides. Sender recommends that intended recipient(s) reference the third party's privacy and security practices. The transmission and content of an e-communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. Therefore, Sender does not represent that any e-communication (or the information contained therein) is complete, accurate, uncorrupted, timely or free of viruses, and it should not be relied upon as such. Sender does not waive any intellectual property rights in any e-communication. For your protection, Sender recommends that you do not send any individual personal information via communication methods that are not secure, including via public e-communication channels, which are generally not secure and could be intercepted by a third party. If you are not comfortable with the risks associated with email and decide not to use unencrypted email to communicate with Sender, please notify Sender. Sender provides encrypted email services for certain products and services. Sender reserves the right to intercept, monitor, record, review and retain all e-communications, including audio, video and text, sent or transmitted to or from its systems as permitted by applicable law. Any e-communication that is conducted within or through Sender's systems will be subject to being archived, monitored and produced to regulators and in litigation in accordance with Sender's policy and local laws, rules and regulations. Unless expressly prohibited by local law, e-communications may be archived in countries other than the country in which you are located and may be treated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the country of each individual included in the entire message chain contained in or attached to an e-communication are indicative and subject to change without notice, and any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and may not reflect the views of Sender. The information in an e-communication is not intended to replace a recipient's own internal business processes for evaluating proposed transactions.	Additional messages may be sent from various regions and business groups. NOTICE: All electronic communications (e.g., email instant, message, SMS, web conferencing, screen sharing, file exchanges), whether in the form of audio, video or text, and any attachments thereto (each, an "e-communication"), are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errors in transmitting or receiving an e-communication. If you receive an e-communication but are not an intended recipient, please notify Sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies of the e-communication, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in the e-communication is prohibited. E-communications are not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any location where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation, or which would subject Sender to any registration requirement within such location. E-communications may contain third-party links that, upon clicking on them, will direct you to a third-party website, which may have different privacy policies and levels of security than what Sender provides. Sender recommends that intended recipient(s) reference the third party's privacy and security practices. The transmission and content of an e-communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. Therefore, Sender does not represent that any e-communication (or the information contained therein) is complete, accurate, uncorrupted, timely or free of viruses, and it should not be relied upon as such. Sender does not waive any intellectual property rights in any e-communication.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.thesmallthingsblog.com/2021/05/can-i-wash-my-hair-every-day/	Can I Wash My Hair Every Day? - The Small Things Blog	Can I Wash My Hair Every Day? You wet your hair, you shampoo it, sometimes you shampoo it twice, then you rinse, apply conditioner, then you do a final rinse, and you’re done! Your hair is clean, you feel fresh, and you get to go on about your day without giving your hair-washing experience a second thought. Then somewhere between 2013-2016, it started to become trendy to go a day between washes, and that quickly escalated to going as long as possible (within reason) between washes because “shampoo is bad”. Dry shampoo did and still does, save so many of us when we’re trying to extend our hair between washes. And this feeling of accomplishment about going a few days between washes shifted our feelings of wash days to something less positive. And people began to wonder, “Is it bad to wash my hair every day? Should I TRY to force myself to go a few days between washing?” As a former, though still licensed, hairstylist, I wanted to share my take on hair washing in this post. In general, shampooing your hair every day is not inherently bad. It doesn’t damage your hair, it doesn’t damage your scalp. It does one thing: it cleans your hair and scalp of dirt, oils, product build-up, pollution, and anything else you may not want sitting on your head. As long as you follow it up with a good conditioner, and maybe let the conditioner sit on your hair for a few minutes to really give it some time to work, your hair should be just fine. So that begs the question: why are so many people trying so hard to go a day or more between washing? My understanding is that not only is it a time saver but the realization that we may be washing more than we actually need to be allowed many people to extend the time between hair washes. I think many, if not all, of us, were washing daily simply out of habit or what we were taught when we were young. But in general, if your hair isn’t terribly dirty, oily, covered in lots of product, or any other reason that would compel you to wash your hair, you are totally fine to go a day or two between washes. In fact, many people have learned that you can “train” your scalp to go longer between being washed and help it from overproducing oil. This is, perhaps, a larger conversation for a different post, but essentially if you aren’t washing your hair as much, your scalp will adjust by not creating as much oil to recondition a freshly shampooed scalp. This doesn’t work across the board, but it can work for some people. At this point, you may be wondering: what is the verdict? Can I wash my hair every day? And my answer for you is this: if washing your hair every day is working for you, your hair, and your lifestyle, then it’s totally fine. If you’re noticing extra dryness, or are realizing that you may not need to wash your hair daily, see if you can extend your wash routine a bit. In general, though, shampoo isn’t the devil, and YOU ultimately can decide what works best for your hair type and scalp. comments i still like to wash my hair everyday because it makes me feel better. I use he Joico K-PAK Reconstructing Shampoo and it’s really the best to keep my hair clean and it doesn’t strip the hair’s colour or strength. I wash my hair every day for health reasons. It helps get pollen and anything else that I pick up during the day. It also helps me mentally wind down at night. I use salon quality shampoo/conditioners and have a water softener and my hair is healthy, shiny and clean. I’ve never had any scalp issues. I do have my hair colored and her trims regularly. Thank you for this! So, I workout every morning at 6am and I sweat. Not sparkle, not glitter, but sweat! My head is usually drenched and just gross. I would try to skip a day in between washes because that’s what I was supposed to do, but when I would wash two days in a row, I would feel…guilt?! Pure freedom knowing I can wash this nastiness every day and not damage my hair! I wash my hair almost every single day per my dermotologist! This has helped my scalp be much more clean and healthy. I use a hair mask as a daily conditioner. There’s Joico K-Pak mask/conditioner that’s great, and I have recently been loving Colleen Rothschild’s Quench and Shine mask. The last line is super important! Being curly haired, when I started low pooing once a week, my hair started thriving after living a whole life looking like Roseanne Roseanadana. Black and Brown hair needs washed even less often than that because moisture is so important for their scalp and hair health and that’s also why there’s a whole world of protective styles and routines they use to maintain their hair. I’ve found it really helpful to explore techniques and products, one at a time, to learn what my hair needs to be healthy and do what it’s meant to and to not go by anyone else’s rule of what I “should” do. My reasoning for washing less is to make my color last longer so my gray doesn’t show. Although having curly hair is a whole other ball game to go without washing. I can’t just brush it or throw a few curls in it with an iron to make it look the same as hair washing day. I’m sooo glad you posted about this!! I wash my hair everyday and have been made to feel like it’s bad for me—-not that that has stopped me. I cannot stand oily hair. I’ve tried doing every other day, but it isn’t for me. I just try to condition my hair well and use heat sparingly. Yes! It has bugged me for a while now that this seems to be a trend and almost a competition to see who can go the longest without washing! Like, why is a dirty head something that everyone wants to brag about? 😆 😂 I agree. Daily hair washer here 🙋🏻‍♀️. I like my hair to smell good and be clean. As a child I used to relax my hair. Since it was processed and about as long as I was tall I washed it in the salon weekly and I was miserable. After three days I had dandruff and it stunk. Now I have my natural hair, it’s short, I shampoo daily and I couldn’t be happier 😊🎉 I’m also an everyday hair washer. I feel more clean, fresh and comfortable. I tried skipping a day a few times but hated it! I just didn’t feel fresh and then ended up washing my hair at night. Also, for allergy sufferers who are outdoors alot, like my kids, I find washing their hair at night allows them to sleep without allergy symptoms and pillow cases and bedding don’t get allergens rubbed all over from “pollen” hair. Windy days, especially, blow around quite alot of pollen. Thank you for this post. I have fine hair and when I don’t wash it, it’s very limp and flat on top and has lots of frizzy pieces. And I like the feeling of being fresh. I also feel so groggy all day if I don’t fully shower in the morning to wake up. I have felt like I was doing something wrong for washing every day and sometimes it feels like I’m even being shamed for putting effort in to shower every day with young kids! Thanks, Kate! I’ve definitely gotten caught up in the struggle of wondering if I’m “over-washing”. Appreciate the clarity! As someone who works out daily (or…aspires to…), it’s nice to know that if I feel like I need a daily wash, it’s not generally going to do any harm! I’m so grateful for this post. I’ve tried so many times to not wash my hair every day, but it just doesn’t work for me or make me feel good. I feel so much better, overall, when I wash my hair everyday. Thank you for sharing this! I just feel lucky if I can skip one day! I followed a lady on Instagram who was going weeks without shampooing (even when she clearly got her hair dirty. like, with breast milk during nursing for example). Yuck. I, too, thought I’d try to train my hair but I found I was getting more tangles and losing more hair the longer I went (which for me was about three days max lol). My head itched like crazy. Dry shampoo didn’t work for me (but I have a whole collection of it now). The only real draw I can see is less frequent heat styling (curl it tight on wash day and let it slowly become loose waves). Again, too many tangles for me. And smells. My hair picks up everything from food odors to second hand smoke. No thanks! Bahahaha I knew when you said it was a controversial topic on Instagram that this was indeed the topic haha love it! Yes! I wash daily and I am good with it…like my hair revolts against me if I wait any longer. My hair used to be super oily I had to wash it every day and by the end of the day it was ready to me washed. I had a stylish encourage me to try going a day between washes to help with the oil, it worked. I was able to go a week without washing my hair and it worked for me I don’t use any products to wash out and my oily scalp dried up. However my hair has gotten super dry and I have noticed a lot more split ends. I have started washing every other day and my hair is getting more life back. I can speak from experience that do what works best for your hair. Thanks for speaking out on a controversial subject! Thank you! As someone with oily hair and skin, I’ve almost felt I was doing something wrong if I washed every day! Now that I’m in my 30s and not as insanely oily as I used to be, I can go for one day without washing if I use a really good dry shampoo, but sometimes it’s still just too oily, frizzy, and gross feeling. I just feel and look my best when it’s freshly washed in the morning. I use a high-quality shampoo that’s not too strong so it won’t strip my skin too much of oil. I wash my hair once a week…lol. I, of course, have dry, wavy hair. So after a few days of being down, I just put it up in a messy bun and it’s good to go until the next wash! Very much a time saver! I also don’t really put anything in my hair except for a little serum after washing/conditioning and then let it dry in a braided bun that sits on top of my head. Dunno…seems to work pretty well. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I’m curious your recommendation to hair that doesn’t need to be washed everyday but often gets wet from swimming. We have a chlorine pool and I have 3 girls. One of them has very thick, curly hair. One has very blonde fine hair (already tinged green on ends from swimming this year), and another with thick hair and slight wave. They want to swim all the time. Do I need to wash or rinse chlorine out after each swim? Typically, in non swimming season I would only wash my daughter with curly hair once a week. The other two 2-3 times per week. Can you recommend a product to help with the greenish ends as well? Thanks! My daughter has blonde hair and swims daily in a chlorine pool so I have her rinse it each night at a minimum and usually put in some type of “treatment” to keep it from drying out. On top of that weekly I have her use a charcoal or purple shampoo and we have stopped having any greening issues 🙂 It’s really important for them to get their hair soaked with water before they get in the pool. Wavy/curly hair is super absorbent and needs more moisture for better health. So if their hair is saturated with water first, that’s less chlorinated water for it to soak up. There are special shampoos that can help. I would get a Malibu treatment midway through a swim season and at the end to help out. There are also DIY clarifying things that can be done, like lemon washes. It’s been a while for me so I don’t remember that recipe anymore but I’m sure Google will be helpful for that. Normally, curly/wavies don’t need to wash every day but it’ll be more helpful than harmful during a heavy swim season for them. To minimize the drying out, check out low poos for daily cleansing and follow Kate’s tip about good conditioner and leaving it on for a minute or so. A good curly friendly deep conditioning hair mask every so often could be helpful, too. I do not wash daily because I have dry hair. I can go 3 days in between, usually. However, I would like a little moisture in my hair. What do you recommend? Have you heard of dry conditioner? Should I use that instead of dry shampoo? I love this blog post! Thank you for saying it doesn’t damage your hair to wash it everyday! I wash my hair EVERY SINGLE DAY, and my hair is super healthy. I blow dry it everyday and get it colored/highlighted every 6 weeks. I honestly think it is disgusting to go longer than a 2 days between washing. I think it would start to stink like dirty hair. I also think it would be bad for someone with allergies. All that pollen in your hair would make your allergies worse! Different hair and skin types have different needs. For many people, washing every couple of days is actually damaging. But we take care of ourselves and do it properly; we’re not disgusting and we don’t smell. I wash my hair on day 8. My hair and scalp are dry and never oily. It’s a total time saver for someone like me who has really long hair and has to look presentable and has a toddler to get ready in the mornings 😀 I used to wash hair about every other day until I got covid . Two months following, I began to suffer from hair loss. After a ton of research, I learned that washing hair everyday will help to remove product build up and oil and dirt that may cause hair pores to be clogged. Clogged pores could prohibit new growth from coming out. I took the plunge and started washing my hair every day and the shedding stopped. It was terrifying at first to wash often but the end result was worth the risk, which worked out. I also followed up by using Moroccan oil on my hair nightly and increasing my vitamin intake of biotin. Hope this helps someone who is currently suffering from hair loss. It is life changing and traumatizing to lose hair. Depending on a person’s age, many people don’t realize that from the 70s and onward people were criticized and called disgusting if they didn’t wash their hair daily. It’s been a refreshing trend for people to realize that not everyone needs to wash their hair daily and they’re not disgusting if they don’t. I’m a white woman but I have many BIPOC friends who also don’t wash their hair daily and they have also received criticism over their lifetime for not doing so. It’s only in recent years that people started to accept that not everyone needs a daily wash. And I don’t want that permission to go away and the return of the stigma of “you’re dirty” to come back. I have extremely sensitive scalp and per my dermatologist washing daily is bad for ME. I think the long and short of it is that everyone needs to realize that everybody else has different needs and just be accepting of that. Don’t assume someone is else is dirty just because of how your own hair behaves. Everybody’s body is different. So those who want to watch daily should and can, just don’t bring back the stigma that you’re dirty if you don’t. Let’s just let everybody do what they want with their own hair. I think this is such GREAT info! I used to be an everyday washer but after kids I switeched to every other day, because I needed to save time, and then somehow in the last year I transitioned into once a week. But the thing I noticed is I really prefer the way my hair looks and feels when I was it more frequently so I am working to transition back and finding a happy medium. I love to wash my hair everyday and the way it is styled after I wash it. However, I’m terrified blow drying it every day (again, which I prefer) is causing it to break off. The bottom of my hair grows like a weed. The top half from right around my ears all the way around my head stops growing. It’s like I have a bowl cut. My hair dresser and I have tried everything. I’ve tried hair training, my hair just looks terrible the next day. It’s flat and slightly greasy and doesn’t look nice curled (it accentuates my mid length mullet or bowl cut) and wearing it straight on second day hair doesn’t work, it’s too greasy (even with dry shampoo) and flat. My hair is so straight, air dries straight. I don’t know what else to do other than keep it short and I’ve been trying to grow it. I’m just not having luck at all and all medical deficiencies have been tested and reviewed by so many doctors, it’s not anything showing up medically. My hair is so oily, I wash everyday. On top of the fact that I must sleep on my head…because when I wake up, it looks like I’ve fought a war!! My hair is very dark and I have used the dry shampoo for dark colored hair, but my scalp tends to itch a lot when I use that. I’m amazed at how some people look freshly washed on day old, or longer, hair! I’ll keep trying! I’ve trained my hair to legit go 5-7 days between washes. I definitely heat style it much less, so I know it’s been a good choice for my hair, also saves me 10-15 minutes getting ready every day and $$ on shampoo/conditioner. Not a brag, but if you don’t need to wash it every day, why would ya? 🙂 Dry shampoo is super helpful, of course. Thanks, Kate! I hate washing and styling my hair. Don’t get me wrong – I love a great hairstyle, but the whole process is a chore I put up there with cleaning the bathroom. Plus, I have thick, wavy hair that feels like Barbie’s with a delicious straw-like texture. 😂 I don’t put off washing it for any other reason than it I takes a lot of time and effort to style it. All that being said, 10 days is pretty standard in between washes for me. 14 in the winter and 4-5 in the summer. Dry conditioner, spray oil and after workout spray are well loved products around here. On the plus side, once I put the hour or so into styling it, it holds a curl and looks great down for a solid week and a half. It’s interesting to me how different hair textures can dictate how frequently hair needs to be washed. Loved this post! (I love your whole blog💗). I used to go about two days between washes, but since I work remotely I stretch it out as long as I can. However, I do feel like my hair has been dryer lately and I’m wondering if going so long without washing (sometimes more than a week) is actually drying my hair out?! Curious to hear professional opinions. I have been a daily washer my whole life. A few years ago I tried using a shower cap and restyling my hair on day two because it is not as oily any more. I honestly I think it takes almost as long to restyle my hair as to just start from scratch. So I just wet and condition it in the shower every other day , I also feel a lot cleaner when I can get everything wet in the shower. My hair is colored and in great condition so it works for me. I have trained and am washing my hair every 14 days. I had a hysterectomy about 4 years ago and hormones wreaked havoc on my hair. I could make a wig with all the hair falling out from washing everyday. For me, going long periods of not washing is saving me from going bald. Thank you for this post, Kate. Ever since I stopped coloring my hair (with the exception of some highlights during the summer-months) I’ve had to wash it every day. My hair just gets this dirty, oily feel to it very quickly and I’m not a big fan of dry shampoo, so I end up washing it every morning when showering. I try not to style it with heat every day though and have invested in a good conditioner. I had no idea that the frequency of hair washing was a controversial issue! I’ve always been envious of people who have hair that can hold a style overnight (and baffled by those who can hold it despite exercising!), but just assumed people did what their body required without a second thought of what someone else required. Maybe this issue hasn’t reached the UK yet?! Or maybe it has but I’ve somehow missed it!! I follow someone on YouTube who goes 3-4 days between styling despite doing 1hr exercise a day – her hair still looks amazing and she clearly is full on exercising as she has an amazing figure over the age of 50. I generally cardio and strength exercise daily and my hair gets drenched in sweat – as in like someone has poured bucket of water over me drenched. I cannot imagine not washing that, so have often wondered how she deals with this. I tried so hard — SO hard — to go even 48 hours between washes and it just didn’t work. I tried every trick in the book, and after 6 weeks of “training”, I just decided… my hair and scalp types simply need a daily wash. I condition well and that’s the key, as you said! I have highlighted hair. Can washing your hair everyday make the color or toner wash out quicker. I’ve noticed I like the blond color right after the saline but close to 6 to 8 weeks it doesn’t look as bright. Could it be washing my hair every day? I use a salon grade color safe shampoo and conditioner and generally no product or heat When I was in high school, I washed my hair every single day. As a runner who sweat a LOT, I wasn’t about to NOT wash it. I even used Pantene (which at some point became a horrible product for some reason?). I had long, naturally wavy, thick hair and it looked amazing. Now that I’m older and listened to all the hooplah about not washing hair every day, I started going days between washes—and frankly I think my hair health has declined because of it! I’ve started washing it a lot more frequently. I wish I did not have to wash every day – but I have shorter, fine hair with layers. I wake up with chicken head every morning (my poor husband)! As long as I am wetting it, I might as well wash it. If I could throw it up in a pony or something similar, that would be different. I have fine, oily hair. I tried incredibly hard to cut down on shampooing because I believed it was “stripping” my scalp and damaging my hair, and actually succeeded in reducing the oiliness by co-washing. However, after a while I found that my scalp was incredibly flaky with enormous chunks of dead skin. I went back to shampooing every other day and my hair was super oily on the second day. Daily washing is really optimal for my hair and my scalp and it feels good to be given permission. To echo the comments of others: THANK YOU for this post! It is reassuring to know I can do what works for me (washing every day) and that I’m not ruining the highlights I paid for! To each his/her own!! Thank you for this post! My former hair dresser made me feel really terrible about washing my hair daily. It’s just what works best for me. This post has brought me much comfort. The damage my hair was experiencing was due to bad advice not from daily washing. I’ve since changed hair salons, and resumed my daily washing and my hair is healthy & happy once again.	Can I Wash My Hair Every Day? You wet your hair, you shampoo it, sometimes you shampoo it twice, then you rinse, apply conditioner, then you do a final rinse, and you’re done! Your hair is clean, you feel fresh, and you get to go on about your day without giving your hair-washing experience a second thought. Then somewhere between 2013-2016, it started to become trendy to go a day between washes, and that quickly escalated to going as long as possible (within reason) between washes because “shampoo is bad”. Dry shampoo did and still does, save so many of us when we’re trying to extend our hair between washes. And this feeling of accomplishment about going a few days between washes shifted our feelings of wash days to something less positive. And people began to wonder, “Is it bad to wash my hair every day? Should I TRY to force myself to go a few days between washing?” As a former, though still licensed, hairstylist, I wanted to share my take on hair washing in this post. In general, shampooing your hair every day is not inherently bad. It doesn’t damage your hair, it doesn’t damage your scalp. It does one thing: it cleans your hair and scalp of dirt, oils, product build-up, pollution, and anything else you may not want sitting on your head. As long as you follow it up with a good conditioner, and maybe let the conditioner sit on your hair for a few minutes to really give it some time to work, your hair should be just fine. So that begs the question: why are so many people trying so hard to go a day or more between washing? My understanding is that not only is it a time saver but the realization that we may be washing more than we actually need to be allowed many people to extend the time between hair washes. I think many, if not all, of us, were washing daily simply out of habit or what we were taught when we were young.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138261/	The Impact of Shampoo Wash Frequency on Scalp and Hair ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice Abstract Background How frequently should the scalp and hair be cleansed? A dearth of objective data has led to confusion both among lay people and experts. Each extreme has potential detrimental effects: overcleaning may lead to surface damage while undercleaning may lead to buildup of harmful stimuli. This situation is complicated because both objective and subjective criteria are relevant to assess optimal cleaning. Objectives The objective of this work was to combine epidemiological and treatment data with both objective and subjective end points to yield clear data to guide both the consumer and expert as to optimal scalp and hair cleaning practices. Methods Two studies were conducted with Asian populations without any specific scalp pathologies. An epidemiological study was conducted as a function of natural wash frequency. This was combined with a controlled wash frequency study. In both cases, objective measures of hair and scalp condition were assessed. These were combined with self-assessments of all participants. Results In the epidemiological study, it was observed that overall satisfaction with hair and scalp condition was achieved when washing 5–6 times per week. This was consistent for both objective and subjective end points. Controlled treatment likewise showed that a daily wash regimen was superior to once per week cleansing for all end points. No objective detrimental effects to hair at this level of cleansing were observed. Conclusions Two different studies led to the same conclusion: higher wash frequency is both beneficial and more preferred to lower wash frequency among the Asian populations studied. Concerns related to “overcleaning” were unfounded both objectively and subjectively. Introduction There are few questions in personal care that elicit more debate than “How frequently should I use a shampoo?” The opinions can vary from one end of the spectrum (as infrequently as possible) to the other (daily). For example, in one 3-month period, 2 relevant articles were published in the New York Times − one suggesting hair is washed too frequently [1] and the other suggesting the exact opposite [2]. Consumers appear to be responding more strongly to recommendations to reduce shampooing as declining shampoo wash frequency is observed in industry habit and practice studies and documented in the popular press [3, 4]. The reason for these divergent opinions is that little objective data exists to facilitate informed decision-making. For those recommending low wash frequency, the most often cited reasons are beliefs that hair is damaged due to surfactant-induced extraction of beneficial lipid components and stimulation of excessive compensatory scalp sebum production. Taken to the extreme, there are those that recommend avoiding the use of shampoos altogether; this has been colloquially termed “no poo.” At the other end, those that recommend higher wash frequencies usually assert the benefits of removing a wide range of potentially detrimental “dirt” residues. This position is reinforced by acknowledging that scalp is just an extension of the face, which is almost universally washed at least daily. The buildup of “dirt” on hair and scalp has multiple origins: endogenous sources such as sebum excretion and skin exfoliative processes as well as exogenous sources such as certain hair treatment products, airborne pollution, and pollen as well as exposure to volatile materials such as those arising from tobacco smoke. The covering of the scalp by hair creates a unique skin surface microenvironment that facilitates microbial growth (dark, moist, and sebum rich), leading to a unique microbiome [5]. These microbes use components of the “dirt” as food sources which fuel their metabolic activity, enhancing their impact on the underlying skin [6]. Existing Literature Relating Wash Frequency and Scalp Condition Decreased wash frequency results in longer accumulation times for secreted sebum. Sebum begins to be chemically altered as soon as it reaches the scalp surface; the longer its residence time, the greater these modifications. Specifically, modified sebum contains free fatty acids and oxidized lipids, which are known to be irritating to skin [6, 7]. Two extreme cases of low wash frequency have been evaluated relative to scalp impact. An Antarctic research team was monitored for changes in scalp microbe content and resultant symptoms [8]; during the expedition, scalp itch and flakes increased dramatically, which was also accompanied by a 2–3 order of magnitude increase in scalp Malassezia levels. These same authors subsequently studied International Space Station astronauts [9] and found a dramatic rise in Malassezialevels over time with them as well. Even in less-extreme low-wash-frequency situations, impacts to scalp condition have been observed. In an epidemiological work studying Caucasian, Chinese, and African American individuals, lower shampoo wash frequency was associated with a higher prevalence of scalp issues such as dandruff [10]. Low wash frequency has also been observed to result in increased prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis in African Americans (AA) [11]. In a treatment study of individuals having a normal habit of low wash frequency and experiencing seborrheic dermatitis or psoriasis, wash frequency was deliberately increased, first with a cosmetic shampoo and then with a scalp treatment product [12]. Increased wash frequency, even if just using a cosmetic shampoo, resulted in decreased flaking, redness, itching, Malassezia amount, and the level of inflammatory cytokines. Sebum accumulation and itch severity was studied as a function of time post-shampoo [13]. It was observed that itch severity increased significantly during 72 h post-shampoo, coincident with increases in sebum accumulation, supporting the model that Malasseziametabolism leads to the resultant accumulation of irritating stimuli such as oxidized free fatty acids that initiate itch. Higher scalp sebum levels have been shown generally to be related to the prevalence of scalp sensitivity [14], suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship. Existing Literature Relating Wash Frequency and Hair Condition There are less rigorous data available to address the impact of low wash frequency on hair condition. In a study of the consumer perception of hair quality expressed as good or bad “hair days,” it was found [15] that lower wash frequency led to a higher frequency of “bad hair days.” This was hypothesized to be due to an accumulation of scalp sebum which is subsequently transferred to the hair leading to a general greasy appearance characterized by oily shine and hair fiber-fiber adhesion. In a comparative study of technical and perceived hair quality between Caucasians and AA [16], it was found that a much lower wash frequency amongst AA was associated with greater hair fragility and decreased growth rates. Similar observations were reported in a study of Nigerian females [17]. As mentioned above [11], seborrheic dermatitis is also more prevalent in this group, which has been demonstrated to impact the quality of hair emerging from the scalp [18]. Scalp sensitivity, which has been shown to be increased by low wash frequency and accumulated sebum [14], has been shown to associate with increased hair loss [19]. Summary of Relevant Literature A general interpretation begins to emerge from the published literature. Low wash frequency allows scalp sebum level to increase as well as the proportion of chemically modified potentially harmful components within the sebum (such as oxidized free fatty acids). This material tends to increase the prevalence of scalp-related issues, which can be manifested in common itch or more defined etiologies such as seborrheic dermatitis. Either directly or indirectly (via scalp-impacted hair growth effects), low wash frequency tends to have detrimental effects on hair, but much of this comes specifically from evaluating AA hair and the typical low wash frequency habit. The Need for Objective Data The increasing perception that shampoo has the potential to harm the hair has led to a decrease in wash frequency globally. Paradoxically, this behavior may have the opposite effect on hair (and scalp). The research reported herein is aimed at generating objective data relating wash frequency to resultant effects on scalp and hair condition. We report here two studies aimed at adding objective data to enable informed decisions of optimum wash frequency. One is an epidemiological study while the other is a treatment study, both of which combined objective technical assessments with self-perception evaluations. Materials and Methods Epidemiological Study Study Design A 2-week epidemiological study was conducted in Xi'an, China, with 1,500 healthy male and female subjects of Chinese ethnicity with no known scalp pathologies, aged 18–75 years old after obtaining the informed consent under the principles of Good Clinical Practice (see Tables Tables11 and and22 for a summary of population demographics and Fig. Fig.11 for a visual summary of hair textures). No treatments were involved in this epidemiological study. Recruitment resulted in 200–300 subjects in each wash frequency group: ≤1×/week, 2×/week, 3–4×/week, 5–6×/week and 7×/week. This enabled the evaluation of the impact of wash frequency on scalp and hair conditions. Figure Figure11 demonstrates the hair type and texture of recruited females in the epidemiological study. Measures Dandruff flaking severity was quantified using the Adherent Scalp Flaking Score (ASFS) as described [20]. The baseline visit included a self-perception assessment questionnaire designed to capture subject-relevant outcomes (e.g., severity of scalp flaking) using a categorical scale that varied from “none” to “very severe” (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = slight to moderate, 3 = moderate, 4 = moderate to severe, 5 = severe, and 6 = very severe). Subjects were asked to refrain from shampooing and using any hair styling products prior to scheduled visits during which they underwent ASFS measurement and completed self-assessment questionnaires. Treatment Study Study Design This was a 5-week, double-blind, IRB-approved study conducted in Xi'an, China, with 60 healthy male and female participants between the ages of 18–50 with no known scalp pathologies. Enrolled subjects habitually washed their hair with low frequency (≤2 times per week) and refrained from use of scalp treatments, medications, hair oils, serums, or anti-dandruff shampoos in the past 4 weeks. The study was conducted under the principles of Good Clinical Practice (see Table Table33 for a summary of population demographics). The study was divided into sequential phases, differing in the frequency of use of a provided shampoo (a potentiated ZPT scalp care shampoo [21]). The first phase of the study, lasting one week, had one initial controlled shampoo application followed by a refrain of 7 days with no shampoo use. The second phase of the study, lasting 4 weeks, comprised daily wash (controlled application) with the same shampoo. Subjects refrained from the use of any other scalp/hair products throughout the course of the study. Hair Wash Protocol Study personnel filled a 10 mL syringe with shampoo and adjusted water temperature between 32 and 38°C and flow rate at 5.1–6.3 L/min for hair wash. Subjects leaned over the front of the shampoo station to wet their scalp completely. The shampoo was dispensed equally across the subject's entire head, after which the subject gently massaged the shampoo into the entire scalp for 45 s. Subject rinsed shampoo from their hair until water ran clear. Subjects used a blow dryer to dry their hair. Two assessment time points occurred: at the end of the 7-day refrain period (“7-day refrain”) and 24 h after the last wash of 4 weeks of daily washing (“daily wash”). The 4-week period of daily washing enabled enough time for new hair to grow and emerge from the scalp under the new scalp condition resulting from daily washing. For analysis of hair samples, the most recently grown segment (approximately 1 cm) was used. Measures Measures included technical measures and self-assessments of both scalp and hair conditions. Most scalp assessments were made directly on scalp or on extracts of the scalp surface. Hair samples were collected from a 2.5 × 2.5 cm square area on both sides of the scalp. At the end of phase 1, a template was used to mark the hair collection area and a cosmetologist clipped the hair with scissors and placed the hair in glassine envelopes, keeping the orientation of the fiber bundle consistent. The hair collection procedure was repeated at the end of phase 2 after ∼2 cm of new growth. For hair analysis, the length of the sample was measured, and the portion of the sample that was closest to the scalp (representing newest growth) was utilized. An equal length of hair was cut from the proximal end of the phase 1 hair sample. The phase 1 and 2 visits included a self-perception assessment questionnaire designed to capture subject-relevant outcomes (e.g., severity of scalp flaking) using a categorical scale that varied from “none” to “very severe.” Table Table44 summarizes the measures, the details of which can be found in the online suppl. Material (for all online suppl. material, see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000512786). Statistical Analysis After completion of the epidemiological and treatment study, data were checked for accuracy and completeness. All subjects were evaluated for compliance with study protocol at each visit, and their evaluability was determined prior to database locking. Statistical analyses were performed on evaluable data. Logarithm transformation was applied to biomarker data prior to analysis to stabilize the variance. A statistical test was determined to be significant if a two-sided p value <0.05. Results Scalp Technical Results (Epidemiological Study) Scalp flaking severity, as determined by the ASFS method, decreased significantly with increase in wash frequency (Fig. (Fig.2).2). These data represent the results of the total panel and are independent of either age or gender (online suppl. Table 1). Scalp Condition Self-Perception Results (Epidemiological Study) Self-perception assessment questionnaires completed for different wash frequencies revealed statistically significant reduction in the severity of self-perceived scalp dandruff, itch, and dryness with increases in wash frequency (Fig. (Fig.3).3). The reduction in scalp dandruff perception coincided with the improvements observed in technical dandruff severity based on the ASFS grading method. These data represent the results of the total panel and are independent of either age or gender. Please refer online suppl. Table 2 for total (male and female) and gender-wise data. Self-perceived scalp parameters dandruff, itch, and dryness of n = 1,500 males and females as function of wash frequency in the epidemiological study. The mean is plotted with standard error bars. Results not connected by same letter are significantly different. Hair Condition Self-Perception Results (Epidemiological Study) Hair condition self-perception assessment revealed no discernible negative outcomes as a result of increased wash frequency. Specific parameters summarized in Figure Figure44 are hair loss, hair brittleness (both of which slightly improved at high wash frequency), and hair smoothness. Please refer online suppl. Table 3 for total (male and female) and gender-wise data. Self-perceived hair attributes hair loss, hair brittleness, and hair not smooth of n = 1,500 males and females as function of wash frequency in the epidemiological study. The mean is plotted with standard error bars. Results not connected by the same letter are significantly different. A comprehensive parameter that reflects self-perception of hair condition was evaluated and termed “great hair days,” representing the overall satisfaction of the panelist with their hair look and feel. Using this metric, the number of days per week a panelist has overall satisfaction with their hair condition increases significantly the more frequently they wash their hair (Fig. (Fig.5).5). These results were independent of age and gender. Please refer online suppl. Table 4 for total (male and female) and gender-wise data. Self-perceived of number of “great hair days” improved for n = 1,500 males and females as function of wash frequency. The mean is plotted with standard error bars. Results not connected by the same letter are significantly different. Scalp Condition Technical Results (Treatment Study) Compared with the 7-day refrain period, daily wash with a potentiated ZPT shampoo resulted in the expected significantly lower amounts of overall scalp surface lipid and fatty acid of sebum as measured on scalp (Fig. (Fig.6a).6a). The level of a scalp health biomarker of oxidized lipid (HODE) is also significantly reduced with daily wash versus 7-day refrain (Fig. (Fig.6b).6b). Even though the subjects were not dandruff sufferers with high incoming flaking levels, daily wash lowered the level of flaking on scalp as measured by ASFS (Fig. (Fig.6c).6c). Expert assessment of scalp odor was also improved by the daily wash regimen relative to the 7-day refrain (Fig. (Fig.6d6d). Images of the scalp were captured to visually summarize the oil accumulation representative of the low wash protocol and the improvement because of daily wash. Representative sample images are summarized in Figure Figure77. Hair Condition Technical Results (Treatment Study) The daily wash protocol resulted in significantly less sebum on hair than the 7-day refrain as expected (Fig. (Fig.8a).8a). Evaluation of the proportion of sebum that has been oxidized (using the established biomarker HODE), it was observed that daily wash resulted in significantly less oxidation (Fig. (Fig.8b),8b), both paralleling the scalp results. Measurement of greasy hair shine demonstrated daily wash left the hair with a less oily (specular) shine (Fig. (Fig.8c).8c). Finally, use of DVS to probe hair cuticular surface integrity and daily wash resulted in lower hair water vapor absorption indicating a more effective cuticular barrier (Fig. (Fig.8d8d). Images of the hair were captured to visually summarize the oil accumulation representative of the low wash protocol and the improvement because of daily wash. Representative sample images are summarized in Figure Figure99. Internal hair lipids were quantified using GC method to determine whether the two wash protocols affected the amount of beneficial internal hair lipids. There were no significant differences observed between the 7-day refrain and daily wash protocols in any of the classes of internal hair lipids (Fig. (Fig.1010). Quantification of internal hair lipids using GC method as a result of 7-day refrain and daily wash protocols. No significant differences were observed. Self-Perception Evaluation (Treatment Study) Validating the objective technical assessments, self-assessments indicate whether subjects noticed the impact of these technical measures on scalp and hair properties. All attributes evaluated had dramatic improvements upon transition from the 7-day refrain to the daily wash protocol (in some cases, over half of the full rating scale). While the reduction in oil buildup on both hair and scalp are likely obvious, the interpretations of the implications are less obvious: improved perception of hair health and attributes related to it and reduced scalp irritation and itch. The results are summarized in Figure Figure1111. Improvement of self-perception of hair (a) and scalp (b) attributes upon switching from 7-day refrain versus daily wash protocol. A categorical scale 0–10 was used for the worst of the conditions panelists had during the last 24 h, where 0 = none and 10 = worst imaginable. p values are based on pairwise t test. Discussion The question “How frequently should scalp and hair be washed?” has been difficult to answer definitively due to lack of relevant objective technical information. There are concerns among both professionals as well as consumers that washing with surfactant-based products has the potential to harm either or both the hair and scalp. We sought to generate data, both technical and panelist self-assessed, to understand the impact of wash frequency on the resultant conditions of both hair and scalp. Two different study designs were conducted to address this question. In one study (the Epidemiological Study), wash frequency varied based on the normal habits and practices of a recruited population. A second study (the Treatment Study) was conducted in a population of low-frequency shampooers, who were switched to a higher frequency of shampooing for 1 month. These studies substantially and uniquely add to the existing literature to enable informed decision-making regarding optimum wash frequency for hair and scalp care. Impact of Wash Frequency on Scalp Condition In the Epidemiological Study, those washing with a higher frequency experienced less flaking as judged both by experts as well as self-perceived less flaking, itch, and dryness. In the Treatment Study, switching from low to high wash frequency resulted in significant decreases in the technical parameters of scalp sebum level, degree of flaking, amount of oxidized sebaceous lipids, and scalp odor. These were accompanied by corresponding self-perceived improvements in these same attributes as well as more composite parameters (such as irritation). The data from these two studies are entirely consistent with the studies existing already [10, 11, 12] supporting the observation that increased wash frequency results in decreased scalp flaking and itching. These studies, however, extend the beneficial scalp impacts to considerably more technical and self-assessment measures. For example, new measures of decreased oxidative stress (using the biomarker HODE) may add to the mechanistic explanations as to why sebum accumulation on the scalp is generally detrimental to its condition. This work also extends the symptomatic observations to include malodor generation. Taken together, there is a strong group of data that consistently supports the understanding that low wash frequency allows sebum to accumulate, become progressively chemically modified and irritating leading to increased prevalence of resultant symptoms (flakes, itch, and dryness). A significant aspect of the irritation likely originates from the formation and accumulation of species such as oxidized lipids that lead to oxidative stress [22]. These observations are consistent in both technical measures and individual self-assessments. As a whole, the data support that increased scalp washing is beneficial for both normal scalps as well as those exhibiting pathologies such as seborrheic dermatitis. Impact of Wash Frequency on Hair Condition While the conclusions regarding the detrimental impact of low wash frequency on scalp condition are widely accepted, the impact on hair condition is considerably more controversial, largely due to the paucity of existing data. In the Epidemiological Study, the panelists observed no negatives to hair condition with increased wash frequency and the trend was always in the direction that increased wash frequency decreased hair issues. Smooth feel perception did not statistically significantly improve, but both hair loss perception and brittleness perception did significantly improve with increasing wash frequency. These attributes, and likely many more, can be combined into a global colloquial term “great hair days.” [15] Using this global metric, increasing wash frequency resulted in dramatic improvement of overall hair satisfaction: 2 or less washes per week resulted in less than 3 great hair days per week whereas daily washing led to over 5 great hair days per week. In the Treatment Study, objective technical parameter measurement provides important insights to definitively address the impact of wash frequency on hair condition. Reduction of sebum level and greasy shine are to be expected. As with the scalp, a reduction in oxidative stress has been observed with increased wash frequency. The relationship between the oxidative stress status of the scalp and resultant oxidative stress of the hair has been previously established [18] and has been confirmed here, with wash frequency being the driver of improved conditions of both. Continuing the parallel, the hair obtained from those with higher wash frequency was in better condition in that the protective cuticular barrier was more functionally effective, enabling reduced water vapor absorption. Again, this has previously been observed as a result of reduced oxidative stress to scalp and resultant hair produced from it [23]. An important measure of impact of treatments on hair condition is the impact on internal lipids that build the cuticular structure. Harsh treatments are known to cause the reduction of these beneficial lipids [24]. Removal of these beneficial lipids has been shown to cause greater roughness, permeability, and reduced structural integrity [25]. Shampoo products can be formulated to inhibit any such effects [26]. In the treatment study, daily wash for 28 days with a well-formulated, mild scalp care shampoo showed that no significant loss in internal lipids occurred as a result of increased wash frequency. The subjects in this study self-assessed their condition as dramatically better at the higher wash frequency: reduced oiliness, more healthy, less frizz, less dull, less dry, and reduced breakage. Taken together, the data from these two studies strongly support the conclusion that increased wash frequency is beneficial to self-perceived hair condition and not detrimental to technically assessed hair quality for the Asian population studied. One of the primary technical concerns reported with excessive washing has been loss of internal beneficial lipids; this was not observed in this work. Both of these studies consisted of Asian individuals with straight or low-texture hair (visually exemplified in Fig. Fig.1).1). It is not known whether the results observed here are generalizable to hair types with much higher texture/curl. However, preliminary data from an epidemiological study involving Nigerian women demonstrated higher wash frequency was associated with less hair complaints [27]. It is also possible that greater use of styling implements than used in these studies could contribute to hair damage separate from washing itself. Summary These two studies significantly increase the rigorous objective data available to assess the impact of shampoo wash frequency on scalp and hair conditions. There is little doubt that increased wash frequency is beneficial to scalp condition. However, the data also strongly support that for the Asian populations studied, hair condition is not negatively affected by increased wash frequency and that the self-perception is toward marked improvement. The overall model of detrimental effects of sebum, especially oxidized versions, is consistent with other observations relating scalp to hair health. Thus, these data should serve as an important asset to offset the unfounded concerns that high shampoo wash frequency is detrimental in any way. Statement of Ethics Studies were conducted in concordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects provided informed, written consent. The treatment study was reviewed and approved by Beijing Health Tech Research Co., Ltd. as study CSD 2018037. Conflict of Interest Statement S.P. and J.S. are employees of the Procter & Gamble Company, which paid 100% of the costs of this work. Funding Sources These studies were funded by the Procter & Gamble Company. Author Contributions All authors contributed equally to study design, data interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. Acknowledgements We acknowledge A. Yu for clinical trial management. The following individuals made various analytical measures: S. Whitaker, H. Kang, L. Li, A. Ritter and H. Lau. Statistics were performed by X. Ying and L. Xu. References 1. Tuminoct R. How often should you really wash your hair? New York Times. 2016 Oct 26[Google Scholar] 2. Shapiro B. Are you not washing your hair enough? New York Times. 2017 Jan[Google Scholar] 3. Morley K. Women are washing their hair less than three times a week for the first time in a decade. The Telegraph. 2017 Feb 15[Google Scholar] 4. Kent E. Shampoo sales fall by £23million over the past year because women who work at home don't bother to wash their hair. Daily Mail. 2016 Dec 19[Google Scholar] 13. Kato K. Studies on sebum on scalp and shampoo: time-lapse changes in the amounts of triglyceride and free fatty acid on the scalp and subjective symptoms for one week. 北海道大学医療技術短期大学部紀要 1997;10:47–58.[Google Scholar]	These were combined with self-assessments of all participants. Results In the epidemiological study, it was observed that overall satisfaction with hair and scalp condition was achieved when washing 5–6 times per week. This was consistent for both objective and subjective end points. Controlled treatment likewise showed that a daily wash regimen was superior to once per week cleansing for all end points. No objective detrimental effects to hair at this level of cleansing were observed. Conclusions Two different studies led to the same conclusion: higher wash frequency is both beneficial and more preferred to lower wash frequency among the Asian populations studied. Concerns related to “overcleaning” were unfounded both objectively and subjectively. Introduction There are few questions in personal care that elicit more debate than “How frequently should I use a shampoo?” The opinions can vary from one end of the spectrum (as infrequently as possible) to the other (daily). For example, in one 3-month period, 2 relevant articles were published in the New York Times − one suggesting hair is washed too frequently [1] and the other suggesting the exact opposite [2]. Consumers appear to be responding more strongly to recommendations to reduce shampooing as declining shampoo wash frequency is observed in industry habit and practice studies and documented in the popular press [3, 4]. The reason for these divergent opinions is that little objective data exists to facilitate informed decision-making. For those recommending low wash frequency, the most often cited reasons are beliefs that hair is damaged due to surfactant-induced extraction of beneficial lipid components and stimulation of excessive compensatory scalp sebum production. Taken to the extreme, there are those that recommend avoiding the use of shampoos altogether; this has been colloquially termed “no poo.” At the other end, those that recommend higher wash frequencies usually assert the benefits of removing a wide range of potentially detrimental “dirt” residues. This position is reinforced by acknowledging that scalp is just an extension of the face, which is almost universally washed at least daily.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-it-bad-to-sleep-with-wet-hair	Can wet hair make you sick? Facts, risks, and care tips	Going outside or to bed with wet hair does not increase the risk of becoming sick. However, warm and damp environments, such as going to bed with wet hair, may lead to bacterial, or fungal infections on the scalp or face. While wet hair may not directly make someone sick, water absorption causes the hair shaft swelling. The moisture from the hair will also dampen the pillow. Going to bed with damp hair can increase the risk of developing a fungal or yeast infection on the scalp, as yeast finds it easier to grow in warm or moist areas of the body. Read on for the effects of wet hair, the risks of sleeping with wet hair, precautions, and tips to avoid sleeping with wet hair. There are reasons why people may wish to dry their hair before going to bed. Wet hair may cause the following: Hair stretching: Wet hair stretches by around 30% of its original length without damage. However, irreversible changes occur when hair stretches between 30–70%. Sleeping on the hair may cause it to stretch beyond tolerable lengths. Feeling cold:A study in 2015 showed that people’s heads lost more heat when exposed to cool temperatures. There was significantly greater heat loss at 10 degrees Celsius (°C) than at 15°C or 20°C. This means wet hair may lead to more uncomfortable sleep. Growth of fungus:Researchers in 2021 found a species of Malassezia fungus in hair follicles. This fungus can result in skin conditions such as seborrheic dermatitis. Hair being wet for long periods, such as overnight, may increase the risk of these conditions developing. Dandruff:A 2019 study suggested that the winter temperatures exacerbate dandruff due to the cold and wet conditions. The same study suggested that a balance of bacteria and fungi may also play a part in the condition. Wet hair may lead to heat loss, meaning it may worsen dandruff. Hair breakage: According to a 2017 study, genetic and hormonal changes are significant factors in hair loss. However, the environment and excessive grooming may also play a part, such as going outside with wet hair. Wet hair when sleeping also can cause damage to follicles and result in hair breakage. Skin conditions: Hair follicles under the skin clogged up with sebum or oil can result in acne. As wet hair harbors bacteria, this can also impact the growth of bacteria in the pores. Hair being wet for long periods, such as overnight, may increase the risk of these conditions developing. To reduce the chance of damage or issues from having wet hair when sleeping, a person can try the following techniques. Wash hair less The number of times people wash their hair in a week is down to preference. A study from 2015 suggests that a person may wash their hair every day without causing an issue. Frequent and regular cleaning with a well-formulated shampoo will not damage the hair. However, drying long hair with heat-based tools may result in damaged hair. If individuals can wash their hair every other day or go longer between washes, this may reduce the time they lie on a damp pillow. Lengthen the time between washing and sleeping A person may wish to try starting their bedtime routine earlier, including washing their hair earlier. This could help them have drier hair by the time they go to bed. This can help reduce the risk of it being damp and creating an environment for fungus to grow. Using conditioner To keep hair healthy and reduce the risk of damage, people can use either conditioner or a two-in-one conditioner (also known as 2-in-1 shampoo) every time they wash their hair. After shampoo, the silicone ingredient in the conditioner replaces sebum oil, making the hair shiny, soft, and free of static electricity. Sleeping and going out with wet hair cannot give a person a cold. However, doing so may have some disadvantages, including hair breakage and an increase in yeast and fungal overgrowth on the hair. People may decide that they should alter their routine to allow more time for drying their hair. People may wish to avoid practices that could damage their hair, including using tight bands, heat-based styling products, and a comb with narrow teeth. They may also want to find the best products available to look after their hair by speaking with a doctor or dermatologist. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	However, the environment and excessive grooming may also play a part, such as going outside with wet hair. Wet hair when sleeping also can cause damage to follicles and result in hair breakage. Skin conditions: Hair follicles under the skin clogged up with sebum or oil can result in acne. As wet hair harbors bacteria, this can also impact the growth of bacteria in the pores. Hair being wet for long periods, such as overnight, may increase the risk of these conditions developing. To reduce the chance of damage or issues from having wet hair when sleeping, a person can try the following techniques. Wash hair less The number of times people wash their hair in a week is down to preference. A study from 2015 suggests that a person may wash their hair every day without causing an issue. Frequent and regular cleaning with a well-formulated shampoo will not damage the hair. However, drying long hair with heat-based tools may result in damaged hair. If individuals can wash their hair every other day or go longer between washes, this may reduce the time they lie on a damp pillow. Lengthen the time between washing and sleeping A person may wish to try starting their bedtime routine earlier, including washing their hair earlier. This could help them have drier hair by the time they go to bed. This can help reduce the risk of it being damp and creating an environment for fungus to grow. Using conditioner To keep hair healthy and reduce the risk of damage, people can use either conditioner or a two-in-one conditioner (also known as 2-in-1 shampoo) every time they wash their hair. After shampoo, the silicone ingredient in the conditioner replaces sebum oil, making the hair shiny, soft, and free of static electricity. Sleeping and going out with wet hair cannot give a person a cold. However, doing so may have some disadvantages, including hair breakage and an increase in yeast and fungal overgrowth on the hair. People may decide that they should alter their routine to allow more time for drying their hair.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://dermatim.rs/en/daily-hair-washing/	Daily hair washing	Daily hair washing Washing your hair daily may not be harmful if you use the right shampoos. Slightly acidic shampoos, which do not contain soap, can be used for daily hair washing. The role of these preparations is to preserve the natural of hair oil, so that the sebaceous glands do not start overproducing it. Hair products with higher pH are used for washing extremely oily hair. They cause the hair to dry out and that is why they should not be used on a daily basis. The main culprit for how often someone will need to wash their hair is the function of the sebaceous glands. Each person has a different sebum secretion. The sebaceous glands create oil that serves to coat the hair and scalp. In this way it preserves them from damages and prevents their dehydration. Genetic predisposition, but also hormonal status, influence the function of sebaceous glands. In children, the sebaceous glands are extremely weak until they reach puberty. Their hair does not need to be washed every day. Excess oil from hair follicles, dandruff and dead cells are removed with shampoos. That is why you should choose the appropriate shampoo, because its main role is to remove the oil, without drying out the scalp and damaging the hair. Dandruff, along with oily hair, is another problem, both aesthetically and dermatologically. People who use anti-dandruff shampoos should not wash their hair more than twice a week. Those who need to wash their hair more often should use shampoos created for everyday use. It is a misconception that shampoos have a great influence on hair growth or hair loss. They can slightly stimulate hair growth because they stay on the scalp for a short time. The hair follicle, which determines its thickness, whether it will fall out or not and how fast it will grow, is located under the scalp, so no washing agent can significantly affect it. Whether hair will fall out, grow and what quality it will be, mostly depends on hormones, diet and medications. However, we should not ignore the fact that aggressive and strong shampoos can cause redness, dandruff and itching of the scalp. What’s an 8-point facelift and is it right for everyone? During the aging process, our skin changes and becomes thinner with depletion of facial fat, resulting in loose facial skin and wrinkle formation.	Daily hair washing Washing your hair daily may not be harmful if you use the right shampoos. Slightly acidic shampoos, which do not contain soap, can be used for daily hair washing. The role of these preparations is to preserve the natural of hair oil, so that the sebaceous glands do not start overproducing it. Hair products with higher pH are used for washing extremely oily hair. They cause the hair to dry out and that is why they should not be used on a daily basis. The main culprit for how often someone will need to wash their hair is the function of the sebaceous glands. Each person has a different sebum secretion. The sebaceous glands create oil that serves to coat the hair and scalp. In this way it preserves them from damages and prevents their dehydration. Genetic predisposition, but also hormonal status, influence the function of sebaceous glands. In children, the sebaceous glands are extremely weak until they reach puberty. Their hair does not need to be washed every day. Excess oil from hair follicles, dandruff and dead cells are removed with shampoos. That is why you should choose the appropriate shampoo, because its main role is to remove the oil, without drying out the scalp and damaging the hair. Dandruff, along with oily hair, is another problem, both aesthetically and dermatologically. People who use anti-dandruff shampoos should not wash their hair more than twice a week. Those who need to wash their hair more often should use shampoos created for everyday use. It is a misconception that shampoos have a great influence on hair growth or hair loss. They can slightly stimulate hair growth because they stay on the scalp for a short time. The hair follicle, which determines its thickness, whether it will fall out or not and how fast it will grow, is located under the scalp, so no washing agent can significantly affect it. Whether hair will fall out, grow and what quality it will be, mostly depends on hormones, diet and medications.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-often-you-should-wash-your-hair	How Often You Should Wash Your Hair \| Teen Vogue	How Often You Should Wash Your Hair Ever since dry shampoo's rise to prominence on the beauty shelves, we've heard (and sung) its praises endlessly. Between its ability to save precious time by allowing us to skip a wash and reliability to add volume and texture to hair that's fallen flat or gone greasy, it’s earned a spot at the top of our must-haves list. And while we've certainly read how great it is to give your hair a break from daily shampooing, it turns out skipping a wash (or two, or three) can actually be harmful to your hair and your scalp health. Ahead, we asked Anabel Kingsley, Philip Kingsley Trichologist and Dr. Francesca Fusco, NYC-based celebrity dermatologist how often you should actually be washing your hair — and what the deal is with dry shampoo anyway. Is it really bad to wash your hair every day? We were pretty shocked when both experts answered no. "Daily shampooing is actually beneficial," Anabel tells us (as a trichologist, she specializes in the science of the hair and scalp). "The scalp, like most areas of skin, contains many sweat and oil glands, and so it needs to be washed frequently to keep it clean and in good condition," she explains. Anabel also points out that your scalp's health is what determines your hair's health, so not keeping it clean can affect hair growth and shine. She likens not washing your hair and scalp daily to not washing your face. "Your hair and scalp are also exposed to the same pollutants as your face," she says. "Imagine if you did not wash your face – the same is true of your hair and scalp." Plus, Anabel and Dr. Fusco both mention that not washing your hair enough is what leaves it looking dull and feeling rough and coated. Do I have to wash my hair every day? Kind of. While regularly shampooing your hair is the key to its health, whether you shampoo every day or every other day is dependent on factors like hair type, activity level, and styling habits. Anabel tells us to think of the scalp as an extension of the forehead, but she admits there's no set rule for washing. "Everyone is different and it's about finding a balance between what is doable, how you style your hair, and the steps you have to take in order to maintain the health of your hair and scalp," she says. As a more generalized rule, if you have fine hair that gets greasy quickly, you should be washing daily to avoid hair that looks limp, weighed down, and dull in appearance. Likewise, if you're big on playing sports or piling on the dry texturizing spray, you need to wash more frequently. "If you tend to be very active or use a ton of hair product, that can cause buildup on the hair and scalp," Dr. Fusco says. If you have curly, or natural hair, Anabel says daily shampooing isn't as realistic. "Dirt and oils are often less obvious on these hair textures, so leaving an extra day may not make a difference to how it looks and feels.” For color treated or bleached hair, Dr. Fusco recommends making sure you're consistently using conditioner. "Conditioning is critical and should be done every time," she says since bleach dries the hair out. If you have a scalp condition like dandruff, Dr. Fusco says you should especially be washing your hair regularly – and with a specific shampoo. "Use a dandruff shampoo that hydrates and treats the overgrowth of yeast that predominates in individuals with dandruff," she says, citing zinc pyrithione as an important ingredient to look for. "I like Dove DermaCare Scalp Pure Daily Care Shampoo because it treats dandruff and also ensures hair stays shiny, nourished and not weighed down." In fact, Dr. Fusco adds, "Dandruff can be a result of not washing as often as you should." Dr. Fusco adds that coarser hair types can go longer between washes if they don't get oily or experience scalp irritation like dandruff. "When they do wash, a double shampoo may feel good and remove any buildup of dirt, oil, and product," she adds, which can help get the most out of every wash. What if I rely on heat styling tools? Your styling choice might be doing more harm than skipping one wash, according to Anabel. "If you straighten your hair every time you wash it, the good of shampooing may be outweighed by the subsequent heat damage." If you swear by your heat tools (curling wands count, too), Anabel says it's okay to shampoo every other day as long as you don't have a pre-existing scalp condition. "You may also want to consider letting the hair air dry or using a less harsh method of heat styling like blow drying on a low heat setting instead of using a straightener," she says. How should I wash my hair? Dr. Fusco says to think about how your stylist washes your hair. "That's not just a relaxing scalp massage, but an effort to get the scalp and hair totally clean." To mimic this while you wash, Dr. Fusco says to first use warm or cool water to make sure your scalp and hair are thoroughly wet. Then, pour the shampoo into the palm of your hand and use the balls of your fingertips to lightly massage the scalp and distribute to the ends of your hair. "You don't need to scrub your hair when you shampoo in order to get it clean," Anabel explains. "Be gentle and concentrate on your scalp, massaging it after applying shampoo for approximately one minute to help exfoliate the scalp surface and create a lather." If you use a lot of styling products in your hair or you've gone a few days between washes, Dr. Fusco says you'll benefit from a second shampoo. Just be sure you're completely rinsing out the suds after both shampoos. "Insufficient rinsing of shampoo is a very common cause of dull-looking hair," Anabel shares. And just like the styling products you look for, both Anabel and Dr. Fusco agree that you should look for a shampoo based on your hair texture. "For instance, a shampoo formulated for fine hair will contain volumizing and anti-static agents, whilst one made for thicker hair textures will have a higher concentration of moisturizing and anti-frizz ingredients," Anabel says. No matter what your hair type, Dr. Fusco stresses that you should not be using a clarifying shampoo daily. "It is essentially a super-charged shampoo that helps to rid the hair of excess product buildup, oil, and mineral deposits," she explains, cautioning that they should be used sparingly. Dr. Fusco adds that using a shampoo labeled as clarifying either weekly or monthly (depending on how much product you use) is fine, but any more than that can be too much of a good thing. If used too often, "they can strip the hair and scalp of the natural oils it needs to stay healthy and shiny," she says. Does this mean I can't use dry shampoo? We can all breathe a collective sigh of relief because Anabel and Dr. Fusco assure us it's totally cool to use your dry shampoo – just don’t overdo it. "Dry shampoo is fine to use, but it's very important to remember that it doesn't permanently replace water and liquid shampoo," Dr. Fusco reminds us, likening dry shampoo to using a blotting sheet on your face (aka it temporarily reduces the oil, but doesn't leave the skin clean). In fact, as opposed to cleaning the scalp and hair like actual shampoo does, dry shampoo causes buildup, which can in turn cause scalp irritation. When you do reach for your dry shampoo, Anabel says to use a dry shampoo with scalp benefits. "We make a dry shampoo called One More Day that contains zinc PCA to help regulate oil production and soothe irritation, allantoin to alleviate itching, bisabolol, an anti-inflammatory agent, and fine rice starch particles, which add weightless volume and texture," Anabel recommends.	How Often You Should Wash Your Hair Ever since dry shampoo's rise to prominence on the beauty shelves, we've heard (and sung) its praises endlessly. Between its ability to save precious time by allowing us to skip a wash and reliability to add volume and texture to hair that's fallen flat or gone greasy, it’s earned a spot at the top of our must-haves list. And while we've certainly read how great it is to give your hair a break from daily shampooing, it turns out skipping a wash (or two, or three) can actually be harmful to your hair and your scalp health. Ahead, we asked Anabel Kingsley, Philip Kingsley Trichologist and Dr. Francesca Fusco, NYC-based celebrity dermatologist how often you should actually be washing your hair — and what the deal is with dry shampoo anyway. Is it really bad to wash your hair every day? We were pretty shocked when both experts answered no. "Daily shampooing is actually beneficial," Anabel tells us (as a trichologist, she specializes in the science of the hair and scalp). "The scalp, like most areas of skin, contains many sweat and oil glands, and so it needs to be washed frequently to keep it clean and in good condition," she explains. Anabel also points out that your scalp's health is what determines your hair's health, so not keeping it clean can affect hair growth and shine. She likens not washing your hair and scalp daily to not washing your face. "Your hair and scalp are also exposed to the same pollutants as your face," she says. "Imagine if you did not wash your face – the same is true of your hair and scalp." Plus, Anabel and Dr. Fusco both mention that not washing your hair enough is what leaves it looking dull and feeling rough and coated. Do I have to wash my hair every day? Kind of.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/how-often-should-you-shower	Wondering How Often You Should Shower? We've Got Answers for ...	The recommendation above from dermatologists doesn’t mean you have to scale back your shower routine. Everyone’s skin is different, and each person’s skin can change from season to season. For example, your skin might be drier in the winter, in which case too many showers can bring on extreme dryness. Yet, a shower every day in the summer may not negatively affect your skin. Since there are no hard or fast rules on how much is too much, it’s important that you get to know your body and determine what your skin can tolerate. if you bathe too often If you shower too much it can lead to discomfort, and you may experience: itching dry, flaky skin flare-ups of skin conditions like eczema and psoriasis dry, brittle hair Due to personal preference, you may not want to skip a daily shower. If this applies to you, stick with only one shower per day, according to experts. Any more and you can potentially strip your skin of essential oils. This causes dryness, which can lead to skin inflammation or eczema. Your skin may feel itchy and may crack, flake, and become red. If you have a skin condition like psoriasis, more than one shower per day might even trigger a flare-up. Also, too many showers may rinse away “good” bacteria from your skin, putting you at risk for infections. Skin health isn’t the only reason to shower less, though. Showers use a lot of water, but you may not realize how much. save water Taking shorter showers or reducing your number of showers can drastically decrease your family’s water consumption. You’ll not only conserve resources, but also lower your utility bill. The Alliance for Water Efficiency estimates that the average shower lasts about 8.2 minutes and uses roughly 17.2 gallons of water. Just as you can shower too much, you can also shower too little. So, although fewer showers may improve skin health, you should still keep your personal hygiene in mind. Sweat glands cover much of your body, and they produce sweat when you’re overheated, stressed, hormonal, or physically active. Sweat in itself is odorless — until it combines with bacteria that’s normally present on the skin. A skipped shower here or there probably won’t trigger body odor, especially if you haven’t been exercising. However, body odor is inevitable the longer you go without a shower, particularly in your armpits and groin. Of course, the risk of body odor isn’t the only reason to shower or bathe regularly. Poor hygiene or infrequent showers can cause a buildup of dead skin cells, dirt, and sweat on your skin. This can trigger acne, and possibly exacerbate conditions like psoriasis, dermatitis, and eczema. Showering too little can also trigger an imbalance of good and bad bacteria on your skin. Too much bad bacteria on your skin also puts you at risk for skin infections. This may lead to dermatitis neglecta, where patches of plaque develop on the skin due to inadequate cleansing. Bathing also removes dead skin cells. When you don’t bathe enough, these cells can stick to your skin and cause hyperpigmentation. Resuming good hygiene can correct this condition. Although personal hygiene is important for your health, it’s possible to bathe too often. Daily showers might be part of your schedule, but at the end of the day, you need to do what’s best for your skin. If you’re plagued by dry skin and looking for a way to stop skin inflammation and irritation, experiment with fewer showers. Or at the very least, limit your showers to five minutes and skip the hot water. Last medically reviewed on January 29, 2019 How we reviewed this article: Healthline has strict sourcing guidelines and relies on peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical associations. We avoid using tertiary references. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	The recommendation above from dermatologists doesn’t mean you have to scale back your shower routine. Everyone’s skin is different, and each person’s skin can change from season to season. For example, your skin might be drier in the winter, in which case too many showers can bring on extreme dryness. Yet, a shower every day in the summer may not negatively affect your skin. Since there are no hard or fast rules on how much is too much, it’s important that you get to know your body and determine what your skin can tolerate. if you bathe too often If you shower too much it can lead to discomfort, and you may experience: itching dry, flaky skin flare-ups of skin conditions like eczema and psoriasis dry, brittle hair Due to personal preference, you may not want to skip a daily shower. If this applies to you, stick with only one shower per day, according to experts. Any more and you can potentially strip your skin of essential oils. This causes dryness, which can lead to skin inflammation or eczema. Your skin may feel itchy and may crack, flake, and become red. If you have a skin condition like psoriasis, more than one shower per day might even trigger a flare-up. Also, too many showers may rinse away “good” bacteria from your skin, putting you at risk for infections. Skin health isn’t the only reason to shower less, though. Showers use a lot of water, but you may not realize how much. save water Taking shorter showers or reducing your number of showers can drastically decrease your family’s water consumption. You’ll not only conserve resources, but also lower your utility bill. The Alliance for Water Efficiency estimates that the average shower lasts about 8.2 minutes and uses roughly 17.2 gallons of water. Just as you can shower too much, you can also shower too little. So, although fewer showers may improve skin health, you should still keep your personal hygiene in mind.	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://www.hairreplacementorlando.com/wash-your-hair-everyday/	When It Comes to Hair Loss You Should Wash Your Hair Every Day!	When It Comes to Hair Loss You Should Wash Your Hair Every Day! We all know that hair is important but sometimes we forget that it needs as much attention as other parts of the body do. One question that has seemed to be popping up more and more frequently is how often you actually should wash your hair. There are a number of contradicting facts and articles, but we can tell you the regardless of your hair type whether it’s natural, thick, or thin, you need to wash your hair DAILY. In our research and even our personal experiences we’ve also noted different reports based on men compared to women or African American hair compared to straight hair, and our response is don’t stop washing! You bathe daily to get all the dirt off, so why forget your hair? Actively washing your hair with the right products like our Capilia Natural Hair Line Shampoos can help fight hair loss before it even begins, simply by committing to a daily wash. How often you should wash your hair and why. We can’t really say it enough! Washing your hair daily is important to clean it out of all the impurities of day such as oils and even the things that people add to their hairs. Hair gels, coconut oils and creams, though they may style and moisturize your hair, can lead to greasy build up on your scalp. This greasy buildup is VERY harmful to your hair. Without daily washing it continues to collect and will end up blocking your hair follicles. When clogged hair follicles begin to shrink and eventually become non existent which results in direct hair loss! This can take place on hair of all types and in both men and women. Not only can the chemicals you add to hair not being washed out cause hair loss, but the naturally occurring DHT happens to cause hair loss in a similar by the blockage of your pores. Who needs to wash the most? All hair isn’t created equally and though we all need maintain on daily wash, sometimes missing a wash here and there won’t hurt as much for some as it would others. Depending on your hair type, your daily activities, as well as what area you live in. Researchers suggest that those with thin hair, exercise frequently, or live in a humid place need to be far more strict than others when it comes to keep that head of hair shampooed. Often people with an oily scalp think that they have dandruff due to a lack of moisture when in fact it is a buildup that needs a good washing. Another common myth is that African-American men and women don’t need to wash due to the thickness of their hair which is not totally false, but with the rise of avid coconut oil use in the African-American hair community, a daily wash is detrimental especially when going natural with your hair. Conclusion Affordable hair loss solutions sadly aren’t available everywhere which often leads to those suffering from hair loss to look for options that may not be in their best interest, non FDA approved, or even worse, physically harmful. Our job as your local hair restoration center is to make sure that you as the consumer stays informed about the different treatments available, their pro’s as well as their cons. It’s important to remember that each hair loss case is different for each person, so what may work for other may not work for you, or even worse have an adverse impact and actually cause hair loss, such as the use of henna hair dye.	When It Comes to Hair Loss You Should Wash Your Hair Every Day! We all know that hair is important but sometimes we forget that it needs as much attention as other parts of the body do. One question that has seemed to be popping up more and more frequently is how often you actually should wash your hair. There are a number of contradicting facts and articles, but we can tell you the regardless of your hair type whether it’s natural, thick, or thin, you need to wash your hair DAILY. In our research and even our personal experiences we’ve also noted different reports based on men compared to women or African American hair compared to straight hair, and our response is don’t stop washing! You bathe daily to get all the dirt off, so why forget your hair? Actively washing your hair with the right products like our Capilia Natural Hair Line Shampoos can help fight hair loss before it even begins, simply by committing to a daily wash. How often you should wash your hair and why. We can’t really say it enough! Washing your hair daily is important to clean it out of all the impurities of day such as oils and even the things that people add to their hairs. Hair gels, coconut oils and creams, though they may style and moisturize your hair, can lead to greasy build up on your scalp. This greasy buildup is VERY harmful to your hair. Without daily washing it continues to collect and will end up blocking your hair follicles. When clogged hair follicles begin to shrink and eventually become non existent which results in direct hair loss! This can take place on hair of all types and in both men and women. Not only can the chemicals you add to hair not being washed out cause hair loss, but the naturally occurring DHT happens to cause hair loss in a similar by the blockage of your pores. Who needs to wash the most? All hair isn’t created equally and though we all need maintain on daily wash, sometimes missing a wash here and there won’t hurt as much for some as it would others. Depending on your hair type, your daily activities, as well as what area you live in.	no
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/beauty/the-post-workout-hair-and-skincare-bible/articleshow/48238191.cms	The post-workout hair and skincare bible - Times of India	You're reading How many times have you fretted about the messy locks and grimy skin that your daily workout leaves you with? How many times have you fretted about the messy locks and grimy skin that your daily workout leaves you with? Talk about the after effects of a workout, and many will tell you how they are losing hair, getting awkward boils and what not. Well thatâs no reason to stop your workouts! If you are facing these problems, we have some help. Three experts spill all on the right way to handle your skin and hair after an exercise session. Skin care Dr Jaishree Sharad, CEO, Skinfiniti Aesthetic Skin & Laser Clinic, Mumbai, Vice President, The Cosmetic Dermatology Society of India (CSI) Avoid the sweaty rub: Avoid wiping your sweat with dirty hands. You may end up with boils or acne. Use wet wipes or a clean napkin instead. Take a shower with normal to cold water: Wash your face with a mild face wash. Avoid hot water as it will remove the bodyâs natural oils and leave your skin dry and itchy. Do not use a scrub after working out. Apply a generous amount of face and body moisturizer. If you do not shower immediately after a workout, or continue wearing your gym clothes, you might develop back acne, acne, boils, fungal infections and friction burns. Donât repeat gym clothes without a wash: Make sure you dump those sweaty clothes and socks in the washing machine. Do not repeat them the next day without washing. If you have back acne, make sure you use a salicylic acid-based body wash to fight the breakouts. Dr Sonia Mangal, MD at Myra Skin & Hair Solution, New Delhi Remove make up: Always remove your makeup before working out. As you sweat, your pores open up and wearing makeup can clog them, leading to acne cosmetica. Even if you are not wearing makeup, always cleanse your face well prior to and after gymming. Sunscreen: If you are doing outdoor workouts, a good sunscreen with adequate UVB and UVA protection is a must. Wash right after a workout: To avoid build up of any bacteria, clean your face immediately after workouts. Use an anti-acne face wash for acne prone skin, or one containing salicylic acid or benzoyl peroxide. If you sweat a lot, use antiperspirants for underarms or get Botox injections on your palms and soles which temporarily inactivate your sweat glands. You can also opt for underarm laser hair reduction. This reduces sweating and odor because hairs accumulate more bacteria than the skin. Hair care Dr Sonia Mangal, MD at Myra Skin & Hair Solution, New Delhi Donât wash your hair everyday: The common mistake most women commit is washing their hair after every workout. Exercising can build up sweat and makes you feel that your scalp needs a good scrub. However, you should shampoo 2-3 times a week regardless of how often you sweat. Excessive shampooing deprives the scalp of its natural oils. You may use a dry shampoo for the days between wet shampoos when your scalp feels too oily and greasy. However, do remember that dry shampoos are not a substitute for regular shampoos and you canât condition your hair after a dry shampoo.â Use a deep moisturizing conditioner: To protect your hair from the harmful after effects of excessive shampooing, always use a deep moisturizing conditioner on the hair, preferably with an inbuilt sunscreen. This will help protect your strands from the harsh UV rays of the sun, especially during outdoor workouts. Donât tie your hair too tightly: Very tight ponytails can cause traction alopecia, giving the impression of a receding hairline over time. New York Dermatologist, Dr. Kiran Lohia, MD and Medical Director of Lumiere Dermatology Try to keep your hair dry: Tying your hair back can really make a difference between a frizzy mess and cool waves. Taking hair restraint further, itâs even better if you cover up your strands with a sweat wicking material. Use a scarf or head wrap. Even a sweat resistant headband can help! These materials will protect your tresses from workout trauma, while helping to absorb that frizz-inducing sweat. Donât overwash: Most people shampoo their hair after every workout. The more you shampoo your hair, the drier it will become. Thatâs because it contains detergents that strip the natural oils and nutrients. Instead of washing daily, cleanse your hair with plain water and apply conditioner afterwards. Sulfate-free shampoo: Shampoos contain harsh ingredients that strip away crucial moisture from your hair strands. The worst offenders are sulfates. They are known irritants that are strong enough to steal a huge percentage of the hydration from your skin and hair. Using a sulfate-free shampoo helps prevent a lot of that dehydration because it contains much gentler cleansing agents. So when you shampoo, you are cleansing, not parching. About the Author Kalpana Sharma is Lifestyle Editor with over 18 years of experience in the field of lifestyle, entertainment, health, parenting and wellness. Her writing endeavors are dedicated to enriching lives and empowering individuals to embrace fulfilling lifestyles.	Wash right after a workout: To avoid build up of any bacteria, clean your face immediately after workouts. Use an anti-acne face wash for acne prone skin, or one containing salicylic acid or benzoyl peroxide. If you sweat a lot, use antiperspirants for underarms or get Botox injections on your palms and soles which temporarily inactivate your sweat glands. You can also opt for underarm laser hair reduction. This reduces sweating and odor because hairs accumulate more bacteria than the skin. Hair care Dr Sonia Mangal, MD at Myra Skin & Hair Solution, New Delhi Donât wash your hair everyday: The common mistake most women commit is washing their hair after every workout. Exercising can build up sweat and makes you feel that your scalp needs a good scrub. However, you should shampoo 2-3 times a week regardless of how often you sweat. Excessive shampooing deprives the scalp of its natural oils. You may use a dry shampoo for the days between wet shampoos when your scalp feels too oily and greasy. However, do remember that dry shampoos are not a substitute for regular shampoos and you canât condition your hair after a dry shampoo.â Use a deep moisturizing conditioner: To protect your hair from the harmful after effects of excessive shampooing, always use a deep moisturizing conditioner on the hair, preferably with an inbuilt sunscreen. This will help protect your strands from the harsh UV rays of the sun, especially during outdoor workouts. Donât tie your hair too tightly: Very tight ponytails can cause traction alopecia, giving the impression of a receding hairline over time.	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://drdenese.com/blogs/news/benefits-of-not-washing-hair-daily	Benefits of Not Washing Hair Daily – DrDenese	Benefits of Not Washing Hair Daily Many people have been raised to think that they should wash their hair on a daily basis. People feel gross, worry what others will think, and succumb to perceived social pressures to keep up their hygiene with regular shampooing. However, this very act of routine washing can actually harm hair in the long run. Finding a balance between cleanliness and proper health for your hair is important and can help you get more volume, fewer split ends, and better overall health for more beautiful and shining hair. These are just a few of many potential benefits of not washing hair daily, and you will notice a big difference in no time when you make the switch. Benefits of Not Washing Hair Daily Shampoo is primarily used to remove oil and dirt from your hair by bonding with it so that it can be rinsed out. While this is a great thing because it ensures your hair is clean, it also removes natural and essential oils. This means that constantly stripping your hair of its necessary oil will have an adverse reaction to your hair. Much like washing your skin too often removes natural oils and can cause dryness, cracks, and other issues, shampooing hair too often can cause problems. The most obvious benefit of not using too much shampoo is to keep your hair as natural as possible! Keeping your scalp properly oiled can have a big impact on your overall hair health. This provides moisturization and protection for each strand of hair in the most natural way possible. Chemicals can cause damage to the texture, thickness, and color of hair and leave it less shiny and healthy looking. Using natural oils to keep your hair hydrated is the surest method for success. You will find that your hair has more body, fewer breaks, and looks healthier when your scalp is allowed to live naturally. Not only is the ability to get natural protection one of the huge benefits of not washing hair daily, but you can also save a lot of time and money on your hair in the long run. If you regularly color and style your hair, washing it on a daily basis will serve to more quickly strip it of the money and effort you have invested in it. One of the biggest tips for keeping your color is to wash it less often, as the color bleeds out a little bit more with every wash. By washing less regularly, you can keep your color longer and reduce the amount of trips you need to take to the salon substantially. Frequent shampoo use is still important to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of your scalp and hair. However, the benefits of not washing hair daily cannot be underestimated. Save money and effort while also sparing your head the harmful chemicals every day. By switching to a routine of shampooing three or four times a week, you can make a big difference in the health of your hair, simple as that!	Benefits of Not Washing Hair Daily Many people have been raised to think that they should wash their hair on a daily basis. People feel gross, worry what others will think, and succumb to perceived social pressures to keep up their hygiene with regular shampooing. However, this very act of routine washing can actually harm hair in the long run. Finding a balance between cleanliness and proper health for your hair is important and can help you get more volume, fewer split ends, and better overall health for more beautiful and shining hair. These are just a few of many potential benefits of not washing hair daily, and you will notice a big difference in no time when you make the switch. Benefits of Not Washing Hair Daily Shampoo is primarily used to remove oil and dirt from your hair by bonding with it so that it can be rinsed out. While this is a great thing because it ensures your hair is clean, it also removes natural and essential oils. This means that constantly stripping your hair of its necessary oil will have an adverse reaction to your hair. Much like washing your skin too often removes natural oils and can cause dryness, cracks, and other issues, shampooing hair too often can cause problems. The most obvious benefit of not using too much shampoo is to keep your hair as natural as possible! Keeping your scalp properly oiled can have a big impact on your overall hair health. This provides moisturization and protection for each strand of hair in the most natural way possible. Chemicals can cause damage to the texture, thickness, and color of hair and leave it less shiny and healthy looking. Using natural oils to keep your hair hydrated is the surest method for success. You will find that your hair has more body, fewer breaks, and looks healthier when your scalp is allowed to live naturally. Not only is the ability to get natural protection one of the huge benefits of not washing hair daily, but you can also save a lot of time and money on your hair in the long run. If you regularly color and style your hair, washing it on a daily basis will serve to more quickly strip it of the money and effort you have invested in it.	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://barbersupplier.com.au/blogs/hair-style/can-i-sleep-with-hair-wax	Can I Sleep With Hair Wax? – Barber supplies	Best hair clippers isn't as easy as it looks. It is easy to buy hair clipper on sale but what about quality. When hair clippers comes to something as important as your hair, there are so many options which can be overwhelming. First you need to determine what... BaByliss PRO Gold FX Cord/Cordless Hair Clipper Designed By Ferrari Gold FX Clipper is a professional cordless clipper, equipped with a motor designed by Ferrari. A perfect tool to cut all hair textures with power, speed and precision.Contains stainless steel blade with DLC / nickel-titanium... Best hair clippers isn't as easy as it looks. It is easy to buy hair clipper on sale but what about quality. When hair clippers comes to something as important as your hair, there are so many options which can be overwhelming. First you need to determine what... BaByliss PRO Gold FX Cord/Cordless Hair Clipper Designed By Ferrari Gold FX Clipper is a professional cordless clipper, equipped with a motor designed by Ferrari. A perfect tool to cut all hair textures with power, speed and precision.Contains stainless steel blade with DLC / nickel-titanium... Best hair clippers isn't as easy as it looks. It is easy to buy hair clipper on sale but what about quality. When hair clippers comes to something as important as your hair, there are so many options which can be overwhelming. First you need to determine what... $489.80 $620.00 $489.80 Unit price / per Can I Sleep With Hair Wax? byOnur Aydin 17 Apr 2021 Does sleeping with hair gel or wax on have any bad effects? yes, leaving wax or gel on your hair will block your pores to begin with, damaging the cuticle a the same giving you a poor and unhealthy hair in a long run. Is it OK to sleep with hair products on? Having some product in while you sleep is harmless, unless you have scalp issues. Sometimes though, there can be too much product in your hair or it can be in your hair for too long. The product can clog your pores on your scalp. This can cause the hair follicles to start growing weak and thinner hair strands. Is it OK to use hair wax everyday? DON’T use hair wax every single day. First of all, washing your hair daily may dry it out, resulting in dandruff and possible hair loss. Secondly, your hair needs intermittent breaks from product to remain healthy, and strong. DO change your pillowcase if you’ve slept with wax on. Is it better for your hair to sleep with it up or down? It’s actually better if you sleep with your hair up, rather than down. Whether it’s in a braid, a loose bun, or wrapped with bobby pins, you will experience less breakage with your hair secure. You don’t have to do 100 strokes every night, sorry Grandma, but it is very beneficial to brush your hair before bed. Is wax harmful for hair? One of the problems wax could bring is that if it’s not washed out properly, it could start to make your hair look greasy. And because wax essentially creates a seal around the hair and scalp, it could have a knock-on effect of trapping the oil close to your skin. Use a small amount of wax to style your hair. Does hair wax cause hair loss? In this video I have shared my opinion about hair wax or gel that does using hair Styling products like gel, wax, clay, pomade, etc cause hair fall. Simple answer is No, it does not cause hair fall but it can damage your hair if you use in excessive quantity. Should you wash product out of hair before bed? But if you want to keep your skin looking clear and acne-free, be sure to wash all that pore-clogging pomade out before bed. When it comes to pomade, as a rule of thumb – wash it out before bed! Hair products that you should wash out before bed include wax, gel and hairspray. Should I wash my hair after using wax? Therefore, it is recommended to use wax after the hair is completely dry. It’s hard to wash off the wax from my hair. Rinse out conditioner with warm water and shampoo hair as usual. It is easier to wash off using an oiler agent than the wax. How often should you wash your hair? Generally speaking, dry hair types should shampoo a maximum of two times a week, while oily hair types may require washing on a daily basis. If you have normal hair and don’t suffer from dryness or oiliness, you have the luxury of washing your hair whenever you feel like you need to. Barber Supplies Store Contact Barber Supplies Store Welcome to our store dedicated to providing you with the best barber supplies in the market. Our store is stocked with a wide range of products that cater to all your barbering needs. We understand the importance of having the right tools for the job, which is why we only stock high-quality barber products from reputable brands. Our inventory includes a variety of clippers, trimmers, razors, and other barbering tools. We also have a range of hair care and grooming products, such as shampoos, conditioners, and styling gels, to help you achieve the best results for your clients. We pride ourselves on providing excellent customer service and support. Our knowledgeable staff are always on hand to offer advice and recommendations on the best products to suit your needs. We also offer competitive prices and regular discounts to ensure that you get the best value for your money. Visit our store today and browse our extensive range of barber supplies. Whether you're a professional barber or simply looking to upgrade your personal grooming kit, we have everything you need to achieve your desired results. Best hair clippers isn't as easy as it looks. It is easy to buy hair clipper on sale but what about quality. When hair clippers comes to something as important as your hair, there are so many options which can be overwhelming. First you need to determine what... BaByliss PRO Gold FX Cord/Cordless Hair Clipper Designed By Ferrari Gold FX Clipper is a professional cordless clipper, equipped with a motor designed by Ferrari. A perfect tool to cut all hair textures with power, speed and precision.Contains stainless steel blade with DLC / nickel-titanium... Best hair clippers isn't as easy as it looks. It is easy to buy hair clipper on sale but what about quality. When hair clippers comes to something as important as your hair, there are so many options which can be overwhelming. First you need to determine what... BaByliss PRO Gold FX Cord/Cordless Hair Clipper Designed By Ferrari Gold FX Clipper is a professional cordless clipper, equipped with a motor designed by Ferrari. A perfect tool to cut all hair textures with power, speed and precision.Contains stainless steel blade with DLC / nickel-titanium...	The product can clog your pores on your scalp. This can cause the hair follicles to start growing weak and thinner hair strands. Is it OK to use hair wax everyday? DON’T use hair wax every single day. First of all, washing your hair daily may dry it out, resulting in dandruff and possible hair loss. Secondly, your hair needs intermittent breaks from product to remain healthy, and strong. DO change your pillowcase if you’ve slept with wax on. Is it better for your hair to sleep with it up or down? It’s actually better if you sleep with your hair up, rather than down. Whether it’s in a braid, a loose bun, or wrapped with bobby pins, you will experience less breakage with your hair secure. You don’t have to do 100 strokes every night, sorry Grandma, but it is very beneficial to brush your hair before bed. Is wax harmful for hair? One of the problems wax could bring is that if it’s not washed out properly, it could start to make your hair look greasy. And because wax essentially creates a seal around the hair and scalp, it could have a knock-on effect of trapping the oil close to your skin. Use a small amount of wax to style your hair. Does hair wax cause hair loss? In this video I have shared my opinion about hair wax or gel that does using hair Styling products like gel, wax, clay, pomade, etc cause hair fall. Simple answer is No, it does not cause hair fall but it can damage your hair if you use in excessive quantity. Should you wash product out of hair before bed? But if you want to keep your skin looking clear and acne-free, be sure to wash all that pore-clogging pomade out before bed. When it comes to pomade, as a rule of thumb – wash it out before bed! Hair products that you should wash out before bed include wax, gel and hairspray. Should I wash my hair after using wax?	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://genesishair.com/pros-cons-not-washing-hair-every-day/	The Pros and Cons of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day - Genesis II	The Pros and Cons of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day Believe it or not, there is a “no poo” movement that promotes the virtues of not washing your hair. The people behind this movement believe that the chemicals in hair products cause damage, while the natural oils we all produce result in healthier hair. If you’re thinking about joining the “no poo” movement, there are a few pros and cons to consider. The Pros of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day When you don’t wash your hair on a daily basis, it benefits you because you: Avoid the Use of Chemicals Some shampoos and specialized hair products contain carcinogens and substances that could be harmful to the environment. The likes of diethyl phthalate and parabens are found in many hair products, and both can be harmful to human health. Many of the chemicals in hair products can also cause hair to dry out and become brittle. Enjoy Healthier, Smoother Hair According to research, not washing your hair for an extended period will eventually cause your body to reduce the amount of scalp oil it produces. Commonly known as sebum, this oil can cause hair to become greasy in when it is produced in excessive quantities. But it is also this sebum that protects and moisturizes hair, giving it a silky, shiny appearance that is easy to manage. Save Money The cost of hair products is relatively high, particularly if you shampoo every day. But if you’re not washing, there’s no need for shampoos and conditioners — and the cost savings could be huge. The Cons of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day Of course, there are also drawbacks when you skip daily hair washing. For instance: You Hair Will Become Greasier at First During the first few weeks of not washing your hair, it will become greasier. And if your scalp becomes greasy, you run the risk of exacerbating skin conditions. You might find that itching and flaking become worse, and dandruff may increase. You Might Experience Accumulation of Hair Products If you’re not washing your hair and scalp regularly, there’s a chance that mousse, hairspray and anything else you use on your hair could build up and cause irritation. Your Hair Could Smell Bad A combination of sebum, sweat and bacteria could accumulate on your head if you’re not washing it regularly. This could eventually lead to bad odors, which may not subside on their own. If you stopped washing your hair today, chances are it would become greasy and dirty in just a few days. However, if you’re prepared to keep going, your body should adjust — and your hair could end up being healthier than ever. At Genesis II, our multi-therapeutic hair loss treatment programs and hair loss products were designed by doctors and hair loss experts to provide unmatched results for men and women combating damaged hair of all types. To schedule a free consultation call us at (315) 458-1074 or to contact us via email click here.	The Pros and Cons of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day Believe it or not, there is a “no poo” movement that promotes the virtues of not washing your hair. The people behind this movement believe that the chemicals in hair products cause damage, while the natural oils we all produce result in healthier hair. If you’re thinking about joining the “no poo” movement, there are a few pros and cons to consider. The Pros of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day When you don’t wash your hair on a daily basis, it benefits you because you: Avoid the Use of Chemicals Some shampoos and specialized hair products contain carcinogens and substances that could be harmful to the environment. The likes of diethyl phthalate and parabens are found in many hair products, and both can be harmful to human health. Many of the chemicals in hair products can also cause hair to dry out and become brittle. Enjoy Healthier, Smoother Hair According to research, not washing your hair for an extended period will eventually cause your body to reduce the amount of scalp oil it produces. Commonly known as sebum, this oil can cause hair to become greasy in when it is produced in excessive quantities. But it is also this sebum that protects and moisturizes hair, giving it a silky, shiny appearance that is easy to manage. Save Money The cost of hair products is relatively high, particularly if you shampoo every day. But if you’re not washing, there’s no need for shampoos and conditioners — and the cost savings could be huge. The Cons of Not Washing Your Hair Every Day Of course, there are also drawbacks when you skip daily hair washing. For instance: You Hair Will Become Greasier at First During the first few weeks of not washing your hair, it will become greasier. And if your scalp becomes greasy, you run the risk of exacerbating skin conditions. You might find that itching and flaking become worse, and dandruff may increase. You Might Experience Accumulation of Hair Products	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	yes_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is "harmful".	https://drsquatch.com/blogs/all-blog-posts/why-you-shouldnt-wash-your-hair-everyday	Why You Shouldn't Wash Your Hair Everyday - Dr. Squatch	Why You Shouldn’t Wash Your Hair Everyday How often should you wash your hair? Most of you probably think that’s a silly question as you likely wash your hair as part of your daily shower routine. The problem with this approach is that it is harmful to your hair and scalp. Most commercially-produced shampoos damage your hair over time and can even lead to hair loss. So what is the alternative? Today, you will learn how washing your hair every day can harm your hair and alternatives to daily hair washing. For more about how to live like a man, make sure to check out theDr. Squatch blog. What Happens When You Wash Your Hair Too Often Most men wash their hair at least once per day, typically when they shower in the morning. While this seems like a good idea, it is one of the worst things you can do to your scalp. Commercially-produced shampoos are made to strip the oils and dirt, and they do so indiscriminately. This process dries out your hair, and if you compound that effect for years, it takes a toll on your hair’s health. If you start to notice that your hair’s color is becoming dull, it is because you’ve stripped away all the oils that give your hair its natural shine. Next, the quality of your hair will suffer. If you’re experiencing split-ends or breakage, it is probably due to shampooing too often. This can also have an impact on your scalp. Shampooing can lead to dry skin and dryness that can lead to dandruff. Damage to your hair and scalp may even lead to thinning hair. If you’re relatively young and do not have a history of male pattern baldness in your family, your thinning hair could be tied to your shampoo. How Often Should You Wash Your Hair? How often you wash your hair will depend on two factors. The first is the type of hair you have. For those with thicker hair or hair that is not particularly oily, you can usually get away with washing your hair about every three days. Generally, it will take that long before the oils and dirt in your hair accumulate to the point where washing is actually necessary. If you have thinner hair, oily hair, or you sweat a lot, you can consider washing your hair every other day. For those who sweat a lot or have very oily hair, this becomes a bit of a balancing act as sometimes you will find that you cannot wait for every other day. A basic rule of thumb in these instances is to check your hair by running your hand through it. If it feels oily or nasty to the touch, it’s probably OK to wash it. Both recommendations above are assuming normal daily activities. There are times where you will modify this schedule. For example, if you wash your hair on Monday and work outside in 90-degree weather all day, you’re going towash your hairmore often than someone who sits at an office desk all day. How Should I Wash My Hair? Once you’ve determined how often you should wash your hair, it’s time to pick the best products to use. First, invest in a natural shampoo likeDr. Squatch natural shampoo. The ingredients in these shampoos are not as harsh as commercially-produced shampoos and will clean your hair without overly stripping it. Next, you need to decide what do to on days where you’re not washing your hair. You have a couple of options. The first is to run some water through your hair on days you’re not washing it. For some of you, that will be enough to remove a little sweat and excess oil from your hair and scalp. Another option is to use anatural conditioner for your hair. This will work to remove sweat, dirt, and oil from your hair between washing and will provide extra moisturization for your hair and scalp. Those with thicker hair benefit from a daily conditioner between hair washing. Daily Hair Washing is Not Necessary You can’t avoid a daily shower. Daily showers withnatural soapare necessary for general hygiene and to reduce body odor. However, your hair does not require regular washing. For most men, you can go two to three days on average before having to wash your hair. Washing your hair more often will leave your hair susceptible to damage and generally does not provide any extra benefits. Unless you’re someone who is prone to excessive sweating or has extremely oily hair, washing your hair daily is not necessary. For those already used to washing your hair daily, this may seem a bit weird at first. The reality is that most people will not be able to tell the difference between whether you wash your hair daily or every two to three days. However, your hair will definitely notice the difference as it will be stronger and healthier than if you wash it daily.	Why You Shouldn’t Wash Your Hair Everyday How often should you wash your hair? Most of you probably think that’s a silly question as you likely wash your hair as part of your daily shower routine. The problem with this approach is that it is harmful to your hair and scalp. Most commercially-produced shampoos damage your hair over time and can even lead to hair loss. So what is the alternative? Today, you will learn how washing your hair every day can harm your hair and alternatives to daily hair washing. For more about how to live like a man, make sure to check out theDr. Squatch blog. What Happens When You Wash Your Hair Too Often Most men wash their hair at least once per day, typically when they shower in the morning. While this seems like a good idea, it is one of the worst things you can do to your scalp. Commercially-produced shampoos are made to strip the oils and dirt, and they do so indiscriminately. This process dries out your hair, and if you compound that effect for years, it takes a toll on your hair’s health. If you start to notice that your hair’s color is becoming dull, it is because you’ve stripped away all the oils that give your hair its natural shine. Next, the quality of your hair will suffer. If you’re experiencing split-ends or breakage, it is probably due to shampooing too often. This can also have an impact on your scalp. Shampooing can lead to dry skin and dryness that can lead to dandruff. Damage to your hair and scalp may even lead to thinning hair. If you’re relatively young and do not have a history of male pattern baldness in your family, your thinning hair could be tied to your shampoo. How Often Should You Wash Your Hair? How often you wash your hair will depend on two factors. The first is the type of hair you have. For those with thicker hair or hair that is not particularly oily, you can usually get away with washing your hair about every three days.	yes
Trichology	Is washing hair daily harmful?	no_statement	"washing" "hair" "daily" is not "harmful".. "daily" "hair" "washing" is not "harmful".	https://www.allthingshair.com/en-us/hair-care/washing-hair/how-often-should-you-wash-your-hair/	How Often Should You Wash Your Hair? \| Different Hair Types \| All ...	How Often Should You Wash Your Hair? Experts say there’s no single answer to how often people should shampoo. For some, every other day without washing is generally fine. Others can last a bit longer in between washes, and some people with dry or curly hair can wash much less frequently, foregoing wash day for several days to a few weeks. Additionally, if your hair is styled with a keratin treatment or you have a blow-out, you may not need to or want to wash more than once a week as it can put even more stress on your hair. A general rule is: If hair is visibly oily, your scalp is itching, or you’re experiencing some flaking due to dirt or residue, those might be signs it’s time to shampoo. Get the rundown on how often you should be washing your hair. Is it bad to wash your hair every day? Over-washing, especially with harsh shampoos, can damage hair and lead to hair loss, especially when combined with chemical treatments or hairstyles like tight braids that tug at the roots. The ‘no poo’ approach has given us another alternative to wash and care, and it’s becoming more common for people to ditch shampoo and head straight for conditioner, or have their natural oils balance out with the help of alternative shampoos or plain water. Oily hair gets a bad rap, but the sebum your scalp produces is vital to healthy, shiny hair. How much oil you produce depends on your age, genetics, sex and environment. Straight, thin hair needs to be washed more frequently than curly or wavy hair. People with tight curls or textured hair can space out washing their hair to once a week or every other week. Despite what shampoo commercials lead you to believe, washing your hair can be a key contributor to a bad hair day. Hair that is completely stripped of its natural oils can feel coarse and be dull and difficult to style. How to Properly Wash Your Hair There are different ways to wash your hair depending on your hair type. We’ve broken down the 5 different types below. 1. Thin, Fine Hair Fine hair can easily feel weighed down by too much oil. To make sure your fine hair is always looking at its best, wash your hair every day to every other day. Going much longer than that can leave your hair falling flat and worse, looking and feeling greasy. Get the most volume out of fine hair by washing with Suave Up The Volume Shampoo and Suave Up The Volume Conditioner. We love this system in particular because it gives body and volume without a lot of effort. 2. Straight, Thick Hair Straighter hair textures tend to get oily looking faster because oil moves down quicker down the hair shaft. If you have very thick hair, oil may help give a refining effect without turning to thinning shears. Thick, straight hair can usually start to look oily on the second or third day. Wash your hair with a system that helps moisturize and give shine without the weigh-down, such as Dove Daily Moisture Shampooand Conditioner. 3. Wavy Hair Wavy hair is usually a bit drier than straight hair. A good rule of thumb for wavy hair is to use a system that enhances your natural texture while adding a bit of moisture so it doesn’t frizz out (a.k.a. public enemy no. 1 for wavy hair types!). We like the hydration we get from Dove Nutritive Solutions Coconut & Hydration Shampoo and Conditioner. 4. Curly Hair Curly hair is typically considered the driest of all the different hair types. Because of its spirals, oil from the scalp doesn’t work its way down the hair shaft as quickly, leaving the ends drier than straighter hair. Depending on just how curly your hair is, you may not need to shampoo your hair as often. Wavy to curly hair may want to wash every third day. If you have a tighter curl pattern and texture, you may only need to do a full-on shampoo once a week, if that. In between shampooing curly hair you can cleanse, suds-free, by co-washing or picking up a dry shampoo that refreshes your scalp, such as Dove Refresh+Care Detox & Purify Dry Shampoo. 5. Damaged Hair For severely damaged hair, your locks can use all the moisture it can handle. Avoid further drying and stressing damaged hair out by washing as infrequently as you can manage, or when your locks start to look and feel greasy. When you do wash your hair, try to be gentle and focus the product at the roots, where you need it most. You can use a super hydrating system to help repair damaged hair. We like TRESemmé Pro Pure Damage Shampooand Conditioner. What Happens If You Don’t Wash Your Hair The longer you go between washes, the more dirt and oils will build-up on your scalp. Dry shampoo can soak up excess oil while also adding volume to your hair. Ask an Expert: Is it Bad to Wash Your Hair Everyday? We’ve all heard the cautionary tale or two about hair washing, that not only is it not recommended, but that it is actually downright risky to wash hair every day. Admittedly, there are days that we’ve also been on the alt-right side of this spectrum—that is, ultra-conservative, opting rather to squeeze a good hair day in via some dry shampoo instead. But is it really, honest-to-goodness harmful to wash hair every day? We tapped Unilever resident expert, North America Senior Manager for Hair in Research & Development, Leon van Gorkom, to shed light on this FAQ: He puts it in black and white: “Washing with a good shampoo and conditioner is not harmful to hair,” van Gorkom says, clearing up the debate once and for all. “It is really up to the consumer [to determine] what fits within their daily routine.” 1. Facts, facts, and more facts “On average, women in the U.S. wash (and condition) their hair four to five times per week. Sometimes, women may choose not to wash and [instead] use dry shampoo—it’s quicker. Also, the oilier your hair, the more frequently you tend to wash,” van Gorkom noted. It is therefore safe—and as it turns out, pretty normal—to wash hair every day, provided you use the correct system for your hair type. Clarifying systems cleanse the hair without stripping your strands of moisture. And although quite gentle, non-oily hair types might find it beneficial to rotate a clarifying system with a regular moisturizing duo as part of their full regimen, just for balance. Hair needs, as well as the product buildup and sebum levels, can vary depending on certain factors (the weather, hormones, etc.), so it’s best to keep attuned to how your strands feel for the day and wash accordingly. 2. The case for dry shampoo That said, you might also find yourself in situations where you don’t feel like you need to wash hair every day, or anytime that week, for that matter. Curly and natural hair types can go weeks without a full wash—even more, if hair is done in a protective hairstyle, such as a rope twist or box braid. This is where dry shampoo becomes a crucial agent for that scalp refresh, as it helps sop up any excess oil and grease without disturbing your ’do. 3. The last word “Hair gets damaged from daily styling when it isn’t in good condition, especially when wet,” van Gorkom cautions. “Therefore, you need to make sure that your hair is well-conditioned during the wash by using a good shampoo or conditioner.” It all circles back to knowing which products are best suited for your hair type, and to being mindful of what your hair has been through prior. For instance, colored hair is more fragile and vulnerable a few days after processing, so maybe hold off on a complete and thorough washing till the end of the week (plus your new hue will thank you too!). Fine or thinning hair might need more frequent shower time than coarse or curly hair as well. It always pays to work with your hair type and listen to your needs of the day and knowing whether to wash hair every day or not will soon be like second nature. After all, what can be more therapeutic or satisfying than a clean slate? Share Sign up to our newsletter and get exclusive hair care tips and tricks from the experts at All Things Hair.	5. Damaged Hair For severely damaged hair, your locks can use all the moisture it can handle. Avoid further drying and stressing damaged hair out by washing as infrequently as you can manage, or when your locks start to look and feel greasy. When you do wash your hair, try to be gentle and focus the product at the roots, where you need it most. You can use a super hydrating system to help repair damaged hair. We like TRESemmé Pro Pure Damage Shampooand Conditioner. What Happens If You Don’t Wash Your Hair The longer you go between washes, the more dirt and oils will build-up on your scalp. Dry shampoo can soak up excess oil while also adding volume to your hair. Ask an Expert: Is it Bad to Wash Your Hair Everyday? We’ve all heard the cautionary tale or two about hair washing, that not only is it not recommended, but that it is actually downright risky to wash hair every day. Admittedly, there are days that we’ve also been on the alt-right side of this spectrum—that is, ultra-conservative, opting rather to squeeze a good hair day in via some dry shampoo instead. But is it really, honest-to-goodness harmful to wash hair every day? We tapped Unilever resident expert, North America Senior Manager for Hair in Research & Development, Leon van Gorkom, to shed light on this FAQ: He puts it in black and white: “Washing with a good shampoo and conditioner is not harmful to hair,” van Gorkom says, clearing up the debate once and for all. “It is really up to the consumer [to determine] what fits within their daily routine.” 1. Facts, facts, and more facts “On average, women in the U.S. wash (and condition) their hair four to five times per week. Sometimes, women may choose not to wash and [instead]	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.yogabasics.com/learn/history-of-yoga/	History of Yoga • Yoga Basics	History of Yoga Yoga’s history has many places of obscurity and uncertainty due to its oral transmission of sacred texts and the secretive nature of its teachings. The early writings on yoga were transcribed on fragile palm leaves that were easily damaged, destroyed or lost. The development of yoga can be traced back to over 5,000 years ago, but some researchers think that yoga may be up to 10,000 years old old. Yoga’s long rich history can be divided into four main periods of innovation, practice and development. Pre-Classical Yoga The beginnings of Yoga were developed by the Indus-Sarasvati civilization in Northern India over 5,000 years ago. The word yoga was first mentioned in the oldest sacred texts, the Rig Veda. The Vedas were a collection of texts containing songs, mantras and rituals to be used by Brahmans, the Vedic priests. Yoga was slowly refined and developed by the Brahmans and Rishis (mystic seers) who documented their practices and beliefs in the upanishads, a huge work containing over 200 scriptures. The most renowned of the Yogic scriptures is the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, composed around 500 B.C.E. The Upanishads took the idea of ritual sacrifice from the Vedas and internalized it, teaching the sacrifice of the ego through self-knowledge, action (karma yoga) and wisdom (jnana yoga). Classical Yoga In the pre-classical stage, yoga was a mishmash of various ideas, beliefs and techniques that often conflicted and contradicted each other. The Classical period is defined by Patanjali’s Yoga-Sûtras, the first systematic presentation of yoga. Written some time in the second century, this text describes the path of RAJA YOGA, often called "classical yoga". Patanjali organized the practice of yoga into an "eight limbed path" containing the steps and stages towards obtaining Samadhi or enlightenment. Patanjali is often considered the father of yoga and his Yoga-Sûtras still strongly influence most styles of modern yoga. Post-Classical Yoga A few centuries after Patanjali, yoga masters created a system of practices designed to rejuvenate the body and prolong life. They rejected the teachings of the ancient Vedas and embraced the physical body as the means to achieve enlightenment. They developed Tantra Yoga, with radical techniques to cleanse the body and mind to break the knots that bind us to our physical existence. This exploration of these physical-spiritual connections and body centered practices led to the creation of what we primarily think of yoga in the West: Hatha Yoga. Modern Period In the late 1800s and early 1900s, yoga masters began to travel to the West, attracting attention and followers. This began at the 1893 Parliament of Religions in Chicago, when Swami Vivekananda wowed the attendees with his lectures on yoga and the universality of the world’s religions. In the 1920s and 30s, Hatha Yoga was strongly promoted in India with the work of T. Krishnamacharya, Swami Sivananda and other yogis practicing Hatha Yoga. Krishnamacharya opened the first Hatha Yoga school in Mysore in 1924 and in 1936 Sivananda founded the Divine Life Society on the banks of the holy Ganges River. Krishnamacharya produced three students that would continue his legacy and increase the popularity of Hatha Yoga: B.K.S. Iyengar, T.K.V. Desikachar and Pattabhi Jois. Sivananda was a prolific author, writing over 200 books on yoga, and established nine ashrams and numerous yoga centers located around the world. The importation of yoga to the West still continued at a trickle until Indra Devi opened her yoga studio in Hollywood in 1947. Since then, many more western and Indian teachers have become pioneers, popularizing hatha yoga and gaining millions of followers. Hatha Yoga now has many different schools or styles, all emphasizing the many different aspects of the practice. Share with Friends Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on WhatsappShare on LinkedinShare on TelegramShare on Email Viewing ads supports YogaBasics, which allows us to continue bringing you quality yoga content. Sign up for a premium membership to remove all ads and enjoy uninterrupted access to the best yoga resources on the web. 184 responses to “History of Yoga” This article is deceptively incorrect by suggesting that the Indus Valley Culture is one and the same with the Vedic Culture that produced the Vedic literature. This brief overview elides and obfuscates too many things. Particularly the fact that it was the outcaste heretics from the Vedic theology, ie the Jains, Buddhists, Ajivikas and Sravakas that developed the ideas that became ‘yoga’. I’m not sure why this article privileges a Brahminical origin in the way it does. The historicity of yoga is certainly more complicated and dynamic than what is presented here. The first mention of the term ‘yoga’ in the ṛgveda. There are many places, such as: 7.82.4, 4.24.4, 5.37.5 where ‘yoga’ specifically refers to: preparing for battle, rushing into battle, fighting an enemy, and other ‘heroic-like’ deeds related to warfare. The early-Vedic period was exceptionally nomadic, which included Vedic tribes fighting against each other. The idea that Vedic people were doing ‘yoga’ in the Indus Valley Culture is preposterous. The Jains are the Buddhists were never considered outcasts and heretics in India. You are superimposing European History onto India and think that we behave like you do. Jains and Buddhist and even Eastern Christians actually enjoyed higher Caste status within Hindu Society. Jains are incredibly revered in India today and, even if you look at the rock cut caves in Ajanta and Ellora, the Jain and Buddhist carvings are right next to the Hindu Carvings. We don’t have a culture of Heresy in the way Europe did, and we don’t have violent animosity towards groups of people with slightly differing beliefs. The Word Yoga today is still used in India to mean multiple things, for example the word Yogakshema in Malayalam means a community group or welfare society. Also, why would the vedic people not be practicing yoga? Vedic literature is the most expansive collection of literature that any civilization in the ancient world had ever produce and the Indus Valley Civilization was the most expansive and sophisticated civilization in the ancient world. The manmade bridge that connecst India to Sri Lanka has been radio carbon dated to 7000 years old and that stone is not local to the area, that bridge as legend has it was built by lord Ram and the Vanara Sena. The Ramayana gives the exact Nakshatra of Lord Ram’s Birth, and when calculated, dates back to 7000 years ago. Yoga… is AUM. It originates in that mind that ceases to associate itself with its vacillations. To look at it’s origins which do not exist is to miss what it is. We live on a planet that spins around the Sun, within a solar system within a galaxy one of many universes. Yoga is to connect with existence in its true reality. Not to dwell in the past (Karma) which does not exist. To become conscious, know the self and understand the self is in everything. Living in the past isn’t yoga. Writing about yoga isn’t yoga. The texts have been written already. Recreating yoga is not yoga. Turning yoga into a discriminatory subject isn’t yoga. Finding it’s origins isn’t yoga. Yoga is to help you realise this phenomonen we exist in. It’s to help you discover the deeper truths that you only believe in by actually placing you in them to understand it as the witnessed. Namaste Amazing how you can talk about honey and not mention the beehive or the bees. Yoga is a Sanskirt word, correctly pronounced as Yog. Yoga is a Hindu practice, or a practice of “Sanatan Dharma”, to be more precise. Not to say that anybody who wants to benefit from the practice needs to acknolwedge or even be bothered about the the religious affiliation, but when you write hundreds of words on its history without mentioning the connection, it smacks of disingenuity, something decidedly non-Yogic. And no, mention of India doesn’t count. It only serves as a calculated deception, because there is more to India than Hinduism, even if yoiu’re talking just religion. If you’re going to be a Yogi, a good place to start is by being honest and open minded. Else it’s just a lot of twisting and turning of your muscles and joints. Namaste Rabi. I agree with you. But also do not expect from opportunists the recognition for benefiting from features of Hindu culture. I also like the ‘honey and not mention the beehive or the bees’ analogy :) hi rabi, i wanted to ask if you could recommend any texts that would bring me into the light of the connection between yoga and hinduism. excuse my ignorance in the matter but i would like to study the topic more deeply. thank you. rabi – Our history of yoga is drawn from the ancient scriptures of India, and none of these texts mention the words Hindu or Hinduism. That is because the Vedas and Upanishads are the foundation for both yoga and Hinduism. They are linked and share a common history and culture, but they are not part of each other. I’m saddened to read that you think we are intentionally being deceptive and dishonest with what we write here. We respect your opinion, but please take your judgements somewhere else. Timothy, A history of…lets just say gospels…without mentioning Christianity? Vedas and Upanishads are more central to Hinduism than gospels are to Christianity. I grew up chanting Vedas and reading Vagvat Geeta (Upanishad) to my blind grandfather . Hinduism is Vedas+Upanishads and then a few other things. Anyway, you’ve settled on a narrative common in this part of the world that I dare not attempt to alter, so enough on this. Yoga is a gift that anybody can enjoy with a dose of any narrative that makes it palatable. I may be an anomaly, because I have shamelessly adopted many western and even christian views/traditions that I like. My family celebrates the spirit of Christmas, enjoys good gospel singing, and hunts for eggs during Easter. Rabi, it’s really so sad to know that you actually don’t know anything about Hinduism and Vedas. Can’t you see?? You even spelled “BHAGAVAD GITA” as ” Vagvat Geeta” and you’re saying that you’ve been reading all vedas and upanishads to your blind grandfather since childhood. Knowing some Sanskrit quotes doesn’t show that you have been into vedas and Yoga. It’s time that you should really practice doing yoga and notice the changes in your current life . Yoga is everything and it’s everywhere.. Yoga is as old as the God’s themselves. It is a knowledge which was given by Lord Shiva himself to Parvati when she asked him how would humans find liberation from the cycle of birth & death. Siva Samhita is a treatise of his answer in dialogue form between Shiva & Parvati. Hence, I humbly submit that dating Yoga according to our prsent day Calender may be futile. Please add to my knowledge if what I have said is not correct or erroneous. In quest of the Truth, Kamini, Kamini, The date of origin is not what’s being discussed here, but the roots. However, if you are willing to consider that religious texts (in written form) have author(s) that conceived (or collected) them at some point, you will find that there are various estimates of Shiva Samhita’s date of writing, none going back further than 1500 BCE. You do, curiously, illustrate my point, by mentioning Shiva and Parvati. Shiva makes up the trio of divinity in Hinduism. The point of my comments is the fact that Yoga is entirely a Hindu pratice (by origin), in that it is a tradition inspired by and contained in Hindu philosopy…and carried forward by Hindus alone until recent times. Sure, the exact label “Hinduism” is of more recent origin, but it is the term available to us today to describes the same old belief system in which Yoga originated. Therefore, to say Yoga did not originate in Hinduism is a feeble play on words. To fail to mention its Hindu origin while telling its history is to start new yogis on an ignorant path. I will have a lot of respect for anyboy or any publication that is honest and open-minded enough to use Shiva or any other Hindu symbol as an icon next to a discussion of yoga, instead of having a chic meditating Buddha in Lotus position, a misleading, but more tolerated symbol of eastern relgion/philosophy in the west. A truth, however unomfortable, remains the truth. By suppressing it, you only subtract from the true meaning of yoga. calmini – Yes, the historic dating of yoga is quite vague based on what we know, and is just an intelligent guess. The dates are given to give context and a sequence to the unfolding of the yoga tradition. rabi – Yoga and Hinduism share the same common roots, but that does not mean that “Yoga is entirely a Hindu practice.” Your analogy of the Gospels and Christianity is flawed because Christianity existed prior to the writing of the Gospels. You cannot say that Hinduism existed prior to the Vedas. Also many of the early Christian texts are also intertwined with the Jewish texts, which according to your logic would make Christianity an entirely Jewish practice. Timothy, I acknowledge the depth of your belief on this topic, so I have nothing left to say. As a testimony to the complexiity of human thought, personal as well as professional practice of Yoga can coexist with wholesale diminutive and derogatory view of the religion that originated and carried it for centuires. This is my purely personal and totally arguable explanation for the increasing necessity for distancing of Yoga from Hinduism as the practice gets to the larger masses in the West. Branding is after all not an exercise in brutal and awkward truth. If anybody is interested in learning of the roots of Yoga, I encourage them to look further than glib explanations (developed over time by many, to be fair; this is nothing recent) that serve as much to obfuscate as much to illuminate. Wikipedia is not a bad start. This is the last comment, I promise, and I end with this Sanskrit quote: Elixir of life is to be accepted even if comes from poison, a piece of gold is to be accepted even from impurity. A good conduct is to be learnt even from an enemy and a good lady is to be accepted even from a bad community. Ha, did I just reinforce the perception I deplored? Let me try a different one (disclaimer: the crude translation is not mine): à¤…à¤¯à¤‚ à¤¨à¤¿à¤: à¤ªà¤°à¥‹ à¤µà¥‡à¤¤à¤¿ à¤—à¤£à¤¨à¤¾ à¤²à¤˜à¥à¤šà¥‡à¤¤à¤¸à¤¾à¤®à¥à¥¤ à¤‰à¤¦à¤¾à¤°à¤®à¤¨à¤¸à¤¾à¤¨à¤¾à¤‚ à¤¤à¥ à¤µà¤¸à¥à¤§à¥ˆà¤µ à¤•à¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤‚à¤¬à¤•à¤®à¥à¥¥ This is mine or (somebody) else”™s (is the way) narrow minded people count. But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family. rabi – I’m glad we are agreeing to disagree here, although I would have appreciated (and enjoyed) a logical rebuttal based on facts rather than a dogmatic viewpoint. The yoga page in Wikipedia that you referenced states “The word [yoga] is associated with meditative practices in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism” which contradicts your belief that “Yoga is entirely a Hindu practice.” If you are not open to discussing this topic using facts and reason then please do not continue this conversation. And if you continue to lace your posts with judgements and a patronizing tone then I’ll delete them as inappropriate. It is not only disrespectful to disregard the history of Hinduism in yoga. What do you think Indus originated from? The Hindu people who live there. It is even more disrespectful for WHITE MAN to capitalize of our culture and educate us on what it is. What a joke you are. Typical colonial white dude speak. Sophia – Name calling and/or putting people down is not tolerated on this website. Any further posts from you that violate our comment guidelines will be deleted. There is no evidence that Hinduism was practiced or invented by the Indus Valley Civilization. Secondly, yoga ≠ Hinduism. Yoga is a spiritual practice (like prayer) and Hinduism is a religion. They share similar aspects and philosophies, but were developed as separate practices. If you disagree with this viewpoint please cite any modern yoga research to back up your claims. Lastly, Indian yogis brought yoga to the West, and if it were not for western interest in yoga it most likely would have died out to become just a curious footnote in India’s long history. Timothy. No. 1 Hinduism is not only a religion ..it also a way of life. No.2 Yoga is a way of living life to attain ‘Moksha’ devised by gods worshiped by Hindus. No.3 Yoga is as old as humans. Practiced by first religion of earth i.e “Sanatan Dharma”, which slowly changed to Hinduism. No.4 Buddhism And Jainism were preached by sons of Hindu Kings. These religions cater to a fraction of Hinduism. No. 5 Western world is doing no good to yoga. Using for ur own benefits. Commercialized it. Yoga had survived in India, is flourishing in India and will survive till eternity. Don’t dare predict decline of Yoga in India. I am sharing these things because if you preach these things to westerners. Tell the whole story. The reality is when you do yoga, pranayama and dhyana, you become much more aware of your body, breath and how it functions. You start understanding the workings of your mind, how desires arise, understand your otherwise compulsive behaviours. That is why it is said to lead to self-realization. Self-realization is needed for all humans because it sets them free and a great way to live life. I would normally hesitate very much to introduce a new faith to other parts of the world even if I feel my faith seems to work well. But Yoga is more of self-discovery and not based much on faith – but because of the culture and faith it arose from a particular geographical location, it probably has some colors of faith attached as part of evolution. If the western world is fully healthy and have other effective means for self-realization, there would not be a need for talking about Yoga in the west and all these altercations. So, when we start a fight, we need to understand many dimensions of the issue involved. I understand that there is a need for Yoga in the world and that is the reason it is being advocated. There is a lot of learning that the East is learning from the West too. A friend of mine once very nicely told me that the West can learn Culture from India and the Indians can learn “Attitude” from the West. I learn a lot of attitude and communication from my western customers. They are kind of Guru to me in this aspect. If we are true practitioners of YOGA, no matter which form of Yoga we practice, we will become aware and integrated, our mind, body and soul will be one…… And at that time we rise above all that is worldly, mundane and material. At peace with everything around us, we gain knowledge of the entire universe, and realisation of this true inner knowledge, makes us rise above all debates and arguments. May we all experience peaceful bliss. Om Shanti Timothy, I see great value in the Yoga practice that includes the eight limbs. I am a devote Christian and I transfer my Christian beliefs on to my Yoga practice to gain the health, mental, physical and spiritual benefits. Yoga has been redeemed for my purposes. My hope that whomever wants to claim Yoga is from their heritage be tickled and grateful that others can benefit. Hi Vanessa. How is it that you can live both lives when it is two different religions. I am asking because the person that i am with has asked me not to do yoga as it is going against our Christian beliefs. I Timothy Hinduism existed long before Jainism and bhudism were even formed so you cannot say Yoga is originally generated from Hinduism . This is just a conspiracy against Hinduism many foreigners fooled innocent people of India and looted us in the past still we foolishly follow the latest trends from the west . YOGA WAS GENERATED FROM HINDUISM ITS YOUR CHOICE WHETHER YOU WANT TO PRACTICE IT OR NOT BUT PLEASE LIKE RABI MENTIONED DON’T IGNORE THE BEEHIVE AND THE BEES Peace. Timothy, Saying Buddhism and Jainism recognize/include Yoga is different than saying they originated it. You at least seem to agree on Vedas as having the oldest claim on Yoga. Given your study of eastern philosophy/yoga, I would think you know that Buddhism and Jainisms are specifically called “non-Vedic religions.” That’s in essence how they differ from Hinduism, because Vedas+Upanishads are essentially what is today called Hinduism. You mention vedas/brahmans/rishis in your history of Yoga. Well, Hinduism is specifically called Brahmnaic/vedic religion. I don’t think there is anything I can present to you here in thix box to change your position. I realize that my argument is not with you really, but with a popular western view constructed over time. So, I thank you for engaging in this conversation and wish you luck. I grew up with Yoga around me, but never got into it much. I am getting started and your site is a good resource. Rabi, I need to write a paper for a class on the origins of yoga. It seems you know your stuff. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? Such as key ideas, great sources, and/or your own knowledge of the subject. That would be great. Thank you Thimothy, I agree with you that the principles of yoga existed in the Indian sub-continent before Vedas and Upanishads. What we call Hinduism is an amalgamation of yogic principles; (especially of Yama and Niyamas) and the other philosophies. Hinduism has many contrasting features from yogic principles. Many ayurvedic texts openly endorses practices like the consumption of meat including beef. It is not also against polygamy as well. I would love to use this brief history as a handout for my teacher trainees. Do you have a pdf version to print, so that we can source your work. I think this is a nice overview for a brief section on the history portion of the training and will encourage students to take advanced trainings in history if they so desire. Thanks! Please email me privately. Jillian My respectful greetings to you for your website on yoga with some ideas of its origins. The discussion on whether its origins are Hindu or not is not really essential. The term Hindu originated as the designation of the people living along the banks of the river Sindhu referred to as Indus by the Greeks. The land was referred to as Hind, later India. Greek historians have written of how Alexander interacted with yogis while on his retreat along the Indus valley. So it is clear that Hindus, as a people, practiced yoga for thousands of years. The term Hinduism is a colonial construct to include the many practices and beliefs of the Hindu people. Hope this serves to clarify the historical connections. With respect. Great, concise article! I would love to use this article as a handout for an Introduction to Yoga Class that I’m offering. The contact page indicated that I need to leave a message on this page, but I will also send a message through the contact page. If given permission, I will ensure credit to Timothy is given. Please advise. Thanks! Have an incredible day! I arrived at this site, hoping to begin my understanding of Yoga Practices…..I had no other preconceived ideas on the subject. It is somewhat disturbing to me as a novice, to see “masters” dispute the origins and basics of yoga. I will do further study….but today….this did help me move forward in any direction….that I can tell. Hi Mike, I’m sorry to hear you feel discouraged upon starting your study of yoga. Please know that there are a few nationalistic Hindus who are actively trying to claim that you must be a Hindu in order to practice yoga. This is a small group of people with strong political motives and I doubt they actually practice or study yoga. I encourage you to read other scholarly discussions on the origins and history of yoga to confirm the facts presented on this website. Namaste Timothy Burgin, I read all the connection of replies and topic of the conversation. it seems to me that you are that teacher who really have practice yoga only to practice Asan, you have to go further in that inner quest , in order to go further you will have to trace back the history. The origin of YOG, is 4 pre-Vedic literature practice. It was codified through hymns, and spiritual songs and chantings, than Varanasi born Patanjali codified in 198 Aphorism ,which was to have our own direction experience and perception of that practice ,later on it was very limited and only privileged to Brahmins and Arhankaras. so since you are so stuck on trying to teach of YOG , where you are not qualified as a teacher based on limited knowledge of yours, which is based on your ancient study on Sanskrit ,translated into english, where most expression and meaning cannot be explained, so explaining a bling person how to admire beautiful sunset , i hope you get what i am trying to say here , Namaste :-) Consciousness can be unfair and cruel and even sad and mad – look at the baby animals eaten by other animals higher in the food chain – or the venus fly trap and its carnivorous appetite for flys. Reality is always the same no matter how these people debate about it. Its ok to not have the same views or recollections of the past. After all, it was once us in spirit – its just we can only experience one body-mind conscious at a time (in most cases – although Im sure there are gurus who can enter other realms of the matter time space connection. Does it really matter the history of Yoga? After all do we have a past really or is it merely a matter of collected thoughts too difficult for out distracted minds. Buddhist do it and so do Hindus and so do Christians – its evolved into a self love practice not a debate topic about our feeble attempts to understand something so scared and connecting. Westerns are as much allowed to practice and teach Yoga as a scared practice as long as we leave commonly practiced entitled western directions and egos out. my two cents You rightly say “Consciousness can be unfair and cruel and even sad and mad – look at the baby animals eaten by other animals higher in the food chain”. Like a lion need to eat lamb for it’s survival similarly west need to digest dharmic religion, Indian values into western culture,value,abrahamic beliefs to maintain it’s hegemony on the world intellectually. If you go to Wikipedia pages related to Hinduism, yogas 90% of time they quote western indologist,western intellectuals who are not even hindus to define what Hinduism is for the world.They should quote Hindus at least 50% for fair understanding of Hinduism. Who holds the final authority on matter related to Christianity. Most of the time Vatican or by the people who are Christian by faith. Similarly for Islam Muslim holds the final and most credible authority. Most authentic sources for interpreting Judaism are by Jews people. But Hindus are not allowed do that for our religion. People say that history is written by the winner.hindus were colonized by Muslims for 400 yrs and by Christians for 200ys.They wrote indian history using their colonist mindset.They tried to create a identity for hindus so that Hindus become subservient to them. As a result many of the hindus actually have become subservient to western indeas,beliefs and culture. They want approval from west. please west. Hindus are also plagued by Fake yogis,baba and fake Goodman who uses Hinduism for name, fame and power. So they dilute hindu identity to gain acceptance in west. There are 2.2 billion christens and more than 70 Christian majority country. Historically powerful countries like England,france ,spain,America have favoured Christian worldview.christinity was never colonized. There are 1.6 billion muslim and 50 muslim majority country. Islam has always been powerful. Even today very rich counties like Saudi arab,uae,Qatar are muslim nation they fund various institutes like ngos,news channel,news paper,magazine,educational institutes,gives grants for research in Islamic studies to university for proper representation of islam.Not only that they also fund left wing organization in west to undermine christinity.Jews may be less in number but historically have been very powerful and rich.at one point of time all the banking system was controlled by them and also they have sympathy of the world for what Hitler did to them. There are 1 billion Hindus but 94% live in one country. There are only 3 Hindu majority countries. There are 0 country which favor Hindu world view. Hindus are very disorganized. There are very few institutes which represents Hinduism to the world. Indian intellectual space is filled by leftwing Marxist type because the are given credibility by western intellectuals and sometime funded by them.Anyone who speaks for hindus is branded as nationalist and fascist. West is increasingly becoming more hindu on its own but they are afraid of coming out. It is like using and liking I phone but hiding the apple branding on the back of your phone because you are prejudice against apple product . In lay man term why do we do yoga, meditation bcoz we think there is a god inside oneself and by yoga we connect to that god. Jivatma with Paramatma.Now what is the difference between normal stretching, breathing exercise and yoga. Difference is concept of GOD INSIDE you and wanting to CONNECT with it. What is the difference between normal concentratition, deconcentration, relaxation, deep relaxation exercise and mediation. Difference is GOD INSIDE you and wanting to CONNECT with it. Now if you are closing your eye trying to concentrate, trying to defocus sitting in lotus position trying to relax that thing you are trying to do is not meditation if you do not believe in GOD INSIDE you and wanting to CONNECT with it. Now thing is if you believe in GOD INSIDE you and wanting to CONNECT with it you cease to be a Christine, you cease to be a Muslim, you cease to be a atheist, you cease to be a Jew, you cease to be a Buddhist.The language of Sanskrit is very difficult to translate into different languages.you can not translate jivatma.paramatma.atman,dhyan,adhyatam into other western language directly. Because language develop according to one’s lifestyle and needs and no one in the west was doing dhyan 1000 year ago or even 400 year ago. It is about being not understanding. Intellectual in west are somehow trying to digest hindu philosophy into western beliefs system. Hence emphasis of yoga not being part of Hinduism. So a Christine cannot do yoga he/she can only do stretching and breathing exercise as philosophy given in bible is not compatible with yoga. Yoga is compatible with only Hindu philosophy and to a certain extend other dharmic religion. The way that this world functions is that the dominant culture, with its misguided confidence of its imagined superiority tries to keep the lesser culture in its place. This is done by trivializing and deprecating the lesser culture and the claim that only the dominant culture is the “valid culture”. (Marxist have done this all along that their way is the only way, every other way is flawed). By denying the agency for the lesser culture to speak they follow a cultural imperialism that leads to political and economic imperialism and enslaves the lesser culture. American academia has taken over from the British the imperial project and the English speaking Indians elite have remained clueless till to date. Trying to disassociate yoga with Hinduism is symbol of cultural imperialism. I think I finally understand your confusion of thinking yoga is a Hindu religious practice. One does not need to worship or believe in a specific god to do yoga. Yoga is the unification with Brahman/Atman (the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena). Yoga was not intended to connect with a specific deity or god like Shiva or Kali, but I can see how a Hindu would believe this and conflate yoga with their religion. Iam preecher of yoga. agree dt Yoga is not directly connected to hinduism. but even hindu doesnt need perticular deity or god. its his/her choice. itsveryopenculter. yess its open culture not religion. someone mentioned yoga was der before vedas. vedas comes in wrriten form when writting techniques were developed. before that also vedas exists.definatly yoga is of outshoot of hinduism. krishna a hindu god r u agree? if yes den he is called as yogendra also. one of his many names. yogendra means god of yoga. so u cant separate hinduism n yoga. hmm… would you say your thoughts are ‘homogeneous’ with regard to a Hindu view of ingestion of associated culture by western people/countries/whatever? As someone of a culture similarly colonized by various empires, I don’t believe there is a ‘pure’ versions of anything. As you said ” Because language develop according to one’s lifestyle and needs” The necessity of a space and time dictate what words ‘become’ to those uttering and listened; that emotional cipher of a time/space, the living language. “Hindus are also plagued by Fake yogis,baba and fake Goodman who uses Hinduism for name, fame and power. So they dilute hindu identity to gain acceptance in west.” Ehh, this happens to Christianity as well; I mean wasnt that the whole point of Islam, an effort to remove the self proclaimed ‘guru effect’ by having the last prophet. Anyway, I think the anger is wasted as ‘we have to play the cards we’re dealt.’ Also I responded to you because couldn’t figure out how to make a post that wasn’t a response to an existing post lawl. Personally I’d want to cross references histories with Chinese dynasties and others for the sake of more reference frames. If I may, I’d like to know your perspective on doing the ‘yoga poses’ perse. My question is, are the execution of the poses perse an act of adoration or worship? Or, if there isn’t the concept of believing in a god inside, the mere realisation of the forms has no inherent meaning on hinduism? I wonder what Timothy Burgin thinks about the move by the student government at the University of Ottawa to ban the teaching of yoga by a young female instructor who has been offering free lessons to disabled and other students for the past 8 years or so. The student government’s reasoning being that her yoga classes were examples of “cultural appropriation”. Hi Bill, thanks for pointing out that interesting news story. It sounds like their decision had probably more to do with the trend in North American universities to be hyper politically correct, especially since “cultural appropriation” is itself a controversial concept. If the council just wants the “students are aware of where the spiritual and cultural aspects come from” why didn’t they have a thoughtful discussion with the instructor instead of abruptly canceling the class via email? We hindus do not mind people of other religion and culture doing yoga.what we mind is “appropriation” of our religion for commercial purpose.how can people in west separate yoga from Hinduism. Vedas,Upanishads,Bhagavad-Gîtâ these are all hindu religious text and all of them ask us to do yoga. yoga as a way of life was taught to us by krishna in Bhagavad-Gîtâ. what yo people in west do now days is not yoga but hatha yoga. Hatha yoga was given to us by lord shiva.please read the story of sage matsyendranath Matsyendrasana is dedicated to it. Hindu people have this image of lord shiva sitting on top of himalayas and doing pranayam,dhyan and yoga all day.Lord shiva is the ultimate yogi.sun salutation you do is dedicated to sun god.praying to sun god is hindu custom.warrior pose that is virabhadrasana is dedicated to an avatar of shiva. separating yoga from hinduism is like cutting a limb from the body.Hindu poeple have been doing yoga for thousands of year.it is not a weight loss program for us.you people have been doing yoga for last 40 years and want to define yoga for us. Yoga ≠ Hinduism. Yoga is a spiritual practice (like prayer) and Hinduism is a religion. They share similar aspects and philosophies, but were developed as separate practices. One does not need to be a Hindu to practice yoga, and likewise one does not need to be a yogi to practice Hinduism. The fact that you keep equating yoga with spiritual as opposed to Hindu being a religion is the root cause of all the confusion. The separation between spiritual domain and religious domain is purely a christian or an abrahamic concept. The fact that you are having trouble coming out of that abrahamic domain and cannot see Yoga for what it is will severely limit you in becoming a Yogi. The traditions that originated from India and the east do not have this abrahamic distinction. There is no separation between spirituality and religion (rituals, set of beliefs etc.). Nobody, especially not me, can tell you where Yoga ends and Hinduism begins. Maybe this is the reason why many followers of eastern traditions get riled up and give you the responses you do because they think you are mangling Yoga. I do not think you are doing it, but you simply cannot think outside your abrahamic framework. As long as you keep making this distinction between spirituality and religion, you might do good as a Yoga businessman (good for you), as a Yoga for money teacher for other abrahamics but you will never become a Yogi. If your intention is to teach Yoga for money, then you are doing the exactly the way it should be done in a primarily christian country. I have no issues with that. However, if your intention is to actually become a Yogi, please focus on the first 4 sutras of Patanjali and meditate upon them. This is not judgmental, but simple , honest truth based on facts: 1. Hindus could care less about your abrahamic beliefs (christian, jeweish, marxist, atheist) as long as you want to Learn yoga, but there are certain expectations especially with respect to guru-shisya parampara (teacher-student relationship) and acknowledgement of teachers (similar to what US patent office does in US), and a conduct/framework for argument that are very closely intertwined with certain schools of philosophy in Hinduism. You simply cannot separate them and still call whatever results from that “Yoga” as separate from other Hindu schools of philosophy. 2. From a bible perspective, the practice of Yoga is simply not in conformance with what your prophet or god wants. Even the so-called spiritual concept of yoga that you attempt to distinguish is in direct contradiction what is the minimum requirement for you to be a christian i.e. allegiance to a prophet and an exclusive single god simply based on belief which is an ‘abomination’ as far a yoga is concerned. By trying to take safe harbor in the so-call spiritual side, you are essentially marketing a false promise to christian adherents and at the same time leaving yourself open to accusations from dharmic adherents. What do you hope to achieve with this? Thank you for such a thoughtful response. The word “Hinduism” is a western concept and it was created to group a bunch of beliefs and practices together into something that made sense to a western mind and belief system. Most of my responses here have been towards Indians who take a very dogmatic approach to Hinduism and believe that Westerners are being disrespectful of their religion or culture if they practice yoga without being a Hindu, or specifically, they seem very upset if someone writes a history on yoga without mentioning their religion. So while I agree that most Hindus could “care less” some do care very deeply and are adamant on making a big stink about it. I don’t know much about nationalist Hindus to know what their agenda and rational for doing so is, but I know I have little tolerance for their small minded beliefs and unkind judgements. I stand by my assertion that yoga and Hinduism are separate but related. I agree with your statement that it is difficult to know exactly where yoga ends and Hinduism begins–but this does not equate to them being the same. They emerged and evolved together in the same culture so it makes perfect sense that they share some philosophical ideas. From my decades of study, research and practice of yoga I have not seen, heard or read anything that says one must practice Hinduism to be a yogi. In fact, holding tightly onto strong religious and cultural beliefs will only hinder any attempts at vairagya (detachment) and thus inhibit one’s progress along the path of yoga. FYI–I am not a Christian and most of this website’s visitors are non-Christian. I am confused as to why you are trying to make this a religious issue. Spirituality is plagiarized version of religion. You want to enjoy all the good part of different religion but avoid certain restrictive and controversial part of a religion. It is like marriage with one person and open relationship with multiple person. If you are not happy with your marriage either you resolve your differences with your partner or break it .But some amoral people choose to CHEAT on their partner or some weak people get scared of marriage that they start believing in open relationship. Now people ask where is the proof of the god. It is in PEACE OF MIND and doing good deeds. People in west also want peace of mind but cannot get it in their abrahamic or atheistic beliefs.So they turn toward dharmic religion and find peace in it.But it goes against your abrahamic or atheistic beliefs to find peace in other religion hence west created this term “spirituality”.In the name of spirituality you can appropriate dharmic religion the way you want like west has created Christine yoga,holy yoga.west is trying to digest yoga into christinity. Hinduism was born when rig veda was conceptualized. At that time there were no abrahamic religion or other religion.There is no word for religion in Sanskrit or other Indian language,closest that come is DHARM which means your duty and right conduct.Religion is a western concept.hindu people started to behave like a religion when they feel threatened by abrahamic religion.Hindus were ruled by muslim for 400 years and by christinity for 200 years.Hinduism became religion in those 600 years of enslavement earlier it was just a way of life.christnians and muslims say that only their religion is true all other religion are false.it is unfortunate that abrahamic religion are still trying to convert people into their religion. Hindus have understood that we have to keep exerting our identity for survival. ”Vv” wrote such a beautiful answer which you clearly did not understand. Hindus do not believe in converting people. But we do believe in acknowledgement of teachers.Lord shiva is the first yogi.If you do not show gratitude to lord shiva you are not a yogi. You are stuck outside in rain..I have 10 room in my house.i use only room 1 for myself all other room are vacant. i permit you to stay inside room 3.You cannot separate room 3 from my house. The mainstream Hindu philosophy includes six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) – Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.Some one following samkhya is also hindu,yoga is also hindu,Vedanta is also hindu.How do you separate Hinduism from yoga I can not understand. Buddism is separate because it has a founder,its different book,lineage of guru.Yoga has non of that. You also talk about nationalist Hindus and not knowing their agenda.Read a book called Invading the Sacred.it is available for free on internet to get a hang of it A Quote From varun MARCH 13, 2016 AT 2:03 PM “Spirituality is plagiarized version of religion”. This “forum” of sort is very interesting: I know nothing about the origins of Yoga but I am a student at a local yoga studio, and I am also a Christian. I enjoy yoga very much and I feel I have benefited from it in 2 ways: 1. in a physical sense the practice of it has improved my flexibility, and 2. it appears that I am settling down and becoming more open minded about things and somehow I thiink this is partly because my teachers always display and teach the positive. Now: with that said, I must admit that my reading of the comments on this; so called forum came to an abrupt halt after reading the comments from varun. Those comments made more sense than anything I had read regarding the subject of yoga so I am stopping here to let those comments sink into my mind. Varun’s comments on this subject is the most appropriate descrition of what I need to continue my practice of yoga. Thank you varun! This is right. That is the ineluctable fact here. It makes me sad, too…I wasn’t going to say anything, but I have to because it isn’t about whether someone is from the West or not, but it is about people bastardizing something, it is about this secular movement of Yoga away from its roots, and it makes me cringe. In taking a second to humbly qualify myself–I am a Westerner, but I am a Yogacharya, a vedantin brahmacharya, and an M.A. candidate of a correct program in Yoga Philosophy here in the West at a private university. So, I guess you could say I know a bit about the academic as well as spiritual side of yoga. Yoga is not something you go and “do,” it is something you strive to “become.” Yoga is a profound way of life. That being said, although there are many ways to practice Yoga, they are absolutely devotional paths in nature. Hatha Yoga is modern yoga–particularly here in the West, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you even take, say, Surya Namaskar, it is the embodiment of the Gayatri mantra, which was originally chanted 108 times. The asan was added much later during the “Classical Yoga” period. But back to the roots: The Upanishads mention yoga, the Rig Veda are some of the earliest speculations of proto-Yoga. Lord Krishna outlines what Yoga exactly is, and it is about the highest moral and religious ideal. The Bhagavad Gita can be interpreted as Vaishnavic or Advaitic and both of those are–you guessed it–religious philosophies. Yoga is the practical application of ancient-Indo-Aryan religion. Period. People mistakenly think that the Yoga Sutras are the definitive text on Yoga and they are not. They are not meant to stand on their own because they assume that each student has proper qualifications (namely having studied/is studying the shruti). To even understand the Yoga Sutras you need to know what the Siddha Yoga lineage is first and don’t forget the Hiranyagarbha Vedic Yoga Tradition as well, because that is the quintessential aspect of what informed Patanjali. To say that yoga is not equal to hinduism is such a stupid statement. Read shiva samhita which is the most important test on hatha yoga. Hatha Yoga Pradipika another one,in both these book shiva is considered as the first yogi, both pay respect to shiva for teaching hatha yoga to humans.In ancient india yoga in physical form was mostly done by hardcore shiva devotee. do bible ask us to do yoga no.do quran ask us to do yoga no.name any other religious text that ask to do yoga. ONLY hindu religious text ask to do yoga.hindus have hundreds of religious text and all of them ask us to do yoga. Yoga sutra of patanjali is also hindu religious text. go and ask Christians,Jews,Muslims,Sikhs,Buddhist,jains,parsi do they consider Vedas,Upanishads,Bhagavad Gita,yoga sutra of patanjali,shiva samhita as religious text their answer will be NO.These are all hindu religious text,so each and every word written in it belong to hindu religion.Hatha yoga is given to us by shiva and yoga as a way of life is given to us by Krishna in bhagavad gita. Kalaripayattu an ancient martial art form which originated in india similarly game of chess,sports of kabaddi also originated in india these activities are also good for health but hindu never say that these belongs to hindu religion because they are not mention in our religious text. Problem is that there are so many fake yogis who do not care about yoga but want to sell it to westerners.They want to earn name and fame from yoga,earn money from yoga,create a cult around them or they have negative prejudice against hindu religion so they are trying to distort the history of yoga. One can not wake up a person pretending to be asleep. All form of positive emotion comes from one single source i.e GRATITUDE and gratitude comes only when you accept the truth but for that you need to develop a conscience. While you have a right to disagree with my statements, by calling my opinion “stupid” you are being disrespectful as well as not furthering a discussion on this issue. If you continue to be disrespectful you will be banned from leaving comments here. Yogis view Shiva and other Hindu gods as mythical beings who symbolize and personify facets of higher truth. Only a Hindu would view Shiva as a literal god in the yogic texts you referenced. From Wikipedia: Hinduism is a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions. Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Hinduism emerged after the Vedic period, between 500-200 BCE and c. 300 CE, the beginning of the “Epic and Puranic” c.q. “Preclassical” period. Thank you for your article, you have written it very well. It is clear and precise, yet makes you aware that the history of yoga is still very much uncertain. I am just starting out on my yoga journey and I have a lot to learn. However, having first started yoga in Vietnam I felt ‘united’ with myself and those around me, and this was without knowing the meaning of yoga. I was the only Westerner in the class and could not speak any VIetnamese, yet I felt welcomed and connected to everyone in my class. Based on the comments below and the little knowledge I have, it appears that although the history of yoga is VERY important it is not the most important thing. The most important aspect of yoga is being united your mind, body and those around you regardless of religion, race and culture. We are all the same person and should be helping one another to seek both inner and world peace. Namaste <3 it has been very interesting reading all of the comments below. it has cleared up a few queries. Yoga is started from very ancient time that you assumed. Rishi of Vedas were Aryans of middle Asia actually there were not rishi . They were just invaders and fighters They came to Indus river and defeated the residents. Vedas don’t believe in idol worship but Indus people used to worship idols of Yogis So we can say that yoga is older than Vedas And Vedic people slowly took the idea of yoga Father of yoga was actually shamans First shraman was Rishabha deva .. Who is called yogeshwara because he developed yoga. Letter Vedic people make them their god Vishnu’s avtar There a long gape in neminatha and parshva natha about 2000 years In that gape bhrahmin stole all concepts of shramans and made up a new religion called Vedic religion. Then a high level of yoga meditation and and physical balancing found in parsvanatha . Who is not bhrahmin but a Dravidian shraman .. Then we find same level of yoga in mahavira and Buddha Then after 100 years of mahavira and Buddha we found a book on yoga composed by patanjali But such yogas not found in Vedas So we can say that patanjali took idea of that from ancient shramans. Because in Vedas no bhrahmin required to do yogas but required to do animal sacrifice and bathing in holy water and playing illogical rituals Then how they can originated the yoga Which required a strict vegetarianism but Vedic bhrahmins were not Yes , shraman was father of yoga You can say that Shiva and rishabha was founder of yoga not Vedic rishis Hi Divyank, it is interesting thoughts what you have said about the source of yoga from Dravidians, which is differ from the Vedic Aryans of Central Asia. I am interested to know more about it,, can you refer to me any article or sources. Thanks Dear Timothy, Very glad to read the content in your website. Reading healthy discussion between You and Rabi was an experience! However, I agree with Rabi, I appreciate your respectful conduct. I appreciate your patience for some other feedbacks with disrspectful utterances. It seems that you have digested the very essence of Yoga, Yog: karmasu kaushalam and :Yoga: chitt-vritti Nirodh:” योग: कर्मसु कौशलम् \| (श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता) योगश्चित्तवृत्ति निरोध: (पतञ्जलि). Hinduism and Yoga are so deeply interwoven, that it would not be appropriate to separate the both from each-other just to keep yourself safe from being considered as the Pro-Hindu! Doing this will lead us to the destination which is not to be aimed by a Yogi or a Yoga learner. I think that the days have now come when we can say that these tags of religion – ‘Hindu, Christian, Bauddha’ are now out dated. Do good and be good is what all religions teach. But no Yogi would mind if you wish to practice Yoga, keeping yourself detached with Hinduism as well! Hinduism does not teach to fight for the yourself. It rather teaches to fight for others, for what is right and for the helpless! I am not answering to anybody, nor I wish to claim any body wrong. I am still a lost mind, wandering in search of the ultimate truth and the way is still misty!! I just appreciate those who are far ahead in this journey of quest of life, at least than me and wish you may find the way to show it to others! Thank you Timothy for sharing such practical information about Yoga in general. Rather the information may be agree or disagree by different individuals, I think it’s good effort that you have made to show us here in different parts of the world, outside of the areas and people of India who are not familiar of Hinduism. Regardless the information may or may not be complete. It is my believe that the more Yogis (here “yogi” is just for a general or even a superficial reference) are expose to the deep tradition, philosophy and technique of which ultimately have the power to cast off the bondage of names and forms created by the ignorance of the mind. And made possible for seeker of Truth to experience that ultimate reality of our innermost essence. This deed in itself is a practice of Yoga. A few hundred thanks to the ones who are honest to their bones, who dare to use strait forward words to point out the short-comings of the “world of yoga” here now in our time, in both the west and the east. Personally I believe any effort with the intention to try bring Yoga back to its proper perspective is much needed in this era of material ignorance. Let’s wish all may actualize the state of Yoga one day and see for ourself what Yoga really is. It is said that Jnana, Bhakti, Yoga(Raja) and Karma; any one or any combination of these 4 paths if practice with the aim of self-realization will lead to the same place. Reality, Truth or God. In my opinion, those are true Yogis who are seriously to prove it. I would also love permission to use this brief history as a handout for my teacher trainees. Your work will of course, be sourced. Please send permission/ printable version to my email. Thank you so much. Hi Timothy; I have been regularly practicing yoga for last 5 years, have read the Yogasutras of Patanjali over the 5 years ( it’s not an easy read) and now have been trying to read more about it. Your history of Yoga write-up is a great effort in clearing the air on its origins. As far as I can fathom, yoga does not have a belief in external God. It’s sole purpose is salvation and union of our soul with the universe. Reference the various discussions here about relationship between Hinduism and Yoga: Hinduism can be called a collaborative religion or a way of life. Even now in parts of India (eg Himachal), every town and village has its own god. During certain festivals, a procession from every town carries their individual gods to a common meeting point. Then all the congregated people from all across pray to all the collected gods. I strongly believe that India (Hindus) has so many gods because we believe in ours as well as respect and believe in others gods too. More so, we even believe and accept the atheists too. In fact, if I am correct, One source of yoga comes from atheist philosophy (Samkyas). I have credited the origins of yoga to the Indus-Saraswati civilization which both yoga and Hinduism emerged from. Hinduism is a term invented by the British to describe the various religious practices of Indians at the time of colonization. I was so happy to find this page to know about history of yoga. i went through to bottom to top ..i tell you something which you haven’t found anywhere yet..human life is the most pure form of life with bodies…every soul arrives to life form to get” mukti” ” moksha” ;;;liberation….;;;Yogis-whom you called Mystic Sages…use to perform 8.4 million postures in their yogi life to get human life again…You know Yog connects to unseen spiritual world which you can’t with your these physical eyes…. to Mantras are medium to generate your vibes to connect with these which you don’t understand or gonna see ever as you don’t respect the roots……i had a laugh at your last reply as you gave credit to some one…you are chosen aye! i live in Rishikesh …Himalayas ….a lil Yogi with my own divine experiences with Jesus , Shiva….i live a blessed life…you gonna be perfect in physical and if you want to go for something more than physical life….. You need to spend time as it should be…. Om Namah Shivaya….Satyam Shivam Sundaram…mean:::::Shiva is the truth:::shiva is the supreme:::shiva is the most beautiful …. I do not like the divine practise as yoga has been reduced by so many to commercial businne and I do not like that nobody mention Lord Krishna the father of all yoga practice I do nolike it is by many confused as a pactice of hinduism No where will find Vedas or Mahabarat the verb hindu JeiSri Krishna Hello, I’m doing a research paper on the science of yoga as a physical and spiritual practice. I’m looking for the publisher of this article. Will you please direct me to that info? Thank you and many blessings to all. The prehistoric origins of yoga that you hint at are found in archaeological evidence of various meditation postures and allusions to prana. This would be approximately around the time the Vedic culture is believed to have begun, ca 6’000 years ago. Aspects of tantra yoga, karma yoga and asthanga yoga developed further during the Vedanta age, as well as in Buddhism and Jainism. Pranayama, Asana, Dhyana – all these developed between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE. What you failed to mention completely, is the heavy influence of Western gymnastics and proto-aerobics on Yoga in the 19th century. People like Krishnamacharya, Vivekananda or Swami Sivananda attempted to portray their yoga as one and the same as Patanjali’s system (which many Indians believe to be many centuries older than what you wrote), but this is not the case at all; their ‘modern’ yoga had hardly anything to do with the spiritual, meditative yoga of ancient times. A very influencial wave of fitness, which incorporated stretching, dance and gymnastics (developed in Scandinavia in the mid 19th century) was brought to India by the many Western colonists. Much evidence exists of how this not only influenced, but more or less created what we call Yoga today. Glad every one here is fighting, arguing and claiming Yoga. Want to laugh out loud at so called teachers and researchers of yoga. They should know “Brahmins” are a class in Hindusim, A class which was involved in reading writing and teaching. Some people are referring here that some Veda’s promote eating meat and beef, Though I have never read them as original texts, I will like to inform that different vedas were written in different times if Rigveda was written in 1700 BCE others may be in 600 BCE. Hinduisam is not a religion but a way of living and strength of this way of living is its ability to respond to changing circumstances, acceptance of new ideas and changing accordingly. Originally all man kind had been non-vegetarian, even Hindus had been non-vegetarians. Except for Brahmins(whom Timonthy has mentioned in the beginning – used to practice yoga). Cow worshipping began in the later stages of evolution of Hinduism. So many good things in Hinduism have evolved in later stages because this religion is based on science and has tept evolving with new findings and discoveries. To understand that some one need to look into various studies which reveal the beef is not good for human body, cow’s urine has medicinal and heeling properties, in our villages after during first bath after delivery it is mandatory to add some drops of cow urine even a few drops are given to drink, cow dung is used to mop hows floor in villages because it is disinfectant. Cow’s urine is also used as pesticides which is not harmful like chemicals discovered by western world, composition of cow’s milk is very close to that of Human’s (please check the various researches) and there are much more benefits. All these things were discovered with time as Hindu’s discovered this they started worshipping cow and prohibited beef. Now comming back to ‘Yoga’, I will refer to names of certain poses:-‘ Surya Namaskar’- who worships Sun?, ‘Bhu Namskarm’- who worships Earth? . Yoga teaches and rests in the priciple that power lies inside us we need to identify and awaken it same does says Hinutva. Krishna in The Bhgavad Geeta says I am every where, in smallest particle of soil and hugest of the living beings. Even in some of our temples ‘Suraya Namaskar’ is part of Arti ritual. Hence I hope I have made my point here and have presented a few of evidences. Since I am grown up with Yoga around me in midst of people believing in Hindisim and people not believing in some of its teachings even being Hindu. Timonthy I am glad you are passionate about Yoga but at the same time we can not reep out of our learning without thanking or giving ‘ Guru Dakshina’ to our Gurus (Teachers) Here you are not even ready to recognise their contribution. For those who want to know more about Yoga, there can be no place better than India to learn about it, you will find it every where in our culture some times fully some times in parts. And rather than reading people who have picked some knowledge from secondary research, read about people like Maharishi Patanjali who compiled Yoga sutras and dedicated his entire life for good of mankind. I see you mentioned you grew around yoga. What I am really tired to see how commercial yoga has become in India. 90% of the schools are teaching yoga within one month (they call it ttc course), is it really possible? I like a fool thought a life time wasn’t enough. Anyway, can you please suggest me a good master or a school I could go to and devote myself to yoga and meditation. I would like to learn authentically rather than learning hurriedly in a span of 15 days or one month. Thanks for a great article outlining the basics of the history of yoga. I found many of the comments below quite intense and I applaud your replies to each of these. I too have researched the history of yoga, although in one lifetime I doubt I would have even touched the surface. I feel that some of the anger in the other comments is toward ‘western yoga’ and the fact yoga is now a billion dollar industry in the west and we walk around with our Ganesh Tshirts, Mala Beads and say Namaste at the end of our classes (which I find incredibly weird so don’t do it) and much of this which the west associates with yoga, is in fact, much of hinduism. I get that some people are a little peed off. What is important though, which I believe you do well Timothy, is stick with the factual history and research, which I don’t think many others have. If they had, they wound’t be disputing you. What I think we can all respect is that yoga has been a part of Hindu practice for a very long time. and it was the Hindus, of another name, who did set the foundations. It was the ancestors of hindus we know today, the people who modern Hindus actually do see as fellow Hindus. I have many Hindu friends from India who are all yoga teachers (we are from Sivananda) and we are all one. There’s no separation of cultures or no talk of who is more deserving of practicing yoga or who did yoga first. We are all one. This, to me, is yoga. I do however, question that the Sutras were compiled in the 2nd century though? Is the CE? My belief was always they were compiled somewhere between 4th – 2nd BCE. I’m wondering what your source is on this? I teach History of Yoga so this is important to me :) Namaste. I just wanted to respectfully point out that samadhi is not the same thing as enlightenment. This is a common mistake and has been written about extensively in Yoga Philosophy. One of the better essays on it is by Michael Comans, PhD. No where is it said that the goal of yoga is samadhi. The goal of yoga is much higher than that and is laid out in the shruti. Also, the realization of “Divine Oneness” was mentioned earlier than the Upanishads, you find it in the Rig Veda as well. :) you have done a good practice of yoga. Everyone taking benefit of yoga in turn nobody render any service to this great tradition. Few of you may be aware that there are hundreds of yoga manuscripts at least 1000 are available unpublished. all are not the same of Astanga yoga. there are hatha yoga, karma yoga, bhakti yoga etc. since you are teaching yoga, you should render service to this tradition by taking responsibility by publishing some of these texts. Why isn’t Hinduism mentioned in any part of this article?? The author does mention Hinduism’s holy scriptures peppered throughout the article but fails to connect it to the religion. Odd and disappointing. For instance, right off the bat, the statement: “The word yoga was first mentioned in the oldest sacred texts, the Rig Veda.” Here’s another one: “The Vedas were a collection of texts containing songs, mantras and rituals to be used by Brahmans, the Vedic priests.” I suppose I should be happy that the word “Vedic” is mentioned because that’s what we Hindus are – Vedic. So, why couldn’t the word “Hindus” be included in parentheses after that statement so that people could make the connection and be truly educated? Also odd that “Brahmins” is mentioned but again no Hinduism – I suppose Hinduism is only mentioned when there’s something negative to say. The Rig Vedas are the religious texts of the Hindus. So is the holy Bhagavad Gita. What’s next? These religious scriptures won’t belong to Hindus anymore? WTH. The word Hinduism is not mentioned here because: 1. This is the history of yoga, not Hinduism. 2. Yoga and Hinduism are two separate traditions. 3. The word and concept of Hinduism was coined much later than the practices of yoga: “It should be pointed out that the word ‘Hindu’ is not found in any of the classical writings of India. Nor can it be traced to the classical Indian languages, such as Sanskrit or Tamil. In fact, the word ‘Hinduism’ has absolutely no origins within India itself.” Source: https://goo.gl/8h2lVh Timothy, With all due respect, what I don’t think you’re seeing is that, while the term Hindu was coined much later than the origins of yoga, Hindu was a term to describe the varied spiritual beliefs and practices of the people of the Indus-Sarasvati region. Yoga is included in those practices and beliefs. The texts, rituals, and mantras you site in the history of yoga are the same texts, rituals, and mantras that embody Hinduism. You are focused on semantics. Yes, the word Hindu came later as a way to define the culture, religion, geographical region, etc., but modem Hindus do not separate themselves from the past cultures. Semantics aside, It’s one history. That’s all they want you to acknowledge, and I think when you have people of a certain culture, whose sacred traditions have been appropriated for superficial financial wealth, telling you they are upset, as an outsider of that culture, I would hope you could empathize with their frustration, even acknowledge that Hinduism could have been mentioned in the article, rather than painting them all as extreme nationalists with a political agenda. They are people, Timothy. They are people who want their culture respected rather than disregarded. You could have even given credit to the fact that yoga has been practiced in the Hindu tradition and grew out of the same history as Hinduism. That would have at least acknowledged Hinduism without letting go of the separatism you are clinging so hard to. Your stating that “Hindu was a term to describe the varied spiritual beliefs and practices of the people of the Indus-Saraswati region” is incorrect. “The religion of the Vedic period was the religion of the Indo-Aryans of northern India. It is a historical predecessor of modern Hinduism, though significantly different from it.” Source: https://goo.gl/o2D4KG You and others complaining about this issue have intentionally blurred the history and use of the word Hinduism. For what end you and others are doing this I am unsure, but it would be naive to disregard the current popularity of Indian nationalism as a motivation. If you look through our website it should be clear that we consistently and passionately respect the origins and history of yoga and take extreme care to not promote cultural appropriation and superficiality. Why do you need to try to taint my character as insensitive, disrespectful and uncaring to make your argument? I have yet to see anyone provide a source (even an unreliable one) to discredit the notion that yoga and Hinduism are two separate traditions and that yoga emerged from Vedic philosophy. All I have seen from people trying to make your argument are personal attacks, most of which I’ve had to delete (some have been racist and downright disgusting) as they have violated our terms of conduct. You want sources to discredit the notion that yoga and Hinduism are two separate traditions.Bhagavad gita which is a hindu text ask us to do yoga. Read shiva samhita which is the most important on hatha yoga. Hatha Yoga Pradipika another book in both these book shiva is considered as the first yogi.these are all hindu text.Yoga sutra of patanjali is also hindu religious text.Do you know what surya namaskar mean.On the contrary can you name one yogic text which originated separately from Hinduism. You are missing the point and what you listed are not sources that support arguments or facts. Do all Hindus practice yoga? No, therefore your argument is a fallacy. If you had read the article you would have seen that my point that yoga and Hinduism developed at the same time and ideas were intermingled. Hi Friend, I was intrigued by the thread of discussion on whether Yoga is part of Hinduism or not. To me it is meaningless discussion. What are we going to achieve by proving if Yoga is a “Hindu” tradition or otherwise. When Jesus arrived at Bethlehem, he did not arrive to preach Christianity, rather he arrived to teach universal knowledge, which is acceptable to everyone. It was later codified as Bible 500 years later at Constantinople. Similarly when Patanjali composed Yoga, it will be wrong to say that he did it for the sake of Hinduism. Because the term religion did not exist during his time. Later when Hinduism was codified, Yoga was indeed incorporated as one of the six pillars of Hinduism (the other five pillars are Samkhya, Vaisesikha, Nyaya, Mimamsa and Vedanta). However, the teachings of Yoga is definitely universal, like the teachings of Jesus, and one does not either need to prove that it is a Hindu “thing” or has to be a “Hindu” to practice it. I totally reject this chest thumping of a section of “Hindus” who have forgotten a core principle of Hinduism, namely Humility. Cheers I have enjoyed reading this discussion. As a white American female, I have to side with the Hindus on what yoga is. They should know their own religion. I would be flabbergasted if a foreigner tried to tell me I did not understand my religion. I would think they were quite arrogant to think they knew better. I feel the Hindus on this site have been very honest and I appreciate that. The real issue is the deception in the West to convince the masses that yoga is not a religious practice. For all the Christians who have posted on this site about how much they enjoy yoga, I have to say that the Hindus understand Christianity better than you do. They cleverly pointed out that it is impossible to be a Christian and do yoga. They are correct. The two are not compatible. If you think they are, you only deceive yourself. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to God the Father, except through me”. If you mix religions, you are no longer worshipping Jesus, for he demands your faithfulness. He does not want someone to be like a harlot chasing other gods. Choose this day whom you will serve. I can – not eat beef and love a cow and not be Hindu. I can – not eat pork or bottom feeders or not put cheese on my burger and not be Jewish. I can – love others and be kind, compassionate, empathetic, believe in Jesus’ existence and not be Christian. I can – pray and not be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. I can – practice yoga and not be Hindu. — Disclaimer – I eat beef, pork, bottom feeders, looove cheeseburgers, practice ahimsa daily, pray, work towards presenting the most kind, compassionate, empathetic sides of myself, believe that Jesus existed, and I practice and teach yoga. But I am not Christian, Muslin, Jewish or Hindu. I am a human being who seeks God and yoga helps me access Him in the most tangible and directly connected way – through my physical body, the one given to me by Him. I am an instrument that I learn how to play and then share with the world the expressions that are possible within me. p.s. Timothy’s “yoga ≠ Hinduism” isn’t him saying Yoga is not a part of Hinduism, he is saying that Yoga does not equate to/equal Hinduism. It’s like, all humans are animals but, not all animals are human. Animals ≠ Humans, animals do not equal humans. But certainly they come from the same Source. :) Just because you speak different languages, who owns the birth of sound? When was the first sound made? Is sound a religion, because it seems most people make it, use it, believe in it, even if they are deaf or mute, sound can be made with the body. Is sound proprietary to any one religion? I think not, yet all religions use it and even those who do not believe in anything religious, spiritual, or Godlike use sound. Is sound therefore being commercialized and misappropriated by everyone? Or sports – if I “hit a ball” – am I playing baseball, golf, tennis, hockey (okay it’s a puck), volleyball, or table tennis? Is hitting a ball only “allowed exclusively” to one sport? ** The question is, can you only practice yoga (and nothing else) and still be Hindu according to Hindus? The mainstream Hindu philosophy includes six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) – Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.Some one following samkhya is also hindu,yoga is also hindu,Vedanta is also hindu.to follow these together or separately is up to you.Samkhya rejects the concept of god and you still are consider hindu even if you do not believe in god. There are facts and their are opinion.Opinion should be based on facts and not on subjective feeling or prejudice.Fact is Hindus have sacred text which ask us to do yoga.Can you quote any scripture which are outside the purview of Hindus which talk about yoga ? You are again missing the point and I’ve already addressed this issue in my previous comment to you as well as in the text of this article. Do all Hindus practice yoga? No. Therefore your argument is a fallacy. When we talk about self enlightenment, I become weary. We have become a nation of selfish self centered people in the US. You can quote all the “history” of yoga you want. It is a false replacement for the one true God who created all things. He even gave us free will. Too many have fallen prey to anti God “religions”. We all were put on this plane for one reason, and that is to attain heaven. Do you really want to have a honest and peaceful heart? Pray the Rosary and meditate on it’s mysteries. Yoga isn’t going to get you into heaven, This is the heaven that God the Father created for you. Now, let all the Catholic bashing commence! Richard. Love this. We all preach Yoga and we let the mind take over with dates, names, ideas of what is right or wrong, loosing the actual practice. Thank you for remind me how I, as human being am so small compared to the force around me that works and evolves. Thank you for reminding me why I am destroying the world and everything around it. Thank you for reminding me, as a human being why I like wars and differences. I hope that one day we will say “it is all good, it doesn’t matter”. ” Let’s do our best”. “Let’s go out and do something good”. “Let’s stop the ego game”. Good life to you all. With gratitude. Namaste, Amen or what is appropriate for you. Wow what a tedious discussion this is, I had no idea a lot of Hindus felt this way about yoga. They are obviously not familiar with Joseph Campbell and the entire idea of comparative mythology and religion. Believe it or not, when the world myths and religions are seen comparatively there emerges much elucidation on the structure and process of enlightenment. One example is how the Kabbalistic Tree of Life correlates with the cakras for instance, which is based upon number. Sahasrara = 1 = Kether down to Muladhara = 7 = Netzach-Malkuth. One moves up this ladder through life and hopefully eventually crosses the abyss and attains enlightenment, the little “I” becomes the big “eye” and is wed to the eternal, which is the undefinable. It is like the probability cloud of quantum physics, everything potentially and nothing actually. I think the system gains from being stripped from fundamentalism and any one religion, as people learn to drop their pre-conceived beliefs. Enlightenment is universal and can be attained by various methods. I think bodywork methods such as Hatha yoga, the Reichian therapy of Regardie, hypnsosis, are great, but they seem to need a devotional element to really push one into a higher realm. Perhaps sexual Tantric yoga using the cakras or actual magickal ritual will do this. I crossed the abyss using only a version of the LBRP ritual and classical yoga and pranayama, as well as studying a lot, but would now include a lot more bodywork seeing how powerful it is. Eventually there will congeal a great body of work upon what practices are most effective and pleasurable for enlightenment or the best change in quality of self without any dogma attached to them. Hello, to everyone… I have read all of the above comments…whilst the majority of you debating yoga and its roots… You are missing the point of it clearly… Is it SO important to be Right? I believe yoga is a totally individual practice and if it works for the person…who are we to question another’s practice…the path to enlightenment for me includes compassion and understanding of myself and others…I try not to get caught up in “being right”. As for me it’s about letting go…ego included…. Hello, Liked the text very much.I read the above comments,I like that you are discussing about yoga and our religion Hinduism.I think yoga means forgetting our world around us. Yoga helps to keep our body flexible and it also helps in increasing our concentration. Have a good life. You should have a read at “Roots of Yoga” by Mallinson and Singleton. I get where you’re coming from with this, it’s the same Feuerstein-based history that most of us were taught in teacher training before modern scholars started to prove (in the past few years) that there was a big mix of romantic re-imagination and straight-up religious misdirection going on. Their thorough and modern academic research has shown a lot of what you’ve written here (which is the same as I had been teaching trainees for years) to be incorrect, so you’ll probably want to re-write it for accuracy’s sake. Too much stuff for me to go through line-by-line but you can read the above book and see for yourself, I think it’s important that we stop spreading these inaccuracies forward. Hinduism is referred today to what was Santana dharma in old days. Hinduism is a term coined much later and not even by the locals. So just changing the name does not mean that way of life what is called as Hinduism today was not practiced earlier. The religious books of Hinduism/Sanatana dharma have been codified much later. The ancient practices of learning were based on Guru-Shisya parampara and oral/verbal learning. Since writing was not discovered at that time it used to pass through generations in oral form. Later people wrote it in leaves of plant or bark of trees (mainly tadpatra) and after so many years it came in written forms of texts when means of paper and pen are available. Many people are saying here that to practice yoga, one does not need to be a Hindu, therefore it’s not a practice developed by Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma. They need to understand that nothing in Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma promotes closed consciousness. Anybody can follow any God/ any method of prayer / no prayer. In Bhagvat Geeta, Krishna ( the human incarnation of Narayana, the ultimate God and source of energy) says – “Everyone who pray to me, does not pray to me, does not believe in me, even the demons and all souls at last come to me Shiva was originally known as Rudra, a minor deity addressed only three times in the Rig Veda. He gained importance after absorbing some of the characteristics of an earlier fertility god and became Shiva, part of the trinity hi Timothy, your article on yoga is really helpful. i was searching about the history of yoga and i think i got the correct article. i am a hindu. the comments on this article really show your good debating skills. i want tell everyone who read this article and the comments that it is not appropriate to mix hinduism with yoga. i can really Tim’s (hope you don’t mind me calling you Tim) view. although as a hindu i have read the vedic texts and found that yoga was found by hindus. no offence. yoga was found in ancient india as Tim has mentioned. it is true that hindus kept yoga alive for thousands of years . But stating this fact : hindus found yoga, to be written in the article is not necessary and it was the people of india who found it . the fact that at that time only one religion was there entitles the credit to hindus but believe me it is not important to mention hinduism in this article. Tim i highly appreciate your views. you have correctly stated all the facts. kindly don’t listen these people who despite giving all the logic are questioning the same stupid thing. i have a yoga competition so wish me best of luck. i am very thankful to you and your article (including your logical comments) i believe that we should not bring religion in these types of things which give one peace and satisfaction. i am just a teenager but i have participated in many yoga competitions and have won many medals. though this time the competition is different and it is not about flexibility or performing asanas but this time it is a debate on yoga. So thanks to everyone who participated in the debate about the origin of yoga . i largely support your views Tim. thanks – Kasturi The issue with us Indians is we have big egos. Truth is the practice of yog can be done separately from Hinduism, even though that is the religion that founded it. One is correlated with the other but not solely so. And that is probably why you received such an acrid tone from so many. That seems to be the main gripe of not giving credit to Hindus for discovering yoga, which honestly doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. But is good to know everyone’s version of history as it can help get a much broader view on topics like this. I had to research the history of Yoga for a research project and I came across this website. I got more then what I asked for and that’s actually batter. The website isn’t like any other site either. It has colours and the print is easy to read. And the paragraphs aren’t to long so I’m not bored when I’m reading. Most history I read is fine print with unwanted details stuff in the middle of it. In this case the paragraphs were right to the point and it was too small and it wasn’t to big. I was surprisingly interested and I was kept on task. Thank for the website and the learning experience. If anyone wants to see the clearest evidence on the matter then I’d suggest reading “The Roots of Yoga” by Jim Mallinson and Mark Singleton. They’ve clearly evidenced that the roots of Yoga are in the Shramanera communities (i.e. non-Vedic) and even that the source text of the more modern Hatha Yoga is actually a Buddhist Vajrayana text. The bottom line of any deep study of Yoga history is that Yoga clearly belongs to no specific culture as it has been adopted and adapted by so many different cultures and traditions over the centuries. The word itself is defined in several different, distinctive and often contradictory ways by many of these traditions, even to the extent of arguing over the actual Sanskrit root. The practices have changed from generation to generation and vary wildly. Yoga today is nothing like Yoga was even a few hundred years ago and will continue to change, influenced by everyone who takes up its practice. I appreciate your comments on the age of this article, I’m simply posting here so anyone interested in the topic (you must be to have read this far) can have a good reference based on actual scientific research by scholar-practitioners and make their own minds up. This debate is about the origin of yoga is a waste of time and is leading nowhere. If yoga is a Hindu prayer other religions have their own prayers. If it is just a physical exercise there is nothing like an hour early in the morning jogging or a kickabout in the park. Hi Timothy. I appreciate this brief summary on the history of yoga. I have read the comments and understand that this may need a bit of updating. May I have your permission to include this article (giving proper citation and credit, of course) in my teacher training manual? Thanks for considering. Hi Timothy.. its really opening to read about your article, and I am doing more research about it. Could you refer to me some sources or articles that support the claim that yoga and Hinduism has different origin but develop in similar time I have been reading the comments and varying beliefs. Interesting to say the least. I have an odd request. I’m searching for information relating to ancient times where yoga was originally an out door practice aligned with nature. And that it was a practice of Yogis to place people with illness beneath particular trees, depending on their condition. Different tree for different ailment. It’s best described akin the modern day “earthing” any link or knowledge of this practice would be appreciated. I find it a fascinating adjunct to the practice of Yoga. Blessings to all who have participated on the page and a huge thanks Timothy ? People !! Let’s all remember that it’s about love and enlightenment .. no matter what religion or who started it or reintroduced it .. whether you believe in Jesus or follow Buddha’s teachings or Hinduism… The teachings are meant for us to celebrate love , to operate from love and to create oneness .. and again to spread the love and light . Stop arguing about where it came from or who “owns” it. That’s not very loving … We are supposed to get closer to one another through love and our teachings and practices .. Yoga coming to the west is a gift to create a pathway for self realization and love . Dear All, First, thank you Timothy for bringing your yoga practice and teaching online and for sharing what you know in public. More importantly, the forum is a wonderful venue for enabling important reflections and for sharing sources on what we know about the relationship of yoga and Hinduism (and Hindustan). I was exposed to many of these tensions and teachings by my teachers at Rishikesh Yog Peeth in India, who taught about the ‘self-study’ (Svadhyaya) dimension of yoga. I am also, by profession, a philosopher and philosopher of history so I understand the value of teaching as interpretation, i.e., as a hermeneutic. Thank you and the others on this blog for the helpful and insightful contributions to such an important activity, yoga. cheers Researching yoga, I came across this fascinating blog. I don’t know much about yoga and its origins but what I do understand is that it is a peaceful practice for all to enjoy. Please stop the fighting. There is not one correct answer as none of you folk were around 10,000 years ago. Have peace and get on with your own practice without pushing opinions on others. Bhagvad-Gita has got nothing to do with Brahmans and Rishis. The Knowledge of Bhagvad Gita was given by Lord Krishna who was neither a Brahmin nor a Rishi (seer). However, later on Brahmans corrupted the Gita by introducing the Varna system in Gita. Krishna spoke against the Brahminical rituals. He said quit all bull shit rituals and practices and surrender yourself to the Almighty. Gita and Yoga exercise are two completely different things. Please do your research before stating anything related to Bhagvad-Gita. I think it’s magnificent you are promoting and teaching Yoga. On its own, it is a great practice for everyone; It is peaceful, makes them feel good and works. That can’t be a bad thing, can it? For most of us that’s all we need and there’s no need for engaging in philosophical argument , it neither provides enlightenment nor advances my Yoga practice. However, I have not got close to becoming ‘Nirmaani’, so I find contradictions rather bothersome. So to quote from your own writing in the “Five Niyams of Yoga”…….. Ishvara Pranidhana (devotion) is the dedication, devotion, and surrender of the fruits of one’s practice to a higher power. This Niyama fuses two common aspects of yoga within it: the devotion to something greater than the self and the selfless action of karma yoga. Patanjali tells us that to reach the goal of yoga we must dissolve our egocentric nature and let go of our constant identification with ourselves. To do this, our yoga practice and all of the benefits we may receive from our practice must be seen as an offering to something greater than ourselves. Through this simple act of dedication we become reminded of our connection to our higher power, and our yoga practice becomes sacred and filled with grace, inner peace, and abounding love. So, if you say what you mean and mean what say, there appears to be some contradictions in some of your responses to posts made by others. In your writing above, you have mentioned “Ishvara” a “higher power” “something greater than ourselves” and “sacred” . Given that you give great stock to Wikedpedia , you may wish to look up the meaning of Ishvara and, in the Oxford dictionary, the definition word sacred. Whilst you vehemently deny any connection between Hinduism , religion and Yoga, it seems odd that you propound this in your writing elsewhere. So you might find it’s either your mastery of Yoga philisophy or of English that is found wanting. Furthermore, I know nothing about you, so am in no position to judge whether you are indeed a final authority on the origins of Yoga or not. So, for the benefit of the intellectually curious, I wondered if you could justify all your assertions with references to the scriptures or authoritative sources. That will help quell some of the arguments about your or credibility. Finally, if you wish to become a fine violin player, you’d probably want to ensure you learn from someone who can play , and very well. I believe it is therefore encumbent on every ‘shisya’ (pupil) to ensure that their teacher , practices what they teach. Ie the teacher, Guru, or master whatever you may wish to call them, is a living embodiment of what he professes and teaches. Again, referring to your writing above “we must dissolve our egocentric nature….” . Yet you feel it necessary to spend time attempting to correct anyone who goes against your opinions (which as it stands, without references, is all they are), and rudely alleging they are Hindu Nationalists, rather than showing any understanding or compassion. So, I’d be grateful if you could enlighten me, is this an example of “ dissolving our ego centric nature” ? So, I hope you don’t mind clarifying a few things but if I’m going to accept someone’s teachings, I really need to know they are the real thing. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The presentation of Ishvara Pranidhana in PYS is interesting as it creates a unique and hybrid approach to the Sankhya philosophy. There are also other small parts of the broad spectrum of yogic teachings that meander more towards a Hindu or religious flavor. In general terms, yoga is a non-secular practice. It should also be noted that this article is a bit out of date and that my responses on these comments span many years. As a student of yoga, I am constantly learning new things as well as refining my previous knowledge. I certainly do not consider myself “a final authority on the origins of Yoga” or as someone who never contradicts himself. I’ve unfortunately received many rude, nasty and racist comments on this article that required deletion, and it is mostly these deleted comments that informed me how many comments are being written from a Hindu Nationalist perspective. It is interesting that once I started calling them out using this term that these type of comments have dramatically decreased. Sometimes showing understanding or compassion is not the most skillful approach, especially when you are obviously being trolled. Wow! I have been reading all comments and I do not understand why people is so confused in regards to how, when, where or if is Yoga good or bad?. it is simple: If something comes from above (Almighty God) is good, if something comes from darkness, confusion, deceitful etc. it bad. “people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”. I have been researching about yoga since six year but this blog open my eyes iam belons to hindu but to practice yoga not need to be from any schhol its pure science yoga is truth rule of nature evry one accept it not to debate about it Hi Timothy I have come across your article on the origins of yoga as I am starting my journey into yoga and it’s teachings this year, my journey will start at Krishna Village here in Australia, however I have been searching and reading different articles and there does seem to be a lot of different views most of which are confusing. Your article has given a direction to follow. I do however find it rather interesting and some what disappointing that the comments made by some individuals rather aggressive which from my limited understanding goes against both yoga and Hinduism practice. Please understand I’m not questioning your accuracy but following my curiosity to know more Ha ha, you are all fighting over silly things. Hinduism is not an -ism; English is an object-oriented language that needs to neatly package everything and everyone. “Hinduism” is simply “the belief systems and practices of peoples inhabiting the general region of the world now known as India.” Case in point is that you cannot convert to “Hinduism”; you have to be born in India to be Hindu. I view it as intact, vibrant, and ever-evolving non-homogenous and super-regional indigenous ‘religion(s)’ of India, and of regions influenced by East Indian civilization. And thank all the gods and goddesses for that! Timothy Being a Hindu I commend your interest and effort in giving an insight to the history of yoga. The brief summary of the different periods of the evolution of yoga is very insightful. I am surprised by the comments of some of the Hindus as to how they finding faults in your article rather than adding or contributing to the article. The idea of yoga is the physical aspect to reach the meditative stage. All yogas are performed solely for the purpose of aligning your breath to a meditative breath. Wow, Timoty, you generated such a long chain of different “this is the real history” after your post! I would like to point that I am just a beginner into the Yoga practice. However, I always felt very spiritual and connected to our nature. I think Yoga can be a great practice to develop my inner self, my mind and my body. It is curious how many of the posts talk about the religions involved in the Yoga practice or making comparations with other religions such as Christianism. I come from a Catholic culture where, ‘thank God’, no one tried to impose me any actual religious belief. Even if I used to believe in God as a child, that idea disappeared as soon as I started to learn about the world, in a philosophical way. Since I am new in this, I can´t really talk about the origins of Yoga, but what I feel as true, is that any religion should be totally attached to the Yoga practice. Religions are man-words created at a certain point to teach others about different ideas, or “good” ideas. Ideas that should make understand people what´s our path in our lives. Religions are just man-philosophies that, at some point, became static ideas in a book, and were somehow imposed to everyone. Don´t get me wrong, I think all the religions have many topics in common (how to deal with our life and other’s) that, if correctly understand them, they could make good in our world. But religions are not free, and religions (driven by human beings) are imposing their beliefs. This is why I get why there is a discussion about who Yoga belongs to, because it is spoken from religious minds. It is great to understand that Yoga comes from India and to know that probably Yoga and Hinduism have a lot in common as they have lived together in the same country for centuries. But if someone is an actual yogi, a spiritual person, someone who understands what and where we are… Would really discuss and impose Yoga to be part of a religion that was created so many centuries ago? I believe the idea of Yoga, in the same way of any religion, in the same way of any philosophy (Buddhism e.j) are ideas that come from human beings’ minds. But Yoga is not a religion, therefore is not imposed. If we want everyone to understand and help the world, we should promote Yoga in any kind of country/idea, instead of criticising each other’s “because you don’t match this amazing practice with my religion”. As I said, I am not religious but much of my way of acting in society (culturally speaking) is “Catholic” since the country where I was born follows in a majority that religion. So I have Catholic notes but I have my own philosophy influenced by that religion probably. With this I want to say, Yoga is a practice influenced by Hinduism because they’ve been living together for long, but I believe Yoga is much more spiritual and philosophical, than religion can be. So, despite its influences, I wouldn´t say Yoga and Hinduism are the same at all. yoga, when practiced consistently and correctly, has the power to break apart the ego. yoga in ancient times as said above was done by brahmans and the Vedic priests. why didnt brahmins abolished caste system , brahmins themselves are toxic and are most hatred towards lower castes . why they had to show themselves on top of caste cycle This discussion has been exhausting for me to read and I must apologize for what I am about to say ahead of time. Although I will state that everyone’s mentioning of Hindu and Yogic intertwining has blown my mind as.I never knew about its’ full history. That being said, though by everyone’s account, exact dates are not as important as the substance material, through an astronomy program, found the year, based upon given astrological signs, for the birth of Lord Rama. According to a computer program, it is 4321 B.C.. India’s tradition can not be separated from catur veda which have born a focus of bodily liberation (karma detachment). This very core of catur veda you can find within samhita or upanisads. Liberation is meant to unify the atman and brahman, and this had become main focus of discussion during vedic period, let’s arbitrary say “spiritual objective (SO)”. To reach SO that causing various theories such as karma kanda (ritualistic ways), and jnana kanda(knowledge way). In the persuit of knowledge way and the effort of proofing karma kanda is effective arising further thoughts such as epistemology on attaining knowledge (pramanam), refusing karma kanda and existence of atman and brahman (atheistic), etc. One of the most extreme way to reach the SO is developed during the time of shramana that is serious contemplation, abstain from any worldly comforts, and this brought in itself a paradox and arising the opinion, that to gain the knowledge we have to make to body and spirit healthy as mentioned on samkhya-yoga philosopy in the triguna discussion. Timothy Burgin is a Kripalu & Pranakriya trained yoga instructor living and teaching in Asheville, NC. Timothy has studied and taught many styles of yoga and has completed a 500-hour Advanced Pranakriya Yoga training. Timothy has been serving as the Executive Director of YogaBasics.com since 2000. He has authored two yoga books and has written over 500 articles on the practice and philosophy of yoga. Timothy is also the creator of Japa Mala Beads and has been designing and importing mala beads since 2004. Subscribe to our free YogaBasics Newsletter Subscribe to receive updates on yoga news, articles, expert tips, inspiration and more. We send out only 3-4 emails per month and keep our list 100% private and spam free. Join Our Premium Membership Are you ready to take your yoga practice to the next level? Look no further than YogaBasics.com’s premium membership! Explore Our Yoga Books Check out our two yoga books: Yoga for Beginners takes you through all the basics of practicing yoga and then teaches you the poses in the context of a yoga practice sequence. Yoga Class guides you through eight lessons to learn 30 of the most commonly used poses while incorporating yogic philosophy and principles of alignment.	Even if I used to believe in God as a child, that idea disappeared as soon as I started to learn about the world, in a philosophical way. Since I am new in this, I can´t really talk about the origins of Yoga, but what I feel as true, is that any religion should be totally attached to the Yoga practice. Religions are man-words created at a certain point to teach others about different ideas, or “good” ideas. Ideas that should make understand people what´s our path in our lives. Religions are just man-philosophies that, at some point, became static ideas in a book, and were somehow imposed to everyone. Don´t get me wrong, I think all the religions have many topics in common (how to deal with our life and other’s) that, if correctly understand them, they could make good in our world. But religions are not free, and religions (driven by human beings) are imposing their beliefs. This is why I get why there is a discussion about who Yoga belongs to, because it is spoken from religious minds. It is great to understand that Yoga comes from India and to know that probably Yoga and Hinduism have a lot in common as they have lived together in the same country for centuries. But if someone is an actual yogi, a spiritual person, someone who understands what and where we are… Would really discuss and impose Yoga to be part of a religion that was created so many centuries ago? I believe the idea of Yoga, in the same way of any religion, in the same way of any philosophy (Buddhism e.j) are ideas that come from human beings’ minds. But Yoga is not a religion, therefore is not imposed. If we want everyone to understand and help the world, we should promote Yoga in any kind of country/idea, instead of criticising each other’s “because you don’t match this amazing practice with my religion”. As I said, I am not religious but much of my way of acting in society (culturally speaking) is “Catholic” since the country where I was born follows in a majority that religion.	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/healthcare/2008/12/17/yoga-a-conflict-of-religion/16002287007/	Yoga: A conflict of religion?	Yoga: A conflict of religion? Millions practice it, but some claim it violates the principles of their faiths Jeff Brumley Avondale's Kim Mason is a Christian who takes her faith seriously. She also practices yoga several times a week.Conflict?No way, said Mason, who scoffs at the notion that yoga is an overt or subliminal homage to ancient Indian gods or spirituality."You don't have to worship anything" during yoga, Mason said. "You can worship a Gucci purse if you want to - you have to look at your motive."Mason's motive? Glorifying Christ."It is a form of praise and worship, in my opinion."Given that nearly 16 million Americans practice yoga and spend $5.7 billion a year on classes and related products, Mason isn't alone in embracing the practice. But there are also many who view it as spiritually suspect at best and spiritually corrupting at worst.The issue was thrust into the spotlight in November when an Islamic religious council in Malaysia banned Muslims there from practicing yoga because it includes postures, rituals and chants with ancient Indian origins.That ruling mirrors the concern of some Jewish and Christian leaders who warn their followers against participating in any activity violating the biblical prohibition on idolatry and that tends to claim that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation.And the issue is on the minds of studio owners and others as doctors, psychologists and other health professionals are increasingly recommending yoga as a way to combat everything from depression to stress.Is yoga a religion?Yoga teachers and studio owners draw a distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" when describing the practice: It's spiritual because it can do as much to strengthen existing faith as it can muscles, they said."It's a spiritual path," said Shri Hamilton-Hubbard, owner of Bliss Yoga in San Marco. "It works very well if you practice a religion along with it."Yoga postures are more effective in both the physiological and spiritual realms if a practitioner is focused on what is most sacred to them during a session, whether it's Buddha, Jesus, Ganesh or simply "spirit," she said.Spirit?"Spirit for you can be connecting with your breath," said Kate Cordell, director of Ocean Yoga in Atlantic Beach. "Spirit could be connecting with a particular deity - maybe you're a Christian, and Jesus is who you honor."Hamilton-Hubbard, Cordell and other teachers and studio owners said they never push a particular deity or agenda in their classes - just the principle of connecting with the sacred through practice.Clergy advice: 'Be careful'Rabbi Yoseph Kahanov said he's no yoga expert, but he knows for Judaism some forms are acceptable and some are not.Kahanov, spiritual leader of Mandarin-based Chabad Lubavitch of Northeast Florida, said he's often asked if it's OK to participate in yoga. He reminds people that Judaism prohibits worshipping or honoring other deities in any form."I tell them it's OK when it's just trying to help people focus and meditate properly," Kahanov said. "But when it starts becoming religious in any way, I advise them not to be involved in that."The Rev. Pradeep Thorat said he advises people to stay away from the practice, period.Even yoga that's completely devoid of Sanskrit spiritual terms should be avoided because some of the postures originate from Hindu worship."If it comes from a spiritual background, it does carry some sort of spiritual effect," said Thorat, pastor of First Baptist Church of India in Jacksonville.'Gateway to New Age'?For Laurette Willis, there is no middle ground on yoga. She describes it as a gateway to the occult or New Age religion, and, at best, a diluted, one-size-fits-all spirituality.The Oklahoma resident and author spent more than 20 years practicing and teaching yoga before reconnecting with her Christian faith and inventing PraiseMoves, a Bible-based exercise program that pairs individual verses with postures, some of which are similar to yoga poses.In those two decades, Willis said yoga opened her to astrology, metaphysics, crystals, channeling, psychic readings, out-of-body experiences and other practices."You hear all this bandied about in the classes," Willis said. "Yoga has this skewed idea that there are many paths to God -and that's what New Age says."As far as the Malaysian claim that the practice is inherently Indian in origin, Willis presents the dictionary as evidence."Webster's dictionary . . . calls it a mystic and ascetic Hindu discipline for achieving union with the supreme spirit through prescribed postures."She advises people to stay away from yoga, no matter how much instructors and studios play down those spiritual components.'Strange' to first-timersYoga studios and instructors are aware of, and often sensitive about, the issue. Some declined to be interviewed for this story.The fact is, the seemingly exotic sights (such as Buddha statues), sounds (chanting) and smells (incense) can alienate someone entering a yoga studio for the first time, said Siddie Friar, the manager of M Body Yoga on the Southside.Friar said she was very turned off the first time she walked into a studio a couple of years ago and was asked to chant "ohm," a Sanskrit word whose sound is said to foster inner peace."We went through some postures, put our hands at heart center and the teacher called for us to 'ohm,' " Friar said. "I said, 'What is this?' It was very strange."That's why some studios, including M Body, go easy on the Sanskrit and minimize or avoid the concepts and statuary denoting Eastern spiritual and physical concepts, Friar said."Saying 'open your heart chakra, feel your kundalini energy rising' - that's not going to make any sense to some people," she said.'Ohm, amen or shalom'That's why instructors teach differently depending on the setting, Cordell said.If she's teaching at a YMCA, church or a community center, Cordell said she drops the Sanskrit words for poses and any spiritual terminology."I don't 'ohm' and I use the word 'breath' instead of 'spirit,' " she said. "I want to be careful not to make them feel uncomfortable or that I am confronting their beliefs."Back in the studio, it's also about respecting people's faith, said Sara Torbett, owner of Yoga Life in Southside.The music played at her studio tends more to be nonvocal and, because she's a Christian, Torbett said she stays away from chants that invoke the names of deities, even if they are meant only as spiritual principles instead of actual personalities.There are also no statues, but instructors do lead students through saying "Ohm" and "namaste" (pronounced nah-mahs-day), Torbett said.Ohm to her is a "neutral spiritual principle" and namaste can easily be translated into "the Holy Spirit dwelling in you and the Holy Spirit dwelling in me."But using those words in a studio is not meant as a challenge to belief, she added. Sanskrit is used in studios much as Latin is used in medicine or Italian in classical music."Whether it's 'ohm,' 'amen' or 'shalom,' we're all saying the same thing - we're saying peace."[email protected], (904) 359-4310	Yoga: A conflict of religion? Millions practice it, but some claim it violates the principles of their faiths Jeff Brumley Avondale's Kim Mason is a Christian who takes her faith seriously. She also practices yoga several times a week. Conflict?No way, said Mason, who scoffs at the notion that yoga is an overt or subliminal homage to ancient Indian gods or spirituality."You don't have to worship anything" during yoga, Mason said. "You can worship a Gucci purse if you want to - you have to look at your motive. "Mason's motive? Glorifying Christ. "It is a form of praise and worship, in my opinion. "Given that nearly 16 million Americans practice yoga and spend $5.7 billion a year on classes and related products, Mason isn't alone in embracing the practice. But there are also many who view it as spiritually suspect at best and spiritually corrupting at worst. The issue was thrust into the spotlight in November when an Islamic religious council in Malaysia banned Muslims there from practicing yoga because it includes postures, rituals and chants with ancient Indian origins. That ruling mirrors the concern of some Jewish and Christian leaders who warn their followers against participating in any activity violating the biblical prohibition on idolatry and that tends to claim that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation. And the issue is on the minds of studio owners and others as doctors, psychologists and other health professionals are increasingly recommending yoga as a way to combat everything from depression to stress. Is yoga a religion?Yoga teachers and studio owners draw a distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" when describing the practice: It's spiritual because it can do as much to strengthen existing faith as it can muscles, they said. "It's a spiritual path," said Shri Hamilton-Hubbard, owner of Bliss Yoga in San Marco. "It works very well if you practice a religion along with it. "Yoga postures are more effective in both the physiological and spiritual realms if a practitioner is focused on what is most sacred to them during a session, whether it's Buddha, Jesus,	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.mensyogajournal.com/blog/yogis-beware-is-yoga-a-sin	Yogis, Beware: Is Yoga a Sin? — Men's Yoga Journal	Yogis, Beware: Is Yoga a Sin? There are many articles online that discuss if yoga is a sin. Is it? Is it not? Is there even any need to ask this question in the first place? The answer lies in whether or not you believe in God, and what your definition of "sin" is. Is yoga a sin? Yes or no? For some people, anything that takes their mind off of God for too long can be considered a sin. This includes things like playing video games, watching TV shows, eating chocolate-covered doughnuts...and yes - yoga! Others may see yoga as a way to connect with their higher power, and therefore not see it as a sin at all. There is no right or wrong answer here - only what you believe in your heart. If you feel that yoga goes against your existing belief system, then don't do it! But if you feel like it's something that makes you feel closer to God, then by all means - go for it! Is yoga a religion? The simple answer is no, yoga is not a religion. However, there are some aspects of yoga that could be considered religious. Yoga is often seen as a way to connect with the divine, and many people who practice yoga believe in reincarnation or other spiritual concepts. Despite its religious undertones, yoga is not typically categorized as a religion. It is seen more as a way of life, with its own set of beliefs and practices. For many people, yoga is simply a way to stay healthy and connect with their spirituality. So is yoga a religion? The answer is no, but it can be seen as having religious aspects. Yoga is a great way to stay fit and connect with your mind, body, and spirit. Do yogis believe in God? Most people who practise yoga do not believe in a traditional god, but they may believe in something larger than themselves. Yoga is all about union- connecting with yourself, others, and the universe. So for some people, believing in a god may be too limiting. Instead, they see the divine in everything around them. Many people who practise yoga believe in a kind of universal energy or consciousness that connects all things. This is sometimes called Brahman, Atman, or the divine. For some people, this is as close to God as they get! Can Christians do yoga? If you're asking this question, you're not alone. The answer is yes and no. The biggest argument against yoga comes from the Hindu philosophy that lies at the core of traditional yoga classes – specifically, many of its poses (asanas) and breathing exercises (pranayama). Yoga’s ultimate goal is to unite one's individual consciousness with the universal consciousness, which is the Hindu way of saying "merging with God." But if you're looking for a physical workout that can help improve your flexibility and balance, there's no reason why you can't do yoga – as long as you avoid any poses or breathing exercises that have spiritual connotations. Many Christians choose to do this by attending a yoga class at their local gym or fitness centre, rather than participating in one through an ashram (Hindu temple). If you're not comfortable with that idea and would like to practice yoga on your own time, there are some DVDs available that teach traditional poses while avoiding any references to Hinduism. Can Catholics do yoga? The answer to this question is, again, yes and no. It really depends on how you approach your yoga practice. If you are doing yoga simply as a form of exercise, then there is no harm in it. However, if you are using yoga as a way to achieve spiritual enlightenment or to become closer to God, then this may not be compatible with Catholic teachings. Pope Francis has actually spoken out against yoga, saying that it can lead people away from Jesus. He has stated that "it is not necessary to seek God in the clouds when he can be found close by in your neighbor. And your neighbor is not an abstraction." Pope Francis also warned people against looking for Jesus through New Age spirituality or what he called a personal relationship with Jesus without passing through his church. This means it's very important to check the type of yoga that you're practicing before asking if it's compatible with Catholicism. It comes down to your personal belief system There are many different beliefs in the world, and it is up to you what you believe. Yoga can make people feel closer to God or like they're sinning - but there's no right answer here. If yoga feels wrong for your belief system, then don't do it! But if it makes sense with how you see yourself in relation to a higher power (or lack thereof), then go ahead and try out some new moves on that mat of yours when you get home after work!	Yoga is often seen as a way to connect with the divine, and many people who practice yoga believe in reincarnation or other spiritual concepts. Despite its religious undertones, yoga is not typically categorized as a religion. It is seen more as a way of life, with its own set of beliefs and practices. For many people, yoga is simply a way to stay healthy and connect with their spirituality. So is yoga a religion? The answer is no, but it can be seen as having religious aspects. Yoga is a great way to stay fit and connect with your mind, body, and spirit. Do yogis believe in God? Most people who practise yoga do not believe in a traditional god, but they may believe in something larger than themselves. Yoga is all about union- connecting with yourself, others, and the universe. So for some people, believing in a god may be too limiting. Instead, they see the divine in everything around them. Many people who practise yoga believe in a kind of universal energy or consciousness that connects all things. This is sometimes called Brahman, Atman, or the divine. For some people, this is as close to God as they get! Can Christians do yoga? If you're asking this question, you're not alone. The answer is yes and no. The biggest argument against yoga comes from the Hindu philosophy that lies at the core of traditional yoga classes – specifically, many of its poses (asanas) and breathing exercises (pranayama). Yoga’s ultimate goal is to unite one's individual consciousness with the universal consciousness, which is the Hindu way of saying "merging with God. " But if you're looking for a physical workout that can help improve your flexibility and balance, there's no reason why you can't do yoga – as long as you avoid any poses or breathing exercises that have spiritual connotations. Many Christians choose to do this by attending a yoga class at their local gym or fitness centre, rather than participating in one through an ashram (Hindu temple).	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://yahlight.com/what-is-yoga-phobia/	What Is Yoga Phobia, and How Can Christians Overcome It ...	What Is Yoga Phobia, and How Can Christians Overcome It? Yoga phobia is a real issue, especially among conservative Christian groups. Yoga phobia is a fear of integrating a practice or set of beliefs incompatible with one’s own religious and moral beliefs. The fear is completely understandable and respectable. The potential for compromising one’s integrity and displeasing God is scary. But yoga isn’t the way to do that. I hope this article sheds light on why a fear of yoga is misguided, even if you’re a follower of Christ. I’m a believer in Christ. I also majored in science during college, became a Christ-centered meditation teacher, and have a certification in yoga and meditation. Based on my secular education, study of world religions, and decades worth of professional and practical experience, I’m going to address the following questions: Is yoga a health science or a religion? Should a Christian, or a believer in the Bible, practice yoga and meditation? But first, it’s important to understand the origins of yoga and how it has become such an integral part of popular culture in America today. A Brief History of Yoga Yoga dates back before formal religion appeared. According to historians, yoga first appeared in ancient Egypt over 6000 years ago. Scholars and archeologists suggest hunter-gatherers were practitioners of yoga. History shows yoga made its way from Egypt through India and down into South Asia. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Chinese Zen, and Islam created their own versions of yoga practice. Like other eastern religions, the early disciples of Jesus, known as the Desert Fathers and Mothers, also sought to experience God by going within the body. Yoga has since infiltrated America, standing at the door of many traditions and asking to be let in. We’re now being challenged to be open regarding alternative approaches to health and wellness practices that originate outside of our country. I understand the concern and appreciate the apprehension, but based on my expertise, I believe the restriction prohibiting yoga put in place by some Christian leaders and authorities should be lifted under certain circumstances. At the core of my reasoning is the work done by Christian missionaries who travel the world establishing churches and teaching God’s Word so these individuals, too, may become followers of Christ. Indeed, the people Christian missionaries strive to educate from around the world face a similar challenge to those who are considering practicing yoga. They ask themselves as we ask ourselves: Do we let Jesus (yoga) in? Will we still be able to retain our traditions? Will Christianity (yoga) improve our lives? Will this change be beneficial? In other words, if we’re asking other cultures to embrace Christianity, why should we be so unwilling to embrace the life-enhancing practices belonging to other cultures? Based on this logic, we shouldn’t. Is yoga a science or a religion? There are many definitions of yoga. Yoga is a Sanskrit word that means to unite, yoke, connect, join, or balance. The essential purpose of yoga, by definition, is the integration or union of all the layers of life. Whether it’s for health or spirituality, the practice of yoga seeks to balance the inner realms, thus creating outer harmony. A more scientific definition of yoga is that yoga is a type of exercise where you move your body into various positions to become more fit or flexible, improve your breathing, relax your mind, and become more balanced. So yes, by this definition, yoga is based on science, especially for the health benefits that it offers. Yoga as a Health Science As a dietitian, I’m trained to only accept information as true if it has been scientifically proven. Fortunately, there are countless documented studies proving yoga’s health benefits. Therefore, along with many medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, physical therapists, chiropractors, and other health professionals, I’m a strong proponent of the practice. As is well-established by research, our heart emits a field that is electromagnetic and flows throughout the body. This same energetic field exists throughout the universe. We have six senses and 11 bodily systems all running primarily on their own that are affected by this field. When this energy system becomes imbalanced, it can cause us to experience stress and disease. When all parts and systems are running in a unified way, we feel healthy and happy. Yoga causes a release of positive chemicals from our brain and gut into the body that benefit our hormonal and nervous systems, resulting in an unmistakable change in mood. We feel lighter, expanded, suddenly clear-minded, and alert. Movement and breathwork are detoxifying and purifying. You can actually feel as though strange toxic forces are moving out of your body. We also have a physical body made up of matter and non-physical aspects, which are non-matter. For example, our breath is non-matter. Yoga, from a health perspective, unites the physical and non-physical, just like swimming or jogging. Multiple studies have confirmed the various mental and physical benefits of yoga. Incorporating yoga into your routine can help enhance your health, increase strength and flexibility, and reduce symptoms of stress, depression, and anxiety. The ancient practitioners of yoga had no scientific data to explain their experiences. They didn’t have scientific studies or the Bible to explain why this practice made them feel better or why conscious movement with an inner awareness inclined them toward a spiritual life. However, they knew its positive effects, which they recorded in texts, probably why the practice has persisted this long. Yoga as a Religion Believers in the Word of God, the Bible, share a similar desire with the yogis, gurus, monks, and other seekers or mystics to be united with and have an experience of God’s presence. In Latin, religion breaks into “re” and “ligare” meaning “again” and “unite or bind.” Religion intended for participants to know and experience the union of God within. Yoga seeks the same and, therefore, is considered to be a religious practice when used in this way. What we know as believers in the Bible is that we’re already united with God. He lives inside of us. In the New Testament Gospel of John, Jesus affirms God’s indwelling presence, saying, “I will ask the Father and He will give you another Helper to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17). Jesus’ invitation is to abide in God’s Holy Spirit; and His promise is that He will abide in us (see John 15:4). Since the beginning of time, people have not only tried to name God but also to have an experience of God through practices that increase a sense of union with Divinity. Yoga as a religion seeks to unite or connect the practitioner with the mystery we call God and others may call by a different name. God made humans in His image so that, like Christ, we can experience the deep union between our humanness and His Spirit. God is Spirit, and we have a spirit. We were given a spirit so that we can connect to and be united with Him. Humans are capable of this because we’re born with a human spirit. “The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord searching all his innermost parts.”(Proverbs 20:27) Therefore, we have a right to engage in yoga as it’s the practice of uniting with God and bringing harmony to our bodies. The teachings of Jesus, which continue to spread throughout the world, give clear instructions on uniting with God. We don’t need a yoga practice. But if yoga makes us healthier and less stressed at the same time, and gives us a sense of unity with a higher power such as God’s Spirit, then logically wouldn’t it be a beneficial practice? Seeking to be united with the creator of life and the creation of life is what the human does naturally. The word yoga is like the biblical word reconciliation. To reconcile means to unite, to have a reunion. Thus, when practicing yoga, you can reunite with God. As Jesus demonstrated, we don’t need to belong to a specific religion; we can go straight to God. Perhaps this is what churches fear most and the reason some feed us a stream of false propaganda full of fearful messages regarding yoga practice instead of offering it as another way to enhance the many benefits of belonging to a group of like-minded individuals. It’s no wonder that yoga practice is part of many religions as a way to settle the body and the soul, or what the Bible refers to as “the flesh.” This allows the Spirit of God to be experienced without all the turbulence which may come from the body and or the soul. Biblically, we’re directed to surrender the flesh to God’s Spirit. A practice such as yoga or meditation gives us the power to do that as the Holy Spirit comes forward and the practitioner gets a sense of union between body, soul, and Spirit. An opening of the heart allows those whose hearts are filled with the love of the Lord to spread throughout the entire body, bringing new life from the one true source, God’s Holy Spirit. Yoga as a Health Science and a Religion Yoga is a health science and a religion. If you want to practice yoga for its scientific benefits, which are many, find a class that has no religious overtones and is primarily a stretch, strengthen, flex, and balance class. If you’re looking for a religious or spiritual experience, find a class with a teacher who’s well-versed in the religion of your choice. Yoga can be a system of scientific technologies or a system for spiritual growth. Regardless of which path you choose, all yoga is intended to promote aspects of wellbeing. At the end of a yoga class, one might hear “Namaste”which, in the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, means, “The divine in me sees the divine in you.” In the same vein, the Bible says,“One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all and in all.”(Ephesians 4:6) Whatever your faith, yoga and meditation can bring about a balance, harmony, and a union between our longing for spiritual life and the divine characteristics of the Spirit of God. It can also bring harmony to the physical body and contributes to overall wellbeing. Is yoga dangerous? Many people fear yoga because of the misconceptions surrounding it. What follows are the most common fears about yoga, and why each is unfounded. Truth: If you’re practicing a form of yoga from Hinduism with a Hindu teacher, you’ll be opening yourself to their god and their beliefs. If you’re practicing a form of yoga with a Buddhist teacher, the result is a form of Buddhism. If you’re practicing a form of yoga that is Christ-based, you’re not automatically linked to Hindu gods or to the Buddha. You’re linked to Christ and the Trinity of God. If you take a yoga class with a teacher who’s only about the health benefits of yoga, you’ll be exercising, that’s it. Yoga has never belonged to any one religion. It has never been a static tradition. It has evolved and has been packaged in many different ways over time. There are currently over 100 types of yoga in the West, with over 20 million people practicing it. It’s estimated that 300 million people practice yoga in the world, and that number is growing. Fear #2: “Yoga opens you up to demonic oppression, thereby opening a door to the enemy. The postures are dedicated to other deities and will attract presiding spirits, the kundalini serpent power is from Satan, and yoga penetrates a spiritual realm beyond the natural realm, which are dominated by powers subservient to the Prince of Darkness.” Truth: If this were true, we would see a lot of people showing signs of mental disturbance. Clearly, this is not the case. Yogis, gurus, monks, and mystics are some of the most spiritually disciplined and evolved people I’ve ever met. Many are awake before sunrise to spend a couple of hours worshipping God. Many eat vegetarian diets and abstain from drugs and alcohol. Many yogis practice purity, non-violence, serve people, love animals, and respect our environment. They radiate health and wellness, sometimes practicing yoga well into their senior years. The young and old turn to yoga for physical or emotional healing and wellbeing. Recovery programs and hospitals offer yoga. Consequently, believers in the Bible have no reason to fear yoga. According to the Scriptures, God encircles, encompasses, covers, and shields those who make Him their refuge. His presence, the anointing, is a kind of force field of protection making you inaccessible to the enemy no matter what the circumstances. The Bible provides the following verse:“The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night. The Lord will protect you from every evil, He will guard your soul…People will let you down, but God will never let you down.”(Psalm 121:6) The only enemy of oppression regarding the practice of yoga appears to be man-made. The Bible says, “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”(Isaiah 41:10) Fear #3: “Yoga is a pagan ritual.” Truth: So is Christmas, Christmas carols, Halloween, Easter, Valentine’s Day, New Year’s Day, eating chocolate, using a calendar, weddings, wedding rings, the Olympics, and playing football. The list goes on. The early church tried to resist these traditions but eventually absorbed them. Some churches have absorbed the practice of yoga, too, while some still fear it. Yoga is a lifestyle similar to the Christian “narrow path.” The original yogic teachings encourage us to avoid violence, lying, stealing, wasting energy, and possessiveness. Yoga teaches us to embrace cleanliness and contentment, to purify through heat, to continually study and observe our habits, and to surrender to something greater than ourselves. Should Christians do yoga? YES!! Christians can do yoga for their health, and they can practice Christ-centered yoga and meditation, keeping in mind the goal of growing in Christ’s likeness. As a supplement to seeking to know God through words, thoughts, and images, the practitioner is seeking to experience God directly with the awareness of loving faith and God’s indwelling presence. Anything that’s focused wholeheartedly on giving glory to God is a good thing. Our physical strength and wellbeing are an aid to fight the good fight, endure life’s challenges, and have the power to pursue God’s Will. The word “mystic” was used in early and medieval Christianity to describe a person who sought connection through a direct experience of the intimacy of God through awareness, devotion, silence, meditation, singing, movement, and reality. Karl Rahner, a preeminent Catholic theologian, wrote in “A Companion to Jesuit Mysticism,” “The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic’—someone who has ‘experienced something’—or will cease to be anything at all.”Perhaps I am becoming an emergent Christian mystic, as I seek to find God in all ways that are available to me. The Bible says we’re not to spend our energy condemning other religions or religious practices. We’re to use our time sharing the good news of the Gospel of Grace. However, we must be careful not to exclude other seekers of God but to include them. We’re to be the “light” of the nations and lead others out of darkness (ignorance) and into the light, love, and truth of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. We’re called to shine our lights brightly so that all will see the glory of God living in us and become drawn to the truth. I love wearing my cross and witnessing for Jesus, whether during a yoga class or while having coffee at Starbucks. God is the ultimate judge. I will not judge the Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion. I have learned to know godly people by the lovethey have for one another. “Jesus said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”(Matthew 22:37-39) Jesus also said, “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you…”(Matthew 7:12) When we fear our neighbors, they will fear us. Only love can and will unite. We begin to discover that our Buddhist and Jewish and Islamic and Hindu friends are not competitors. Religion is not a survival of the fittest. There is a deep understanding that we all swim together, or we sink together. Each religious tradition reveals a color of the heart of God that is precious. Richard Rohr, founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation says this: “The core experience of the Christian life is a heart-to-heart relationship with the person of Christ and the indwelling Trinity who came to make their home in us.”We can do this alone, in nature, in a church, or in a biblically-based yoga or meditation class. Christ moves outside of established Christianity and even the human realm. The world’s religions cannot be reduced to one truth. The core teachings can be unifying. There are no limits on the power of God. Conclusion: This has been my experience with yoga. I went through a divorce and was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It was recommended that I try yoga and meditation. The church I belonged to did not have any such programs, so I found my own. I was faithful in going to church. Learning to meditate and have a yoga practice healed me and still helps me keep my anxiety and depression at bay. With God’s help, I was able to find a way to make my practices biblically-based and Christ-centered. I live a lifestyle where I daily do what Jesus says to do. “When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”(Matthew 6:6) Once I get to my room, I pray, meditate, contemplate, read Scripture, and sing songs to the Trinity. I have found a way to be continually filled up and united with God’s Spirit. When I finish, I put on my gym clothes and go exercise. For me, exercise might be a walk, or it might be a yoga class. To be sure, light and grace fill my life, and His glory is magnified through me. People always tell me I have such good energy! I’m always prepared to explain the reason why. I pray for those individuals who have yoga phobia to release their fear. Supporting and being open tothe practices and people who’ve been anointed to teach biblically-based or Christ-centered meditation and yoga is a necessary step towards peace and inclusion instead of polarity and exclusion. There are a growing number of people leaving the church to be “spiritual but not religious.” They do not want to be told how to practice or experience becoming more spiritual. I pray for churches to start offering these classes to help seekers and believers have the experience of health and wellbeing, along with growing in a relationship with Christ. And I also pray for those who long to go deeper into a spiritual experience via a heart-to-heart communion with the Presence of the Divine that they find a path to help them achieve this. I hope this message will lift the oppression of those who fear and also strengthen churches by encouraging people to incorporate certain safe spiritual practices into their religious lives. God’s Spirit of Truth is there in our hearts guiding us into all Truth, which is why we don’t need judgment, fear, and condemnation. And why it’s possible for churches to provide people with a place to heal body and soul while staying as faithful members of the Body of Christ. Tonyah Dee has studied the Bible and wisdom traditions of the world for the last 30 years and teaches about finding ways to increase inner strength, stability, and confidence through practicing spiritual disciplines and healthy habits daily. Tonyah is a nutritionist, registered dietitian (R.D.), and earned her B.S. from Loma Linda University. She also holds certifications in Christ-centered life coaching, equine therapy, and meditation. Tonyah has been published in Scary Mommy, MSN, The Mighty, Mantra Wellness, CoveyClub, Thrive Global. Follow Tonyah on her blog, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube,LinkedIn, and Medium.	This allows the Spirit of God to be experienced without all the turbulence which may come from the body and or the soul. Biblically, we’re directed to surrender the flesh to God’s Spirit. A practice such as yoga or meditation gives us the power to do that as the Holy Spirit comes forward and the practitioner gets a sense of union between body, soul, and Spirit. An opening of the heart allows those whose hearts are filled with the love of the Lord to spread throughout the entire body, bringing new life from the one true source, God’s Holy Spirit. Yoga as a Health Science and a Religion Yoga is a health science and a religion. If you want to practice yoga for its scientific benefits, which are many, find a class that has no religious overtones and is primarily a stretch, strengthen, flex, and balance class. If you’re looking for a religious or spiritual experience, find a class with a teacher who’s well-versed in the religion of your choice. Yoga can be a system of scientific technologies or a system for spiritual growth. Regardless of which path you choose, all yoga is intended to promote aspects of wellbeing. At the end of a yoga class, one might hear “Namaste”which, in the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, means, “The divine in me sees the divine in you.” In the same vein, the Bible says,“One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all and in all.”(Ephesians 4:6) Whatever your faith, yoga and meditation can bring about a balance, harmony, and a union between our longing for spiritual life and the divine characteristics of the Spirit of God. It can also bring harmony to the physical body and contributes to overall wellbeing. Is yoga dangerous? Many people fear yoga because of the misconceptions surrounding it. What follows are the most common fears about yoga, and why each is unfounded. Truth: If you’re practicing a form of yoga from Hinduism with a Hindu teacher, you’ll be opening yourself to their god and their beliefs. If you’	yes
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.cts.edu/2023/05/01/yoga-and-spirituality/	Yoga and Spirituality - Christian Theological Seminary	Yoga and Spirituality at Christian Theological Seminary Congregational ministry is changing. While the pandemic has prompted many of us to reevaluate the way we do church, a deeper cultural shift was underway long before the effects of Covid landed in our sanctuaries. Upcoming generations of spiritual thinkers are looking for practical, tangible expressions and practices to accompany their faith. Along with churches, seminaries need to shift to meet the needs and demands new ministers and therapists are facing as they move into ministry and practice. Yoga and Spirituality at Christian Theological Seminary speak to this changing context with a rare and practical opportunity to develop the interdependent relationship between your spine, your mind, your heart, and your soul. Students from a variety of religious, spiritual, and career backgrounds are brought together and encouraged to deepen their understanding of movement and muscles in the body while also training and stretching the faculties of the mind and heart, all with the goal of training and stretching the capacity of the soul and spirit to embrace holiness. We use the principles of Yoga to teach an integrated system of ethical, physical, and spiritual paths toward health, wholeness, and enlightenment. Since its introduction to the western world over a century ago, Yoga has been largely misunderstood in Christian circles. In its most basic form Yoga is not a religion, but a philosophy based on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, a work compiled into 4 sections or “books” around 200 C.E. Written in ancient Sanskrit, the Sutras begin by defining what Yoga is all about: stilling the mind, quieting the fluctuations of our thoughts, feelings, and egos, in order to become one with the glory within our pure being. The Sutras offer insights about how to achieve this stillness and bliss. This guidance includes physical, ethical, mental, and spiritual practices that can aid us on this journey to Samadhi, or eternal bliss. Patanjali, the compiler of these threads of insights, organizes them into eight limbs or practices of Yoga. The first two limbs are ethical practices: Yamas & Niyamas. They address how we relate with the outside world through abstinence and how we relate with ourselves through observance respectively. The five points of Yama together with the five points of Niyama remind us of the Ten Commandments of the Christian and Jewish faiths, as well as of the ten virtues of Buddhism. They are the foundation without which we can never build anything lasting. The first observance of the Niyamas is developing purity – being pure in thought, word, and deed. Practicing the feeling of contentment (santosha) starts with just being as we are without going to outside things for our happiness. Observing our thoughts is what the ancients call “The Witness Consciousness”. Today we might refer to it as ‘Mindfulness’. Breaking the loop of negative thought can be transformative. Another aspect of the five Niyamas is self-study (svadjayaya). Asana, the third limb, is what most westerners think of as yoga. These are deliberate poses or physical movements and stances that help strengthen and release tension in various parts of the body. Our class demonstrates the proper form of each posture and then helps students come to their best expression of this form in a way that enables each person to get the most out of the pose and learn how to teach others to do the same. For example, in Virabhadrasana I, commonly known as Warrior I, some bodies do best with the arms lifted near vertically, while others may raise the arms at a wider angle. This particular asana is a great engagement and stretch for the whole body, strengthening the muscles of the legs and spine, stretching arm and psoas muscles and is often empowering emotionally by imprinting notions of courage and steadfastness. The fourth limb, Pranayama, are practices that influence the way we breath that impact our energy and mental focus. We teach several techniques, such as Langhana breathing practices that slow down the exhales to reduce anxiety and restore harmony to the entire body system. Another technique increases our energy and focus. The fifth through seventh limbs teach meditation, one-pointed focus, and prayer. All the limbs lead to the eighth limb, Samadhi, which is the release from that which binds us, to become one with bliss. Throughout the Sutras, practitioners are encouraged to engage in the spiritual texts consistent with their religious practice. In our class we engage writings of various spiritual writers, such as Cloud of Unknowing, Julian of Norwich, Rebecca Jackson (African American Shaker), and Hafiz as well as the Bible. In addition to physical and spiritual applications, Yoga has tremendous therapeutic value toward emotional and psychological healing. Some practitioners hold trauma in their bodies expressed through pain and discomfort, distraction, and anxiety. One of the gifts of Yoga is that it provides tools for releasing emotional and physical pain, including past trauma that is held in the body. Trauma Sensitive Yoga is informed by the work of Bessel van der Kolk and David Emerson. Attention to the physical practice of the Asana and the energy work of Pranayama can help release long held memories of painful and traumatic experiences that continue to have deleterious impacts. Trauma Sensitive Yoga focuses on four themes that empower healing: 1) Remaining present in the body, with the breath, 2) Offering options and encouraging choice, 3)Taking effective action, and 4) Creating Rhythms (connection and synchronicity). The energy work of Pranayama also helps develop resiliency for healing physically, psychologically, and spirituality. The insights of yoga integrate well with insights within the Christian scripture and tradition of spiritual practices. There are many Biblical verses that mirror the Yoga Sutra’s message. One such passage provides a list of things that can transform the mind of a Christian. This verse gives instruction to the Philippians for winning the battle of the mind, ‘Whatsoever things are true, honest, just and pure, whatsoever things are lovely, think on these things.’ (Philippians 4:8) That seems straight forward enough. But how do we practice thinking about these things? Especially when we have so many negative distractions in our world? Yoga Sutras 2:33 gives us practical advice, “By cultivating attitudes of friendliness toward the happy, compassion for the unhappy, delight in the virtuous and disregard toward the wicked, the mind-stuff retains its undisturbed calmness.” My yoga teacher, Gary Kraftsow, summarizes yoga in this way: “Asana prepares the Body and Breath for Pranayama Pranayama prepares the Mind for Meditation Meditation prepares the Heart for Prayer Prayer glorifies the Divine that exists in our heart. “ Holding stress in the body/mind can cause debilitating health issues over time. Working with future mental health clinicians and pastors at Christian Theological Seminary on trauma informed yoga, yoga therapy, and spiritual aspects of yoga has been such a blessing. Incorporating these ancient healing techniques into clinical settings and church rhythms, through embodied spiritual and prayer practices is a life changer for so many – here on the campus and far beyond.	Since its introduction to the western world over a century ago, Yoga has been largely misunderstood in Christian circles. In its most basic form Yoga is not a religion, but a philosophy based on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, a work compiled into 4 sections or “books” around 200 C.E. Written in ancient Sanskrit, the Sutras begin by defining what Yoga is all about: stilling the mind, quieting the fluctuations of our thoughts, feelings, and egos, in order to become one with the glory within our pure being. The Sutras offer insights about how to achieve this stillness and bliss. This guidance includes physical, ethical, mental, and spiritual practices that can aid us on this journey to Samadhi, or eternal bliss. Patanjali, the compiler of these threads of insights, organizes them into eight limbs or practices of Yoga. The first two limbs are ethical practices: Yamas & Niyamas. They address how we relate with the outside world through abstinence and how we relate with ourselves through observance respectively. The five points of Yama together with the five points of Niyama remind us of the Ten Commandments of the Christian and Jewish faiths, as well as of the ten virtues of Buddhism. They are the foundation without which we can never build anything lasting. The first observance of the Niyamas is developing purity – being pure in thought, word, and deed. Practicing the feeling of contentment (santosha) starts with just being as we are without going to outside things for our happiness. Observing our thoughts is what the ancients call “The Witness Consciousness”. Today we might refer to it as ‘Mindfulness’. Breaking the loop of negative thought can be transformative. Another aspect of the five Niyamas is self-study (svadjayaya). Asana, the third limb, is what most westerners think of as yoga. These are deliberate poses or physical movements and stances that help strengthen and release tension in various parts of the body.	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://yogigo.com/does-doing-yoga-poses-mean-worshiping-gods/	Does Doing Yoga Poses Mean Worshiping Gods? – Yogigo	Does Doing Yoga Poses Mean Worshiping Gods? Nowadays, yoga is much more accepted than 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, yoga classes can now be found in every corner of the world. Even so, some people still have concerns about the intention of yoga as the practice originated in India and has Hindu roots. If you follow a religion other than Hinduism, you might wonder if practicing yoga goes against your religion. Likewise, if you’re an atheist, you may worry that incorporating yoga into your life makes you a religious person. Yoga shares similarities with Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is not a religious activity. Modern yoga may use Sanskrit words or the prayer mudra, but doing yoga poses does not mean you worship god unless you make that your intention. Read on to learn why yoga is sometimes misinterpreted as a worship practice and where those myths come from. Yoga Unites The Body, Mind, And Soul Yoga is a Sanskrit word that means ‘to yoke’ together or ‘unite’ something. Yoga poses create a union between the mind, body, and soul, cultivating balance and harmony in our physical, mental, and emotional bodies. There are many reasons why yoga is essential in modern life. For example, yoga has the power to improve health conditions, heal ailments, or reduce stress and anxiety and is often recommended by medical practitioners for these reasons. However, the union we create through yoga extends far beyond ourselves, which can make it a spiritual practice for some people. Yoga helps us expand our consciousness to a point where we experience the ‘ultimate reality or ‘enlightenment.’ It is said that when we reach this state, we see the cosmos and all living things as one, pulsating in this infinite universe. So while yoga postures help improve your physical, mental, and spiritual health, the practice can allow you to experience the interconnectedness between living things. Why Yoga Is Mistaken For Worship Understandably, many people (especially in the West) assume that yoga classes that use Sanskrit words or some brief chanting have a religious aspect. There are quite a few reasons to support such an assumption. Yoga can begin with a small prayer The mantra ” Om ” is the most commonly used chant to open a yoga class. Om is known as the universal sound and is considered sacred in the Hindu religion. However, including a prayer or chant in yoga does not mean you worship gods. Instead, it is used to help settle the mind and focus on your intention for the practice. Some yoga postures involve the prayer position Along with chanting, yogis start a Sun Salutation flow with Pranamasana posture, which literally means a “prayer posture.” Many other yoga poses, such as Urdhva Hastasana (upward hands pose), Utkatasana (chair pose), or Vrikshasana (tree pose), can also involve joining your palms and raising them to the sky, which may be misunderstood as worship. However, asanas with prayer positions can be used to express respect for the ancient practice, focus the mind, or simply work on a particular part of the body. Yoga uses Sanskrit words Sanskrit is an ancient and classical language of India. It doesn’t directly relate to Hinduism, but Sanskrit is the mother of many Indian languages, including Hindi. There are some similarities between Sanskrit and Hindi found in scripts, words, and pronunciation, but there are also many differences. Sanskrit is used in yoga classes to stay true to its ancient Indian roots and because it is believed that the vibration of some Sanskrit words can have a powerful effect on your being. A familiar Sanskrit chant used to close a yoga class is “Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.” Shanti means “peace,” so chanting this at the end of a session invokes peace. You can visualize yourself, a loved one, or the entire world when sending the waves of harmony. The effect is as powerful as in Metta (loving-kindness) meditation. A few yoga poses are named after Hindu Gods There are 84 fundamental yoga poses, but up to 169 asanas are known and practiced throughout the many different yoga styles. However, out of all these postures, only a few have the names of Hindu Gods. Most other yoga pose names refer to Lords, Warriors, objects, and animals. Therefore, it’s crucial to note that while some poses are named after Gods, most are not. For example, the name Bhujangasana (cobra pose) comes from how we lift our upper back and torso off the mat in the asana. It resembles a cobra snake rearing its head, ready to strike. Likewise, Vrikshasana (tree pose) gets its name because of its static nature, solid form, and qualities of a tree-like tranquillity. Which Yoga Poses Are Named After Hindu Gods? The origin of yoga poses can be traced back to 2,700 B.C., which was before Hinduism. The original yogic texts like The Vedas did not mention any yoga poses carrying names of gods. Interestingly, it was not until the early 20th century that a few yoga books referred to specific asanas as names of deities (not even Gods). So, if practicing yoga does not mean worshipping Gods, why were some poses named after them? Many are named after a particular God because of how they looked, behaved, or what they stood for, not to worship them. By calling a pose after a god who carries positive qualities, you can practice it to take on some of their traits, such as selflessness and strength. Let’s look at some poses named after specific Hindu deities and discuss what that may mean. Natarajasana The God Shiva is also known as ‘Natraj,’ meaning the ‘King of Dance.’ Shiva is revered as the god who represents the dance of the cosmos, with all its fluctuations. However, the pose Natarajasana was not created to worship Shiva. Instead, it got its name from a pose in the classical Indian dance form Bharatnatyam, depicted in temple statues in the Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram. Natarajasana is called “dancer’s pose” as it involves maintaining your outer and inner balance. The tricky balancing position requires keeping your mind still while the body and external reality continuously shift. ‘Dance’ is often used as a metaphor for life, and Natarajasana encapsulates the continuous ups and downs we go through in life and how we must hold ourselves steady through them. Hanumanasana More popularly known as “the splits,” the Hanumanasana pays tribute to the Hindu god Hanuman, the monkey god, who was incredibly powerful and flexible. Hanuman was Rama’s half-monkey half-man devotee who helped him defeat Ravana, destroy Lanka, and bring back Sita. Hindi myths state that Hanuman swung from tree to tree through the forest with one leg extended forward and the other backward, resembling the “splits pose.” However, it is worth mentioning that this pose is one of the newer asanas introduced in yoga practice in the 20th century. Therefore, it is not a traditional posture, nor is it mentioned in any old yoga scriptures. Virabhadrasana Virabhadra was the son of Lord Shiva and a fierce warrior, always poised and ready for action. There are three variations of the Virabhadrasana pose (warrior 1, 2, and 3), all of which strengthen the arms, legs, chest, and torso while helping to build confidence. Interestingly, looking into the history of the warrior pose, Virabhadrasana wasn’t created to worship Virabhadra or any other God. Instead, its name was inspired by European gymnastics as it looks similar to some postures in the Niels Bukh gymnastics. Bhairavasana Bhairavasana is a very advanced yoga posture taught in the third series of Ashtanga yoga. It is essentially a side plank variation that requires extreme strength and hip flexibility to put one leg behind the head. Bhairava is one of the incarnations of the Hindu god and destroyer, Shiva. The word Bhairava has many connotations, such as ‘terribly fearsome form,’ which in this context means ‘formidable.’ In English, the pose is called ‘destroyer of the universe pose.’ The posture is pretty strange looking, and it can appear that the leg is chopping off the head. This relates to a Hindu myth involving Shiva, and performing this posture can be considered a reminder to keep the ego in check. Astavakrasana Astavakrasana is an advanced arm balance, which some people think is dedicated to the sage Astavakra, the spiritual guru of King Janaka. Astavakra translates as ‘eight bends’ as according to a Hindi myth, Astavakra was born with his body bent in eight directions. The English name for this pose is Eight-Angle Pose. Like other yoga postures named after gods, it was not practiced in hatha yoga until the 20th century, when it first appeared in the book Light on Yoga. However, it did appear in the 1896 Vyayama Dipika manual of gymnastics, so it seems that the advanced hand balancing asana was adapted from this practice. Are Sun Salutations An Act Of Worship? The sun salutations are the most popular yoga flow, practiced in various yoga styles, such as Hatha, Vinyasa, and Ashtanga. In the western world, sun salutations are included at the beginning of the class, serving as a warm-up to open the body for more challenging asanas. As well as building heat in the body, sun salutations are an excellent way to learn how to connect your movement to your breath during yoga practice. Sun salutations, or Surya Namaskar in Sanskrit, means “to salute the sun.” In ancient Indian tradition, sun salutations were used in a morning ritual to worship the sun. In the Vedas, the sun is seen as a powerful, all-seeing god who observes both good and evil actions. Some Indian yoga practitioners may still practice sun salutations with this intention. However, performing sun salutations in a yoga class does not mean you worship any god unless you do it with that intent. However, as the sun provides us with a necessary life force, some modern-day yogis may choose to use sun salutations to express gratitude to the sun and mother earth. Are Hindu Gods Worshipped During Satsangs? Exchanging Sanskrit words among yogis is very common. For example, “Namaste” is one of the most common Sanskrit words among yoga practitioners, used to greet or thank someone. Another word that you can hear yogis mention is “Satsang.” A Satsang is a yogic event where people sing bhajans. Satsang means “gathering of like-minded people for the truth,” and bhajan, translated from Hindu, means “to share.” The event is usually open to everyone, not only yogis or people practicing meditation. The myth that Satsangs are done to worship Gods comes from the fact that the bhajans are sung in the Sanskrit language. The truth is that the power of bhajans lies in the sounds we pronounce while singing but not in the meaning. Spiritual teacher Sri Sri Ravi Shankar says that you don’t have to know the meaning of the text you sing to reap the benefits. Instead, simply vocalizing these specific sounds will raise the vibrations in your body, calm the wandering mind and bring balance to both hemispheres of the brain. Some yogis attend Satsangs to progress further down their spiritual path or find deeper understanding. However, many choose to join Satsangs for the calming and mood-boosting benefits. Yoga Is A Personal Practice While there are aspects of Hinduism in yoga, and historically, Indian yogis used yoga as a form of worship, it’s important to note that you cannot “accidentally” worship gods by practicing yoga. To worship a god, like to pray, requires intention. So if you are practicing yoga without any purpose of worshiping a god, it is not a religious practice. People choose to practice yoga for many different reasons. Your intention for your yoga practice could be something physical, mental, spiritual, or a combination, as there is a wide range of benefits that yoga gives. Therefore, practicing yoga does not mean you are a religious or even a spiritual person. For many people in the western world, yoga is a hobby rather than a spiritual journey. Therefore, anyone can (and should) practice yoga, regardless of religious beliefs. Final Thoughts It’s easy to see why some people think that yoga is about worshipping gods or a particular religion. However, while some parts do have a godly aspect, yoga is not a religious practice. The only person you worship through yoga is yourself, as you use the postures to work on improving your health and wellbeing.	Does Doing Yoga Poses Mean Worshiping Gods? Nowadays, yoga is much more accepted than 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, yoga classes can now be found in every corner of the world. Even so, some people still have concerns about the intention of yoga as the practice originated in India and has Hindu roots. If you follow a religion other than Hinduism, you might wonder if practicing yoga goes against your religion. Likewise, if you’re an atheist, you may worry that incorporating yoga into your life makes you a religious person. Yoga shares similarities with Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is not a religious activity. Modern yoga may use Sanskrit words or the prayer mudra, but doing yoga poses does not mean you worship god unless you make that your intention. Read on to learn why yoga is sometimes misinterpreted as a worship practice and where those myths come from. Yoga Unites The Body, Mind, And Soul Yoga is a Sanskrit word that means ‘to yoke’ together or ‘unite’ something. Yoga poses create a union between the mind, body, and soul, cultivating balance and harmony in our physical, mental, and emotional bodies. There are many reasons why yoga is essential in modern life. For example, yoga has the power to improve health conditions, heal ailments, or reduce stress and anxiety and is often recommended by medical practitioners for these reasons. However, the union we create through yoga extends far beyond ourselves, which can make it a spiritual practice for some people. Yoga helps us expand our consciousness to a point where we experience the ‘ultimate reality or ‘enlightenment.’ It is said that when we reach this state, we see the cosmos and all living things as one, pulsating in this infinite universe. So while yoga postures help improve your physical, mental, and spiritual health, the practice can allow you to experience the interconnectedness between living things. Why Yoga Is Mistaken For Worship Understandably, many people (especially in the West) assume that yoga classes that use Sanskrit words or some brief chanting have a religious aspect.	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.gospeladorned.com/yoga/	The Idolatry of Yoga – Gospel Adorned	The Idolatry of Yoga For eight years, I practiced yoga in New York City and partnered with many yogis and studios over the years as a spiritual teacher in the New Age. It was one of the first gateways into my false spiritual path before I knew Christ. I was not following the yoga philosophy – I was just focusing on the movement and sometimes I even prayed to the god I made in my own image instead of bowing down to the Hindu statues that stood in the front of most classes. This mattered not. I believed I could divorce the spiritual purpose from the physical movement, unaware that yoga is rooted in doctrines of demons. But after thousands of hours of yoga, God had mercy on me and commanded the true light of Christ to shine in my heart that I may know truth from error, granting me repentance and bringing me to saving faith in Jesus Christ. I left yoga behind forever and I never looked back. Now I want to help those who are trapped in this deception. People are flocking to yoga not only for exercise but also for physical, emotional and spiritual healing – over 35 million Americans are now practicing yoga and it has entered into the professing church, repackaged as Christian. The draw can be for anything from exercise and stress release to healing back pain and anxiety, or healing from a breakup or death of a loved one. Yoga sounds really attractive especially when you’re in a lot of physical, relational or emotional pain. If we are really naïve, as I was, and without Christ, we do not question the practices we go to for healing—or whether or not we are meant to yoke and come into union with whatever force we’re opening ourselves to through New Age practices. We don’t even consider that we could instead have a personal relationship with our Creator who commanded us to love Him with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength. This of course means worshipping no other gods and idols because this is sin and leads to eternal death. But for those of us who do have Christ, we will not continue in idolatry – we repent, turning from all false religion and dead idols to serve the true living God. Yoga is the gateway to the New Age. More often than not evil is subtle and tricky, so many New Age practices are seemingly innocuous because they feel good and look good, and they’re wrapped up in beautiful packages. But many professing Christians and those who may just identify as atheists or “spiritual seekers” will find that over time they actually go deeper and deeper onto a path they didn’t even intend to go down until they begin New Age practices like yoga, even if they say they just want to “exercise”. Deception is progressive. We’re trained to think evil is very obvious like a devil with two horns but it’s not. It’s subtle. Otherwise we wouldn’t be deceived. Eve was deceived in the Garden, seduced by the serpent, and told that she could be like god – there is nothing new under the sun. When we go to something outside of Christianity, outside of the Bible for answers, it will always lead to idolatry. WHAT YOGA MEANS By definition yoga means to “yoke”. Yoke with what? Specifically, the purpose of yoga is seen as union with “the universe”, an impersonal god or divine force, through the realization of the divine/god-self. Essentially, yoga is the worship of self, as all false religion is – yoga is making your self “god”. Yoga is a Hindu word and a Hindu discipline, which also means to be one with the Hindu god Brahman. Yoga is the Hindu way of salvation—the way of ending the cycle of death and rebirth, ending the cycle of suffering. This is in opposition to Scripture that does not support reincarnation. Yoga is Hinduism, the worship of millions of false gods. It’s idol worship. We like to think we can separate yoga from Hinduism and false idol worship, but we can’t. When we do this, we are no different from the Old Testament Israelites who continually hardened their hearts and turned away from the living God to idolatry. God is specific in what He accepts as worship. We are not to worship the Lord God through the ways of pagan worship and we are not to take the Lord’s name in vain by practicing idolatry in His name. Yoga is 5,000 years old and it comes out of India; modern yoga was once practiced by an occultist clique in America and Europe, but now over 60 million Americans incorporate Eastern philosophy into their worldview. Yoga is the heart of Hinduism; there is no yoga without Hinduism and no Hinduism without yoga. Although there are many types of yoga, the one most common in the West most often passes for physical exercise and is called Hatha yoga; it promises mental and physical health but its Hindu roots and real goal to yoke with false gods and Hindu deities are seldom taught. Yoga is designed for worship not for exercise. All of the yoga movements, postures, breathing techniques and meditations are assigned to release what is called the Kundalini serpent energy – the counterfeit Holy Spirit. This does not connect you with God, but invites demons. At the root of each pose in yoga is the worship of the serpent, designed for activating the Kundalini awakening—the serpent energy that travels up the spine, whether we intend it to or not to induce a false born again experience counterfeit to the Bible when God regenerates His elect in saving faith. In every culture the serpent is worshipped on some level, but in the Bible the serpent is described as Satan, the enemy or adversary of God. When done properly, yoga makes it possible to do things that are only available through demonic power. You are granted this demonic power for worshipping the demons through the yoga poses and the false enlightenment it brings. The bible of yogis is called The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali—and then there’s the Bhagavad-Gita—the sutras describe the real purpose of yoga which is completely spiritual and not about movement. Sri S. Satchidananda in The Yoga Sutras said, “Truth is the same always. Whoever ponders it will get the same answer. Buddha got it. Patanjali got it. Jesus got it. Mohammed got it. The answer is the same, but the method of working it out may vary this way or that. (115)” and he said, “[C]ontinence is a very important part of yoga. If a handful of people come forward with strong wills, nothing is impossible. One Buddha changed half the globe; one Jesus, three quarters of the world. We all have that capacity. (140)” We know from Scripture that there is salvation through no other name (Acts 4:12). It’s a Western quality to cherry pick religions and to remain ignorant around the roots of it. The North American yoga industry has registered so many thousands of copyrights and trademarks that it has angered the Indian government who has now set up their own task force to do something about it. At the 1981 Transcendental Meditation (TM) Conference in India a spokesman stated that, “the entire mission of TM is to counter the ever-spreading demon of Christianity.” Reader, think about that—the religion in which this form of worship originates, claims that Christianity originates from evil. Maharishi brought Transcendental Meditation to the West, what he calls “the purest form of yoga practice.” This meditation, clearing the mind, guided visualization and varying practices are now being adopted by teachers of “holy yoga” or “Christian yoga” after yoga has been in the Catholic, Episcopal and mainline Protestant churches for many years. Many in the professing church today are naively succumbing to spiritual propaganda and unwittingly becoming disciples of the gods of the New Age. Yoga teachers in America are the main front for the Hindu and New Age missionaries. Today the desperate world is looking for another spiritual leader, not the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus says many will come in His name saying I am the Christ and He warns us to not believe them, for many false Christs will come with many false signs and wonders. Do we believe what God said? YOGA & THE MIND One of the main purposes of yoga is to kill the mind. The movements prepare the person for the meditations and chanting and breath work that follow, slowly destroying the mind, burning out and overloading our sensory perception. The real yogis who accomplish this total destruction of the mind are worshipped as gods in India. In these practices people are discouraged to use the mind but of course when the mind is not used, people lose their minds and the mind stops working. When the mind is no longer functioning this creates a space for demonic possession. By “emptying the mind” you open yourself to very dangerous spiritual risks, and it can actually feel like bliss; you experience a drug-like high and like any drug, the addiction follows. This spiritual force numbs you out, dissociates, takes away your pain and gives you the feeling of progression or spiritual advancement, when in reality you are filled with darkness and do not know God. Intentions don’t matter. Everyone has the best of intentions when beginning yoga. Through worshipping these Hindu gods simply through the yoga poses – this is not about your intentions, but the specific yoga poses themselves – you invite demons. From a basic Hatha yoga style, you will eventually be led to deeper yoga practices and the various “deaths”, and the ideas of merging with the universe, the divine love, the source, and the energy of the universe. Satan always uses a strategy to make us “think different”. The world is brainwashed in all sorts of ways. And through New Age practices you go under a spell and into a trance of this other spirit that deeply influences how you think and what you see. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”‭‭ (2 Corinthians‬ ‭11:3‬‭). The Bible warns and exhorts us to, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter‬ ‭5:8)‬. Satan counterfeits all that God has created. Yoga is another counterfeit path to salvation with a counterfeit worship of the sun. Sun Salutations are a series of movements considered to be the foundation to a yoga practice, a spiritual practice used as a way to worship the sun, and therefore traditionally practiced at sunrise.” All false religion ultimately points to sun worship – the counterfeit god. “And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel‬ ‭8:16‬). Yoga is carefully packaged to strongly appeal to our pragmatic side because its true form would completely repel us. What we see in the West is the beautiful side of evil. In her book Like Lambs to the Slaughter, Johanna Michaelsen wrote, “There is a common misconception in the West that hatha-yoga, one of about ten forms of Yoga that supposedly leads to self-realization, is merely a neutral form of exercise, a soothing and effective alternative for those who abhor jogging and calisthenics …Hatha-yoga is ‘one of the six recognized systems of orthodox Hinduism’ and is at its roots religious and mystical. It is also one of the most difficult and potentially [spiritually] dangerous forms of Yoga. The term hatha is derived from the verb hath, which means ‘to oppress.’… What the practice of hatha-yoga is designed to do is suppress the flow of psychic energies through these channels [“symbolic, or psychic passages on either side of the spinal column”], thereby forcing the ‘serpent power’ or the kundalini force to rise through the central psychic channel in the spine (the sushumna) and up through the chakras, the supposed psychic centers of human personality and power. Westerners mistakenly believe that one can practice hatha-yoga apart from the philosophical and religious beliefs that undergird it. This is an absolutely false belief. … You cannot separate the exercises from the philosophy. … ‘The movements themselves become a form of meditation.’ The continued practice of the exercises will, whether you … intend it or not, eventually influence you toward an Eastern/mystical perspective. That is what it is meant to do! … There is, by definition, no such thing as ‘neutral’ Yoga” (pp. 93-95). We are renewing our minds daily. How is our mind renewed? We can look to Romans 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” We do not follow the practices and beliefs of the world. We do not throw away reason, logic and the ability to discern between what is right and wrong, good and evil. Our mind is mightily used of God, not to be seen as something bad and not to be seen as having any natural powers in itself, but the spirit of the mind under the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is in fellowship with God and directed towards God’s will. It’s only logical that we must renew our minds daily with sound doctrine by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Why would Satan want to attack the mind? Because the mind is where God reveals His will to you. God renews our lives by renewing our minds through His truth in the Word. MANTRAS & MEDITATION In Scripture, we are told to meditate on the word of God. This is not sitting in postures, doing poses, or doing any practices or techniques—all of which have now entered the church. The Spirit of God gives us a sound mind, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy‬ ‭1:7‬). ‭But the other spirit comes to kill, steal and destroy. “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”‭‭ (John‬ ‭10:10)‬. There are many dangers in the meditation and breathing techniques in yoga. Even the proponents of these practices are quick to warn that not only do these things trigger emotional and mental diseases, which can place people in insane asylums for the rest of their lives, but they can open you to demons as well. It’s terribly dangerous to go into a meditative state in which the mind is left blank. In a new study from Brown University published in 2017, 60 people were selected to participate, who were exempt from any psychological experiences in their past, and 82% reported fear, anxiety, panic and paranoia after meditation – and they weren’t novices. 43% of the participants had meditated 10,000 hours or more. 49% meditated between 1,000 and 10,000 hours. Mantras, which are a prominent part of a yoga practice, are not just words. They are a direct calling on different Hindu deities. That’s why they are so precise. Since yoga is the preparation and ritual that summons and invokes the kundalini serpent spirit—the force that is believed to be “love and light” or good spirits that bring the spiritual awakening they covet, mantras are used for this as well. Another word for mantra is “charm” or to “cast a spell” to bring the individual to a vibration to attract and manifest what they want to bring into their life. More and more people who profess to be Christian use the name Jesus like a mantra. They claim that it’s a “tool” to get them into the presence of God. The Bible warns against vain repetition in religious, spiritual and ritual practices created by man to worship false idols. “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matthew‬ ‭6:7‬). For those who come to Christ, many report that those “good spirits” in yoga turn on them and manifest in their body as serious illness or spiritual attack from the outside as the enemy battles for the person’s soul. ‭God the Holy Spirit doesn’t oppress and give us more burdens and infiltrate us with darkness like the other spirit does—Jesus is the one true light and in Him is no darkness. He tell tells us, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew‬ ‭11:30). A CALL FOR CHRISTIAN DISCERNMENT As Christians, we are being conformed to the image of Christ, while the lost world is being conformed to image of Satan. Collossians 3:10 tells us “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:” In 2 Corinthians 3:18 we are told, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” In Christ, we are a new creature with a new nature. We don’t have to work on self exhaustively turning to every false way. We have a new nature that did not exist before salvation in Christ, which makes possible a new way of life, no longer dominated by sin and rebellion against the Creator. The unsaved person is still in sin and ruled by the wickedness and rebellion of their depraved nature. Those in Christ daily put off the “old man” and put on the “new man”. The lost world is darkened in their understanding but we have the mind of Christ, we have been enlightened in our mind, giving us the ability to now appreciate what is right and what is wrong. The world will look at us and see the Gospel adorned, a living reality of the witness of Jesus Christ in us. “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;” (2 Corinthians 4:16-17). When we live by faith, we know that we are being renewed day by day, that our afflictions are for our good, that our trials are working to conform us to the image of Christ – so we don’t try to bypass or escape our sufferings as the lost world will do through vain philosophies, false healings and idolatrous practices. Awareness is key. Once we can identify false spiritual practices, we can mark and avoid them. Yoga is no longer on the fridge of society. False teachers and pastors have repackaged yoga as Christian through names like “Holy Yoga” or “Praise Moves” and brought it into the churches. Historically, yoga and its poses are religious positions of worship to false gods and false idols, and therefore cannot be done in a way that is not spiritual, but this is why it’s coming in the name of Christianity and infiltrating churches—because it is spiritual. These churches aren’t choosing something that is just exercise, for a reason. No real yogi denies the spiritual reality of yoga. Satan is patient and progressive—he has a plan and a process and little by little he leads people into apostasy. As we’ve seen here, simply changing the intent of the practice does not negate its inherent theological problems. Holy yoga or Christian yoga is a movement that attempts to merge yoga philosophies and practices with a Christian worldview. Brooke Boon, a holy yoga teacher wrote, “Yoga can be thought of as a philosophy. It’s the idea that by bringing a union of focus between mind and body, while simultaneously making the mind and body stronger and more flexible, we become more authentic people, able to hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways” (Holy Yoga: Exercise for the Christian Body and Soul, New York: Faith Words, 2007, p. 8–9; quoted by Elliot Miller in “The Yoga Boom: A Call for Christian Discernment,” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 02, 2008). To hear God and experience Him in a previously impossible way is clearly unscriptural and dangerous. Holy yoga is another form of mysticism that exalts experience over the Word of God and the focus on self is inherently unbiblical; the Bible never tells us to focus on ourselves, but rather that we are to die to self and follow Christ (Matthew 16:24). Our focus is to be on our Savior, “the pioneer and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:2). The self-love, self-care movement of our day is heavily tied to the occult and witchcraft, and while it may appear to be helpful and innocent, it’s simply not. We are not pioneering anything new here. The old paths that God laid out in His Word is the only truth in a world of lies and deception. As Christians we must know that the whole world lies in wickedness. True Christians know they are in a spiritual battle, and this world is not our home, and not a place to get casual and coast, and do what everyone else is doing to feel better. We have the true living God; we have LIFE, not death. We are told to be sober and vigilant, not flying high on teachings and practices that blaspheme our Savior. This is an age where the Lord’s people should be so alert and so full of hope and joy in Christ and the promise of His coming that they should not wish to turn to the cults and false answers of the world. To do so does not bear witness to the world that Christ alone is all we need and that His grace is sufficient—through our joys and through our sorrows. We represent Christ and we will walk in a way that glorifies Him. When we know the love of God and the light of His truth, we no longer turn to idols and darkness and call it light. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). We offer our bodies as a living sacrifice unto God (Romans 12:1-2). We are not our own, but bought with a price. God has died for our sins, and given us eternal life and it is our reasonable service to devote our lives to Him, to walk in obedience to Him. Now is the time to be bold for Christ, not defending or following the culture and the false spirituality of this world. We must be prepared for persecution when we take a stand for the truth and we are told that, “All who desire to live godly will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). If we are in Christ, we know Jesus is not one of the many paths that lead to God – He is the ONLY way. He is the Son of God. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Self-enlightenment, mysticism, and all paths of self-actualization and works religion are for those seeking the god of their own imagination but refuse the Scripture and the true Jesus Christ. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬). The Bible is more than sufficient for those seeking to be closer to God. We don’t have to add anything. John 5:39 says, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Biblical Christianity has always been the minority—but a false apostate Christianity is quickly rising giving the appearance of a much larger church than there really is and this apostate church is taking the Lord’s name in vain—living in direct disobedience and opposition to God’s Word and preaching another gospel and another Jesus. Their Jesus is not sufficient so they must turn to idols. But we who know the true living God know that His grace is sufficient and we will not bow to dead idols. The true church is not living in idolatry – the church is the bride of Christ and God is sovereign and He keeps her – she is holy – no longer walking in profanity and idolatry. The true church doesn’t love entertainment more than God’s Word and sound doctrine. The true church is not falling into the many false gospels that tickle the ears and please the flesh – the true church does not love the New Age gospel, the prosperity gospel, the works-based gospel or a repentance-free gospel. The true church is not progressive “Christianity”. The true church loves God’s Word and by grace has been given a thirst and hunger for the Word – it is not a burden; sound doctrine is not a burden; it is desired and sought after when we have the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. But there’s a warning to those who truly believe they are Christian but are not walking in obedience to Scripture: The Bible does call those who are in dangerous territory and walking in disobedience, “lukewarm” and “backslidden” at best, and a “hypocrite”, “Pharasee”, or a “worker of iniquity”, at worst. John 4:24 tells us friendship with the world is enmity against God. Do you love the world? Does the world love you? Who do you belong to? Who do you most look like? Are you walking as Christ walked or are you walking as a child of disobedience who’s father is the devil? We are told to examine ourselves that we be in the faith. It is rebellion to say, “I do yoga but I pray to Jesus.” God tells us how to worship Him and when we make up our own way to worship God or adopt the ways of pagan worship in the name of Jesus, this is taking the Lord’s name in vain, blaspheming God and He hates it (Deut 12:29-31). God tells us clearly in His word how we are to worship Him – we are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), not by doing yoga, not by any other means, but through faith in Jesus Christ, in spirit and in truth. We become very spiritually sensitive when we have the Holy Spirit and we will be convicted and turned from error when we are made aware. “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:” (Ephesians‬ ‭5:8)‬ We are not to mix darkness and light – we are to have no fellowship with darkness, but to expose the unfruitful works of darkness. ‭If you are lukewarm or serving two masters, this displeases God. These two faiths are in opposition to one another. “For a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him” (2 Peter 2:19). Do not yoke with other gods, be yoked only to Christ Jesus. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). It’s pride that makes us go to false idols and it’s pride that makes ourselves as gods. When we repent and believe on Jesus, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, we are led to the truth, and we come out of false religion and our allegiance naturally changes from serving Satan’s kingdom to serving God’s Kingdom. Everything we do serves one or the other, we just don’t know it until we are saved by God’s grace, and learn God’s Word and Scripture tells us, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” ‭(Acts‬ ‭26:18‬). Those claiming to know Jesus but continue to reject the Word of God are following a false Christ. The popular Westernized yoga path on a mission to save the world rejects the one true Light and Savior of the world. Scripture tells us, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew‬ ‭7:13-15‬). ‭Do not be deceived. If you are a professing Christian but are living in the New Age deception, it is my deep desire that you repent and believe on the true Jesus Christ. “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” ‭‭(2 Timothy‬ ‭2:22‬). Repent and believe and you will have eternal life. You can also hear my testimony of how God saved me out of spiritual deception here.	Essentially, yoga is the worship of self, as all false religion is – yoga is making your self “god”. Yoga is a Hindu word and a Hindu discipline, which also means to be one with the Hindu god Brahman. Yoga is the Hindu way of salvation—the way of ending the cycle of death and rebirth, ending the cycle of suffering. This is in opposition to Scripture that does not support reincarnation. Yoga is Hinduism, the worship of millions of false gods. It’s idol worship. We like to think we can separate yoga from Hinduism and false idol worship, but we can’t. When we do this, we are no different from the Old Testament Israelites who continually hardened their hearts and turned away from the living God to idolatry. God is specific in what He accepts as worship. We are not to worship the Lord God through the ways of pagan worship and we are not to take the Lord’s name in vain by practicing idolatry in His name. Yoga is 5,000 years old and it comes out of India; modern yoga was once practiced by an occultist clique in America and Europe, but now over 60 million Americans incorporate Eastern philosophy into their worldview. Yoga is the heart of Hinduism; there is no yoga without Hinduism and no Hinduism without yoga. Although there are many types of yoga, the one most common in the West most often passes for physical exercise and is called Hatha yoga; it promises mental and physical health but its Hindu roots and real goal to yoke with false gods and Hindu deities are seldom taught. Yoga is designed for worship not for exercise. All of the yoga movements, postures, breathing techniques and meditations are assigned to release what is called the Kundalini serpent energy – the counterfeit Holy Spirit. This does not connect you with God, but invites demons.	yes
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.gracexstrength.com/should-christians-do-yoga/	Should Christians Do Yoga? \| A guide from Grace x Strength	Should Christians Do Yoga? With the rising popularity of yoga and its controversies around its religious origins, Christians who are wanting to experience its benefits are often left wondering whether yoga is an activity they can participate or engage in. Having been at the forefront of this space in and being asked the same questions over, we've compiled a list of commonly asked questions. The answer to these questions come from our beliefs, understanding and experience, together with discernment from much prayer. Not everything in this world is absolute and we respect that not everyone agrees with our discerned perspective. However, we hope that these answers can help guide you in finding God's will for you with regards to this topic. May we all be faithful in serving our God according to His will, being the hands and feet of Jesus. 1Isn’t yoga an Eastern religious practice? With its earliest inscriptions originating from the Indus Valley over 5000 years ago, yoga definitely has deep and rich cultural roots from ancient Indian civilisation which later spread to the Far East. Acknowledging the many benefits of this ancient practice, yoga evolved into many different lineages and was adapted as a spiritual discipline by different religions. Without dishonouring its rich heritage, yoga’s many benefits continue to be recognised by modern western science and different cultures forming what is now the modern-day adaptation of yoga - arguably completely separable from any religion or adaptable by any religion as a spiritual practice. In its most neutral form, however, yoga consists of 3 key components: breath work, movement and meditation. 2Aren't yoga poses used to worship different gods? Yoga poses (asanas) are simply a way to strengthen and stretch our bodies. While some yoga lineages adopt the tradition of worshipping different gods with yoga poses and some yoga pose names may translate into names of religious idols, when you separate the yoga pose names from the movements, many of these poses are used in exercise routines. It is the intention we import into the movements that gives it meaning. An example of this is Crescent pose. In the fitness world, Crescent pose is called a Lunge. How you move your body cannot be owned by a yoga pose name. 3If yoga is somehow related to other religious practices, shouldn’t Christians just avoid it altogether? Historically, many cultural traditions and practices have had some correlation to other religious practices or used in a secular way, but it doesn't stop Christians from benefiting from it. If you look into the history of competitive running, you’ll find that the origins of this modern sporting event was often linked to honouring or worshiping of idols or gods. Today, we run simply for health benefits. Drinking chocolate dates back to historical findings in religious ritual sites of the Mayan people. Today, we drink and eat chocolate simply because it is tasty. We believe that God can redeem all things for His Glory. Without Him, nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3) 4Isn’t yoga meditation dangerous? Yes, meditation can be dangerous if we don’t know what we are meditating on. Do you know what you meditate on? Different religious practices and even secular practices encourage “meditation". It all depends on what kind of meditation you are engaged in. As Christians, we are told to meditate on the precepts of God - meditation is often something God calls us to do. We define meditation to be “an active surrender to inactivity to the presence of God prompted by the Holy Spirit in order that He may dwell in our innermost spaces as we begin to grow in the likeness of Christ.” Biblical references to “meditation” always infer the filling up of God’s Word and NOT the emptying of our minds. We only declutter our minds and fill it with all things good, truthful, noble and praiseworthy - God’s Word. (Joshua 1:8; Philippians 4:8; Psalm 1:2; Psalm 16:4) 5Is there a risk that by saying “ YES" to Christian yoga, others might go and practise yoga in places that may lead them into meditation rooted in other philosophies or chant to other gods? The short answer is YES. There is always a risk of people practising Christian yoga and then deciding to explore other yoga practices that might be rooted in other religious practices or philosophies. Yet just a like a church, we exist to preach the Gospel and create a sacred space for people to connect with Jesus but we cannot stop others from exploring other religions or philosophies. As a Believer, we must constantly seek God’s wisdom to discern God’s will for us and remember that God does not tempt us. (James 1:13) 6Should Christians practise yoga? In short, yoga might not be for everyone. We believe that it is always important to seek the Lord in prayer and ask for clarity. If it’s not for you and you find that it is stumbling for your faith, then by all means discontinue your practice. But if you, like us, find that the yoga practice benefits you physically, mentally and draws you closer to God and your relationship with Jesus grows because of it, then YES you should keep practising! Always pray about where you practise and with whom you practise with, just like you would with all things. "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him”	Should Christians Do Yoga? With the rising popularity of yoga and its controversies around its religious origins, Christians who are wanting to experience its benefits are often left wondering whether yoga is an activity they can participate or engage in. Having been at the forefront of this space in and being asked the same questions over, we've compiled a list of commonly asked questions. The answer to these questions come from our beliefs, understanding and experience, together with discernment from much prayer. Not everything in this world is absolute and we respect that not everyone agrees with our discerned perspective. However, we hope that these answers can help guide you in finding God's will for you with regards to this topic. May we all be faithful in serving our God according to His will, being the hands and feet of Jesus. 1Isn’t yoga an Eastern religious practice? With its earliest inscriptions originating from the Indus Valley over 5000 years ago, yoga definitely has deep and rich cultural roots from ancient Indian civilisation which later spread to the Far East. Acknowledging the many benefits of this ancient practice, yoga evolved into many different lineages and was adapted as a spiritual discipline by different religions. Without dishonouring its rich heritage, yoga’s many benefits continue to be recognised by modern western science and different cultures forming what is now the modern-day adaptation of yoga - arguably completely separable from any religion or adaptable by any religion as a spiritual practice. In its most neutral form, however, yoga consists of 3 key components: breath work, movement and meditation. 2Aren't yoga poses used to worship different gods? Yoga poses (asanas) are simply a way to strengthen and stretch our bodies. While some yoga lineages adopt the tradition of worshipping different gods with yoga poses and some yoga pose names may translate into names of religious idols, when you separate the yoga pose names from the movements, many of these poses are used in exercise routines. It is the intention we import into the movements that gives it meaning. An example of this is Crescent pose. In the fitness world, Crescent pose is called a Lunge. How you move your body cannot be owned by a yoga pose name.	no
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2005/march/truth-about-yoga.html	The Truth About Yoga \| Today's Christian Woman	The Truth About Yoga Yoga led Laurette Willis into a New Age lifestyle. Now she's warning others of the spiritual pitfalls—and offering an alternative. Holly Vicente Robaina The attractive couple on the television screen gracefully moved their bodies into the next yoga pose: arms extended, head tilted slightly back, a deep breath in. In front of the TV set, a seven-year-old girl and her mother did their best to mimic the posture. The little girl, Laurette, loved this special time with her mom. It was 1965, and Laurette's mom, Jacquie, didn't think twice about exercising along with this yoga program that came on the TV after Jack La Lanne. She developed a passion for yoga, and began instructing free classes in her home. Laurette served as the demonstration model for her mom. The young girl relished the attention—and her family never suspected this seemingly innocent exercise would open the door to a New Age lifestyle that would affect Laurette for the next 22 years. Speaking Out Now 46, Christian speaker/author Laurette Willis tells everyone she meets about the dangers of yoga. The Oklahoma resident addresses groups across the country, speaking from personal experience and her knowledge as a certified personal trainer and aerobics instructor. She's developed a prominent presence on the Internet, largely due to her new exercise program, PraiseMoves, which she calls "a Christian alternative to yoga." She shares her testimony on the website (www.PraiseMoves.com) in a pull-no-punches style, and responds to numerous e-mails—some curious, others critical of her stance on yoga. Additionally, she posts comments on the message boards of other fitness and religion websites. She's also self-published a book and video about PraiseMoves. So what caused Laurette to become vocal about yoga? And is yoga really all that bad? Her testimony is a bold answer to both questions. Throughout her childhood, Laurette's family regularly attended church. "If someone had asked us, we would have said we were Christians," she says. "But we never heard the message of salvation at our church." Lacking knowledge about the Christian faith, Laurette's mom found herself drawn to New Age practices, and began reading books by Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce (both claimed to have psychic abilities) and taking Laurette to an ashram, a Hindu yoga retreat. As an adult, Laurette immersed herself in every New Age and metaphysical practice she came across: chanting, crystals, tarot cards, psychics, channeling spirits. "I tried everything—Kabbalah, Universalism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism —because I was spiritually hungry," Laurette says. "I call the New Age movement 'Burger King' because it's like the fast-food restaurant's motto: 'Have it your way.' That's what the New Age movement tries to do, to achieve God on its terms." There was one thing Laurette wasn't remotely interested in pursuing: Christianity. "I thought Christians just wanted to give me a bunch of rules and dogma," she says. "I didn't know they were speaking about a relationship with Jesus." But in Laurette's quest to find herself, she only found a deepening sense of loneliness. "God will use whatever it takes to bring you to your knees," she says. "I'd made a mess of my life. I was an alcoholic. I'd been promiscuous. I tried every form of religion, never coming to any knowledge of the truth." One day in 1987, a thought popped into Laurette's head: What if everything I thought about God was completely wrong? Two days later, she fell to her knees. "I didn't know anything about the Bible or Jesus. I just cried out to God from the depths of my soul, 'I give up! You win! If you can do something with my life, you can have it.' "As Laurette asked God to take control of her life, she felt a physical weight lift from her body. "I learned much later that the weight was sin," she says. "I hadn't realized sin was real. New Agers think the word 'sin' is an acronym for 'self-inflicted nonsense.' That's the deception of the Enemy, because if there's no sin, then you don't need a Savior." She remembers the change at the moment she accepted Christ: "I felt peace descend upon me for the first time in my life." Exercise Plus Praise After giving her life to God, Laurette began devouring the Bible. She burned her New Age books and disengaged from everything associated with her turbulent past—including yoga. For years, Laurette never gave yoga a second thought. But in 2001, an idea popped into her head: What if there was an alternative to yoga that provided exercise while spiritually moving Christians to praise the Lord? She spent a good deal of time in prayer, wanting to be certain this idea was God's will. After two years of planning, Laurette self-published a PraiseMoves book and video in 2003. She began certifying PraiseMoves instructors across the country last fall. The PraiseMoves program utilizes gentle stretches that correlate with Scripture verses. There's "The Eagle" stretch, where the arms are pulled back to resemble a bird in flight. While students hold this stretch, Laurette reads Isaiah 40:31: "But those who wait on the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles" (NKJV). Other stretches include "The Angel" (Psalm 91:11), "The Rainbow" (Genesis 9:16), and "The Altar" (Romans 12:1). At each session's end, students are asked to prayerfully consider a verse from the Bible, or to spend some quiet time expressing gratitude to God. The Problem with Yoga Laurette wanted PraiseMoves to provide all the physical benefits for which yoga is often touted: improved flexibility, weight loss, reduced stress, and improved circulation, to name a few. But she wanted the similarities to end there. The goal of all yoga, Laurette explains, is to obtain oneness with the universe. That's also known as the process of enlightenment, or union with Brahman (Hinduism's highest god). The word "yoga" means "union" or "to yoke." "Yoga wants to get students to the point of complete numbness in their minds. God, on the other hand, wants you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind through his Word," Laurette says. Before she became a Christian, Laurette used subliminal tapes to train her mind to empty itself. These tapes are often used in yoga classes, she says. She also taught yoga classes and instructed her students in astral projection, or "stepping outside" of the body, which Laurette says poses a serious spiritual danger. "If there's nothing in your mind, you're open to all kinds of deception. After coming to Christ, I wondered who—or what—came into my body when I 'stepped out.' While I don't believe Christians can become possessed, I do believe we can become oppressed by demonic spirits of fear, depression, lust, false religion, etc. These are all things designed to draw us away from Jesus Christ." But what about hatha yoga, the less overtly spiritual form of yoga taught at most gyms? Even in this format, Laurette says there are commonly used words and poses antithetical to God's Word. For example, the word "namaste," often said at the close of yoga classes, means, "I bow to the god within you." The sound "om," chanted in many yoga classes, is meant to bring students into a trance so they can join with the universal mind. And the "salute to the sun" posture, used at the beginning of most classes, pays homage to the Hindu sun god. Laurette believes it's impossible to extract Hindu spiritualism from yoga—and she's gotten a bit of confirmation on this from an unlikely source: "I received an e-mail from a staff member of the Classical Yoga Hindu Academy in New Jersey. The staff member wrote, 'Yes, all of yoga is Hinduism. Everyone should be aware of this fact.' This staff member included that she didn't appreciate my 'running down the great Hindu/Yogic religion,'" Laurette says. Her statements about yoga have also drawn criticism from some Christians. Some accuse Laurette of being judgmental. Others say her fears about yoga are irrational. She's quick to tell critics PraiseMoves isn't for everybody, but she doesn't back down from her stance on yoga. When she speaks with Christians who practice yoga, she encourages them to pay close attention to any hesitation they feel—and then to check out the facts for themselves. Numerous Christian women have told Laurette they decided to quit yoga after learning about its Hindu roots. It's a hard decision for those who've invested many years and many dollars into the practice. Laurette says, "I tell people that if their reasoning is, 'But I've already paid for these yoga classes,' or 'But I just bought these cool yoga pants and a yoga DVD,' to ask themselves: Am I willing to give these things up to know the truth?" Subscribe to TCW's free email newsletter at this link for weekly updates and chances to win free books and music downloads. Holly Vicente Robaina, a TCW regular contributor, lives in California. Laurette's new book, BASIC Steps to Godly Fitness, will be published by Harvest House this April. Proceed with Caution There's a new practice popping up at churches and fitness clubs around the country. Dubbed "Christian yoga" or "yoga for Christians," these programs supposedly offer the physical benefits of yoga along with Christian spirituality. But is it really possible for yoga to be transformed into a practice for Christians? Doug Groothuis, author of Confronting the New Age and a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary, says proponents of "Christian yoga" are misled—and are misleading others. "'Christian yoga' is an oxymoron. Yoga is rooted in Hinduism and cannot be separated from it," he says. "There's nothing wrong with stretching and calming down one's breathing. But yoga isn't really about that; it's aimed at transforming human consciousness to experience the Hindu god, which is a false god." TCW found several "Christian yoga" instructors who are affiliated with secular yoga organizations that have a Hindu or New Age bent. When investigating a Christian yoga class, be on the lookout for: Sanskrit language. Many words commonly used in yoga pay homage to Hindu deities. Metaphysical jargon. Phrases such as "breathing in positive energy and breathing out negative energy," "focusing on the third eye," and "getting in touch with the divinity within you" have New Age implications. Sign up for our newsletter: CT's weekly newsletter highlighting the voices of women writers. We report on news and give our opinion on topics such as church, family, sexuality, discipleship, pop culture, and more!	The word "yoga" means "union" or "to yoke. " "Yoga wants to get students to the point of complete numbness in their minds. God, on the other hand, wants you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind through his Word," Laurette says. Before she became a Christian, Laurette used subliminal tapes to train her mind to empty itself. These tapes are often used in yoga classes, she says. She also taught yoga classes and instructed her students in astral projection, or "stepping outside" of the body, which Laurette says poses a serious spiritual danger. "If there's nothing in your mind, you're open to all kinds of deception. After coming to Christ, I wondered who—or what—came into my body when I 'stepped out.' While I don't believe Christians can become possessed, I do believe we can become oppressed by demonic spirits of fear, depression, lust, false religion, etc. These are all things designed to draw us away from Jesus Christ. " But what about hatha yoga, the less overtly spiritual form of yoga taught at most gyms? Even in this format, Laurette says there are commonly used words and poses antithetical to God's Word. For example, the word "namaste," often said at the close of yoga classes, means, "I bow to the god within you." The sound "om," chanted in many yoga classes, is meant to bring students into a trance so they can join with the universal mind. And the "salute to the sun" posture, used at the beginning of most classes, pays homage to the Hindu sun god. Laurette believes it's impossible to extract Hindu spiritualism from yoga—and she's gotten a bit of confirmation on this from an unlikely source: "I received an e-mail from a staff member of the Classical Yoga Hindu Academy in New Jersey. The staff member wrote, 'Yes, all of yoga is Hinduism. Everyone should be aware of this fact.'	yes
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	yes_statement	"yoga" is a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" can be considered a religious practice.	https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2018/11/12/james-river-pastor-yoga-has-demonic-roots-springfield-yogis/1897249002/	James River pastor says yoga has 'demonic roots.' What do yogis say?	A pastor of an Assemblies of God megachurch recently took aim at yoga, saying it has "demonic roots" and warning Christians to avoid the popular activity. Pastor John Lindell told the attendees of James River Church in Ozark — which has a congregation of about 10,500, according to a 2016 report — that the positions in yoga were "created with demonic intent to open you up to demonic power because Hinduism is demonic." Members of Springfield's yoga community are now speaking out. A Christian yogi says his practice has brought him closer to God and wants others to know that it's possible to do sun salutations while following Christ. One owner of a yoga studio said she's worried that small local businesses are being hurt. An instructor, feeling on edge after a Florida yoga studio was shot up last week, can't shake a fear that someone might take the church's anti-yoga message too far. They are taking a stand against the sermon's message, which they say is "ignorant" and divisive, in a time when unity is needed. "Yoga transcends religion," said Reggie Harris, who said five years of yoga has transformed his life. "Yoga brings people together in a heart of unity and love. You're teaching people to hate something that may help them physically, emotionally, spiritually." Sermon: Yoga as "paranormal" Lindell delivered a paranormal-themed sermon the Sunday ahead of Halloween. Among other things, he warned congregants about the spiritual dangers of fortune-telling, Wicca, a form of paganism, and finally, yoga. People might be shocked that the church was comparing yoga to the paranormal, Lindell acknowledged. "That, to me, is an indication of how far our society has drifted into a post-Christian culture. Earlier, it would have been a given that yoga was inherently a form of eastern mysticism that Christians should absolutely avoid, but that is no longer the case," he said during the sermon. Yoga is everywhere now, he said, pointing to the local YMCA's class schedule as an example. Lindell explained that yoga's intent is to "raise and expand consciousness for the purpose of experiencing peace, energy and divine presence." First, he addressed yoga poses. "They were designed, they were created with demonic intent, to open you up to demonic power because Hinduism is demonic," Lindell said. Lindell said the sun salutation, a common sequence of positions in yoga, is meant to worship Surya, the Hindu sun god. "To say the positions of yoga are no more than exercise are tantamount to saying water baptism is just aqua aerobics," Lindell said. Then, he talked about meditation. During meditation, he said, people clear their minds. Sometimes they chant a mantra, which can incorporate the names of Hindu gods, Lindell said. He said it's "spiritually dangerous" for people to empty their minds. "Yoga is diametrically opposed to Christianity," he said. "....Christians should stay away from yoga because of its demonic roots." Lindell said he was coming from a place of concern for people's spiritual well-being. Stop doing yoga, he told his congregants, and they don't have to be afraid. "I can't say the same if you keep doing it," Lindell said. Yogis respond Last Monday morning, only one person showed up to Heather Worthy's yoga class. Her night class only had four people. At the Republic gym where she teaches, the words "yoga classes" used to be featured on the front door. By Monday, those words had been taken down, even though she's still leading yoga classes. Worthy said many people at the gym are active members of James River Church, and she speculated that Lindell's sermon had an impact on them. "It hurt," she said. "It could have been a coincidence, but it's interesting." Worthy said some points that Lindell made about yoga made her chuckle. "But at the same time, it's so frustrating .... the whole thing is quite ludicrous to me." Worthy, who once worked at a church as a staff member, said in her experience, Christianity is "love-based." "How can attack and cause harm if you are acting out of love? Especially toward a group of people or a practice that you don't understand... blatantly calling it wrong, and saying 'You're going to hell?'" she asked. "That doesn't fit my definition of love." Worthy said yoga is a necessary part of her life. A severe car accident in 2013 left her with mobility issues and chronic pain in her back. She tried physical therapy, acupuncture and prescription pain relievers and muscle relaxers. She didn't like how the medication made her feel. "I'm a mom of two. I have a busy schedule and I don't have time to be a zombie," Worthy said. What made the biggest difference was daily yoga. "If I don't have a regular (yoga) practice, I can't function. I can't get out of bed, really," she said. Worthy urged others to "find your truth" and not take other people's statements at face value without more research. Stephanie Wubbena owns Live Pure Yoga in Springfield and runs Goats and Yoga out of her Rogersville farm. She said Springfield has a "robust" yoga scene, which is reaching the peak of its popularity. There are at least 15 yoga studios in Springfield, the News-Leader found after an online search. Wubbena made a rebuttal video to the James River Sermon about yoga and posted it to YouTube on Nov. 1. It's received about 500 views as of Friday. Wubbena told the News-Leader her main concern is that the sermon is "going after small businesses." "This is our sole source of livelihood," Wubbena said. "One yoga studio lost over 10 members the Monday after the sermon." Wubbena agreed with Lindell on one aspect: that yoga has "pagan origins," she said. But so do Christmas and Easter traditions, Wubbena said. "The blatant hypocrisy was just so overwhelming," she said. Like Worthy, Wubbena said people should think for themselves. "In this political air that we have, it's really important to not be caught up in tribalism and not be caught up with listening to just because someone is a Christian or Democrat or Republican, to just do what they want," Wubbena said. "...Look some stuff up, don't be scared and intimidated and blindly follow, because all men are fallible." Reggie Harris had plenty of aches and pains from his days as a Mississippi State University, then as a semi-professional football player. He began practicing yoga five years ago to alleviate tightness in his back and hip muscles — the result of old dislocations of his hip and shoulders. Harris said yoga has helped with more than just physical ailments. Emotionally, he said he's less angry and less insecure. For the 36-year-old, who grew up "old school Baptist," yoga has a deep spiritual side as well. "I know my relationship with the Lord and my relationship with him has gotten deeper through yoga," Harris said. "....It took me to a whole new level. It made me open my mind up and question things. It made me look at things from other people's perspectives a whole lot more, and it made me search differently for answers, deepening my relationship with God." Harris said he felt "disappointed, hurt and angry" when he listened to Lindell's sermon online. "When you start spreading venom like that, that’s when it becomes toxic," Harris said. "Because people start making assumptions about people who practice yoga. You think they’re evil, demonic. That’s the same rhetoric we created about Muslims in America .... That's not right. That's not bringing peace." Harris said people should judge a "tree by the fruit it bears." "I looked at how yoga helped a lot of poor people, people who were sick on the inside, had physical illness. I gave it a try. These are all the positive fruits of yoga," he said. Amanda Davis, who has been a yoga instructor for 12 years, said the pastor didn't have a proper understanding of yoga. "Yoga doesn't prescribe to any religion, and I don't think people understand that so they get false ideas about it," she said. The gunman espoused misogynistic and racist views in online videos and had a history of inappropriately grabbing women. It has put Davis on edge. "It's really... scary," Davis said. "I don't really know if somebody is going to walk into the Y, and shoot us up, or one of the other studios we teach." When Davis began practicing yoga 13 years ago, the public's attitude toward yoga was different. "People started out a little apprehensive about it because it was new to the area," she said. "People didn't understand it. As people would show up and take the class, maybe do a little bit of research on their own, they realize it is not a religion — it's a way of life. (It teaches you) to be a better person, to be charitable and to be mindful of your environment and the people around you." Davis said yoga has made her life "a whole lot better." "It helped me, not only physically, but emotionally as well — to be a more balanced individual and be more at harmony with my surroundings and people in my community." Davis said, in her opinion, the best thing to do is to ignore the people who denigrate yoga as "demonic." "It's ignorant," she said. "It's hate speech." Toward the end of his sermon about the paranormal, Pastor Lindell said he hopes people consider his words. "I don't do it to make anybody mad. If I made you mad, that's unfortunate," he said. "But I have a responsibility before God as the shepherd of souls to say I told you the truth." The audience broke out into applause. In response to a News-Leader request for comment, James River Church provided a written statement. The full statement is as follows: "As a church our heart is to provide people with Biblical insight and teaching that will strengthen their faith and their daily walk with God.	"Yoga brings people together in a heart of unity and love. You're teaching people to hate something that may help them physically, emotionally, spiritually." Sermon: Yoga as "paranormal" Lindell delivered a paranormal-themed sermon the Sunday ahead of Halloween. Among other things, he warned congregants about the spiritual dangers of fortune-telling, Wicca, a form of paganism, and finally, yoga. People might be shocked that the church was comparing yoga to the paranormal, Lindell acknowledged. "That, to me, is an indication of how far our society has drifted into a post-Christian culture. Earlier, it would have been a given that yoga was inherently a form of eastern mysticism that Christians should absolutely avoid, but that is no longer the case," he said during the sermon. Yoga is everywhere now, he said, pointing to the local YMCA's class schedule as an example. Lindell explained that yoga's intent is to "raise and expand consciousness for the purpose of experiencing peace, energy and divine presence. " First, he addressed yoga poses. "They were designed, they were created with demonic intent, to open you up to demonic power because Hinduism is demonic," Lindell said. Lindell said the sun salutation, a common sequence of positions in yoga, is meant to worship Surya, the Hindu sun god. "To say the positions of yoga are no more than exercise are tantamount to saying water baptism is just aqua aerobics," Lindell said. Then, he talked about meditation. During meditation, he said, people clear their minds. Sometimes they chant a mantra, which can incorporate the names of Hindu gods, Lindell said. He said it's "spiritually dangerous" for people to empty their minds. "Yoga is diametrically opposed to Christianity," he said. "....Christians should stay away from yoga because of its demonic roots.	yes
Yoga	Is yoga a form of religion?	no_statement	"yoga" is not a "form" of "religion".. "yoga" is a spiritual practice but not a "religion".	https://holyscapes.org/2017/07/15/non-yogis-like-me-should-not-practice-yoga-there-i-said-it/	Non-Yogis Like Me Should Not Practice Yoga. There I Said It ...	landscapes of earth and soul Non-Yogis Like Me Should Not Practice Yoga. There I Said It. In a popular online Yoga for Complete Beginners video, the instructor begins by inviting participants into a Sanskrit-named pose. We, the viewers, are going to relax, to ‘watch’ the breath, ‘create space’ in the body, and ‘connect’ with ourselves. We are encouraged to remember that there are no right or wrong poses. The movements are about “self-expression” and “awareness” of the body. When I finished my awkward attempts at the poses and lay on my back listening to the soft exit music of the video, I admit, I felt good. But I am soon distracted with self-criticisms. A lifelong curmudgeon and cynic about all things trendy, I am skeptical about the surge in popularity of yoga in North America. But if yoga feels good, and contributes to a general sense of wellbeing and fitness, then what’s the big deal? Why write a post like this? Well, in this post I will articulate some generally unpopular opinions that will leave most yoga aficionados annoyed. But this post is really a way for me to figure out my own relationship to yoga, helpful to others or not. Let me start by saying that I have nothing against people who dive fully into their spiritual or religious practices, and, I have no problem with authentic conversions. Religions should earn their adherents, and if they are not filling us spiritually we should look elsewhere. What I am concerned with is a twofold problem with the adoption of Eastern spiritual practices in the West: appropriation for profit, and, a buffet spirituality mentality that only serves to reinforce the primary Western religion of consumerism and self-centered ego worship. Offended yet? Yoga came to the West in the 19th century, but since the 1990s has taken the Western world by storm. A 2016 survey suggests that over 36 million Americans practice some form of yoga, and the United Nations has even declared an International Day of Yoga. There is a growing yoga industry in North America, especially the Pacific Northwest, and practicing yoga classes are promoted as promising immediate physical and emotional benefits to practitioners. Characteristically, we even have North American-adapted versions of yoga that serve specific demographics: Acro, Power, Flow, Hot, Bikram, Yin, Restorative, Gentle, etc. each with a different emphasis, benefit or purpose. As journalist Hanna Rosin points out in her Atlantic article, ‘Striking a Pose’,“Where older religions promised heaven, the church of yoga promises quicker, more practical, earthly gratification, in the form of better heart rates and well-toned arms.” In Roots of Yoga James Mallinson and Mark Singleton describe the deep historical and ecumenical roots of yoga as a spiritual path. Yoga has a diverse cast of practitioners from the beginning. It can be broadly defined as a psycho-physical technique that was designed to facilitate the achievement of overall well being and in the case of most serious yogis throughout history, spiritual enlightenment. The Vedas, the oldest religious texts in Hinduism, and arguably the world, make mention of visionary meditation, posture, mantra repetition, and breathe control as part of their central practice of venerating and petitioning various Deities. Key passages from the Upanishads and the Mahabharata, also Hindu scriptures, mention yoga, but there are also sources going back to ancient Tantric, Buddhist and even Jain traditions. This is because in around 500 BCE, Buddhists, Jains, and Ajivikas, began to split off from the Brahmanic sects to form their own ascetical cohorts and lineages motivated by finding an end to suffering and the cycle of birth and death (Samsara). The goal was liberation (moksha, nirvana), which included the annihilation of the individual ego, not its enhancement, into the Divine Source. According to Mallinson and Singleton, yoga was initially practiced through meditation techniques. The earliest definition of Yoga comes from the Katha Upanishad, wherein the senses are held still, like a chariot driver controlling his horses. However, these Yogins also developed a suit of austerities to win favors from the gods, or to intensify their meditation practice and bring the body into alignment with the soul. Patanjali’s Yogasutras (2CE) is the most prominent text in the history of contemporary Yoga, wherein the author lays out metaphysical and practice concerns with yoga as a path to enlightenment. However, two centuries before this text, the Yogacara school of Buddhism was also teaching a form of Yoga as well, suggesting that yoga does not have a single lineage or origin, though it did emerge from the Indian constellation of spiritual and religious practices that have today solidified into various religious traditions. In around 1,000 CE what is now called Hatha Yoga developed out of several lineages in India, which were designed to be more accessible to householders, rather than purely for ascetics, hermits or monks. Yoga soon became a practice that anyone could engage in regardless of caste, class or metaphysical persuasion. Hatha drew broadly from Patanjali and Tantra traditions, but began to focus on a more intensive use of postures called Asanas, to lead the body and mind into greater unity. Proper diet, regulated breathing, and a focus on practice apart from caste and metaphysical school, made Hatha a diverse and widely adaptable lineage. Especially within the Hatha lineage, yoga had no centralized Vatican-like interpreter or missionary order, and it diffused through various Hindu-Buddhist lineages as one of many techniques which led one to enlightenment. On his tour of Europe and North America, particularly his speech at the 1893 Parliament of World Religions, Swami Vivekananda introduced yoga and Hinduism to the West. Hindu philosophy took root with Transcendentalist nature spirituality of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the Theosophical mysticism of Helena Blavatsky. During the 1960s, like other eastern traditions, it became a foil to the establishment religions, especially Christianity, with its rigid dogmas and cerebral worship. Yoga became another badge of hippie counter-culture along with LSD, Transcendental Meditation and flower power. And of course, some were absolutely authentically drawn to yoga’s ecumenical appeal, its emphasis on practice, and its myriad benefits for wellbeing. Today Yoga is big business with millions of Americans and Canadians practicing it at least once or twice a month. In Vancouver, there are just about as many yoga studios as sushi joints and coffee shops, not to mentions tradition churches or temples. Yoga as a form of exercise really took off in the 1990s with Entrepreneurial gurus such as Bikram Choudhury and a thousand others. President Barack Obama endorsed yoga as a “universal language of spiritual exercise,” and even the American College of Sports Medicine recommends integrating yoga into one’s exercise regime. If yoga is such an adaptable and beneficial practice, what’s the problem? Well, despite its flexibility, in its Western setting, I fear that it has been completely bent out of shape, to use an appropriate analogy, and has taken on a very different set of values and objectives. To be clear I do not deny the transferability and diffusion of religious and spiritual traditions. All religion is hybrid, mixture, conversation. But I can’t help but worry that the yoga boom has gotten out of hand, that it has appropriated the mystique of yoga from its original purpose in the service of the religion of self, promoted by capitalism. Yoga, like Mindfulness TM has been coopted into the capitalist project of desire and identity fulfillment rather than as extensions of the paths that lead to liberation and transformation. I am not against conversion, or against white yogi’s who are embedded within an identifiable lineage. But hip yoga fitness hubs that cater to Western standards of beauty, body type and a vaguely spiritual identity, do violence to the traditions they have stolen from. Yoga is not a marketing slogan, a clever T-shirt punch line, or a décor. It seems that yoga and mindfulness are increasingly being employed to satiate proximate desires for relaxation, productivity, bodily health and fitness, rather than as tools in the human quest for ultimate desire and fulfillment through union with God. As Hanna Rosin writes, “yoga is no longer a spiritual antidote to the upscale Western lifestyle; it’s just the latest manifestation.” So, can non-Yogis practice Yoga? The answer I am afraid is simply no. Yogis should practice yoga, wherever they come from, but to appropriate yoga into the Western cult of the Self, is wrong. In addition, practicing yoga casually, or from within another tradition fosters a spiritual buffet mentality which is not only appropriative but religiously lazy. So where should non-Yogis go for practices that promote spiritual and physical wellbeing? Does the west not have a comparable tradition? Yes, in fact we do. As journalist Linda Johnsen points out ancient Greeks and Romans practiced something like Yoga which in Greek was called Henosis or, which cultivated a single-pointed awareness of the unitary consciousness that pervades existence. The 3rd century BCE Greek philosopher Plotinus’s last words were “Try to unite the divinity in yourself, with the divinity in all things.” In the Gymnasium, where Greeks competed naked, fitness and enlightenment were stops along the same path. Only in the modern West has bodily wellness and spiritual wellness been so divided. But not without an effort to keep the two together. For example, in the 1850s there was a movement called the ‘New Gymnastics’ (with a more modest dress code) for the purpose of renewing the body and the soul in the service of ensuring healthy and balanced communities. We in the West seem to always be looking for a remedy for the busy, sedentary modern life, even while we refuse to abandon it for something more wholesome and spirituality satisfying. So, of course one obvious response is that we need to change the structures of society so that our lives are more balanced, whole and fulfilling in the first place! But that is a whole other article. But my question remains, why didn’t we just revive the gymnastics movements, or create something similar? What is it about eastern spiritualities and practices that is so irresistible to some in the secular West? There is of course no single answer to this question, which is admittedly reductive from the start, but at least for my own purposes a helpful starting point. By and large, I see a connection between the rise of the spiritual but not religious and the failure of western spiritual traditions to fully engage with practices that unify body and the soul, before engaging with metaphysical or theological questions. It seems that many Christian denominations lead with belief, creed or scriptural interpretation, rather than teaching first and foremost ways of sinking into the deep and sustaining relationship with the Divine. For example, Christian and yoga instructor Karen Hefford in her article “Why are People Going to Yoga Instead of Church?” sheds light on the attraction of yoga for some Christians. She writes: “I find more comfort in the silence of my yoga practice than I do when I am in church. I feel a deeper connection while practicing yoga because it is about surrendering and finding peace… Prayer is often about asking for something or thanking God. Yoga is more about clearing the mind… and surrendering it all.” If Christian churches are not teaching the deep tradition of silence, surrender, and peace that is at the heart of Christianity, then they have done the Christian tradition a great disservice. Yoga should not be a spiritual supplement, a revenue generator, or a youth magnet for churches, it is its own path to God and people who practice it should be on that path. Christians should begin with their own tradition, before we dialogue and learn from others. For example, Centering Prayer, a tradition derived from the anonymous 14th century writer of the Cloud of the Unknowing, but promoted by many contemporary denominations, teaches a kind of meditation that strives to go beyond words and petitions for the mysterious silence of God. It is prayer, but prayer that does not treat God as our own personal vending machine. In addition, as Karen Hefford points out in her article, the 13th century Saint Dominic taught nine different symbolic postures for prayer, each of which engaged the body in a unique way; from a profound bow, to a full prostration, to genuflecting, and standing in the shape of the cross. In another case, for Eastern Orthodox, who typically do not have pews in their churches, and where services are mostly done standing, when a worshiper enters a church, they often cross themselves several times, touch the ground, kneel or even prostrate on the ground. Or as another example, why not simply reciting the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me) while stretching, running or walking? These forms of somatic prayer could be a seed of the return of Christian prostration sessions which are oriented toward an icon, altar, or an easterly aspect, which has deep roots and history in Christian architecture, symbolizing the return of the Sun and the Son. Of course Dominic also practiced a more intense asceticism, including self-flagellation, but this will seem tame compared to the austerities of the early Yogis. To summarize: I am all for a full-bodied embrace of a spiritual tradition that puts one on the path to self-realization in God through harmonizing body, soul and spirit. What I am opposed to is a capitalistic cult of the spiritual identity that promises to make a few enterprising entrepreneurs millions of dollars all while reinforcing rather than eliminating the ego, the cult of sexy bodies, and the buffet style self-indulgence of some spiritual but not religious seekers. In addition, I believe that Christianity has the resources to fulfill the intuition of yoga’s appeal if it were to more creatively engage its own history, theology and spirituality.	To be clear I do not deny the transferability and diffusion of religious and spiritual traditions. All religion is hybrid, mixture, conversation. But I can’t help but worry that the yoga boom has gotten out of hand, that it has appropriated the mystique of yoga from its original purpose in the service of the religion of self, promoted by capitalism. Yoga, like Mindfulness TM has been coopted into the capitalist project of desire and identity fulfillment rather than as extensions of the paths that lead to liberation and transformation. I am not against conversion, or against white yogi’s who are embedded within an identifiable lineage. But hip yoga fitness hubs that cater to Western standards of beauty, body type and a vaguely spiritual identity, do violence to the traditions they have stolen from. Yoga is not a marketing slogan, a clever T-shirt punch line, or a décor. It seems that yoga and mindfulness are increasingly being employed to satiate proximate desires for relaxation, productivity, bodily health and fitness, rather than as tools in the human quest for ultimate desire and fulfillment through union with God. As Hanna Rosin writes, “yoga is no longer a spiritual antidote to the upscale Western lifestyle; it’s just the latest manifestation.” So, can non-Yogis practice Yoga? The answer I am afraid is simply no. Yogis should practice yoga, wherever they come from, but to appropriate yoga into the Western cult of the Self, is wrong. In addition, practicing yoga casually, or from within another tradition fosters a spiritual buffet mentality which is not only appropriative but religiously lazy. So where should non-Yogis go for practices that promote spiritual and physical wellbeing? Does the west not have a comparable tradition? Yes, in fact we do. As journalist Linda Johnsen points out ancient Greeks and Romans practiced something like Yoga which in Greek was called Henosis or, which cultivated a single-pointed awareness of the unitary consciousness that pervades existence.	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	yes_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should be "banned" due to "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is necessary to protect "animal" "rights".	https://www.peta.org/features/running-of-the-bulls/	11 Reasons to Skip the Running of the Bulls \| PETA	During the San Fermín festival, which takes place from July 7 to 14, six bulls (uncastrated males) and at least six steers (young neutered males) are released into the streets each day before being corralled into the bullring. A total of 48 bulls are tortured and killed over the course of the week, as thousands of people witness their violent deaths. Here are 11 reasons why you should skip the Running of the Bulls: 1. A rocket is launched to terrify the bulls as they’re forced onto city streets mobbed with screaming festival attendees. Panicked, the animals slip and slide down the narrow streets and alleyways among thousands of shouting people, including tourists, who hit them with sticks and otherwise abuse them along the half-mile route to the bullring. 3. The violence against animals also encourages violence against women: The 2016 event alone brought the arrests of 16 men for reports of violent sexual attacks, including rape and attempted rape, and 11 other allegations of sexual assault. One study found that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. If someone doesn’t have empathy for animals, it’s very likely that they don’t have empathy for anyone. 4. The event is extremely dangerous for humans in other ways, too. Between 50 and 100 attendees are injured each year, and 16 have died. 5. After the Running of the Bulls, bullfights are held in which bullfighters have been known to drug bulls to weaken them, drop sandbags on their backs, shave their horns to throw off their balance, and rub petroleum jelly into their eyes to impair their vision. Bullfighters cheat in all kinds of ways to “win” fights that the bulls have no choice about being exploited in. 7. Then, they twist the lances deeper into the gaping stab wounds to ensure that a significant amount of blood is lost (between 3 and 6 liters, which is 18% of a bull’s blood) and that the animals can’t lift their heads or defend themselves. 8. In the next stage, banderilleros dart around the terrified, bleeding animals while plunging banderillas—brightly colored sticks with a harpoon point on one end—into their already-injured backs. The wounded animals are forced to run in circles, until they stop because they’re too dizzy, disoriented, and weakened from blood loss to continue. 10. If the matador misses, the bull is usually subjected to even more suffering: The matador uses another sword to cut the spinal cord so that the bull will fall and be unable to move. Then, the matador stabs the bull in the back of the head with a dagger. 11. The bull is often paralyzed but still conscious and twitching as someone cuts off his ears and tail and holds them up as “trophies” in front of the cheering crowd. Finally, the bull is chained by the horns and dragged out of the arena. Partaking in an event that ends with someone standing over a defenseless animal and stabbing him multiple times with spears, harpoons, swords, and a dagger until he’s dead—and then demanding applause—is barbaric and inexcusable. This cruelty isn’t entertainment—and it shouldn’t even be called a “bullfight,” because the bulls never have a fighting chance. It’s tormenting and torturing them to death in front of audiences full of rowdy tourists who have no respect for animals or don’t understand the true nature of the event. More than 100 Spanish towns and cities have banned bullfighting, and a 2016 poll found that 81% of Spaniards ages 16 to 65 oppose it. That figure rises to 93% among 16- to 24-year-olds. The future is bullfight-free. If you travel to Spain, enjoy the art, beaches, breathtaking architecture and views, castles, flamenco dances, hikes, live music, parks, plazas, nightlife, soccer games, and sunsets. Go on tours, meet locals, visit museums and markets, and try vegan pinchos, tapas, sangria, and sorbet. Just remember: Cruelty is not a part of culture worth preserving. Seek thrills somewhere other than bullfights! Here are just a few of the things that you can enjoy instead: Get PETA Updates Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox! E-Mail Address Sign me up for the following e-mail: Membership Updates PETA News Current subscribers: You will continue to receive e-mail unless you explicitly opt out by clicking here. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us. “Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?” READ MORE	During the San Fermín festival, which takes place from July 7 to 14, six bulls (uncastrated males) and at least six steers (young neutered males) are released into the streets each day before being corralled into the bullring. A total of 48 bulls are tortured and killed over the course of the week, as thousands of people witness their violent deaths. Here are 11 reasons why you should skip the Running of the Bulls: 1. A rocket is launched to terrify the bulls as they’re forced onto city streets mobbed with screaming festival attendees. Panicked, the animals slip and slide down the narrow streets and alleyways among thousands of shouting people, including tourists, who hit them with sticks and otherwise abuse them along the half-mile route to the bullring. 3. The violence against animals also encourages violence against women: The 2016 event alone brought the arrests of 16 men for reports of violent sexual attacks, including rape and attempted rape, and 11 other allegations of sexual assault. One study found that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. If someone doesn’t have empathy for animals, it’s very likely that they don’t have empathy for anyone. 4. The event is extremely dangerous for humans in other ways, too. Between 50 and 100 attendees are injured each year, and 16 have died. 5. After the Running of the Bulls, bullfights are held in which bullfighters have been known to drug bulls to weaken them, drop sandbags on their backs, shave their horns to throw off their balance, and rub petroleum jelly into their eyes to impair their vision. Bullfighters cheat in all kinds of ways to “win” fights that the bulls have no choice about being exploited in. 7.	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	yes_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should be "banned" due to "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is necessary to protect "animal" "rights".	https://www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/fighting/bullfighting-and-bull-running/	Bullfighting \| Animal Charity	Bullfighting and Bull Running Bullfighting is perhaps the most well-known spectator “sport” involving the killing of animals for entertainment. For British tourists in the 1970s and 1980s, going to a bullfight was almost seen as a ‘must do’ part of a holiday in Spain. But gradually the awareness of what actually happens at a bullfight has increased, ripping away the idea that bullfighting is ‘art’ and exposing it for the cruel sport that it really is. Public opinion in each bullfighting country and elsewhere is now firmly behind banning bullfighting, and it has already been banned in most countries. But it still continues in nine countries - each year tens of thousands of bulls are injured and killed for entertainment in Spain, Portugal, France, Colombia, Mexico, USA, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru. Polling by Ipsos Mori in 2016 found that 58% of adults in Spain oppose bullfighting, compared to 19% who support it. What is bullfighting? Bullfighting is a traditional bloodsport that is thought to have existed in Spain since Roman times. The sport has evolved and varied over time and, today, bullfighting typically involves a professional performer (known in Spain as toreros or matadors) ceremoniously fighting a bull in a sand bullring. In many variants of the sport, the bull will ultimately die. The cruelty of bullfighting There are many different styles of bullfighting but the Spanish style bullfight is likely the best known. In this performance, the animal is attacked by a ‘cuadrilla’ (entourage) comprised of men on foot and others on horseback, armed with lances and barbed harpoons called ‘banderillas’. There are three parts to the bullfight, in each of which members of the entourage will encourage the bull to charge and then attempt to wound it on the back and shoulders with daggers and barbed sticks. These wounds will result in blood loss and weakness in the bull, making it easier to fight. In the third stage of the fight the matador will attempt to entice the bull to charge at a red cloth and the drive a sword between its shoulder blades to kill it. This move is rarely successful and often multiple attempts are made before the bull is killed. If the matador’s performance is particularly good he may be awarded with one or both of the bull’s ears, or in some parts of Spain, the tail. Bullfighting varies between countries. In France, Portugal, Ecuador and the USA some bullfighting takes the form of a ‘bloodless bullfight’. These bloodless bullfights can include a performance where no blood is drawn, or a performance which includes injury of the bull but does not result in the bull’s death. These performances are still intended to provoke the bull and cause the bull to be both stressed and exhausted. Whilst they are ‘bloodless’, they still result in abuse of the animal. Bullfighting deaths The death of the bull is typical of every bullfight. However, the risk of injury to both horses and matadors is high. Before the horses were made to wear protection, they were often seriously injured from being gored on their sides. Bullfighting injuries to matadors are so common that in Spain, surgeons have been trained to treat wounds caused by horns, known as ‘cornadas’. Some of the matadors will die from their injuries and the most recent death was in 2017. Bullfighting ban Although in some countries it is considered to be an art and a part of their cultural heritage, by many people both within these countries and around the world, bullfighting it now considered to be a cruel and outdated sport. The League is calling for a complete ban of all forms of bullfighting, including ‘bloodless bullfights’, in each country where they are performed. Bull Running The ‘running of the bulls’ is a practice which involves letting loose bulls and steers to run with and in front of large and cheering crowds along a designated route, which is leads to a bull ring. These events happen in many countries and take many forms, some of which involve the use of ropes, fire or water. The bull run for the San Fermin fiesta in Pamplona (northern Spain) is the most famous of these events and attracts thousands of international tourists each year. The Pamplona Bull Run The Pamplona Bull Run takes place every year between the 6th July and 14th July. Even though the fiesta is often described by tour operators as ‘a spectacle not to be missed’, the risk of harm to both people and the bulls is high and there is very little regard for the animal’s welfare. Over one million tourists arrive at Navarre each year to watch the running of the bulls. Some tourists will participate in the running itself. Due to the promotion of the bull running by travel organisations, many of these tourists come from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA and Australia. In previous years the League Against Cruel Sports has convinced a number of travel operators to cease promotion of this cruel festival. We welcomed the move by Airbnb, GetYourGuide, KAYAK, EasyJet and TripAdvisor, to cease website promotion of the event. Prior to that we welcomed a similar move by Topdeck Travel and STA Travel the year before. Despite our efforts to persuade them to cease the promotion and sales of the festival, First Festival, PP Travel, The Backpacker Tour Company and Stoke Travel still continue to promote this bull running. What happens during the Pamplona Running of the Bulls? Each morning of the eight-day festival, the bulls are forced to run 875 metres down the cobblestone streets of the town, alongside cheering participants and spectators. Bulls often slip and slide on the stone surfaces and be injured as a result. The bulls enter the bullring and are rounded into a holding pen, when later they will be used in a bullfight. Time to end bullfighting The international anti-bullfighting movement is growing in strength every year, and many local, regional or national bans have already been achieved. Bullfighting has already been banned in the Canary Islands and Catalonia regions of Spain. Other counties have imposed restrictions or localised bans on bullfighting which have helped to minimise the practice of this ‘sport’. These include Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela and other South American countries. We believe that if campaigning by the League Against Cruel Sports and many other passionate organisations continues, the abolition of bullfighting is near. If you have seen any companies promoting bullfighting or running online, in travel brochures or in-flight magazines then please contact us. Sending links and photos of the promotional material to us with any additional information is highly valuable. You can email us at [email protected] Join the League in our endeavours to ban bullfighting. By joining our supporter groups, writing to your MP, or sharing this on your social media to express your concerns, together we can lead the way to a future without animals being persecuted in the name of ‘sport’. Share this page Sign up for our newsletter We'd love to keep in touch. With your permission we'll let you know the very latest news on our fast-moving campaigns, as well as appeals and other actions (such as petitions) so you can continue to help protect animals. If you would like to know more about your data protection rights, please read our privacy policy.	The bull run for the San Fermin fiesta in Pamplona (northern Spain) is the most famous of these events and attracts thousands of international tourists each year. The Pamplona Bull Run The Pamplona Bull Run takes place every year between the 6th July and 14th July. Even though the fiesta is often described by tour operators as ‘a spectacle not to be missed’, the risk of harm to both people and the bulls is high and there is very little regard for the animal’s welfare. Over one million tourists arrive at Navarre each year to watch the running of the bulls. Some tourists will participate in the running itself. Due to the promotion of the bull running by travel organisations, many of these tourists come from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA and Australia. In previous years the League Against Cruel Sports has convinced a number of travel operators to cease promotion of this cruel festival. We welcomed the move by Airbnb, GetYourGuide, KAYAK, EasyJet and TripAdvisor, to cease website promotion of the event. Prior to that we welcomed a similar move by Topdeck Travel and STA Travel the year before. Despite our efforts to persuade them to cease the promotion and sales of the festival, First Festival, PP Travel, The Backpacker Tour Company and Stoke Travel still continue to promote this bull running. What happens during the Pamplona Running of the Bulls? Each morning of the eight-day festival, the bulls are forced to run 875 metres down the cobblestone streets of the town, alongside cheering participants and spectators. Bulls often slip and slide on the stone surfaces and be injured as a result. The bulls enter the bullring and are rounded into a holding pen, when later they will be used in a bullfight. Time to end bullfighting The international anti-bullfighting movement is growing in strength every year, and many local, regional or national bans have already been achieved. Bullfighting has already been banned in the Canary Islands and Catalonia regions of Spain.	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	yes_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should be "banned" due to "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is necessary to protect "animal" "rights".	https://www.stieren.net/en-gb/news/	News • CAS International	News During the Bous a la Mar-festival in Dénia, Valencia, a bull drowned. At this bull festival, bulls are forced to jump into the sea – animals that are not used to swim. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis documented the Bous a la Mar bull festival in Dénia last July 8. Unfortunately, this event involving bulls is… The fiestas of San Fermin in the Spanish city of Pamplona have ended. This year with 60 dead bulls who died a horrible death in a bullfight. For eight days, bull runs took place with six bulls, that were killed later that day in the evening. A total of 48 bulls who started the day… On Sunday 11 June, CAS will be celebrating its 30th anniversary! And what a lot has happened in these past 30 years. We have achieved many successes and have seen how the bullfighting sector lost more and more support from society and politicians. Meanwhile, the majority of the population in all bullfighting countries is against… A bull died in after a serious fall in Ontinyent (Valencia, Spain) on April 29. The animal, named Vicioso, fell onto a riverbed during a bull festival. The depth of the fall was 15 meters. CAS and AnimaNaturalis filed charges against the organizers of the bull festival: the accident could have been prevented. Vicioso –… In April and May, CAS and AnimaNaturalis protested against bullfights in the Spanish cities of Seville and Madrid. A total of 300 bulls are killed: 90 in Sevilla, and 210 in Madrid. At both protests, activists lay on the ground, on a capote. The capote is an important part of the bullfight: it is a… CAS International and AnimaNaturalis are bringing out cruelties of hunting with dogs in Spain. It specifically involves the so-called “monterías”, in which groups of dogs hunt, attack and kill large animals such as boar and deer. This activity is banned in most European countries. We conducted research during 11 monterías in Spain between 2021 and… On March 12, CAS International and AnimaNaturalis protested against bullfights in the Spanish city of Valencia. These were held during Fallas, a traditional festival that takes place annually in Valencia. Protest in Valencia against bullfighting \| @ CAS International/AnimaNaturalis The protest was held in front of the city hall of Valencia. Activists were lying on the… A report filed by CAS International and AnimaNaturalis has resulted in a sanction for the municipality of l’Aldea (Catalonia, Spain). We filed a charge about the use of an animal that did not comply with the regulations on bull festivals (correbous) in the state. This is a serious violation of the law. At this moment… The Spanish Congress passed the first national animal protection law on 16 March. A historic moment for Spain. The law is a needed step for many animals, but unfortunately bulls from the bullfighting industry and hunting dogs are excluded from protection by the law. When initial negotiations for the new animal protection law started, it… The number of bull festivals in Catalonia has increased by seven percent compared to 2019. There were 29 more bull festivals in 2022, in total 469. From CAS International and AnimaNaturalis, we filed charges against the organizers of five festivals with bulls in 2022 for animal cruelty and non-compliance with the regulations on bull festivals…. Two children participated in a festival with fire bulls in the autonomous region of Valencia, Spain. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis filed charges against this. As a result, the organizers of the festival and the children’s parents were fined. Indeed, the participation of minors under 16 in bull festivals is prohibited in Valencia. The event took… We have great news to share with you! CAS is now a member of Eurogroup for Animals. This pan-European advocacy organisation has been lobbying for good animal welfare legislation within the European Union for over 40 years. 85 European organisations working for animal welfare are members of Eurogroup for Animals. From CAS, we will cooperate… The Spanish Congress approved the first national animal welfare law on 9 February. A great step for many animals, but unfortunately bulls from the bullfighting sector and hunting dogs were not included in this law. We knew from the beginning that bulls would not be included in the law. We knew that any animal welfare… US news platform Insider News has released a documentary on bullfighting featuring CAS International. In the documentary, our director Maite van Gerwen talks about our rescued fire bull Polvorín. Insider News interviewed CAS last December about bullfighting and our adoption bulls and cows. During the interview, we informed Insider about, among other things, what bullfighting… Tens of thousands of people protested against hunting with dogs in 45 Spanish and other 18 European cities last Sunday. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis participated in several cities: Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante, Palma de Mallorca, Logroño and Zaragoza. The protests are taking place just days before the Spanish congress votes on the new animal welfare law…. World Galgo Day (1 February) marks the end of hare hunting in Spain. It is the beginning of an uncertain future for many hunting dogs. They will then be dumped and/or killed en masse when they are no longer suitable for hunting. More than 50,000 galgos, podencos and other dogs are affected. Spanish legislation hardly… There will be no bullfights during the 2022-2023 bullfighting season in Mexico City! The world’s largest arena remains free of animal suffering for now. This is because the court has decided to suspend the bullfights. A legal investigation is underway into whether bullfighting violates the right to a healthy environment. The managers of the Plaza… At the end of November, Marius Kolff stepped down as director of the CAS International to enjoy his well-deserved retirement. For almost 17 years, he was director of CAS and devoted his heart and soul to the bulls, cows, horses, greyhounds and all other animals suffering under the guise of cultural events. He has been… Recently, five bulls arrived dead at Lima airport. The animals flew on an Air Europa flight lasting at least 12 hours. One of the aspects of the bullfighting sector that is usually hidden from the outside world is the long-distance transports. In fact, bulls for bullfights are regularly flown from Spain to Latin America and… At the end of November, Marius Kolff said goodbye as director of the CAS International to enjoy his well-deserved retirement. In this article, written on his behalf, he looks back on a period of almost 17 years as director, during which he has meant a lot to CAS and the International Network against Bullfighting. Shortly… During the anti-bullfighting summit, the International Network Against Bullfighting received a prestigious Colombian award: Defenzoor del Año 2022 (animal defender of the year). The award ceremony is organised annually by our sister organisation Defenzoores, working particularly in Medellín. The Defenzoor del Año has been awarded for 17 years, including to the Spanish city of Barcelona…. At the beginning of November we held our annual conference against bullfighting, and this time in the most important bullfighting country of Latin America: Mexico. This year’s summit was again a great success and many organizations of the International Network Against Bullfighting traveled to Mexico City. Maite van Gerwen, director of CAS: “It was very… At the controversial fire bull festival ‘Toro Jubilo’ in Medinaceli, Spain, the fire bull collapsed from exhaustion. From start to finish, the event lasted 48 minutes. The same night, the bull died of a brain haemorrhage, possibly after colliding with an ox. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis took undercover footage and recorded various abuses. They are… On Monday 7 November, CAS International, AnimaNaturalis and Despacho Va por sus Derechos protested at SENASICA, Mexico’s Food Safety Agency. We asked SENASICA to fine the bullfighting sector. The slaughter of fighting bulls in bullfights has been taking place illegally for 15 years. Our lawyers in Mexico recently discovered that the slaughter of fighting bulls… The Spanish Council of Ministers has approved the proposal for the new National Animal Protection Law. An important step, since Spain does not yet have a national law regulating animal welfare. Every state has its own animal protection law, so there is no unity in the treatment of animals and the punishment for animal abuse…. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis recently filmed the bull festival ‘Bull to de Sea’ (Bous a la Mar) in Spain. For the past two years, fewer bull festivals have taken place in the southern European country due to covid-19 restrictions. However, this year the bull festivals return without restrictions. Therefore, we can once again take new… CAS International and AnimaNaturalis have recently filmed several cruel fire bull festivals in Catalonia and Valencia. In the past two years, there were fewer bull festivals in Spain because of the measures against Covid-19. However, this year the bull festivals return without restrictions. Therefore, we can make new images of these events and show them… The bullfighting sector deals with another blow in a short time. Last week, a judge decided to indefinitely stop bullfighting in Mexico City. And now the Supreme Court of Mexico has declared that bullfighting and cockfighting are not cultural heritage. Cultural Heritage In 2019, the state of Nayarit declared bullfighting to be cultural heritage. Cockfighting,… A judge in Mexico City has suspended bullfighting indefinitely. This has happened as a result of a charges from a Mexican citizens’ association. It claims that bullfighting violates the right to a healthy environment. The Justice Department is now going to look into this case. Until then, there will be no bullfights in the Mexican… In the municipality of San Fernando de Henares, near the Spanish capital Madrid, the cruel bull festivals returned after almost 10 years of absence. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis protested against this. The mayor of San Fernando de Henares announced the return of the running of the bulls and recortadores this year. In the running of… Good news from Spain, because the Spanish newspaper El País stops its section on bullfighting. An important moment for journalism in Spain, because El País is the most read newspaper in Spain and the one with the highest circulation. Because of this, many people will no longer be confronted with positive coverage of bullfighting. This… In Seville and Madrid, bloody bullfights have resumed, due to the start of the bullfighting season. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis protested against bullfighting in both cities. Sevilla On April 24, we protested in the southern Spanish city of Seville. That is when the famous and exuberant April Fair took place. Unfortunately, bullfights are held during… The Catalan political parties En Comú Podem and the CUP have reached an agreement to pass a change in the law regulating popular festivals with bulls in Catalonia. The aim of the agreement is to ban the three most cruel bull festivals in Catalonia: toro embolado, toro ensogado and toro en la playa. AnimaNaturalis and… After two years of pandemics, bullfighting took place again in March in the Spanish city of Valencia. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis protested against the bloody event. The bullfights were held during the Fallas, a traditional feast that is held every year in Valencia. On 13 March, CAS and AnimaNaturalis protested near the bullring of Valencia…. Vital links between animal welfare and the environmental crises will be formally recognised for the first time at a global level, after the adoption of an historic resolution today (2nd March), at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 5). At the fifth session of UNEA, in Nairobi, Kenya, a crucial resolution was passed that will… Good news from Spain! The Council of Ministers has approved the preliminary draft of the new Animal Protection Law. It hardly distinguishes between dogs and hunting dogs, which means that galgos, podencos and other hunting dogs will be covered by the protection of the law. However, the bill may still change. Later in the year,… In Spain a man has been sentenced for mistreating nine hunting dogs. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis reported this case of animal maltreatment. The man was fined 600 euros and banned from owning dogs for a year. Fortunately, the dogs were rescued and will soon be taken care of by a rescue centre. A new home… A survey by the Spanish foundation Fundación BBVA has shown that 54 percent of Spaniards believe that animals and humans have the same right to live. In addition, eighty percent are against the use of animals for bullfighting, hunting and circuses with animals. Spaniards actually have a big heart for animals. CAS International knew that… Good news from France. The French branch of Mercedes Benz has decided to distance itself from the bloody bullfights. This is a very important step in our fight against bullfighting, because this cruel sector is more and more dependent on subsidies and sponsoring from companies in order to survive. Due to the declining interest from… As of Wednesday, January 5, animals are considered sentient beings by Spanish law. The new law applies to all animals. What does this mean in practice for bulls intended for bullfighting and hunting dogs such as galgos and podencos? In December 2021, the Spanish Congress of Deputies approved the law that considers animals as sentient… CAS International and AnimaNaturalis announce that the Basque Country spends almost 300,000 euros a year on subsidies for bull festivals. This is the result of an in-depth study we are currently conducting into the 18,000 bull festivals in Spain. As a result of the research results, we ask the authorities of the Basque Country to… The Ministry of Culture is currently blocking the proposal for a new Animal Welfare Law in Spain. The hunting sector is not satisfied with the measures applicable to hunting dogs. Some points of the new law are intended to combat the abandonment of dogs. Every year, more than 50,000 galgos, podencos and other hunting dogs… At the controversial ‘Toro Jubilo’ fire bull festival in Medinaceli, Spain, the horns of bull Barquillero were set on fire. Only after more than an hour was the flammable material on the horns extinguished. CAS International and AnimaNaturalis took undercover footage of the event. On Saturday night, November 13, the originally medieval event Toro Jubilo… Senator Carles Mulet has asked the Spanish government questions about the situation of hunting dogs like galgos (greyhounds) and podencos in the country. Among other things, he asked what actions are being taken to protect these hunting dogs from mistreatment. Galgos are used for both hunting and racing. Furthermore, it is estimated that some 50,000… Portugal bans access of minors under 16 to bullfights 21 October 2021 @Peru Antitaurino Portugal has taken a historic step in protecting minors from the violence of bullfighting: minors under 16 are no longer allowed to attend the bloody spectacles. With this ban, the southern European country follows the request of the United Nations to […] Escaped bull beaten to death in Spain 11 August 2021 CAS International and AnimaNaturalis are reporting the beating to death of the Campanito bull in the municipality of Brihuega (Guadalajara). The animal escaped during an event after which he wandered through the streets. Afterwards, the bull was run over by a car and beaten to […] EU commission makes a big step for farmed animals, committing to ban cages 30 June 2021 Pixabay Today, 30 June 2021, the European Commission made a historic commitment to phase out cages in animal farming across the EU. It plans to prohibit cages for hens, mother pigs, calves, rabbits, ducks, geese and other farmed animals, looking at […] La Rioja spends 900,000 euros a year on feasts with bulls 9 March 2021 CAS International and AnimaNaturalis announce that the Spanish autonomous region of La Rioja spends 900,000 euros annually on subsidies for cruel events with bulls. This information has been obtained thanks to an in-depth investigation we are currently conducting of the 18,000 cruel feasts with […] Protests against bullfighting in Valencia and Logroño 30 September 2020 @Roland Bos In the weekend of 12 and 13 September, CAS International and AnimaNaturalis organized two protests in the Spanish cities of Valencia and Logroño. During these protests, we asked the government to not provide financial support to the bullfighting sector. Due to the coronavirus […] The bullring of Acho in Lima will no longer be used for bullfights 10 September 2020 FOTOGRAFIA MML The city council of the Peruvian capital Lima has decided to no longer use bullring Acho for bullfights. In the future, all buildings owned by the municipality of Lima will no longer be used for cruel spectacles […] Possible end of traditional bullfighting in Bogota 22 July 2020 The city council of the Colombian capital Bogota approved a project that aims to end traditional bullfighting. This means that the killing and injuring of bulls is not allowed, as is the use of public funds to subsidize the bullfights. This does not mean that […] CAS International distances itself from the actions of Peter Janssen 30 June 2020 Pixabay It is reported in the Spanish press that Peter Janssen, also known as the Vegan Streaker, set several trucks on fire. The trucks belong to Tomassen Duck-To, owner of several duck farms in The Netherlands. In Spanish media is also stated […] No bailout for bullfighting! 23 April 2020 No bailout for bullfighting! Every year, almost 10,000 bulls die after being tortured in the bullrings, and thousands more, along with cows and heifers, are harassed and mistreated in towns throughout Spain. But now, in full alarm, all the festivities scheduled for March, April and May have been […] Running of the bulls of Pamplona canceled due to corona crisis 21 April 2020 The running of the bulls of Pamplona 2020 is canceled due to the coronavirus outbreak. The Feria de San Isidro in Madrid has also been canceled. This is a festival that takes place in the spring and in which several bullfights […] Bullring Lima becomes a shelter for the homeless during corona crisis 9 April 2020 The coronavirus outbreak is causing many sad events and concerns about the future. But there are also positive developments to report. The bullfighting sector has been hard hit by Covid-19. In Spain, France and Portugal, for example, 90 cruel events with […] Portugal increases VAT on bullfighting from 6% to 23% 20 February 2020 The Parliament of Portugal decided to increase the VAT on bullfighting from 6% to 23%. The decision was taken following the vote on the state budget of 2020. CAS International considers this news to be a very positive development because the increase of […] Spain gets a Directorate-General for Animal Protection 22 January 2020 Facebook page Sergio García Torres The Spanish government is creating a directorate-general for animal protection. With this, the Spanish government is taking a historic step towards better animal protection in the country. The new director is Sergio García Torres, from the PODEMOS coalition party. CAS […] Stop the cruel blood feasts with bulls in Spain 6 November 2019 CAS International and AnimaNaturalis started a campaign to stop the cruel blood fiestas in Spain. We are conducting the largest and deepest investigation of the more than 18,000 cruel fiestas with animals that year after year are held in Spain, and that unfortunately […] CAS International in Colombia for prestigious award ceremony 24 September 2019 Marius Kolff, director of CAS International, recently traveled to the Colombian city of Medellín to be present at the prestigious award ceremony Defenzoor del Año 2019 (animal defender of the year). Every year the award ceremony takes place, organized by our sister organization Defenzoores […] 20th March for Animal Rights in Lisbon 17 April 2019 Marius Kolff and Vasco Reis in Lisbon Also this year CAS was present at the march for animal rights in Lisbon. This was the 20th time this march took place. The march was organized by Rita Silva of our Portuguese sister organization ANIMAL. Marius Kolff, […] Balearic law against bullfighting declared unconstitutional 9 January 2019 Pixabay The Balearic law against bullfighting was declared unconstitutional. The Spanish Constitutional Court asserted that several articles of the law in the Spanish state of the Balearic Islands are unconstitutional. The law consists of various elements that prohibit acts such as the killing and wounding of […] Fire bull Valencia remains banned for third year in a row 1 August 2018 The city council of the Spanish city of Valencia recently decided to maintain the ban on two cruel feasts with bulls. This happened as a result of attempts by the conservative political party Partido Popular (PP) to lift the ban by […] More than 50 bulls killed in Pamplona 16 July 2018 The San Fermin festivities in the Spanish city of Pamplona end this year with at least 54 dead bulls that were killed during cruel bullfights. For 8 days, runs with bulls (6 daily) were held in Pamplona. The bulls were killed in the evening. In […] Protest against running of the bulls of Pamplona in Amsterdam 6 July 2018 On Friday July 6, just a day before the start of the running of the bulls in Pamplona, a protest against the cruel runs was held in the capital of The Netherlands: Amsterdam. During eight days, every morning a bullrun with 6 […] Protest against bullfighting in Madrid 27 May 2018 On Sunday May 27, CAS International will protest against bullfightng in the Spanish capital of Madrid. The protest ‘Tauromaquia es Violencia’ (Bullfighting is Violence) is part of a campaign of 10 organizations, among others CAS. Its main object is to end all types of events with bulls. We have […] Minors no longer allowed in bullfights in Ecuador 16 April 2018 Ecuador has banned children of all ages from assisting in bullfights. Until now the entrance of children up to 16 years old to this type of bloody spectacles was forbidden. The age limit to bullfights has now been raised from 16 to 18 years […] Protest against EU subsidies to bullfighting in The Hague 4 April 2018 On Wednesday April 4 CAS International protested against the European subsidies that end up in the bullfighting sector. The protest took place in The Hague, in front of the Dutch Parliament. Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Anja Hazekamp (Partij voor de Dieren), member of […] For now no more traditional bullfights in Balearic Islands 28 March 2018 For now no more traditional bullfights will take place in the Balearic Islands, Spain. The Spanish government intended to stop the plans of the Parliament of the Balearic Islands, but this failed. The law that makes it impossible to hold traditional bullfights in […] Sign petition against European subsidies to bullfighting 19 February 2018 Bullfights are either prohibited in most countries in the European Union, or do not take place any longer. Three countries of the European Union do have bullfights. Spain and Portugal hold bullfights and have no prohibition at all. In France bullfights are prohibited in general, […] United Nations: No children to bullfights in Spain 12 February 2018 The Committee on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations requests Spain to keep children and young people aged under 18 away from the violence of bullfights. Bullfighting is in violation of the Convention of Children ‘s Rights. Colombia, Ecuador, France, Mexico, […] Colombian government against bullfighting 24 January 2018 The bullfighting season in Colombia just started. The first bullfight took place in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Until February 18, bullfights will take place here. During the first bullfight not even half of the bullring was filled with public. A few hours before the start of the bullfighting […] CAS at biggest Holiday Fair of the Netherlands 16 January 2018 CAS International was at the biggest Holiday Fair of the Netherlands, the Vakantiebeurs, to inform people about bullfighting. The fair took place between 9 and 14 of January. Around 105,000 people visited de Vakantiebeurs. A great opportunity for CAS to inform as many visitors […] Bullfighting comes to an end in Maracaibo, Venezuela 20 December 2017 We have good news! Bullfighting comes to an end in Maracaibo, the capital of the Venezuelan state of Zula. The new mayor, Willy Casanova, decided to no longer permit the use of the bullring for bullfights. The role of the bullring will be changed […] Colombia: animal defender of the year 12 December 2017 Every year, in the Colombian city Medellín, an award is given for Defenzoor del año (animal defender of the year) by our sister organization Defenzoores, supported by CAS International. This year two former judges of the Colombian constitutional court received the prize, Maria Victoria Calle and Jorge […] 11th International Summit against Bullfighting 21 November 2017 In November the International Network against Bullfighting held a yearly conference against bullfighting, and this time in the most important bullfighting country in the world: Spain. The summit was a success this year. Many organizations of the International Network against Bullfighting travelled to Madrid to attend the summit. We […] Spanish government wants to push through bullfighting in Balearic Islands 15 November 2017 The Spanish government has appealed to the Constitutional Court to revoke the end of traditional bullfights in the Balearic Islands. Since August 11, it is forbidden in this state to kill or maltreat bulls during a bullfight. The government of the state […] CAS visits adoption horse Don Jamie 11 October 2017 On October 10 CAS International travelled to Belgium to visit our adoption horse Don Jamie. He is so sweet and stalwart! For us, this was a very beautiful and emotional moment, since Don Jamie has gone through a lot. In Spain he was used as a […] CAS protests against bullfighting in Bilbao 4 September 2017 On Wednesday August 23 a protest against bullfighting and other types of spectacles with animals took place in the Basque city of Bilbao. Its occasion was the start of the city festival Aste Nagusia that took place in the week of the protest. During this festival, bullfights […] Balearic Islands: end of traditional bullfights 24 July 2017 Today, the parliament of the Balearic Islands decided no to allow traditional bullfights any longer. On Monday July 24, a historical voting took place in Palma de Mallorca. Bullfighting itself is not prohibited, but regulated in a way that is it no longer feasible. Besides, circuses […] Constitutional Court Colombia opens door to prohibition bullfighting 8 February 2017 At this moment there are positive developments in Colombia that make it possible to make laws regarding bullfights and cruel feasts with bulls. Until now, bullfighting was an exception in the Colombian animal protection laws (Ley 1774 del 6 de enero de 2016 and Ley […] Catalonia won’t give up. We won’t either. 20 October 2016 The Spanish Constitutional Court has raised the prohibition of bullfighting in Catalonia. A group of senators of the conservative political party Partido Popular (PP) has appealed the court to cancel the abolition. The Constitutional Court voted with 8 votes in favour and 3 against. According […] Feasts with bulls prohibited in Veracruz, Mexico 3 November 2016 The congress of the Mexican state of Veracruz decided unanimously to prohibit several cruel feasts with bulls: vaquilladas, pamplonadas and embalses, including the cruel feast Embalse de Toro de Tlacotalpan.The organization Movimiento Consciencia started an initiative, together with other organizations, to achieve the prohibition of events with […] European Parliament votes for the end of subsidies to bullfighting 29 October 2015 On Wednesday October 28, the European Parliament voted in favor of the end to European subsidies that flow to the bullfighting industry. Through the European Union’s agricultural subsidies the European citizens are financially contributing to bullfighting and other cruel events with bulls. […] Mexican state Coahuila prohibits bullfighting 27 August 2015 The Mexican state Coahuila prohibits bullfighting and becomes the third state in Mexico with a ban. The voting took place in the Congress of Coahuila, with 16 votes in favour and 5 against the prohibition. The bill was an initiative of governor Rubén Moreira Valdéz (PRI) and […] UN: bullfighting in contravention of the Rights of the Child 26 March 2014 The committee for the Rights of the Child of the United Nations has stated that bullfighting is in contravention of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The United Nations will now start to judge whether the bullfighting countries respect the […] Dutch Parliament: End EU subsidies to bullfighting! 8 July 2013 On July 4, 2013, The Netherlands’ parliament voted unanimously(!) in favour of an initiative of Partij voor de Dieren to ask the Dutch (Netherlands) government to end EU funding of bullfighting. Parliament thinks that the Dutch government should use all its power with the EU […]	Every year the award ceremony takes place, organized by our sister organization Defenzoores […] 20th March for Animal Rights in Lisbon 17 April 2019 Marius Kolff and Vasco Reis in Lisbon Also this year CAS was present at the march for animal rights in Lisbon. This was the 20th time this march took place. The march was organized by Rita Silva of our Portuguese sister organization ANIMAL. Marius Kolff, […] Balearic law against bullfighting declared unconstitutional 9 January 2019 Pixabay The Balearic law against bullfighting was declared unconstitutional. The Spanish Constitutional Court asserted that several articles of the law in the Spanish state of the Balearic Islands are unconstitutional. The law consists of various elements that prohibit acts such as the killing and wounding of […] Fire bull Valencia remains banned for third year in a row 1 August 2018 The city council of the Spanish city of Valencia recently decided to maintain the ban on two cruel feasts with bulls. This happened as a result of attempts by the conservative political party Partido Popular (PP) to lift the ban by […] More than 50 bulls killed in Pamplona 16 July 2018 The San Fermin festivities in the Spanish city of Pamplona end this year with at least 54 dead bulls that were killed during cruel bullfights. For 8 days, runs with bulls (6 daily) were held in Pamplona. The bulls were killed in the evening.	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	no_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should not be "banned" despite concerns for "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is not the appropriate solution to address "animal" "rights" concerns.	https://greenglobaltravel.com/harmful-traditions-cultural-practices/	15 Harmful Traditions & Cultural Practices Tourists Should Never ...	15 Harmful Traditions & Cultural Practices Tourists Should Never Support In the last few decades, as international travel has gotten exponentially easier and animal rights issues more pervasive, harmful cultural practices have come to the forefront of travel concerns. Many traditional practices rooted in indigenous culture and antiquated lifestyles have been exploited for the tourist revenue. While established rituals remain important, times do change as mankind evolves. And with them, so does the world. But at the same time we must collectively make continual progress towards creating a more just and responsible world, not just for humans but for animals as well. While traveling, we often face choices that test our own resolve: Do we accept local customs that are in direct disagreement with our own beliefs? Or do we reject unethical acts outright, even though they may be examples of traditional cultural practices in the region? Like many aspects of responsible travel, it’s a tough tightrope to walk. What follows are 15 cultural practices we believe tourists should never support, and which we hope will eventually go the way of the Dodo. Why Are Cultural Practices Important? Traditions and cultural practices are things we always enjoy experiencing in our travels. They’re what makes each of the places we visit utterly unique. They’re the fabric that creates the diverse tapestry of the world we have today, defining the local communities that celebrate them. There are so many examples of traditional cultural practices around the world, from acts as small as shaking hands to things such as white dresses at wedding ceremonies. They are tied into the way we eat, the types of homes we live in, and the deities we worship. Our culture is sometimes so ingrained in us that it feels almost intrinsic to our humanity. And for the most part, we as travelers should celebrate these idiosyncrasies of people and place. They’re a big part of what makes world travel so interesting. However, there are many harmful practices and traditions that have not withstood the test of time when it comes to adapting to the responsible ecotourism ethos. These days, the exploitative nature of mass tourism is becoming an increasingly big problem in destinations all around the world. From elephant rides and swimming with dolphins to all sorts of irresponsible animal selfies, there’s always some entrepreneurial soul (or corporation) willing to sacrifice ethics for profits. As travelers who yearn to be responsible in our choices, it’s good to be informed about the types of tours and experiences we sign up for. 1. The Cruelty of Bullfighting Some argue that the tradition of bullfighting allows matadors to display great skill and take valiant risk, justifying the brutality as a thing of beauty. But that point of view is dying the same slow death bulls do, pierced by one stiff stance at a time. The history of bullfighting in Spain dates back to Moorish tradition in the AD 700s, which they carried over from the Visigoths they conquered. People rode on horseback to kill bulls for a feasting ritual. They were aided by brightly clothed men, who eventually became matadors. Nowadays, a group of men led by a matador enter a ring and slowly kill a bull by stabbing it with swords in an attempt to enrage it. The typical corrida (fight event) sees six bulls in bullfighting, who are killed by three different matadors. In other words, the real bullfighting facts are that the animal is outnumbered, the men all have swords, and the bleeding bull is forced into a battle it wants no part of. This practice stands in stark contrast to the increasingly popular cultural tradition of treating animals humanely. 2. Bear Baiting in Pakistan If you think bullfighting is bad, wait until you hear about a favorite pastime in rural Pakistan sports: bear baiting. Long snubbed by animal rights activists as barbaric, this inhumane bloodsport pits bears vs dogs in brutal fights that often result in death. As with the bulls, this “bear fight” is designed to be fair. Young bears are captured in the wild at an early age, and they’re put through immense pain long before the first fight. Their canine teeth are broken, their muzzles are painfully pierced with nose rings (to which chains are attached), and their claws are often removed. With none of their natural weapons at their disposal (save strength), the dogs (usually a pack of them) attack it mercilessly as a cheering crowd eggs them on. The bear’s suffering is intense, and most die from their injuries before they reach the age of eight. A bear fighting dogs in this setting serves no humane purpose. While it may be a traditional Pakistan sport, the event is nothing more than entertainment for cruel-hearted people. In our eyes, this ranks right up there alongside bear bile farming among the most brutal cultural practices these awesome ursine creatures are forced to endure. 3. Rooster Fighting (a.k.a Cockfighting) Pakistan is not alone in pitting animals against each other for the sake of entertainment. Though banned in all 50 US states, cockfighting is still practiced in many communities here, as well as throughout Latin America and in Southeast Asia (including the Philippines and Indonesia). Rooster fighting consists of putting two roosters, who are bred and trained specifically to be aggressive, going beak to beak in a ring. They often fight to the death. In other words, the so-called “game” of cockfighting is hardly that. It’s a matter of life or death for human (and inhumane) amusement. Breeders also pump the birds up on steroids and vitamins, as well as put them through odd training for the rooster fights. Before matches, birds’ feathers are plucked and their wattles removed so that their opponents can’t rip them out. Then, in the ring, roosters will sometimes wear blades on their legs in order to make their attacks even more brutal. Historically, rooster fighting is linked with other crimes, like gambling, drugs, and violence. In other words, it may have been around a long time, but that doesn’t mean it’s a tradition to uphold. 4. The Sad Truth Behind Shark Soup Ours is a funny old world. The closer we study it, the more we notice that men were obsessed with obtaining extra oomph in the bedroom long before Viagra came along. There has also been a historical display of wealth that often crossed the line into wasteful. But the shark fin used to make this weird delicacyhas no nutritional value or impact on flavor, which is provided by chicken and ham broth. The shark finning facts and figures are startlingly ugly. More than 100 million sharks are illegally poached for shark fin soup every year. This typically consists of slicing off the animal’s fins while it’s still alive, then tossing their bodies into the water to die a slow, painful death. So, it’s no great surprise that there has been great effort to stop the harmful tradition. Nevertheless it persists, and eating this soup is a cultural practice travelers should take part in. 5. Poached Turtle Eggs & Turtle Meat Sea Turtle eggs are similarly prized as an aphrodisiac in some parts of the world, and Sea Turtle meat is considered a delicacy for many cultures. Despite being endangered and protected by the law, Sea Turtle eggs are often sold on the black market. The ultimate extinction of some species (including Leatherback Sea Turtles and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles) seems inevitable, yet still sales continue. On the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, poachers are so aggressive that they murdered local activist Jairo Mora as he tried to protect nests on Moín Beach. Beyond what this says about humankind’s me-first mentality, these irresponsible practices have now put many species at serious risk of disappearing completely. In our eyes, cultural traditions that threaten the future shouldn’t be upheld. As responsible tourists, we shouldn’t be eating Turtle eggs, and we shouldn’t eat Turtles. We should never order any food that puts a wildlife species at risk of extinction. 6. Why Elephant Rides Are Abusive Sometimes it’s confusing to be enamored with animals and long for interaction with them, yet realize that the best thing we can do as conscious travelers is to leave them alone. Elephant rides are one of the most common irresponsible choices made by people traveling abroad. Riding Elephants is usually on offer at major tourist venues in Thailand, Indonesia, and myriad other parts of Asia. There are even Elephant trekking tours available. But the ugly truth about Elephant riding is that the animals are commonly abused for tourist entertainment, often at the painful end of electric prods or bull hooks. A brutal training regimen known as phajaan (which originated with people riding Elephants in India) takes young Elephants away from their mothers, then violently crushes their spirit until they’re submissive. Though they’re super-strong, these gentle giants are not built to carry weight around on their backs all day long. While Elephants continue to be used as beasts of burden in Asia, the damaging effect on their health far exceeds levels of acceptability. These inhumane practices may be considered tradition in certain cultures, but please don’t contribute to the abuse. 7. Buying Ivory Jewelry & Other Ivory Products Souvenirs are often a highlight of our travels, serving as both a treasured keepsake and a means of sharing our adventure with those back home. But in the frenzy to buy something unique, it’s easy to lose sight of right and wrong. These days, the poaching-for-ivory trade is causing serious environmental issues. Animals with ivory tusks/teeth include Elephants, Walruses, Hippos, and Narwhals. At one time these tusks were traded amongst indigenous people, who depended on these animals for survival. Then the demand for ivory grew so large that traditional custom gave way to commerce. In places like South Africa and Tanzania, wildlife populations have plummeted as a result of poaching. The international ivory trade is now completely illegal. So no matter what greedy vendors might tell you, that ivory jewelry is something to skip out on. 8. Other Souvenir Items Made From Animals Travelers on the whole need an overall improvement in awareness about the souvenir items we buy. There are many products made from parts animals that are protected (or should be). Many furs and animal skins are illegal. Turtle shells and Tortoise shells are all off-limits. The safest policy for travel souvenirs is to stay away from all wildlife products, period. Coral is another major issue, as there are many endangered coral reef systems being exploited for profit. But some unscrupulous vendors are still selling coral jewelry, coral ornaments, and other coral gifts to tourists. Even if you see dead coral on the ocean floor while Scuba diving, it should be left in the sea. 9. Fox Hunting in the UK Fox hunting in the UK has an extensive history, both in the upper-crust enjoyment of the sport and in the public push to have it banned. Eventually, the House of Commons passed a Fox hunting ban. But persistent people have found loopholes to the law. Regardless of what you may feel about hunting in general, hunting Foxes in this way is a uniquely vicious “sport.” A Fox is tracked and chased for hours by Fox-hunting dogs until it’s totally tuckered out. When the hounds finally catch it, it’s often ripped to shreds on the spot. Though supporters of Red Fox hunting claim the tradition does farmers a service, the truth is that the methodology is what’s questionable about this practice. The 2004 Hunting Act made it illegal to use dogs to kill their prey. However, riders can still use dogs to track Foxes, chase them to exhaustion, and flush them out of their holes to be shot. A simple trap would do a much more efficient and humane job of eliminating troublesome predators from a farmer’s field. History and tradition don’t make Fox hunting right, so travelers should leave this pastime for the Brits to debate. 10. Circus Animals Are Abused While many of us grew up in a world where circuses had animals and that was considered okay, these days times have changed. The world renowned Ringling Brothers elephants may have captivated our attention as kids, but the ugly truth about circus animal abuse is undebatable. But the abuse doesn’t stop with travel. Training these animals typically involves severe measures. Lion taming includes whipping and shocking, and Elephant abuse is the same. Animals are routinely hit and poked during the training process, which— let’s be frank— is just forcing animals to do tricks for meaningless applause. Elephant cruelty, Lion abuse, and other animal mistreatments that occur under the Big Top are not acceptable. There are plenty of animal-free circuses that are every bit as amazing, if not even more so, including Cirque du Soleil, the Moscow State Circus, and Teatro ZinZanni. 11. Running of the Bulls Some travelers forego attending bullfights, yet participate in the seemingly more fun-loving running of the bulls. But it’s important to realize that all of the animals that participate in the Pamplona bull run are heading to their own gruesome deaths in the bullfighting ring. Running with the bulls has become more of a tourist tradition than a local custom. The San Fermin bull run may have started as a local tradition, but it has become an extreme sport in the years since Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises. The reality is that people are just running with bulls in order to get them through town and into the bullfighting arena. For those who may be unfamiliar with the brutality and cruelty involved in that sport, please revisit item #1 on this list. For those responsible travelers who visit Spain and San Fermin, the running of the bulls in Pamplona is not something to be part of. Most locals have already dismissed the custom as abusive, and it continues only through subsidies and tourist revenue. 12. Tiger Temples/Tiger Petting The infamous Tiger Temple in Thailand has now been exposed, and the reality of the tiger monastery was truly horrifying. Sightseers excited about petting Tigers had their eyes opened to the ghastly nature of irresponsible tourism. Once one of the world’s most famous Tiger reserves, the Thai Tiger Temple was found with over 60 carcasses of Tiger cubs, Tiger pelt rugs and amulets, and Tiger teeth trinkets. With that, the moral price of a Tiger selfie came into much sharper focus: It was the animals themselves. But the temple (which is set to reopen next door as “Golden Tiger Zoo”) was not the only Tiger farm in Thailand. According to Time, the number of similar venues have increased in the last few years, as have the number of captive Tigers in Thailand. Other (in)famous spots include the Sriracha Zoo and Damnoen Saduak Tiger Zoo. It’s a good idea to avoid Tiger petting zoos altogether, and there should be no place where tourists can pet a baby Tiger. It’s simply not a good environment for these endangered Indian animals. 13. Swimming with Dolphins Dolphin encounters have long been a trendy activity, but the Dolphin experience has gone too far. Rather than just spotting Dolphins in their native habitat, dolphinariums have popped up around the world to offer tourists places to swim with and even ride them. Secondly, swimming with Dolphins isn’t actually something most of us should ever attempt. Large groups of people swimming amongst large groups of wild Dolphins isn’t really safe for the humans or the animals. There are some tours that purport to provide this experience in the open ocean responsibly. But they also warn that swimmers need to be confident with a snorkel and realistic about the animal’s behavior. There will be no jumping through rings or dorsal fin hitchhiking allowed. 14. Walking With Lions Tours Animal lovers can often be sucked into the idea of an unrealistic encounter with their favorite animals. Humans shouldn’t walk with Lions, and if they’re doing so then something is wrong. Often promoted as an eco-friendly activity that aids in conservation efforts, walking with Lions tours have turned out to be an awful, exploitative example of greenwashing at its worst. These tours often include cuddling and petting young Lion cubs. What they don’t tell tourists is that the baby cubs are taken from their mothers at an early age so that they can become accustomed to being nurtured by humans instead. Once these young Lions grow too large for cuddling (usually around the age of one), their lives take an extremely dark turn. They’re usually put in cramped cages with other overgrown cubs. Then they’re sold off to canned Lion hunting operations for wealthy hunters to kill. The short, simple truth is that dangerous wild animals are not meant to be handled by humans, and being among throngs of people is never a natural, healthy environment for them. 15. Shark Chumming/Baiting Another animal that many people want to see up close in the wild is Sharks. While that often happens for those who go Scuba diving regularly, those packaged tours that promise guaranteed sightings will likely involve the use of shark chum. Shark diving– particularly cage diving with Great White Sharks– has become a huge tourist draw in places like South Africa and Australia. But in order for cage diving tours to be successful, Sharks have to be attracted to the area. The problem with shark cage diving is that it changes the animals’ natural behavior. Suddenly, they learn to be attracted to the sound of humans and populate areas where humans go. This often creates undesirable interactions between hungry Sharks and surfers or swimmers. In other words, there are more Shark-infested areas and more Sharks prone to attacks. Diving with Great White Sharks has helped a lot, from a conservation standpoint, in terms of tranforming the animals’ “killer” image. But the bad press from one attack can do much more damage than hundreds of safe dives can repair. In the end, it doesn’t work in favor of the Shark. FAQs About Cultural Practices 1. What is an example of a Cultural Practice? A simple cultural practice in Western countries is shaking hands when you greet one another. Other cultures bow (Japan), do nose kisses (Oman), stick out their tongues (Tibet), perform jumping dances (the Maasai people of Kenya and Tanzania), and so on. 2. Is bullfighting banned? While bullfighting has been banned in many places, including states in Mexico and certain spots in Portugal, the practice isn’t altogether prohibited in the world. Catalonia officially banned bullfighting in 2012, but events still happen in Spain as well as parts of Mexico and other Latin American countries. 3. What is cockfighting? Cockfighting consists of putting two roosters, which have been bred and trained specifically to be aggressive, in a ring together. They are sometimes equipped with weapons (such as razor blades) on their legs, and they often fight to the death. 4. Is it bad to ride an Elephant? The blunt answer is yes. While it seems alluring and presumably Elephants are strong enough, the animals are not naturally equipped to carry tourists around all day long. Plus, the process of taming, training, and controlling Elephants (known as the phajaan) is abusive. 5. Where does ivory come from? Ivory comes primarily from the tusks of Elephants, but it can also be sourced from Narwhals, Hippos’ teeth, and Walrus tusks. The fossils of Mammoths are another source of ivory used in souvenirs. –Jonathan Engels About the Author The financially unfortunate combination of travel enthusiast, freelance writer, and vegan gardener, Jonathon Engels whittled and whistled himself into a life that gives him cause to continually scribble about it. He has lived as an expat for over a decade, worked in nearly a dozen countries, and visited dozens of others in the meantime, subjecting the planet to a fiery mix of permaculture, music, and plant-based cooking. More of his work can be found at Jonathon Engels: A Life About. As Seen On… We are open to discussing advertising, sponsorships, brand ambassadorships, freelance work, speaking/teaching engagements, and consulting opportunities. Please contact us at [email protected] for more info. Join the 300,000+ people who follow Green Global Travel’s Blog and Social Media	But the abuse doesn’t stop with travel. Training these animals typically involves severe measures. Lion taming includes whipping and shocking, and Elephant abuse is the same. Animals are routinely hit and poked during the training process, which— let’s be frank— is just forcing animals to do tricks for meaningless applause. Elephant cruelty, Lion abuse, and other animal mistreatments that occur under the Big Top are not acceptable. There are plenty of animal-free circuses that are every bit as amazing, if not even more so, including Cirque du Soleil, the Moscow State Circus, and Teatro ZinZanni. 11. Running of the Bulls Some travelers forego attending bullfights, yet participate in the seemingly more fun-loving running of the bulls. But it’s important to realize that all of the animals that participate in the Pamplona bull run are heading to their own gruesome deaths in the bullfighting ring. Running with the bulls has become more of a tourist tradition than a local custom. The San Fermin bull run may have started as a local tradition, but it has become an extreme sport in the years since Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises. The reality is that people are just running with bulls in order to get them through town and into the bullfighting arena. For those who may be unfamiliar with the brutality and cruelty involved in that sport, please revisit item #1 on this list. For those responsible travelers who visit Spain and San Fermin, the running of the bulls in Pamplona is not something to be part of. Most locals have already dismissed the custom as abusive, and it continues only through subsidies and tourist revenue. 12. Tiger Temples/Tiger Petting The infamous Tiger Temple in Thailand has now been exposed, and the reality of the tiger monastery was truly horrifying. Sightseers excited about petting Tigers had their eyes opened to the ghastly nature of irresponsible tourism.	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	no_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should not be "banned" despite concerns for "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is not the appropriate solution to address "animal" "rights" concerns.	https://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk/	Bullfighting: The Facts STOP Bull Fighting	Bullfighting: The Facts It is hard to believe that in this so-called civilized age, a most vicious and cruel spectacle of blood continues to flourish in Spain and certain other countries. Bullfighting is barbaric and should have been banned long ago, as bear-baiting was. Bullfighting in the Casino Culture Even in the gambling – more specifically casino – culture, bullfighting has its own place. Casino aficionados in the United Kingdom are enticed by gambling operators to use the best casino welcome offers to play bullfighting-themed online slots and games. Some of the most popular examples are titles such as Wild Toro, Bullfight, Arena de Toros, Spanish Passion, Books and Bulls and so many more. There is no denying that UK players have all the rights to enjoy the best casino bonuses to the fullest, but we are wondering if the offers would not be better used elsewhere, for example on a game of baccarat or blackjack. So if you care about our cause, heed our words – grab your casino bonus – as many of them as you want – but please consider investing it on games that are ethically more compatible with our stance on bullfighting. Bullfighting: The Myth How crowds of people will pay money and take pleasure in watching one lone creature – who has never done them any harm — getting hacked to death. How can anyone with an ounce of compassion, cheer, and chant olé as a banderilla or lance is thrust into the animal’s pain-racked body? Bullfighting has a very glorified public image — it is presented as a contest between the brave matador, who boldly risks life and limb to tackle a mad and ferocious beast. The matador is always dressed in a traditional costume of brilliant colors: the bullfight is seen by many as the mysterious ritual between man and beast, which is an integral part of Spanish culture and custom. For this reason, many tourists who visit Spain feel that seeing a bullfight is a necessary part of their holiday, just as tourists visiting Britain go to see the Tower of London. However, after witnessing the sheer horror of this sickening slaughter, only the most hardened and callous would consider a second visit to the bullring. The purpose of this booklet is to fully explain what the bull has to endure, both during his last hour of life in the ring, and also the other side of the bullfight not commonly known to the vast majority of people: the pre-bullfight treatment. THE PRE-FIGHT TREATMENT The bull is not an aggressive animal, and the reason he is angry and attempts to charge at the matador whilst in the bullring is mainly that he has been horrendously abused for the previous two days. In fact, what spectators see is not a normal, healthy bull, but a weakened, half-blinded, and mentally destroyed version, whose chances of harming his tormentors is virtually nil. The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals. Also, a strong caustic solution is rubbed onto his legs which throws him off balance. This also keeps him from lying down on the ground. In addition to this, drugs are administered to pep him up or slow him down, and strong laxatives are added to his feed to further incapacitate him. He is kept in a dark box for a couple of days before he faces the ring: the purpose of this is to disorientate him. When he is let out of the box, he runs desperately towards the light at the end of the tunnel. He thinks that at last his suffering is over and he is being set free — instead, he runs into the bullring to face his killers and a jeering mob. THE “FIGHT” Strictly speaking, a bullfight is composed of 3 separate “acts”, and the whole thing is supposed to last for 20 minutes, though in actual fact it varies. The opening of a bullfight begins with a tune being played on a trumpet — the tune is the special, signa lure Rifle which characterizes the beginning of the horror. Upon entering the ring, bulls have been known to collapse through exhaustion alter their pre-fight ordeal — they have been dragged to their feet by the bullfighter’s assistants. The Picadors The sequence of events begins when the bull faces the picadors — these are the men on horseback, whose purpose it is to exhaust the bull. They cut into his neck muscles with a pica. This is a weapon about 6-8 inches long, and 2 inches thick. Once it is thrust into the bull it is twisted round and a large, gaping wound appears. The bull then starts bleeding to death. The Assistant Matadors After the picador has finished his sordid business, the assistant matadors then get to work with the banderillas (sharp, harpoon-like barbed instruments). These are plunged into the bull’s body, and he may also be taunted by capes. Up to six banderillas may be used. When the banderillas strike the bull stops in his tracks and bellows madly. The Kill A trumpet signals the final “act” — in fact, during the whole nightmare, strange, slow tunes are played throughout. It is, of course, during the final act that the bull is killed (and hopefully goes onto a better life). The kill should last 6 minutes and is done by the main matador. If he has any difficulties (which is an extremely rare occurrence), the others immediately rush into his aid and finish off the bull. THE FINAL DEGRADATION The matador is supposed to sever the artery near the heart with one thrust of the sword — in fact, this never happens. It often takes 2-3 times before the creature is mercifully released by death. By this time, the bull’s lungs and heart will be punctured and he always vomits blood. Miraculously, he sometimes attempts to rise again and gets up on his knees, only to receive further mutilation at the hands of his tormentors. He finally gives up, goes to his knees, and lies down. Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace, his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules, to which he is attached by an apparatus made of wood and chains. Not content with his suffering, which must be too horrible to describe by words, the crowds boo and jeer him. They even throw empty beer cans at him. His body is then taken away to be skinned, and even then he may not be dead when this happens. HORSES The bull is not the only animal to suffer in the ring — hundreds of horses die long and agonizing deaths as they are gored by the pain-crazed bull. Horses have their ears stuffed with wet newspaper, they are blindfolded and their vocal cords are cut so they are unable to scream in pain. It is not an uncommon occurrence for horses to stumble upon their own entrails after being badly gored. After a horse has been wounded it is led out of the ring, given crude surgery, and sent back in. Horses used in bullrings sweat and tremble from fear — they are forced to return to the ring time and time again. The picador’s horses are generally animals whose working life is over, and which are, therefore, old, infirm, and docile. Their reward for serving mankind faithfully is to end their days in the bullrings. They are kept in poor conditions between fights, arid, not surprisingly, their life expectancy is short. ARGUMENTS IN DEFENCE OF BULLFIGHTING “But it’s part of their culture’ is the argument commonly used to defend bullfighting, but this argument is also used to defend female circumcision (genital mutilation). It could also have been used to defend witch-burning, bear-baiting, and a multitude of other evils, “Culture” is not a magic word, and simply labeling something as such doesn’t make it right and above criticism. Also, the word “culture” suggests the enhancement and enrichment of people or a society, and watching animals being tortured to death doesn’t fall into this description. Death“Get your own house in order” is another argument put forward, concerning our own bloodsports such as hunting and hare coursing. Well, there is no reason why we can’t support the Spanish Animal Rights movement as well as fighting animal abuse in our own country. An animal doesn’t regard itself as being Spanish when it is being tortured to death — rather it is a member of the anima[ kingdom being tortured to death by humans. The Animal Rights movement is a worldwide one and should not be restricted by boundaries. As has been mentioned previously, bullrings are largely sustained by tourists who visit out of curiosity and a misguided belief that if they fail to visit this unique part of Spanish culture, their visit to Spain will not be complete. The vast majority of tourists are appalled by what happens at a bullfight and leave after they see what happens to the first bull (three separate bulls are killed at bullfights, but spectators are not allowed to leave until the first one has ended). However, the purchase of their ticket keeps the bullrings open. Spain is a popular holiday destination for British tourists, so for this reason a campaign in this country to educate people about what really happens at bullfights is a necessary and vital step towards closing down the bullrings. Frank Evans from Manchester who runs a bedroom and kitchen showroom in Eccles called “Ladyline” is a bullfighter who regularly travels to Spain to torture bulls to death. This is another reason why bullfighting is an issue for the British Animal Rights movement. There are now serious moves to have bullfighting banned as Spain is a fairly recent member of the European Economic Community, and has been under severe pressure from campaigning Animal Rights groups. However, the powerful lobby of bull breeders is intent on evading this. In 1989 33,000 bulls died the death previously described, and this means profit for the bull breeders. A boycott of Spanish produce i.e. wine, sherry, fruit, and vegetables would help persuade the Spanish Government to outlaw bullfighting. Also, a boycott of Spanish holidays would be an excellent form of economic pressure as Spain relies heavily on the tourist industry. The Spanish Green Party has announced its intention to ban bullfighting if it were elected to Parliament. In recent years, there has been a sustained press interest in the atrocities involved in bullfighting and fiestas involving animal abuse. This media focus has been not only in Britain but has caused worldwide concern. This has deeply embarrassed the Spanish Government who is under extreme pressure to change their laws. Also, it has made people, in general, more aware of the cruelties involved in bullfighting and the fiestas, and therefore less likely to visit bullrings. It is only a matter of time before this abomination has ended, and bulls are allowed to live their lives in peace. News PETA Activists Fill Sky With Blood Around 100 supporters of PETA and AnimaNaturalis gathered in the centre of Pamplona, Spain, ahead of the Running of the Bulls. Spanish Matador Ivan Fandino Dies In Bullring In France A matador has died after being gored in the chest by a bull, becoming the second Spanish bullfighter to die in the bullring in the past year. Spanish matador fighting for life in hospital after being gored three times in bullring Pablo Belando was carried out of Madrid's world-famous Las Ventas bullring after being mauled in his chest, leg and buttocks. Petition for a Bullfighting Referendum Petition on Change.org by Luis Quilis Cartagena, Spain calling for a referendum to decide whether to continue this barbaric tradition. Matador Victor Barrio's bullring death reignites bullfighting debate Barrio, a household name in Spain, died after being mauled by an 83-stone bull in the first bullring death since 1987. Men accused of rape at Pamplona bull-running festival All of the men come from Seville and were visiting Pamplona for the San Fermin festival which attracts thousands of people from all over the world. A bullfighter and a man participating in a village bull-run were killed in Spain on Saturday 9th July, while another two men were gored by the animals at the world-famous festival in the town of Pamplona. Gruesome moment female matador holds severed ears of bull aloft Lea Vicens, picador, held the severed ears of a bull to a cheering crowd at a bullfight during the Feria de Nimes fighting festival in the south of France. Ms Vicens was in her home town at the five-day bullfighting festival. European Parliament Votes to End Subsidies for Bullfighting On 28th Ocotober in the European Parliament, 438 out of 687 MEPs voted in favour of an amendment that would stop over €100 million in EU agricultural subsidies from being used to raise bulls for bullfights. Spanish bullfight called off after three matadors are injured A bullfight in Madrid had to be called off after three matadors were seriously injured. The 12th fight of the San Isidro festival was stopped after two bullfighters were gored and a third tossed into the air. Flaming-horned bull gores man to death during Spanish festival A flaming-horned bull trampled and fatally gored a man on Saturday during a festival in eastern Spain. Large balls of flaming wax are traditionally affixed to the beasts' heads before they are let loose to rampage in such festivals. Matador gored to death at summer festival A matador became the fourth Spaniard to die during a festival in three days when he was gored during a bullfight. Miguel Ruiz Perez, 29, lost his balance during an exhibition involving athletes and bulls in Navarra, Spain. Activist Jumps into Bullfighting Ring to Comfort Dying Bull In an extraordinary act of bravery, an animal rights activist jumped into the Malagueta bullfighting ring to comfort a dying bull in Malaga, Spain. Virginia Ruiz was able to lay her body over the bull and shield him before being hauled away. R.I.P. Tony Moore (Fight Against Animal Cruelty Campaigner) On Friday 27th December 2013 Tony Moore, co-founder and chairman of Southport based animal rights charity “Fight Against Animal Cruelty in Europe” (FAACE) died from lung cancer, aged 79. Poem about the matador Christian Montcouquiol Christian Montcouquiol was a matador who hanged himself in 1991 after being paralysed by a bull. Read more Photo from Enquirer Magazine A terrified bull tried to jump over a six feet high fence in a vain attempt to escape his tormentors. Álvaro Múnera - Bullfighter who quit Article taken from snopes.com about this photograph showing the collapse of Torrero Alvaro Munera, as he realized in the middle of his last fight ... the injustice to the animal. From that day forward he became an opponent of bullfights. Spanish state television drops bullfighting as too violent for children Radiotelevision Espanola (RTVE) has pledged not to show bullfighting on its channels given that the evening corridas usually occur during peak viewing times for children. Bull Killed After Jumping Into Spectators Disturbing video was released on Wednesday after a bull jumped into the arena of the Tafalla bullring in Spain and trampled spectators. The bull charged and tossed everything in his sight, leaving 40 people injured. The Fleeing Bullfighter who saw Sense Footage of Mexican bullfighter Christian Hernandez fleeing the ring last Sunday at the first sight of the slaveringly piqued slab of beef in the opposite corner has become a global internet hit. Catalonia Votes to Ban Bullfighting Already faced with a rapidly ageing fanbase at home and widespread incomprehension and rejection abroad, Spanish bullfighting has suffered another major setback after the Catalan parliament voted to outlaw it completely across the region. Man gored to death at running of the bulls in Pamplona A charging bull gored a young Spanish man to death at Pamplona's San Fermin festival, the first such fatality in nearly 15 years. Nine others were injured in a particularly dangerous and chaotic chapter of the running of the bulls. 11 year old matador is victim of child abuse A bullfight which featured an 11 year old matador has been described as "child abuse". Michelle Lagravere tortured and killed 6 calves in Mexico on Saturday 24th January 2009, despite animal rights campaigners trying to have the fight stopped. Campaigns UK: Stop Funding Bullfights with Taxes - The Petition Site Every year, £110 million of taxpayer money is given to Spanish farmers who use their pastures to raise fighting bulls. Under the guise of "Common Agriculture Policy," these federal subsidies are the key support that keeps the bullfighting industry from financial ruin. Rejecting bullfighting is about more than revenue: it's about rejecting torture. Stop funding cruelty with our taxes. www.thepetitionsite.com The Joy of Toro The Joy of Toro (bull of fire) is a grotesque spectacle that draws protests and boycotts of tourism worldwide. However, it remains Medinaceli occur annually in the province of Soria, Spain. Visit.guide-spain.com promoting bullfighting The website entitled visit.guide-spain.com shows various places of interest throughout Spain, such as bullfighting events, the running of the bulls, churches, monasteries and cathedrals. They have requested comments on these places for their Facebook page, so comments condemning bullfighting, the running of the bulls and fiestas involving animal cruelty could be made. Also comments calling on the church to condemn these atrocities could be made on the church, cathedral and monastery pages. Tell UNESCO: Bullfighting isn't culture, it's cruelty Petition to UNESCO, sponsored by Humane Society International, against France and Spain trying to protect this cruel bloodsport by getting it listed as a form of "cultural heritage". A UNESCO "cultural heritage" listing would give a veneer of respectability to the torture of animals for public entertainment and mean subsidies may be made available to financially safeguard the future of bullfighting. Link to petition Bullfights declared Intangible Cultural Patrimony of France The Ministry of Culture decided to list bullfights as immaterial heritage of the country last Friday. This is a first step to candidate bullfights to Intangible Cultural Patrimony of the World. Please send letters of protest to the President of Republic, Prime Minister and Ministry of Culture. Click here Mock bullfight at the Glastonbury Festival According to British media reports there will be a mock bullfight staged by a Portuguese bullfighter in a newly built bullring at this year’s Glastonbury Festival. Click here Petition to UNESCO Please sign the following petition to send to UNESCO Against the Declaration of Bullfights as World Intangible Cultural Heritage. (This petition is in Spanish, English and French) Click here Protest in Bilbao Animalist associations along with more than 200 animal activists were united in front of the Guggenheim Museum of Bilbao in protest against the bullfighting acts that are being celebrated during the Great Week of the Vizcaya capital. Click here Protest against Frank Evans booksigning Frank Evans was due to sign his his autobiography entitled "The Last British Bullfighter" at Waterstones in Liverpool and Manchester this month. However, after a flood of e-mails from protestors, Waterstones cancelled these events. Click here Demonstration in Toredisillas On September 13th 2009 there was a demonstration in Toredisillas against the torture and spearing of a bull to death, which is an annual event in this village. To Click here Nude Spanish Embassy Protest 2009 On Tuesday 23rd June, 2009 a demonstration (organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) took place outside the Spanish Embassy in London, to coincide with the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona. To and see photos Click here Written Declaration for an EU wide ban on bullfighting Four MEPs presented on the 15th of January a Written Declaration for an EU wide ban on bullfighting as well as a ban on subsidies to bull breeders. The elapse time will be the 15th of April. For more information Click here Running of the Nudes An activist from the UK writes an account of her trip to Pamplona for the Running of the Nudes event - read article For more information click here or visit their website: www.runningofthenudes.com Qatar Airways promotes bullfights Qatar Airways, Thailand branch is advertising flights to Madrid, Spain, using a photo of a bullfight. For more information, a sample letter and addresses to write to click here The"Paseo Del Buey" (Stroll of Ox) in Queretaro, Mexico This cruel celebration is dedicated to the Virgin of a small town and takes place on the 5th February, at Villa Corregidora, Queretaro, Mexico. This is organized by the Franciscan monks and entails a week of dances. For more information, a sample letter and addresses to write to click here Hanging of Greyhounds in Spain With the conclusion of Spain's hunting season, the hanging of the galgos/greyhounds begins. And once again the world bears witness to dead dogs, dangling from wire nooses, inches above the ground. Every year tens of thousands of Spain's hunting and racing dogs meet a crude and senseless fate after brief lives of loyal service. For more information, a sample letter and addresses to write to click here Protest Against the Returning of Bullfights to Lisbon After being closed for 6 years the bullring of Lisbon reopened after renovation work on the 18th May. A small shopping mall was built under the bullring with shops, bars and restaurants. This cost 60 million euros. For more information, a sample letter and addresses to write to click here Campaigns Against Bloody "Fiestas" in Spain Details on some of the Fiestas in Spain (Bull with ropes - Benavente, Coria's bull - Coria, Bull with Spears - Tordesillas, Fire Bulls - Medinaceli). For more information and addresses to write to click here Protest Against Bullfights in France Several villages and cities in France hold bullfights and other popular fiestas that abuse bulls. For more information, a sample letter and addresses to write to click here	Man gored to death at running of the bulls in Pamplona A charging bull gored a young Spanish man to death at Pamplona's San Fermin festival, the first such fatality in nearly 15 years. Nine others were injured in a particularly dangerous and chaotic chapter of the running of the bulls. 11 year old matador is victim of child abuse A bullfight which featured an 11 year old matador has been described as "child abuse". Michelle Lagravere tortured and killed 6 calves in Mexico on Saturday 24th January 2009, despite animal rights campaigners trying to have the fight stopped. Campaigns UK: Stop Funding Bullfights with Taxes - The Petition Site Every year, £110 million of taxpayer money is given to Spanish farmers who use their pastures to raise fighting bulls. Under the guise of "Common Agriculture Policy," these federal subsidies are the key support that keeps the bullfighting industry from financial ruin. Rejecting bullfighting is about more than revenue: it's about rejecting torture. Stop funding cruelty with our taxes. www.thepetitionsite.com The Joy of Toro The Joy of Toro (bull of fire) is a grotesque spectacle that draws protests and boycotts of tourism worldwide. However, it remains Medinaceli occur annually in the province of Soria, Spain. Visit.guide-spain.com promoting bullfighting The website entitled visit.guide-spain.com shows various places of interest throughout Spain, such as bullfighting events, the running of the bulls, churches, monasteries and cathedrals. They have requested comments on these places for their Facebook page, so comments condemning bullfighting, the running of the bulls and fiestas involving animal cruelty could be made. Also comments calling on the church to condemn these atrocities could be made on the church, cathedral and monastery pages. Tell UNESCO:	yes
Festivals	Should San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, known as Running of the Bulls, be banned due to animal rights?	no_statement	the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, should not be "banned" despite concerns for "animal" "rights".. banning the "san" fermin festival in pamplona, "known" as running of the bulls, is not the appropriate solution to address "animal" "rights" concerns.	https://linkagenet.com/themes/bullfighting4.htm	Bullfighting: arguments against and action against	Introduction The matador José Tomás drenched in blood, not his own blood but the blood of the bull, during the ritualized cruelty of the bullfight: the bullfight as horror film: Lord Nelson, the victor at the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst other battles, was wounded several times in combat, losing the sight in one eye and most of one arm before being killed at Trafalgar. This is Lord Nelson, who was obviously very well acquainted with death and violence and was no sentimentalist (his harshness could be severe, and inexcusable), on the experience of attending a bullfight: 'We felt for the bulls and the horses ... How women can even sit out, much less applaud, such sights is astonishing. It even turned us sick, and we could hardly go through it: the dead, mangled horses with their entrails torn out, and the bulls covered with blood, were too much. We have seen one bull feast, and agree that nothing shall ever tempt us to see another.' One of these women is the fictional Carmen, in Bizet's opera. Taking seriously the cruelties of the bullfight must lead to a revision of attitudes to Carmen the woman and to Carmen the opera. The peto - a protective mattress - was made a legal requirement for the horses of the picadors in 1928. Before the use of the peto - in the bullfight witnessed by Lord Nelson and his men and the bullfights which took place in the setting of Bizet's Carmen, 19th century Seville - the horses were unprotected. In each of these bullfights, far more horses than bulls were killed, sometimes as many as forty. Again and again, the horses died in horrific ways - after disembowelling, trailing their intestines behind them. The opera 'Carmen' is based on the novella written by Prosper Mérimée and published in 1845. Prosper Mérimée had already written 'Letters from Spain.' Extracts from 'First Letter: The Bullfights,' which show that his reaction to the cruelties of the bullring was very different from the reaction of Lord Nelson and his men: 'During my stay in Spain I have no missed a single fight, and blushingly admit that I prefer a fight to the death to one in which the bulls, their horns padded, are merely tormented.' On the horses killed in the bullring: Though the horse 'may be losing streams of blood, though its entrails drag on the ground and twine about its legs, it must face the bull as long as it can stand. When it is down to stay, the picador leaves the ring and returns immediately on a fresh mount.' 'When the bull is cowardly and will not take four thrusts of the lance, the accepted number, the spectators, sovereign judges, condemn him by acclamation to a sort of torture—at the same time a punishment and means of reviving his fury. From all sides goes up a cry of “Feugo! Fuego!” Then, instead of their ordinary arms, the chulos are given banderillas with firecrackers along the shaft ... As soon as it enters the skin, the amadou lights the fuse : the explosives go off toward the bull, burning him to the quick, and, greatly to the satisfaction of the public, he leaps and plunges. It is, in fact, an admirable sight : this enormous animal, foaming with rage, shaking the flaming sticks, and tossing amid fire and smoke.' Since its introduction, the peto has protected the horse against disembowelling and other puncture wounds but doesn't spare them the trauma of being hit by a massive animal. The blindfold only spares them the sight of the bull, not in the least the terror of the experience whenever they are forced into the bullring. What can happen to a horse 'protected' by the peto in the bullring: There's a different kind of bullfighting, practised by a bullfighter riding a horse, a 'rejoneador.' Their horses are unprotected. A film which shows, not injury to the horse but the repeated stabbing of a bull (in the last four or five minutes of the film) by a female rejoneador, Noelia Mota: the degrading cruelty of contemporary bullfighting, as of bullfighting in the past: Noelia Mota was practising her 'artistry' in a sparsely attended, minor bullring. A short film showing the first two stabbings only in a much more prestigious place, the Seville bullring which is featured in 'Carmen:' These two stabbings are with the rejones de castigo ('lances of punishment'). The bull is then stabbed six times with the banderillas, as in the standard bullfight. Finally, the rejón de muerte ('lance of death') is used to kill the bull. Again, and again, the bull is uncooperative, the attempt ends in failure and the bull is stabbed with the descabello, often repeatedly, as in the standard bullfight. The bullfight I discuss on this page is the 'corrida,' the bullfight of Spain and some other countries, but I discuss very briefly other forms of bullfighting. I explore the mind of the bullfighter and the bullfight supporter, discussing in detail their conviction that bullfighting is a developed art, that it requires special courage and other deeply misguided views. This discussion of bullfighting gives new information and puts its cruelties in a wide context. For example, I acknowledge the courage of bullfighters but make clear that this courage is limited, far surpassed by the courage shown, for example, by high-altitude mountaineers and in the war experiences of countless people. I provide some instructive statistics, which show that the risk of being killed in the bullring is negligible. The sufferings of the horses in the bull-ring have a context: the enormous, never-to-be forgotten indebtedness of humanity to horses in times of war and peace. Instead of this suffering being secondary or of no account at all (the usual attitude of apologists for the bullfight such as Hemingway), it becomes a central objection to bullfighting. The suffering of the horses is often a prominent part of the anti-bullfighting case but I give an extended argument. The section after this, The Golden Age of Bullfighting, is about horses in the bullring too. It gives information about the astonishing number of horses killed during bullfights before 1929 but I try to show that this is of far more than historical importance. In this section, I give reasons as to why bullfighting may well have reached its final phase. The multiple stabbings inflicted on the bull are a matter of common knowledge to opponents of bullfighting. I document and discuss these, of course. An extract from my discussion: 'Alexander Fiske-Harrison saw a bull stabbed three times with the 'killing sword' but still alive, and then stabbed repeatedly with the descabello. According to the 'bullfighting critic' of the newspaper 'El Mundo' who counted the stabbings, the bull was stabbed in the spine seventeen times before it died.' Alexander Fiske-Harrison went on to kill a young bull himself, with hideous cruelty. Like this matador, he stabbed it three times with the 'killing sword.' The bull was still alive, with the sword embedded in its back. It too was stabbed in the spine to kill it. The number of blows isn't recorded. I include an extended review of his book Into the Arena. Bullfighting apologists claim that bullfighting is an art rather than a sport, pointing out that it's reviewed in the arts sections rather than the sports sections of newspapers. I expose the artistic pretensions of bullfighting. I quote defenders of bullfighting who have made revealing admissions about the artistic limitations of bullfighting. In fact, every aspect of bullfighting is shown as limited. Ignore the sick and decadent claims to importance, the romanticized exaggeration, the flagrant myth-making. I don't confine my attention to animal suffering. I argue that the adulation given to bullfighters by bullfighting supporters distorts. The matador Padilla, for example, has been portrayed as a heroic figure. He was injured in the bullring and lost an eye. This is a bullfighter whose recklessness has been extreme. Padilla is still alive - not so Marie Colvin, the journalist who was hit by shrapnel during the conflict in Sri Lanka and lost an eye and who has now been killed by shellfire from Syrian forces. Abolition of bullfighting is long overdue. Bull-baiting and bear-baiting were abolished in this country in 1835. On other pages of this site, I write about some of the cruelties, abuses and injustices to people which were prevalent before and in some cases after this time, such as the 'bloody code,' which punished a large number of offences in this country with public hanging (two thirds of the hangings were for property crimes) and the sufferings of adults and children during the industrial revolution, in particular the dangerous and back-breaking work of men, women and children in the mines. But the tearing of a bull's or bear's flesh by powerful dogs for public entertainment - the teeth and claws of the bear pulled out beforehand to make it more helpless - was no minor matter. Bull baiting and bear baiting were indefensible and their abolition was necessary. In countries of modern Europe and the bullfighting countries of Latin America, animals with swords embedded in their backs are made to twist and turn by flapping capes, in the hope that the sword will sever a vital organ and bring about the death of the bull - a procedure which so often fails. Even when the animal is killed by the sword at once, it will previously have been stabbed a minimum of seven times. I believe that bullfighting, which, unlike bull-baiting and bear-baiting, has artistic pretensions, is indefensible in both its Portuguese and Spanish forms and ought to be abolished. But action against bullfighting should be with full awareness of context, the context of preventable suffering, animal suffering, such as the suffering of factory-farmed animals, and human suffering. I've made every effort to ensure that the information I give concerning bullfighting and the other spheres I discuss is accurate. I'd be grateful if any errors are brought to my attention - and, of course, relevant information not included here, different interpretations of evidence, objections and counter-arguments. This page gives an introduction to the subject. I give much more space to the arguments against bullfighting, the reasons why there should be action to end bullfighting, than to the forms that action takes and, I argue, should take, although I do comment on some campaigning techniques. So much writing in support of bullfighting is suffocating in its exclusion of the world beyond bullfighting. I see no reason why my anti-bullfighting page should follow this example. The supplementary material I include goes far beyond the limited world of bullfighting. For example, I give reminders of human courage and artistic achievement which owe nothing to bullfighting and discuss or mention natural beauty, wildlife, wildlife conservation and other topics. The starting point in every case is a bullfighting topic. 'Taking the offensive' There are now many organizations which recognize that bullfighting is being challenged as never before and which intend to defend it. One of them is 'Asotauro,' which gives this momentous declaration at the top of its home page www.asotauro.com: 'For lovers of bullfighting [literally, 'lovers of bulls'] the time has come to take the offensive, leaving no lie unanswered, no fallacy unrefuted.' Aficionados refer to a bull which is unaggressive as a 'toro manso' or 'cowardly bull.' I sympathize completely with the 'toro manso' and its unwillingness to fling itself on the lance of the picador, the banderillas of the banderillero and the sword of the matador to provide aficionados with the experiences they think they're entitled to. But what of the aficionado manso, afraid - unable, it seems - to answer arguments? For these people I've no sympathy whatsoever, of course. 'I've drawn the attention of many individual bullfighting supporters and bullfighting organizations to this material and received replies - the most common responses amount to 'I'll see what I can do,' - but silence has followed. Not one defence of bullfighting against these arguments. If these people and organizations consider that there are lies on this page, then go ahead and answer them, if they consider that there are fallacies on this page, then go ahead and refute them. Any bullfighting defender who does respond to the arguments on this page will have to follow much higher standards of critical reading and critical debate than Alexander Fiske-Harrison, who did claim to find a lie, a fallacy on this page. His claim that I'd referred to him as 'the acceptable face of Nazism' was nonsensical, and I explain why this is so in the section 'Into the Arena' which begins with comments on bad causes. By his own admission, he'd only read a little of what I'd written about him.' Asotauro's Website shows not the least sign of engaging with difficult anti-bullfighting arguments. Their declaration belongs to what I call the 'word-sphere,' whiich I describe as 'the world of ringing declarations, facile claims to importance, hollow confidence-building assertions, projections for future success.' The horses: terror and trauma Petos ('protective mattresses') of picadors' horses. Ernest Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon:' '...the death of the horse tends to be comic while that of the bull is tragic.' He relates the time when he saw a horse running in the bull-ring and dragging its entrails behind it, and makes the further remark 'I have seen these, call them disembowellings, that is the worst word, when, due to their timing, they were very funny.' He was writing of the time when the horses of the picadors were completely unprotected. A decree of the government of Primo de Rivera in Spain ordered that picadors' horses should be given a quilted covering 'to avoid those horrible sights which so disgust foreigners and tourists.' This took place in 1929. Note that it wasn't bullfighters or bullfight enthusiasts who called for this protection. If they had, it would have been something in the balance to set against their depravity, but no. Before that time, it was common - in fact, usual - for far more horses than bulls to be killed in a bullfight - as I explain in The Golden Age of Bullfighting, as many as 40. Disembowelling is uncommon now, for the horses of the picador and the rejoneador or mounted bullfighter. However, Hemingway was clear about one thing. 'These protectors avoid these sights and greatly decrease the number of horses killed in the bull ring, but they in no way decrease the pain suffered by the horses.' And, in the entry in the Glossary for the pica, the spear with which the bull is stabbed by the picador, 'The frank admission of the necessity for killing horses to have a bullfight has been replaced by the hypocritical semblance of protection which causes the horses much more suffering.' One of the reasons is that 'picadors, when a bull, disillusioned by the mattress, has refused to charge it heavily more than once, have made a custom of turning the horse as they push the bull away so that the bull may gore the horse in his unprotected hindquarters and tire his neck with that lifting...you will see the same horse brought back again and again, the wound being sewn up and washed off between bulls...' Whether the picadors take this action or not, the objective in the bullfight is to tire the bull not just by spearing it with the picador's lance (although this is far more than 'tiring.' It's a vicious injury.) The objective is to tire the bull also by exposing the horse to the force of the bull. So, horses in the bullfight are crushed against the wooden barrier of the bullring, lifted, toppled, trampled and terrorized, suffering broken ribs, damage to internal organs - treated worse than vermin. The mattress may offer some protection against puncture wounds but not against other injuries and it hides the injuries which are caused. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre in their biography of the bullfighter 'El Cordobes' describe injuries to horses during his 'career' - this was long after the adoption of the 'protective' mattress. Internal organs protruded from the bodies of the horses. How were the injuries treated? The horse contractors shoved the organs back and crudely sewed up the wounds. The organs still protruded, though, to an extent. The protruding parts were simply cut off. The horses might well last another bullfight or two. The authors - 'aficionados' - relate all this in a matter of fact tone, without the least trace of criticism or condemnation. From my review of A L Kennedy's book, On Bullfighting, quoting first from the book. She received the help of an aficionado in writing the book, Don Hurley of the 'Club Taurino.' ('This book could not have been written without ... the expertise and advice of Don Hurley.') A L Kennedy 'Arguments are cited which state, reasonably enough, that the blindfolded and terrified horse is currently buffeted by massive impacts, suffering great stress and possibly broken bones.' She might have mentioned the internal injuries which horses also suffer. Even if a horse is lucky and suffers no broken bones or internal injuries, it can be imagined what terror it will feel when blindfolded and led out to take part in the parade before the bullfight,what terror it will feel when forced to enter the arena to face the bull, what terror it will feel when it hears and smells the bull, and the terror it feels when the bull, in its frantic effort to escape, hits it very hard. The first film I saw which showed a bullfight included a 'rejoneador,' a mounted bullfighter. (The same film also included horrendous footage of a bull which had obviously hit the wood of the bullring very hard, with a horn hanging off, almost detached, and almost certainly feeling severe pain - even before it faced the lance, the banderillas and the sword.) The horse of the rejoneador isn't protected in any way. The intention is that the horse's speed and agility and the skill of the rider enables it to avoid the horns of the bull. Sometimes, the reality is otherwise. Jeff Pledge, on the methods used by Alain Bonijol, the French supplier of picadors' horses: 'He has built, on a pair of wheels from some piece of farm machinery, a kind of heavy-duty carretón, which has a pole with a flat plate on the end sticking out the front. Several hefty blokes shove it into the horse, who is wearing his peto, and try to push him over or back ...' ('La Divisa,' the journal of the Club Taurino of London.) This gives information not just about training methods but about the hideous mentality of these people. Since it's necessary, as bullfight apologists admit, to injure horses in order to have a bullfight, why, then - abolish the bullfight, and as soon as possible too, and not only for the sake of the horses. Catalonia has shown the way. Horses in human service have suffered horrifically, and continue to do so. This is some necessary context for the horrific suffering of horses in the bullring: Hugh Boustead, a South African officer, of an experience during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. (Quoted in 'Somme,' by Martin Gilbert): 'Dead and dying horses, split by shellfire with bursting entrails and torn limbs, lay astride the road that led to battle. Their fallen riders stared into the weeping skies.' Dennis Wheatley, describing an aerial bombing attack on the Western Front in December 1915 in his book 'Officer and Temporary Gentleman.' 'When the bombs had ceased falling we went over to see what damage had been done. I saw my first dead man twisted up beneath a wagon where he had evidently tried to take shelter; but we had not sustained many human casualties. The horses were another matter. There were dead ones lying all over the place and scores of others were floundering and screaming with broken legs, terrible neck wounds or their entrails hanging out. We went back for our pistols and spent the next hour putting the poor, seriously injured brutes out of their misery by shooting them through the head. To do this we had to wade ankle deep through blood and guts. That night we lost over 100 horses.' Without horses, or similar animals, no developed human civilization was possible. Before the modern era, their role in carrying loads (as pack-horses), pulling heavy loads and carrying riders was crucial, all-important. Horses of substantial size as well as ponies went down the mines and were used well into the twentieth century. They were stabled underground and lived the rest of their lives underground, in complete darkness or almost complete darkness. From a display at the National Coal Mining Museum: 'To the miners, the pony was a workmate. Together they experienced the same conditions [back-breaking work, breathing in coal-dust] and faced the same dangers [of explosions that mutilated or killed, of drowning when the workings were flooded, and the rest]' After nationalization of the mines, they spent 50 weeks of the year below ground but were given two weeks holiday. A photograph of conditions in an American mine in the early 20th century: Gratitude, overwhelming gratitude, is the only proper response. The horse: this is a species which has benefitted mankind more than any other, which has earned, many, many times over, the right not to be subjected to disgusting cruelty. These facts alone should have made it unthinkable to subject horses to the cruelty of the bullfight. The link between horses and humanity is ancient and central. The tradition of bullfighting is not at all ancient. Bullfighting in anything like its modern form is only centuries old. In France, the tradition is more recent still. A fact often overlooked is that, even after the development of mechanical means of carrying loads and transporting people, horses continue to play their ancient role today, as uncomplaining, useful - indispensable - beings. In many parts of the developing world, they continue to be as indispensable as they ever were in Europe. Their treatment is very varied. It may be as good as could possibly be expected in desperately poor societies. It may, on the other hand, be vile, with avoidable sufferings - and not only the vicious use of the whip, which leaves so many horses with open wounds and scars. Often, there is the absence of basic care. From the newsletter of a charity I support: 'Across the developing world, thousands of brick kilns in poor villages and towns are churning out millions of bricks to feed a growing demand for houses, hospitals and schools. These blisteringly hot open-air factories are relentless brick-making machines. Desperately poor workers and their horses, mules and donkeys are merely part of that machine. For the workers, kiln life is tough enough, but for their animals, these can be the worst workplaces on earth. 'Temperatures can hit 50 C, yet often there is little water or shade. Uneducated owners don't understand their animals' needs and work them hard as they can under tremendous pressure to meet production targets. Many animals are denied rest on 12-hour shifts that see weary donkeys and horses hauling bricks by the ton across hilly, pot-holed terrain. 'Donkeys, horses and mules working in brick kilns suffer dehydration, exhaustion, hoof, skin and eye problems, and a catalogue of other illnesses. They bear horrific wounds from beatings and from falling down, and struggle with filthy, ill-fitting harnesses and saddlepacks. Sadly, many who fall never get up again. Life expectancy for kiln animals can be dreadfully short.' George Orwell, in the twentieth century, wrote of the ponies in parts of the Far East: 'Sometimes, their necks are encircled by one vast sore, so that they drag all day on raw flesh. It is still possible to make them work, however; it is just a question of thrashing them so hard that the pain behind outweighs the pain in front.' (From 'Down and out in Paris and London.') Another dimension - and another, even worse, dimension of horror - comes from the role of animals in war. When cavalry was an active instrument of war, a period lasting millennia rather than centuries - even as late as the First World War, cavalry had a real if restricted role - then horses, like men, were injured and killed by arrows, javelins, spears, axes, musket shot, rifle bullets, were blasted by cannon and artillery, the link between horses and humanity again strengthened by common suffering. From the enormous documentation available, here is one source. From Franz Kafka, The Diaries 1910-23: 'Paul Holzhausen, die Deutschen in Russland 1812. Wretched condition of the horses, their great exertions: their fodder was wet green straw, unripe grain, rotten roof thatchings...their bodies were bloated from the green fodder. 'They lay in ditches and holes with dim, glassy eyes and weakly struggled to climb out. But all their efforts were in vain; seldom did one of them get a foot up on the road, and when it did, its condition was only rendered worse. Unfeelingly, service troops and artillery men with their guns drove over it; you heard the leg being crushed, the hollow sound of the animal's scream of pain, and saw it convulsively lift up its head and neck in terror, fall back again with all its weight and immediately bury itself in the thick ooze.' Although I concentrate here for very good reason on the sufferings of horses, I never at any time forget the human suffering. During the French retreat from Moscow, this was extreme - but an extreme often approached or equalled before and after this time. From David A. Bell's very searching book, 'The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Modern Warfare:' 'The men slept in the open, and in the morning, the living would wake amid a field of snow-covered corpses. Lice and vermin gnawed at them. Toes, fingers, noses and penises fell victim to frostbite; eyes, to snow blindness.' The horses' suffering was extreme - but again, an extreme often approached or equalled before and after this time. 'The starving soldiers' were desperate for 'the smallest scraps of food. Some ate raw flesh carved out of the sides of live horses...' According to the historian David Chandler he lost a total of 370 000 men and 200 000 horses. During the First World War, there was approximately one horse for every two combatants and although horses were not directly targeted, cavalry by now becoming less important, they were still used on a massive scale to haul guns and waggons. About 400 000 horses were killed in the conflict. Many of them died, like the soldiers, by distinctively new methods, by phosgene, mustard gas, chlorine gas. At Passchendaele horses, like many of the soldiers, suffocated in the mud. There are accounts by soldiers who regretted that horses had been caught up in the conflict. The account of Jim Crow, quoted in 'Passchendaele,' by Nigel Steel and Peter Hart: 'You hear very little about the horses but my God, that used to trouble me more than the men in some respects. We knew what we were there for, them poor devils didn't, did they?' In one of his last letters before he was killed at Verdun, the German expressionist painter Franz Marc wrote, "The poor horses!" On a single day at Verdun, 7 000 horses were killed. At the end of the conflict, the martyrdom of horses was far from ending. Large numbers of them were sold to work in the Middle East and were worked to death. Even after the development of mechanized warfare and mechanized transportation, horses were used often - in enormous numbers as late as The Second World War. I think of a photo I have of 'The Road of Life.' For 900 days, during the Second World War, Leningrad was besieged by the Germans: an epic story of heroism, and starvation, which accounted for most of the deaths during the siege, at least 632 000 and perhaps as many as a million people dying. With the capture of Tikhvin, it became possible to develop an ice road, 'The Road of Life,' across frozen Lake Lagoda to supply the city. The photo shows gaunt horses dragging sledges across this ice road. Horse disembowelling and 'bullfighting's 'Golden Age' In each twentieth century Spanish corrida (bullfight) before 1929, six bulls were killed, as is the case now. In each of these bullfights, how many picadors' horses do you think were killed? One horse per bullfight on average, not as many as one, more than one, much more than one? The answer is shocking: as many as 40 during each bullfight. Disembowelled dying and dead horses, the intestines of horses and the blood of horses made battlefields of the bullfighting arenas. In these scenes of utter carnage such bullfighters as Joselito, ('a classical purist,' according to Alexander Fiske-Harrison) Belmonte and Ignacio Sánchez Mejías, the subject of the poem by the poet and dramatist Lorca, practised their art. Like Hemingway, the poet and dramatist saw large numbers of these dead and dying horses but found them not in the least important. A pre-Peto film showing the slaughter of horses in the bullring during this period: the horrifying scenes which Lorca and Hemingway witnessed often, the horrifying scenes which took place in the bullfights of matadors singled out for praise by Alexander Fiske-Harrison, Tristan Garel-Jones and so many others. A contemporary film showing similar scenes of disembowelling, but without the 'artistic purity' which for Lorca, Hemingway and others made such a difference. Before the film can be viewed, it's necessary to sign in. The fate of the picadors' horses in the bullring before the protective mattress or 'peto' was adopted in 1929 is a subject of far more than historical interest. It was revulsion against the slaughter of the horses (not shared by Hemingway or Lorca) which led to the adoption of the protective mattress. But this didn't end the suffering of the horses. Revulsion against their suffering - and the suffering of the bull - is much more widespread now than then. The revulsion which makes a return to conditions before 1929 unthinkable makes it very likely that bullfighting will eventually be abolished. Bullfighting has surely reached its lengthy final phase. 'From 1914 to 1920 was bullfighting's Golden Age,' according to Alexander Fiske-Harrison's blog. In this estimation, he more or less follows Hemingway, who ' placed the Golden Age between 1913 and 1920. In this 'Golden Age' up to 40 horses were slaughtered in each bullfight. Alexander Fiske-Harrison tries to balance the 'artistry' and animal suffering at various places in his book Into the Arena (I don't accept in the least his claims concerning the artistry) and makes his own decision as to their relative importance - a decision which is in stark contrast with my own ideas. I don't discuss the 'artistry' at all here, only the cost in animal suffering, and not the suffering of the bulls (atrocious though it was, and is), only the suffering of the horses. As for the evidence, I make use of the book by Miriam Mandel 'Hemingway's The Dangerous Summer: The complete annotations.' Miriam Mandel has more than enough knowledge of bullfighting and more than enough enthusiasm for bullfighting to be considered an aficionado. This doesn't affect the thoroughness or accuracy of the scholarship in the book, but it does affect my attitude. The book is repulsive, horrible, but invaluable. The figures given by Miriam Mandel apply to 'The Golden Age of Bullfighting' and to a much, much longer period before 1929: ... many horses—sometimes as many as forty - were killed at each corrida. [bullfight]' A great deal of information is given about the rulings and regulations governing the bullfight. The rulings and regulations which concern the number of horses to be provided for each bullfight reflect expectations about the numbers likely to die at each bullfight. The book gives this information: 'In 1847, a local ruling required that forty horses, inspected and approved by the authorities, stand ready for use in each bullfight. The 1917 and 1923 Reglamentos called for six horses per bull to be fought, with the added proviso that the management provide as many additional horses as were necessary. Sometimes all the horses would be killed and replacements would be hastily bought off cabbies and rushed into the ring.' The addition of (!) to this last piece of information, about the 'replacements ... hastily bought off cabbies and rushed into the ring' would be understandable but inadequate to the horror. The scholarly information includes this: 'Perhaps the most important marker of change is the Reglamento (taurine code), which evolved significantly from its early version, drafted by Melchor Ordóñez in about 1847, to the increasingly detailed and prescriptive documents published in 1917, 1923, 1930, and, post Hemingway, in 1962, 1992 and 1996.' Whatever the number of horses killed in the ring - fewer than twenty, or twenty, thirty or forty - the sight of the horses' blood, the intestines of the disembowelled horses, the horses in agony, the dead horses, the sights which didn't disturb Hemingway or Lorca, the sights which Alexander Fiske-Harrison overlooked or didn't think too important - these sights aren't going to return to the contemporary bullfight. Miriam Mandel writes, 'Occasionally one hears reactionary calls for the abolishment of the peto, but modern sensibilities would not allow a return to the pre-peto bullfight that Hemingway encountered when he first went to Spain. The peto or 'protective mattress' for the picadors' horses 'was first used at a Madrid novillada on 6 March 1927, and it was mandated by law on 18 June 1928.' After the peto was introduced, there was a vast decrease in the number of horses disembowelled and the number of horses killed in the ring, but as I explain in the next section, The horses, there are still horses disembowelled in the ring - the horses of mounted bullfighters ('rejoneador') and the horses of picadors. The peto protects against puncture wounds but not at all adequately against the weight of the bull smashing into it and the peto disguises so many injuries. The horses in the bullfighting ring are still treated with despicable cruelty. It's true that 'modern sensibilities would not allow a return to the pre-peto bullfight' but Miriam Mandel overlooks the obvious fact that modern susceptibilities find unacceptable - repellent - the treatment of horses and bulls in the contemporary bullring. The page gives abundant documentation of this treatment. What was once accepted isn't accepted any longer, except by the supporters and patrons of bullfighting. Many of these wouldn't object in the least if forty horses died by disembowelling at every bullfight, but I'd claim that although there's no such thing as certain moral progress, these people have been left far behind by this particular moral advance. Two eyewitness accounts of the deaths of horses in pre-Peto years. This account is by a spectator at a bullfight who was sickened by what he saw: Sir Alfred Munnings. It comes from his autobiography, published in 1955. The account is based on what he saw at a pre-peto bullfight. 'I have sat at dinners given by the American Ambassador in Spain with a titled Spaniard as my neighbour, hearing things of bullfighting not written in books. Have we read in those novels extolling the matador, of living skeletons - once horses - ridden not only to slaughter but in a tawdry procession? Have we read of punching, horning, or weeks of durance between Sundays, with flies crawling over festered wounds, as the victims, not killed, await in the stables NEXT SUNDAY’S SPORT? Watch such a procession, and see some fifteen sorry steeds, doomed, starved, carrying heavy, stuffed out picadors. No wonder the horses are hurled to the ground, overweighted, weak and half-dead. 'Passing the tall archway, I had seen a little white horse. To my surprise it was in the procession, carrying a great picador, and the next thing we saw was the little white horse and another in the ring. This humble white horse stood there blindfolded, his ears stuffed and tied, little knowing what he was there for. Oh, little white horse; Little White Horse!’ I kept repeating to myself, as the bull put a long horn right through the little horses neck, just above the windpipe. 'Imagine the fright of the horse, blindfolded and deaf, at the sudden stab. Then the bull, his horn through the neck of the horse began dragging it slowly round with him, the picador dismounting and others in the ring trying to free the horse, now no longer a horse, but a holiday victim, the blood running down its white jaw and neck. 'When cleared, and the picador remounted, the bull charged, hurling man and horse backwards with a crash against the wooden barrier. ‘Oh little white horse.’ I said to myself and, the picador being rescued, and the bull attracted away, they beat the horse to its feet with blood streaming from a wound in its chest, down its white legs. The time was up for the horses, and the white horse and the other - a starved emaciated bag mare were led out to come in again. The little white horse’s end came later. 'The bay, its teeth chattering with fear, having been in before, stood near the barrier below us, the motley red and white striped bandage over its offside eye, its ears stuffed with tow, and tied with what seemed to be old electric wire. The Bull made short work of the bay horning the horse from behind. The picador cleared, and the horse beaten to its feet by red-shirted attendants. There, from the underpart of its belly hung a large protuberance of bowels. With head outstretched a man hauling it along on the end of the rein, another hitting it with a stick, it was led out. 'Not a soul cared, excepting ourselves. 'But what of the white horse? He too was lifted and hurled on his back, to the cheers of the crowd, and when beaten to his feet was stomping on his own entrails, which stretched and split like pink tissue paper.' This is the account of Prosper Mérimée. It's clear from the full account he gives in 'Letters from Spain' that he liked what he saw. He compares himself to St Augustine: 'St. Augustine relates that in his youth he had an extreme distaste for gladiatorial combats, never having seen one. Forced by a friend to accompany him to one of these pompous butcheries, he vowed to close his eyes as long as it lasted. At first he kept to his word well enough, and forced himself to think of other things; but when the populace cried out at a celebrated gladiator's fall, he opened his eyes—opened them, and could not close them again. From then on until his conversion, he was one of the most passionate enthusiasts about these games.' He gets this wrong. Augustine was writing about a man called Aloysius, not himself. Aloysius went to the arena to watch gladiators fight and kept his eyes shut. When he opened them, 'He saw the blood ... Far from turning away, he fixed his eyes on it ... he was delighted with the contest, drunk with the lust of blood. He was no longer the man who had come there, but he was one of the mob.' People can accept almost any cruelty, can find delight in cruelty and the shedding of blood - at the Roman arena and at modern bullfighting arenas. The moral objections aren't undermined in the least by their passion for bloody spectacles. Prosper Mérimée's book was published in 1830 but the events he witnessed continued unchanged until the peto was adopted - but horses have been disembowelled and severely injured in the bullring ever since. He wrote, 'The picador, with the lance under his arm, gathers his horse well under him; takes his place exactly in front of the bull; seizes the moment at which the head is lowered for the charge to fix the lance in the neck, and not elsewhere; bears down with the full weight of the body and at the same time wheels his horse to the left, so as to leave the bull on the right. If all these movements are well executed, if the picador is vigorous and his horse responsive, the bull, carried by his own impetus, goes by without touching him. Then the duty of the chulos is to distract the bull until the picador has had time to get out of the way, but often the animals knows only too well which is his real aggressor; brusquely he swings about, makes for the horse at a rush, and runs his horn into the belly, overthrowing both horse and rider. The latter is immediately rescued by the chulos. Some pick him up, others wave their capes before the bull's eyes, draw him toward themselves, and, leaping over the barrier with surprising agility, make their escape. The Spanish bull is as fast as a horse; and, if the chulo is far away from the fence, he barely reaches it. Therefore, the horseman, whose life must depend on the chulos' agility, does not often venture into the middle of the ring; when he does, it passes for an extraordinary feat of daring. 'Once again on his feet, the picador, if he can get his horse up, remounts. Though the poor beast may be losing streams of blood, though its entrails drag on the ground and twine about its legs, it must face the bull as long as it can stand. When it is down to stay, the picador leaves the ring and returns immediately on a fresh mount. 'I have said that the lances can only make a flesh-wound and serve only to infuriate the bull. Nevertheless, the impact of the horse and the rider, the bull's own efforts, above all the shock of pulling up short on his hocks, tire him rather promptly. Often, also, the pain of the lance-wounds disheartens him. At last, he no longer dares attack the horses, or, to use the technical term, he refuses to "enter." By that time, if he is vigorous, he had already killed four or five horses. The picadors rest; the signal is given to plant the banderillas. When Alexander Fiske-Harrison described the years between 1914 and 1920 as bullfighting's 'Golden Age,' I doubt if he gave the least thought to any other contemporaneous events. When humanity was undergoing the catastrophic sufferings of the First World War, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 - 1919, which killed far more people than the First World War, somewhere between 20 million and 40 million people in all, including vast numbers of people in Spain (the term 'Spanish flu' is often used), was all this outweighed by, compensated by, the Golden Age of bullfighting? Elementary sensitivity should have led him to use a different term or to make his discussion much more complex. The bull Before abolition in Catalonia: bull in the plaza 'La Monumental,' Barcelona There are many, many images and films available on the internet which show the course of a bullfight. I think it's advisable to see some of these images and watch some of the films. None of these films, none of the films distributed by convinced opponents of the bullfight, show untypical 'atrocities,' incidents which are very rare. The bull is never wounded and killed under controlled conditions. Whatever the intention, the lance of the picador, the banderillas and the sword regularly penetrate flesh not at all near the targetted area. The picador's horse may be about to fall as the bull's massive weight charges into it, the lance may sever an artery and blood pulses out. Hemingway mentions the fact that the bull 'may be ruined by a banderillero nailing the banderillas into a wound made by the picador, driving them in so deep that the shafts stick up straight.' When blood pours out of the mouth and nose of the bull, which is often, the sword has failed to cut the aorta (the heart is out of reach of the sword.) When the bull is about to be killed, it will already have had its back torn open by the lance of the picador and will already have had its back lacerated repeatedly by the barbed banderillas. By the time of the sword thrust supposed to kill the bull, the bull will have two or three stab wounds inflicted by the picadors and six stab wounds from the banderillas. The sword often hits bone, or goes deep into the animal but fails to kill. The bull, staggering, still alive and conscious, with the sword embedded in its body - this is far more common than an instantaneous death. A report by Tristan Wood in 'La Divisa,' the journal of the 'Club Taurino' of London, on the bullfighter Miguel Abellán: ' ... an excellent faena of serious toreo, only for its impact to be dissipated by four swordthrusts.' The excellence and seriousness found here are surely only an aesthete's response. In the same set of reports, on the bullfighter Morante de la Puebla: 'the swordwork was very protracted.' Or, alternatively, the bull died a very slow death. From the gruesome, matter of fact accounts of bullfights on the site 'La Prensa San Diego' 'Capetillo received a difficult first bull and encountered big troubles at the supreme moment, requiring 12 entries with the sword.' 'Moment' is very badly chosen. The hideous writer is Lyn Sherwood. Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament and devoted aficionado: 'After the banderillas, as the bull stood spurting fountains of blood ... ' there was 'a miserable excuse for a sword-thrust into the bull’s flank.' After the 'killing sword' has been used to no effect, a different sword, the descabello, or a short knife, the puntilla, is used to stab the spine, often repeatedly. Alexander Fiske-Harrison saw a bull stabbed three times with the 'killing sword' but still alive, and then stabbed repeatedly with the descabello. According to the 'bullfighting critic' of the newspaper 'El Mundo' who counted the stabbings, the bull was stabbed in the spine seventeen times before it died. This experience had a lasting effect on his girlfriend, 'her perspective on bullfights changed for ever,' but Alexander Fiske-Harrison went on attending bullfights, went on to kill a bull himself and opposes the abolition of bullfighting. From my critical review of A L Kennedy's On Bullfighting, quoting from the book. A L Kennedy is watching a bullfight at the most prominent of all bullrings, Las Ventas in Madrid: ' At the kill, the young man's sword hits bone, again and again and again while the silence presses down against him. He tries for the descabello. Five blows later and the animal finally falls.' The descabello, as the Glossary explains, is 'A heavy, straight sword' used to sever the spine. ' 'I have already watched Curro Romero refuse to have almost anything to do with his bull, never mind its horns. (The severely critical response of a member of the audience to a cowardly bull or a cowardly bullfighter.) He has killed his first with a blade placed so poorly that its tip protruded from the bull's flank...As the animal coughed up blood, staring, bemused, ['bemused?'] at each new flux the peones tried a rueda de peones to make the blade move in the bull's body and sever anything, anything at all that might be quickly fatal, but in the end the bull was finally, messily finished after three descabellos.' 'The suffering of the bull 'left, staggering and urinating helplessly, almost too weak to face the muleta' wasn't ended by a painless and instantaneous death: 'Contreras...misses the kill...Contreras tries again, hooking out the first sword with a new one ...Contreras finally gives the descabello.' So, the sword is embedded in the animal, the sword is pulled out and thrust into the animal yet again, but it's still very much alive, the ungrateful creature. The descabello is hard at work in this book. People who have the illusion that the 'moment of truth' amounts to a single sword-thrust and the immediate death of the bull are disabused of the notion here. More often, the moment of truth is hacking at the spine with the descabello.' The cutting off of the bull's ears before it's dead - this is less common. What humanitarians these people are! They generally wait until the bull is dead before cutting off the ears! Not always, though. On occasion, they are impatient for some reason and can't wait. The life and death of the bull are sharply contrasted. The bulls are treated humanely until they arrive at the bull-ring, but their sufferings may begin even before the picador thrusts his lance into them. Sometimes, thick needles have been pushed into the bull's testicles before they enter the ring.This practice is said to subdue any bull, and no wonder. Too much should not be made of trends. Trends can be harmful as well as beneficial, should be actively opposed in many cases rather than accepted and treated as inevitable. But one trend which can be welcomed is the trend to eliminate displays of public cruelty in countries which claim to be civilized. This has been achieved almost entirely in the case of cruelty to people. In the case of animals, now that bull-baiting and bear-baiting have been abolished, bull-fighting remains a cause to be won - and it surely will be won, eventually. Bullfight apologists found no objection to it, but the public disembowelling of horses was found to be more and more intolerable. The continued suffering of the horses, the blood flowing from the bull's back, torn in so many places by the lance of the picador and by the banderillas, the sword thrust, stabbing to sever the spinal cord when sword thrusts fails to kill, the bull thrashing in agony, the flow of blood from a bull's mouth as it dies, the long trails of blood and the dark pools of blood in the sand - there will be mounting revulsion against these things, the arguments of bull-fight apologists will sound more and more hollow and bull-fighting will be abolished in country after country. When that happens, it will be a series of victories not for squeamishness and sentimentality but for elementary human decency: a real moral advance. Opponents of the bullfighting who despair of ever making an impact should note the signs that even some bullfighters are beginning to question some of what they do. The English bullfighter Frank Evans, who has killed many bulls in his long 'career,' has now written that the long-drawn out process of killing, as it so often is, the repeated stabbing, can't be condoned in modern conditions. If the bull isn't killed by the first sword thrust, then it should be shot. This proposal has no chance of being accepted by the vast majority of bullfighters and bullfight supporters. Even if it were adopted, it would still allow the stab wounds inflicted by the picadors and the stab wounds of the banderillas and the injuries to the horses. The corrida can never be made into a humane spectacle. It simply has to be abolished. Almost certainly, it will be abolished last in Spain. In which bullfighting country will bullfighting be abolished first? We must try to reduce the number of bullfighting countries, we must try to win country by country. The bullfight entails the transformation of a very powerful animal into a weak animal, by pain and injury. There's no great contrast between the 'illegitimate' tampering with the bull before it goes into the ring, by skewering its testicles with a needle or beating it with sandbags, or any of the other methods used, and the methods which bullfight supporters find indispensable, the stabbings with the pic and the banderillas. All of them have the effect of wearing down the bull. In the third phase, the cape is used to make the bull turn right and quickly left, right and left, right and left, until often it sags to its knees and can barely stand again. Even the bulls which aren't weakened to anything like this extent are still nothing like the animal which entered the ring. The claim is made by bullfighting apologists that the bull that dies in the bullring is 'lucky.' The claim is made that these bulls have a far better life and a longer life (although not much longer) than the bulls reared for beef, kept in factory farms and slaughtered at a younger age. The claim is made that when bulls are 'tested' for their fighting qualities - the 'tienta' - the bulls which go to the bull ring are much more fortunate than the ones that fail, that will be slaughtered for beef. Pigs and chickens, both the chickens reared for meat and laying chickens, are very often kept in factory farms but this isn't true of beef cattle in most cases. I can claim to have an exhaustive knowledge of the subject - I've opposed factory farming for a very long time. Animals other than pigs and chickens have been kept in factory farms to a lesser extent, or attempts are being made to factory farm them. In this country, there are planning applications - which are being strenuously resisted - to adopt the hideous 'zero-grazing' system for dairy cows in massive factory farm complexes. But generally, beef cattle have just as good a life as fighting bulls, grazing in fields. It's true that their life is generally shorter. Fighting bulls are at least four years old when they enter the bullring for the regular corrida, but the 'novillos,' the bulls fought by the apprentice matadors or 'novilleros' are closer in age to beef cattle. When Frank Evans, the British bullfighter, came out of retirement to fight - and kill - a bull, the bull was just two years old. The picture I have is poignant, not for its image of the bullfighter fighting long after most bullfighters have retired but for the bull, not at all a good-looking bull, much slighter than a four year old bull, of course - to put this animal to the sword needed even more callousness than usual, I feel. But the arguments of bullfighting apologists which refer to factory farming and the age of slaughter are surely cynical, opportunistic. There's no evidence at all that most of these people are concerned in the least about factory farming and the slaughter of animals. 'Thought experiments' are often used in ethical discussion. They can be used to support or oppose an ethical argument very graphically. In the case of the 'lucky' fighting bull, these analogies suggest themselves. The death of gladiators in the Roman arenas is widely recognized as a blot on Roman civilization - indefensible. The Romans might have developed a system according to which all the gladiators were made up of men condemned to death, volunteering to fight instead of being executed. They had the chance of living for longer, and perhaps much longer. Even if they were beaten in combat, the crowd might spare their lives. What if a contemporary jurisdiction which often executes, such as Texas, proposed to allow condemned men the same chance of living for longer and by similar means? It would be unthinkable, of course. There's massive opposition to the infliction of death in public. In the history of the death penalty, the trend has been for executions to be public, then not seen by the public, within the confines of a prison, before being abolished altogether. Similarly, if an animal is being slaughtered, then to make a public exhibition of the slaughter is felt to be degrading. Human responsibility towards domesticated animals, and standards for keeping domesticated animals should include as a bare minimum (1) humane treatment whilst the animal is reared and (2) a humane death. These should be regarded as essential, fundamental principles of animal welfare in a modern civilization. Battery chickens are denied (1). They have the benefit of (2) almost always, but not invariably. The bull has the benefit of (1) but not (2). Beef cattle generally have the benefit of (1) and (2). No matter how well treated it may have been before arriving in the bullring, the death of the bull, more often than not far from instantaneous, preceded by injuries which are likely to be painful or agonizing, is an act of disgusting cruelty that shames Spain, France, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. The courage of the bullfighters - illusions and distortions The North Face of the Eiger (Acknowledgments: flickr) In this section, I discuss the risks of mountaineering and some forms of rock climbing, the risks of battle and the risks of bullfighting. I point out that the risks of bullfighting are grossly and grotesquely exaggerated by bullfighters and defenders of bullfighting. I begin with mountaineering. I was a cross-country skier and I've used cross-country skis in the Alps for downhill skiing. Steve Barnett's book 'Cross-Country Downhill,' mainly about skiing in the Canadian and American North-West, is a fine introduction to its compelling attractions, but my own skiing was much more limited. My rock climbing career, on the other hand, was very brief. The experience of dislocating a shoulder twelve times - not on a rock face - was one of the things that convinced me that I wasn't well suited to rock climbing. Of course, anyone who takes up mountaineering and climbing in other settings will need to consider very carefully the risks. Many of them are avoidable, but not all. . Edward Whymper wrote in 'Scrambles Amongst the Alps,' “Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end.” Edward Whymper is best known for the first ascent of the Matterhorn in 1865. During the descent, four members of the climbing party were killed. Climbers almost always use modern methods of protection, which include not just climbing ropes but many other sophisticated pieces of equipment. Free climbers don't. The best known free climber is Alex Honnold, shown above. If free climbers fall, almost always they die. If we compare bullfighting and high-altitude mountaineering, then high altitude mountaineering is far more dangerous than bullfighting, as well as incomparably more interesting, more demanding, and, if you like, more 'noble.' Now, with modern equipment and techniques, it's far less dangerous than it used to be but the fatality rate on high mountains still averages something like 5%. That is, one in twenty of the mountaineers on an expedition will not return. Some mountains have a much higher fatality rate. K2, the second highest mountain in the world, has claimed more than one death for every four successful ascents. Annapurna is even more deadly. Compare the number of fatalities for the tiny number of mountaineers attempting to climb just one Himalayan peak, Annapurna 1, which can easily be confirmed (Unlike bullfighting, Himalayan mountaineering has immensely detailed sources of statistics, such as himalayandatabase.com): 58 fatalities between the successful summit attempt in 1950 and 2007, a total of only 153 summit attempts. (And whereas injured bullfighters have speedy access to modern medical care, the case is very different for injured high-altitude mountaineers. The frostbitten fingers and toes of the two climbers who made the first ascent of Annapurna 1 became gangrenous and were amputated on the mountain without anaesthetic.) To climb Annapurna (a deadly mountain, but not the most dangerous peak) or another very high mountain - or many much lower mountains, for that matter - just once involves a far higher risk of death than a bullfighter faces in an entire bullfighting 'career.' Reinhold Messner describes the first ascent by the French climbers Herzog and Lachenal, which was also the first ascent of any mountain over 8 000 metres high. Herzog was caught in an avalanche, knocked unconscious, was suffering from frostbite. Along with others in the party, he waded through deep snow back to Advanced Base Camp, in an epic of endurance. To climb K2 or Annapurna or another very high mountain just once involves a far, far higher risk of death than a bullfighter faces in an entire bullfighting 'career.' France has every reason to feel pride in these and so many other mountaineers, just as France has every reason to feel shame about its bullfighters. Injuries to mountaineers occur not only as a result of falling but from a range of other causes, such as rock fall and avalanches - the snow which makes up the avalanche may resemble the consistency of concrete rather than anything soft and fluffy, capable of causing crushing injuries and multiple fractures. On high mountains, the ferocity of the winds and blizzards often make a rescue from outside impossible until it is too late. Rescue facilities are well organized in the Alps, not at all in the Himalayas and the Andes. Even in the Alps, bad weather can delay rescue for days, or rescue may be impossible. For the mountaineer, safety and medical help are generally far, far away. An injured bullfighter, on the other hand, can be taken from the ring almost immediately to the bull-ring clinic and then to a main hospital. For this reason, injuries in the bull-ring are almost always non-fatal. And on the other side of the barrera, the low barrier surrounding the bull-ring, lies safety. At all times, safety is so near. Another advantage: a bull-fighter is in the position of danger for such a short time. A mountaineer may be in an area of acute danger for days or weeks. The dangers are not just the ones that result from errors, which are completely understandable, given the enormous demands which the mountains make on the human mind and body. There are also 'objective' dangers, from the stonefalls that occur regularly in the mountains, avalanches, crevasses, other dangers that result from the unpredictability and instability of snow. When, on the mountain called 'The Ogre,' Doug Scott broke both his legs, safety was far away. The party was caught by a storm and it took six days, five of them without food, to descend. Chris Bonington, also in the party, broke ribs during the descent. Another, now famous, story of magnificent bravery and endurance in the mountains is that of Joe Simpson, which he recounts in his book 'Touching the Void' (available in French, Spanish and many other languages). In 1985, he and Simon Yates set out to climb the remote west face of the Siula Grande in the Peruvian Andes. It was 1985 and the men were young, fit, skilled climbers. The ascent was successful, after they had climbed for over three days. But then Joe Simpson fell, and broke his leg badly. There was no hope of rescue for them. They had to descend without any help. Yates was lowering Simpson on the rope but lowered him into a hidden crevasse. He couldn't hold him and was forced to cut the rope. Simpson wasn't killed by the fall, He managed to drag himself out and drag himself down the mountain, dehydrated and injured, until, at last, he reached base camp. The Wikipedia entry for the Eiger gives valuable information about the ascents of the infamous North face, shown in the image at the beginning of this section, including solo ascents, the injuries, fatalities, rescues, successful and unsuccessful, stories of courage and endurance which put bullfighting in its place. Since 1935, at least sixty-four climbers have been killed whilst climbing it - compared with the 52 bullfighters who have been killed in the ring in a period of over 300 years since 1700. Taking into account the number of climbers making the attempt, tiny compared with the number of bullfighters fighting in that period, climbing on the North face is far more dangerous. The Wikipedia information on one summit attempt, made only a few years after Lorca made his fatuous remark about bullfighting being 'the last serious thing in the world.' This attempt on the Eiger, like all the others before and since, was a serious matter by any reckoning. It also underlines the closeness of safety in the bullring, the availability of prompt medical care in the bullring, the lack of these in the mountains, and the fact that it's not only bullfighters who face injury. 'The next year [1936] ten young climbers from Austria and Germany came to Grindelwald and camped at the foot of the mountain. Before their attempts started, one of them was killed during a training climb, and the weather was so bad during that summer that after waiting for a change and seeing none on the way, several members of the party gave up. Of the four that remained, two were Bavarians, Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurz, the youngest of the party, and two were Austrians, Willy Angerer and Edi Rainer. When the weather improved they made a preliminary exploration of the lowest part of the face. Hinterstoisser fell 37 metres (121 ft) but was not injured. A few days later the four men finally began the ascent of the face. They climbed quickly, but on the next day, after their first bivouac, the weather changed; clouds came down and hid the group to the observers. They did not resume the climb until the following day, when, during a break, the party was seen descending, but the climbers could only be watched intermittently from the ground. The group had no choice but to retreat since Angerer suffered some serious injuries as a result of falling rock. The party became stuck on the face when they could not recross the difficult Hinterstoisser Traverse where they had taken the rope they first used to climb. The weather then deteriorated for two days. They were ultimately swept away by an avalanche, which only Kurz survived, hanging on a rope. Three guides started on an extremely perilous rescue. They failed to reach him but came within shouting distance and learned what had happened. Kurz explained the fate of his companions: one had fallen down the face, another was frozen above him, the third had fractured his skull in falling, and was hanging dead on the rope.' In the morning the three guides came back, traversing across the face from a hole near the Eigerwand station and risking their lives under incessant avalanches. Toni Kurz was still alive but almost helpless, with one hand and one arm completely frostbitten. Kurz hauled himself off the cliff after cutting loose the rope that bound him to his dead teammate below and climbed back on the face. The guides were not able to pass an unclimbable overhang that separated them from Kurz. They managed to give him a rope long enough to reach them by tying two ropes together. While descending, Kurz could not get the knot to pass through his carabiner. He tried for hours to reach his rescuers who were only a few metres below him. Then he began to lose consciousness. One of the guides, climbing on another's shoulders, was able to touch the tip of Kurz's crampons with his ice-axe but could not reach higher. Kurz was unable to descend farther and, completely exhausted, died slowly. The intensity of the dangers in the high mountains, the fact that these dangers are so protracted, the beauty of this hostile environment - these and other factors have their effect on human consciousness. Anyone who has read enough books about mountaineering and by mountaineers and enough books about bullfighting and by bullfighters to be able to compare the two will surely be convinced that the states of consciousness revealed in mountaineering literature are incomparably richer, deeper and more complex. What are the achievements of bull-fighters to be compared with the achievements of mountaineers? What bravery has been shown in the bull-rings of Arles, Nîmes, Madrid, Seville, Valencia, Granada, Mexico City, all the bull-rings of the bullfighting world, that could possibly be compared with the bravery shown on Annapurna, Everest, the Matterhorn, the North Face of the Eiger and the other peaks? The summit may be reached or not, but mountaineers have every reason for pride. Bullfighters are obviously very proud of those bleeding, still-warm ears that have been cut from the bull as a mark of their 'achievement.' Revulsion is the only proper, civilized response. Of all risky activities, none has anything like the bullfighters' highly developed Mythology of Death. Mountaineers tend to be self-effacing and reticent, at least in talking about the dangers. They are acknowledged and mentioned, but there's none of the decadent boasting indulged in by bullfighters, and so for other people who take part in risky activities. During the Winter Olympics at Vancouver, 2010, one of the competitors in the luge event, one of the men and women who hurtle down the ice at terrifying speeds, was killed. The competitors showed restraint and dignity and hurtled down the ice in their turn, without histrionics. The biography of the Spanish bullfighter of a previous generation, El Cordobes, was entitled, 'Or I'll dress you in mourning,' referring to his boast that he would make good in bullfighting or die in the attempt. (Like the vast majority of bullfighters, he didn't die in the attempt.) The book - one I haven't, to be fair, read from cover to cover, only in large extracts - is astonishing. I think particularly of the effusive bullring chaplain holding up a religious medal when it seemed that El Cordobes' histrionic heroics were becoming particularly risky. The English bullfighter Frank Evans has written about the women who are attracted to him because of the supposedly glamorous danger he faces. A L Kennedy makes a grotesque comparison, in connection with the bullfighter 'El Juli,' who, rumours have it, 'will soon attempt to face seven bulls ... within the course of one day... At this level, the life of the matador must be governed by the same dark mathematics which calculates a soldier's ability to tolerate combat: so many months in a tour of duty, so many missions flown, and mental change, mental trauma, becomes a statistical inevitability. But in the corrida, the matador is not exposed to physical and emotional damage by duty, or conscription - he is a volunteer, a true believer, a lover with his love.' This comes from her book 'On Bullfighting.' I note in my review of the book, ' ... ten years after she wrote about him and his likely demise, El Juli is still with us, still very much alive, despite the dark mathematics.' John McCormick gives the same argument in the morass of ignorance and falsification that makes up a significant part of 'Bullfighting: art, technique and Spanish society.' He writes of the bullfighter, 'Just as the suit of lights marks him off in the plaza from the run of men, so in his own mind he is marked off always ... The closest thing to it I knew was fear of combat, but that was different too, because there was always the comforting sense of having been coerced. The difference in toreo lies in the element of choice. Only the toreo chooses freely to risk wounds or death.' Not true of the volunteers from this country and others who went to fight in the Spanish civil war, such as George Orwell, who was shot in the throat. The merchant seamen who served on the ships bringing supplies to this country during the Second World War were all volunteers. Many of the particularly dangerous missions undertaken in the Second World War were undertaken by volunteers. All those members of the armed forces from Northern Ireland who fought against the Nazis were volunteers - there was no conscription in the province during the war - and obviously all those from the Irish Republic who joined the British armed forces to fight against Nazism, around 38 000 in number. The soldiers of this country who fought in The First World War in 1914 and 1915 were volunteers. Conscription wasn't introduced until 1915. This is an incomplete list, which could be vastly extended, of evidence from before the publication of the book in 1967. Events since would provide further contrary evidence. For example, the soldiers from this country and others who fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The men and women who work in bomb disposal, amongst other things making it safe for villagers to return to their villages, are all volunteers. And evidence from other activities before and after he wrote, for example, the mountaineers who risk death in the mountains, practitioners of high risk sports in general, are obviously all volunteers. Again, obviously an incomplete list. Some opponents of the bull-fight refer to the matador as a coward. This is a clear instance of what I refer to as alignment, which involves a distortion of reality. It's also an instance of alignment to claim that Picasso cannot have been a great artist because he was so devoted to the bullfight. Picasso's work leaves me cold, including the overrated painting 'Guernica,' but I recognize his importance as an innovator, his secure place in the history of artistic modernism. (All the same, when I think of his devotion to the bullfight rather than his artistic importance, then to me he's 'Pablo Prickarsehole.') The mistake of rejecting achievement because of an objection to the person's personality or one aspect of the work, is discussed in the case of another Spanish artist, Salvador Dali, by George Orwell ('Benefit of Clergy: some notes on Salvador Dali.') Similarly, to decide that Descartes cannot have been a great philosopher because of his notorious view that animals are automata and cannot feel. Descartes' position as one of the great philosophers is beyond dispute. His 'Meditations' is one of the most attractive works in all philosophy, and certainly one of the greatest works of rationalist philosophy. To return to the bullfighters, their courage surely can't be in doubt. If fatalities in the bullring are rare, gorings and other injuries are not. Nobody who was a coward would choose to occupy the same space as a half-tonne bull with sharp horns, but I think I've established that their courage is strictly limited. A related issue: the ethics of climbing and the ethics of bullfighting. 'The ethics of bullfighting' here has a very narrow meaning: whether or not the bull is tampered with to make the work of the bullfighters much less dangerous. Better to call it 'code.' The word 'ethics' shouldn't be used in connection with bullfighting. The shaving of the bull's horns is one notorious practice that makes a bull far less dangerous but is commonly practised. There are others. Stanley Conrad who runs what has been described as the 'best' (pro-) bullfighting Web site in the world in English, admits this, in a review of A L Kennedy's 'On Bullfighting:' 'the critical issues plaguing the present day corrida - weakened taurine bloodlines, horn shaving and other pre-corrida attacks on the central creatures' integrity...' Another critical issue plaguing the present day corrida is cited in the routine and otherwise uncritical book 'Bullfight' by Garry Marvin, a social anthropologist, which includes information about one practice which I can't confirm from other sources. If true, it reflects the tawdry dishonesty and corruption of the relationship between bullfighters and journalists in Spain. He writes, 'In whatever novillada or corrida he is performing, it is important for the matador to have preparado la prensa (literally, 'prepared the press', meaning to have paid a certain amount of money to the reporters and photographers who will cover the event), because the reports of a performance can have a considerable influence on the chances of further contracts. If not sufficiently 'prepared', the press can damn a good performance with faint praise or can concentrate on the odd bad moments rather than on the overall performance. If well 'prepared' they can do exactly the reverse and can find good things to say even though the matador might have been booed from the plaza.' The same novillero who had the problem with the festival performed extremely well on two afternoons in a series of novilladas in a town near Valencia. He paid as much as he could to the local newspaper critic, who was also a correspondent for a national magazine dedicated to the corrida. The amount paid was obviously not enough, and he received a few cursory lines in the report. Other novilleros who had not done as well but who had obviously given more money received much more coverage, including several flattering photographs.' The book is described by the publisher as one which 'explains how and why men risk their lives to perform with and kill wild bulls as part of a public celebration ...' The usual ignorant or shameless overestimation of the dangers to life which I discuss on this page. Opponents of bullfighting are often pessimistic - how to win a victory against forces seemingly so powerful and entrenched? They should remember, though, that they are opposing something which is diseased. Breaches of climbing ethics make the mountain easier to ascend, with less danger. They include resting in the rope rather than using the rope purely to arrest a fall, in climbs where artificial aids aren't permitted. Climbing ethics are almost always observed, the 'bullfighting code' very often flouted. Climbers who would like to climb a particularly dangerous rock face don't bring along explosives to make the rock face less difficult and dangerous, but in bullfighting, the most devious practices are common. And the bullfighters, not the climbers, are the ones who will boast of the dangers, of how, in the case of male bullfighters, the vast majority, the glamour of danger makes them attractive to women ... The 'courage' of bullfighters in the past was the means - the morally obnoxious means - by which a few individuals could escape poverty and deprivation. As the bullfight apologist Michael Kennedy acknowledges in 'Andalucia,' the growth of prosperity makes individuals less and less keen to take risks in the bullring. The amounts that can be earned are enormous. A bullfighter may earn more than most footballers in Spain. The financial rewards of climbing are far less - for the vast majority of climbers nothing whatsoever. The people who run with the bulls at the San Fermin Festival in Pamplona (and similar events) run a risk of injury but most of the injuries are minor. The most common injury is contusion due to falling. There have been fatalities in the bull-run: 15 fatalities in the last 100 years. Given the large numbers of people who take part, this isn't very many. They include someone suffocated by a pile-up of people and someone who incited a bull to charge him by brandishing his coat. The attempt to claim excellence for bullfighting stumbles upon the fact that two categories essential for these claims, physical courage and artistic achievement, are also categories where humanity's achievements are stratospherically high. Alexander Fiske-Harrison lets slip in his book 'Into the Arena' the information that between 1992 and the publication of his book in 2002, no bullfighters were killed in the ring in Spain. In his blog, he gives a figure for the number of professional bullfighters killed in the last three hundred years: 533. This is one of the lists he refers to, the annotated list of deaths of matadors since 1700: This document, like the others, omits context and comparison. For example, in 1971, José Mata García died as a result of bullfighting injuries, but would probably have survived if medical facilities at the ring had not been very poor. In the same year, two Spanish matadors were killed in car accidents (a Venezualan matador was killed in a car accident as well.) Between 1863 and 1869, no deaths are recorded for matadors. During the American Civil War in just one prison (Salisbury, North Carolina) during a four month period (October 1864 - February 1865) 3,708 prisoners died out of a total of about 11 000. (Information from the 'Civil War Gazette.') This is about a 33% mortality rate. If a similar mortality rate applied to bullfighting, then in one single bullfighting season in Spain there would be markedly more bullfighters killed than have been killed in three centuries of bullfighting. Or consider this as context for the death of 533 bullfighters in a period of over 300 years: Italian soldiers facing soldiers of the Austrian-Hungarian army. On December 13, 1916 (later known as 'White Friday') 10,000 soldiers were killed in avalanches. Essential background for bullfighting mortality statistics is the frequent recklessness of bullfighters. In the Anti-blog, I refer to Padilla, injured but not killed, who head-butted a bull, obviously very near to the horns, twice. Padilla lost an eye as a result, but in the same year in which more bullfighters were killed in car accidents than in the ring, 1971, a bullfighter lost an eye in a car accident. The pro-bullfighting Website carrionmundotoreo.com has a page on bullfighting risks written by Michael Cammarata, which includes this: ' ... toreros are not inherently at risk for many health conditions. Their lives may be complicated by injuries, but death by the bull’s horns is rare, they are unbelievably resilient, and healthcare has improved to the point that nearly all consequences or mishaps are manageable.' Penicillin transformed bullfighting. Before its introduction, accidents in the bullring, like accidents on the farm, were far more likely to be fatal. 'In 1997, the Spanish government issued the first Royal Decree significantly pertaining to "sanitary installations and medico-surgical services in taurine spectacles" (Real Decreto de Oct. 31, 1997).' The regulation outlines the facilities which must be available: 'All infirmaries are expected to have basic amenities, including sufficient lights, ventilation, generators for back-up energy supplies, and a communications system. Mobile infirmaries should have a minimum of two rooms; one for examination and another for surgical intervention; however, the standards for fixed infirmaries are higher. A bathroom, recovery room, and sterilization and cleaning room are also necessary. The regulation continues to outline a list of necessary supplies, such as central surgical lamps, tables, anesthesia machines, resuscitation machines with laryngoscopes, intubation tubes, suction, and a cardiac and defibrillator monitor. The responsibility for such materials lies in the hands of the chief surgeon of the plaza. ... events with picadors require the following staff: a chief surgeon, an assisting physician with a surgical license, another physician of any type, an anesthesiologist, a nurse, and an auxiliary person. Events without picadors such as novilladas without picadors, sueltas de vacas, and comic taurine events require a chief surgeon, a physician, a nurse, and auxiliary person. Therefore, the difference is in the assistant surgeon and the anesthesiologist. A plaza de toros has ambulances on site for emergency transports from the plaza to the nearest hospital, during which at least a nurse and physician must be on board the vehicle. Fatalities to bullfighters may be very rare, but fatalities to the horses used in bullrings don't seem to be nearly so rare - but I haven't been able to find any statistics whatsoever. This surprises me not at all. The bullfighting world seems to consider the welfare of horses completely unimportant. When I found bullfightingNews.com, this news piece was on the Home page, headed 'Diego Ventura [a 'rejoneador,' not a picador] triumphs, but loses his horse to goring.' (He 'lost' another horse two years earlier): 'The star horse "Revuelo" was gored in the right hind quarters, during a performance in Morelia, Mich. 'The goring was deep about 30 centimeters, fracturing the femur. It was reported in several newsoutlets [sic] that the goring was on the left when in actuality it was on the right. 'The veternarian [sic] that was onsite was looking after the horse trying to see how bad the goring was, with his hand exploring the goring, it was said that when he took his hand out he brought bone with it. 'The horse was losing too much blood, and even though they tried to transport him to a clinic, he succumbed to his injuries. 'The horse, called "Revuelo" was 7 years old and a horse that was used during the placement of the banderillas. 'This is Diego's 2nd loss, his other was in 2009 of the horse named "Manzanarez".' Although bullfighters may be severely injured in the bullring, the severity of the injuries in warfare, particularly since the introduction of explosives, is of a different order of seriousness. John Keegan writes well about the subject in 'The Face of Battle.' The injury to the bullfighter Jose Tomas in Mexico was a particularly severe injury, but it was one wound, not the severe multiple wounds common in times of war. Bullfighters who have been gored can almost always still walk, they still have the use of their limbs, they can still see. The effect of high explosive, in the current conflict in Afghanistan, in the massive bombardments of the First and Second World War and other wars, can leave the soldier - or the civilian - with a single limb or even none at all, or blinded, or mutilated so much that even advanced surgery can never restore anything like the person's appearance. Similarly in the case of the horrific burns which are common in time of war. Ordinary people in vast numbers have faced these risks, with none of the romanticized myth-making of the bullfighters and their supporters. The courage of bullfighters is completely eclipsed by the courage shown by innumerable ordinary people in time of war, including civilians. The life expectancy of many soldiers at the Western Front during periods of intense fighting, the life expectancy of new RAF pilots in 1917, was a few weeks. The men who flew in RAF Bomber Command during the Second World War were all volunteers. 55,573 were killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew - a 44.4% mortality rate. What French bullfighter has had to show a fraction of the courage, has faced a fraction of the dangers faced by the countless, ordinary (or extraordinary) French soldiers at the relentless killing machine of Verdun?' Of the 20 million Russian soldiers who fought in The Second World War against the Nazis, well over 10 million were killed. Over half the population of Warsaw died during The Second World War, 800 000 people in all. The risk to life involved in bullfighting is tiny compared with the risks to civilians as well as combatants in much modern warfare. During The Second World War, this country was dependent upon the convoys bringing food, fuel and other materials across the Atlantic. The merchant seamen who served on these ships were all civilians and all volunteers. Of the total of 185 000 who volunteered, over 30 000 were killed, the majority after their ship had been attacked by a U-boat. The war experiences of the survivors often involved the explosion of the torpedoes, their ship burning from end to end, burning oil in the water, men drowning in oil. These acute dangers were even worse, of course, for the many who faced the long voyage across the Atlantic on oil tankers. The well-developed propaganda machine of bullfighting has never yet faced such realities. The French author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry had a very adventurous period in aviation and eventually a very dangerous one. He became a fighter pilot for the Free French and was killed in action in 1944. But the mythology of death had no attractions for him. He wrote: 'It is not a question of living dangerously. That formula is too arrogant, too presumptuous. I don't care much for bullfighters. It's not the danger I love...It is life itself.' Bullfighting: 'the last serious thing in the modern world?' See also the previous section Bullfighting and 'duende' for more on the supposed superiority of the Spanish attitude to death, an argument often used to justify bullfighting. The bullfighting audience tends to make clear its disapproval, of bullfighters and bulls, by throwing cushions into the arena, jeering and whistling. I think that the stupidities of Alexander Fiske-Harrison and other bullfighting apologists, their falsification of reality, deserve a strong and robust counter-response. Towards the end of 'Into the Arena' he claims of the bullring, "And in that ring are all the tragic and brutal truths of the world unadorned.' In the Prologue, he quotes the words of the poet García Lorca: 'the bullfight is the last serious thing left in the world today'. These words, written in the thirties, when many millions had been left maimed in mind or body by their experiences in the First World War, when many millions remembered their losses during the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and 1919 which killed 60 or 70 million people - known sometimes as 'Spanish flu,' on account of its severity in Spain, when the anything-but-trivial movement of Nazism was beginning, were falsified by the seriousness of reality in these and countless other ways then and have been falsified in countless ways in every decade since then, and falsified in countless ways too by the serious achievement or the striving for serious achievement of countless men and women. Lorca's 'the bullfight is the last serious thing left in the world' has the benefit of sounding impressive, to many, but it belongs only to what I call 'the world sphere.' Anyone who reflects on such matters as serious politics, art, culture, the realities of war and the realities of peace, the struggles of everyday life and struggles for survival, will surely realize the extreme falsity of those words. Equally worthy of contempt are the words of the writer and director Agustín Díaz Yanes who declared that 'bullfighters were the only free men left in the world.' (Reported in The Times Literary Supplement blog, 'Tagore in Segovia.' The material I give on this page of the horrific occupation of Poland during the Second World War and its utterly ruthless Governor, Hans Frank, is a reminder of some realities. To say that the extermination camps in Poland at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno and other places, the crushing of the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw ghetto (some 6 000 burnt alive or dying of smoke inhalation), the crushing of the resistance Home Army in Warsaw, the daily terrors of the long occupation, during which over 5 million Polish civilians died, to say that these and all the other tragic and brutal truths of the world are in the bullring, unadorned, is monstrous and Alexander Fiske-Harrison's endorsement of the lie is monstrous. During the fascist dictatorship and during the Second World War (Franco kept Spain out of the Second World War but supported Hitler), bullfights took place throughout the bullfighting season, so bullfighting supporters had reason to be content. Spanish bullfighting supporters took pride in their bullfighters and gave them their adulation. In this country, we have very different reasons for pride, the courage, endurance and sacrifices made by people in this country when it didn't give up or stand aside, like Franco's Spain, but fought against Hitler. It can be argued that the prominence of bullfighting in Spain now is a consequence of Franco's victory in the Spanish civil war. A note on the place of bullfighting in Spanish society during the Franco era. From Carrie B. Douglass, 'Bulls, bullfighting and Spanish identities:' Franco and the "Spain" that won the Civil War, the Nationalists, seemed to value the fiesta nacional in a special way. Although Franco was from Galicia, a region without much of a bullfighting tradition, he was a great aficionado of los toros ... Corridas were included in the bundle of images considered to be "castiza" (pure) Spain which Franco and his Nationalist supporters in general patronised. General Franco was often photographed with popular bullfighters ... 'In fact, had it not been for the Nationalists (the Right) during the Civil War the toro bravo and the corridas de toros may well have died out completely ... the Republicans and the political left had been against los toros ... the Anarchists opposed bullfighting totally, calling the corrida a "remnant of medieval cruelty" claiming that it desenstized people to suffering and distracted them from the task of educating themselves." 'The republican Lorca and the nationalists were linked as well as contrasted. They were linked by the cult of death. One nationalist rallying cry was 'Long live death!' Lorca: 'Spain is unique, a country where death is a national spectacle...In every country death has finality. Not in Spain. A dead person in Spain is more alive than is the case anywhere else.' Another republican, El Campesino, again quoted in 'The Battle for Spain' : 'I am not pretending that I was not guilty of ugly things myself, or that I never caused needless sacrifice of human lives. I am a Spaniard. We look upon life as tragic. We despise death.' Massacres on a vast scale have taken place in countries without anything like a death-cult, but the Spanish death-cult faces enormous problems in coming to terms with these massacres - including the massacres which took place during the Spanish civil war. The Spanish cult of death - not a justification of bullfighting, something to be used in defence of bullfighting, but something which has encouraged and been used to justify human slaughter as well as animal suffering in the bullfight - is a sign of disease, not health. Paul Preston is the foremost British historian of the Spanish civil war. His books include 'The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain,' which documents the slaughter and torture of those years. He estimates that at least 130 000 people were executed by the nationalists during the war but the total is likely to have been much higher. He estimates that just under 50 000 people were killed by the Republicans. Compare the attention given to the 533 bullfighters killed in the ring since 1700 by Alexander Fiske-Harrison. When the town of Badajoz was captured by the nationalists on August 14, 1936, the prisoners were confined in the bullring. Hundreds were killed in the executions which began that night. Soon, as many as 4 000 people were killed. Alexander Fiske-Harrison's bucolic portrayal of fighting bulls living a life of ease in the wide open spaces of the ranches ignores the history of such places: the misery of the landless poor in Southern Spain, regarded with indifference or contempt by the landed aristocracy. Land reform was one of the chief proposals of the Popular Front government elected in February 1936 on the eve of the Spanish civil war. Helen Graham, on events early in the war: 'It was a war of agrarian counter-reform that turned Andalusia and Extremadura into killing fields. The large landowners who owned the vast estates which covered most of the southern half of Spain rode along with the Army of Africa [Franco's Moroccan forces] to reclaim by force of arms the land on which the Republic had settled the landless poor. Rural labourers were killed where they stood, the 'joke' being they had got their 'land reform' at last - in the form of a burial plot. Reforms, and not only land reforms, were crushed with the victory of the nationalists in the war, and large numbers of the landless poor were exterminated. The wealthy land-owners who bred and reared bulls were amongst those who benefitted from the crushing of the legitimate government and its supporters. The bull-rearing ranches have a very dark history, then. Alexander Fiske-Harrison may be aware of these aspects of Spanish history, but his writing on Spain never mentions them. A wider interest in history, a less exclusive interest in the history of bullfighting, would add perspective to some of his views - or even overturn them. Bulls, elephants and tigers In the bullfighting arena: Madrid, 1865 Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon:' '...Huron, a bull of the ranch of Don Antonio Lopez Plata ... fought a Bengal tiger on the 24th of July 1904 in the Plaza of San Sebastian. They fought in a steel cage and the bull whipped the tiger, but in one of his charges broke the cage apart and the two animals came out into the ring in the midst of the spectators. The police, attempting to finish the dying tiger and the very live bull, fired several volleys which 'caused grave wounds to many spectators.' From the history of these various encounters between bulls and other animals I should say they were spectacles to stay away from, or at least to view from one of the higher boxes.' The 'other animals' which took part in these 'encounters' included elephants, as in the illustration above. Hemingway's reservations are only to do with the danger to the spectators. He has no revulsion at the effect of the tiger's teeth on the bull and the bull's horns on the tiger. What might a more detailed account of this 'encounter' have revealed? Perhaps an eye of the bull hanging down by a strip of flesh, its face almost ripped away, the tiger pumping out blood from deep wounds, perhaps with an empty eye socket too. What would a detailed account of the injuries to the bull and the elephant have revealed, when the 'encounter' was at a later stage than the one shown above? It should be apparent to anyone with any moral sense that the Nobel Prize Committee gave its prize to a sadist. As well as the formal, ordered bullfight, with its three 'acts,' the bull has been pitted against other animals. Why is it that they are unthinkable today? There has been a transformation in human attitudes to animals, so powerful that it has even influenced many, but not all, bullfight apologists. Now, there are more bullfight apologists who would go so far as to condemn the cruelty of a bull fighting other animals but who continue to defend the practices of the bullfight, using supposed arguments which rely heavily upon words like 'art,' 'tragedy,' 'honour,' 'courage.' The fight between an elephant and a bull which seems to have aroused no opposition in the Madrid bullfighting supporters of 1865 would probably be opposed by the majority of bullfighting supporters now. They will find that the transformation of attitudes which has condemned such events as these has condemned the formal, ordered bullfight as well, and has condemned them. One common justification for the treatment of the bull in the bullring appeals to the longer, privileged life of the bull up until that point. An entrepreneur in Spain could appeal to the same argument in an attempt to reintroduce the combat of elephant against bull. Elephants due to be culled owing to the fact that there's insufficient food for them to be imported into Spain, given five more years of life, in a separate section of bull-rearing ranches, and then made to fight in the arena, speared to make them weaker, any animal which survives for a quarter of an hour to be humanely killed. An arrangement which might appeal to many bullighting supporters fails because it's no longer within the bounds of possibility. The reputation of Spain, the reputation of Europe, is one consideration among many. It's becoming ever more clear, if not in every part of Europe and the wider world, that bullfighting dimishes the reputation of every country which allows it and that whatever arguments are brought forward against abolition, its cruelty demands abolition. More evidence that Hemingway could be disgusting. A 'capea,' as the glossary of 'Death in the Afternoon' informs us, refers to 'informal bullfights or bull baitings in village squares in which amateurs and aspirant bullfighters take part.' Now, Hemingway tells us, 'one bull which was a great favourite in the capeas of the province of Valencia killed sixteen men and boys and badly wounded over sixty in a career of five years.' So, simple enough. The bull was defending itself. The people who were killed and injured knew what risks they were running and there was an easy way to avoid all these risks. After the bull had killed or injured people in its first season, it was allowed to go on for years afterwards. What happened to this 'great favourite,' also described by Hemingway as 'a very highly valued performer?' The bull's owner sent the bull to the slaughterhouse in Valencia. Two relatives of a someone killed by the bull asked permission to kill the bull, which was granted. The younger of the two 'started in by digging out both the bull's eyes while the bull was in his cage, and spitting carefully into the sockets, then after killing him by severing the spinal marrow between the neck vertebrae with a dagger, he experienced some difficulty in this, he asked permission to cut off the bull's testicles, which being granted, he and his sister built a small fire at the edge of the dusty street outside the slaughter-house and roasted the two glands on sticks and when they were done, ate them. They then turned their backs on the slaughter-house and went along the road and out of town.' Hemingway was in the vicinity when all this was done, although he doesn't reveal the fact in 'Death in the Afternoon.' There's not the least evidence that he disapproved of the treatment of the bull. Bullfighting as an art form. Bullfighting and tragedy The top picture here shows the ancient Greek theatre at Epidauros. (Acknowledgements: cdine's photostream.) The lower picture here shows the Roman arena at Nîmes in France, then part of the Roman Empire. (Acknowledgements: mikeandanna's photostream.) These two places represent vastly different aspects of civilization, at vastly different levels of achievement: one the shameful and diseased dead end, the other the growing point. A sign in English in the arena at Nîmes gives information about events there in Roman times: “All day long, to the roars of the crowd and the sound of trumpets, the arena staged one show after the other: animal fights, hunts, executions and, topping the bill, gladiatorial contests.” French arenas dating from Roman times, such as the one at Nîmes, are used for an activity which is in a clear line of descent from the past: for the spectacle of killing. The Roman arenas were used for diverse spectacles, all of them brutal and bloody, of course. Gladiators fought each other, very often to the death, gladiators fought and killed wild animals - lions, tigers, bears, bulls, elephants and others - and there were executions, which were sometimes conducted with a degree of depraved 'artistry.' The more thoughtful and artistic spectators could admire the imaginative reconstruction. Katherine E. Welch, 'The Roman amphitheatre from its origins to the Colosseum:' ' ... condemned criminals dressed up as characters from Greek mythology ... were forced to perform and, at the performance's climax, were put to death ... The difference between these mythological executions in the amphitheatre and Greek dramas in the theatre were commented upon by Martial as an improvement.' Bullfighting is very different from the gladiatorial combats against wild animals (the 'venationes') but is clearly descended from them. Instead of a variety of wild animals, the bull is the only animal to be put to death. The death of the gladiator who fought the wild animals in the amphitheatre was very common, the death of the bullfighter in the bullring very uncommon. The more sensitive members of the Roman audience might justify the barbarity they were witnessing with the thought that they were also witnessing displays of skill and courage. More sensitive members of the bullfighting audience at Nîmes and Arles may justify the barbarity they are witnessing with the thought that they too are witnessing displays of skill and courage - and 'artistry.' I examine the 'artistry' of the bullfight here. It would have been perfectly easy to have made the combat of Roman gladiators into something with claims to artistry just as good as the claims of the modern bullfight, the artistry of both (at the lowest possible level) undermined by their moral depravity. To claim that a practice is 'art' is far from justifying it. If Greek tragedy had developed in such a way that there was the actual death on stage of performers, the emotion of the spectators might have been heightened, but of course at ruinous cost. The Greeks never took this step. In classical Greek drama, when a killing took place it was shown behind the 'skene,' as it was thought inappropriate to show a killing on stage, giving us our word 'scene.' Italians decisively abandoned this, the worst part of the Roman heritage, but not for a long time after the Colosseum became a ruin. 'In 1332 Ludwig of Bavaria visited Rome and the authorities staged a bullfight at the Colosseum in his honour. It was the first time in more than eight hundred years that such an event had been witnessed, so naturally the public turned out to watch in great numbers, though no one, not even the organisers, seems to have realized that this had been one of the Colosseum's original functions.' Peter Connolly, 'Colosseum: Rome's Arena of Death.' What have the Italians done with the Colosseum? The Colosseum has been used for something which is imaginative, something which marks a complete break with its past, something in which Italians can take great pride. As another page on this site makes clear, I actively oppose the death penalty, and the Colosseum's new use as a symbol of opposition to the death penalty pleases me no end. When a country abolishes the death penalty or the death sentence of a prisoner is commuted, the Colosseum is lit up. The Roman amphitheatre at Verona is often used for staging opera and other musical performances. The Romans devised brutal spectacles with bullfighting as the only modern descendant. Greek theatre was incomparably richer, incomparably more important, its descendants incomparably richer and more important: no less than the creation of tragic drama and comic drama, and works, by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, of remarkable artistry. The range of the surviving works is astonishing, expressing pathos, harshness, human savagery and cruelty, sympathy for the victims of human savagery and cruelty, grandeur, beauty, wonderment, tenderness, gentleness, chance, unexpectedness, parody, crude humour and sophisticated humour, eroticism, fun and mature vision, excess and restraint, and so much more, of course, and so much more than the cramped and primitive world of bullfighting. The full range of civilization's achievements should be defended, promoted and of course extended - not just civilization's abolition of past cruelties and efforts to abolish present cruelties but so much else as well, including a vast treasure of subtle insights and nuances. I believe that it will always be to the credit of this country that it continued the fight to end Nazism - and also that it decided not to neglect every aspect of civilization which didn't contribute to the country's physical survival. In desperate circumstances, at the low point of 1940, for instance, cultural and scholarly publication continued. Amongst the works published in that year was the ninth edition of the monumental Greek lexicon of Liddell and Scott, the current edition, which enhanced the study of Homer, Thucydides, Aristotle and the Greek dramatists (my own particular interests) and the rest of ancient Greek achievement in words. If the legacy of the Roman amphitheatre is bullfighting, the legacy of Greek theatre includes, of course, the tragedies and comedies of Shakespeare and other dramatists, and non-dramatic comedy for that matter. If the literary artistry of Greek theatre is its main claim upon our attention and most deserves our admiration, there were other aspects of Greek theatre which came to have enormous influence too. Greek theatre was a spectacle as well as a form of literature, combining words with music and dance. The ancient Greeks never attempted opera - its invention was an Italian achievement - but by their use of music they paved the way for opera. What aspects of human life and experience does bullfighting leave out? Almost all. The 'artistry' of the bullfight has to be compared with the rich, radiant, complex, powerful, sometimes transcendently beautiful art-works which have been created in painting, architecture, music, literature, the theatre, the ballet and other arts. Schiller referred to the stage as 'Die Bretter, die die Welt bedeuten.' 'The boards that signify the world.' Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon:' 'Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death.' I would emphasize a different aspect. Bullfighting is the only art form where the artist inflicts suffering and death, the only art form which is morally wrong. Bullfighting is the pariah amongst the arts. Suffering and death have enough power. An art should do nothing to increase it. In other arts, suffering and death are confronted, explained, found impossible to explain, raged against, transcended, balanced by consolation and joy, not inflicted. Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon,' of bullfighting: 'If it were permanent it could be one of the major arts, but it is not and so it finishes with whoever makes it.' Hemingway thinks of bullfighting as a minor art form, then, not a major one. His view of the performing arts - and if bullfighting is an art, then it's a 'performing art' - is open to question. Great performances in the true arts are surely something of major, not minor, significance. What I would assert is that amongst the performing arts, bullfighting is at rock bottom. F. Scott Fitzgerald, 'The Great Gatsby:' 'The other car, the one going toward New York, came to rest a hundred yards beyond, and its driver hurried back to where Myrtle Wilson, her life violently extinguished, knelt in the road and mingled her thick dark blood with the dust.' Although the cause of death is technologically advanced, death by motor vehicle, this fictional account seems, at first sight, to resemble the much older world of the Iliad, the Homeric character dying in the dust. When Homer recounts a violent death, he makes frequent mention of dust. One of many examples is Iliad 13: 548. In her fine introduction to Anthony Verity's fine translation of 'The Iliad,' the classical scholar Barbara Graziosi writes, 'Vivid, painful, and direct, the Iliad is one of the most influential poems of all time ... This poem confronts, with unflinching clarity, many issues that we had rather forget altogether: the failures of leadership, the destructive power of beauty, the brutalizing impact of war, and - above all - our ultimate fate of death.' Its many readers 'have turned to it in order to understand something about their own life, death, and humanity.' I've already given reasons why it's an act of callousness, gross ignorance, contemptible stupidity to think of the death of horses as comic. I focus now on tragedy. Here, bullfight apologists are on no surer ground. 'Tragedy' has a very wide meaning now. Almost all human deaths are 'tragic' apart, that is, from the deaths of very old people.The word has come to mean not much more than 'very sad' and 'very regrettable.' The clam that the death of the bull is tragic goes beyond this. Bullfight apologists don't claim that the death of the bull is 'very sad' or 'very regrettable.' If they did, they would want to avoid the death by abolishing the bullfight. What they are doing is claiming a linkage with literary tragedy. The study of literary tragedy is the essential background to any claim that the bullfight is a tragedy. Certainly, I'd expect bullfight apologists to have done the necessary study, before any mention of the death of the bull as 'tragic.' Bullfight apologists seem to have a simplified understanding of tragedy, focussing attention on the solitary death of the tragic protagonist, identified in bullfighting with the bull. In fact, very many tragedies don't end with the death of the protagonist. If the protagonist does die, the death of the protagonist may be quiet and uneventful, lacking the distinctive characteristics of tragic death. Other characters may die together with the protagonist, so that the effect of a solitary tragic death is blunted. I've a familiarity with Shakespearean tragedy but particular knowledge of the tragic writing which inaugurated the whole magnificent tragic enterprise, the tragedy of ancient Greece. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance and the influence of Aristotle's 'Poetics,' despite its brevity, as an examination of tragedy, although tragedy is only one of its themes. My comments here are necessarily brief. Very much to be recommended is reading the 'Poetics.' One accessible version is published by Penguin Classics, with an illuminating introduction by the translator, Malcolm Heath, which will be instructive reading for the average bullfighting supporter, naively convinced that bullfighting is a tragic form and the bull a tragic protagonist. In the brief extracts below, though, I use my own translations from the 'Poetics.' In the analysis of tragedy, plot is the primary element for Aristotle. He devotes chapters 7 - 14 almost entirely to his analysis of plot. He distinguishes simple from complex plots, claiming that complex plots are superior. Examining the many complex tragic plots which were familiar to Aristotle and which date from after the time of Aristotle, we can appreciate and admire, their lack of uniformity, their very great differences, their subtle differences, the richness of this one part of cultural history: the enormous differences between the fully-achieved tragic worlds of Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Oedipus the King, Agamemnon, Medea and the rest. The plot of the bullfight is simple, primitively simple, and repetitious. Bullfighting supporters love the special terms in Spanish which give them the feeling that they are insiders, that they know the meaning of potent special words, one denied to outsiders. So, both Hemingway's 'Death in the Afternoon' and A L Kennedy's 'On Bullfighting' include Glossaries of these Very Important Words. Although an outsider, very much an outsider, I use some of these terms here. The primitive plot of the bullfight consists of these three 'Acts:' First Act: Suerte de Varas, 'The Act of Spears' in which the bull is stabbed with the lance of the picador. Second Act: Suerte de Banderillas, in which the bull is stabbed with six barbed darts. Third Act: Suerte de Matar, also known as the faena, 'The Act of the Kill,' in which the matador kills the bull with a single sword thrust, more than one sword thrust, or by hacking at the spine once or repeatedly. People who pay money to see one 'performance' will see the Suerte de Varas, the Suerte de Banderillas and the Suerte de Matar repeated six times, since six bulls are killed. Anyone who sees 100 bullfights will see these Acts repeated 600 times. The overwhelming complexity and richness of the plots of literary tragedy goes with the overwhelming complexity and richness of character - the hesitations, doubts, deviousness, goodness, moral badness, the whole inner life and all the actions of the protagonist and the other characters. Although bulls are varied, 'cowardly' or 'brave,' predictable or unpredictable, with a degree of individuality, Oedipus, Hamlet and King Lear are infinitely more varied, more richly varied, and the tragedies in which they appear are infinitely more varied, more richly varied, than any bullfights. Again, the bullfight is primitive by comparison with a work of achieved literary tragedy. Bullfighting apologists make a great deal of the 'knowledge of bulls' possessed by the bullfighters and the better-informed elements of the audience. But again, this knowledge is surely pitifully limited in comparison with the knowledge and the insight needed to appreciate adequately the masterpieces of literary tragedy. In the bullfight, the fate of the protagonist, the bull, is rigid and predictable - the bull always dies, except for those rare occasions when pardoned, and everything in the bullfight leads up to the death of the bull. The death of the tragic protagonist which is central to the bullfight plays a less important role in literary tragedy in some cases. Aristotle hardly mentions death in tragedy in the 'Poetics.' His examination of tragedy was based upon a much greater number of Greek tragedies than the ones available to us, of course. At the beginning of his discussion, he gives a definition of tragedy, which makes no mention of it. The account, including its important terms, require extended analysis. Below, I give particular attention to 'magnitude,' μέγεθος. (Bekker 1449b.20): 'Tragedy is an imitation of an admirable action, which has completeness and magnitude, in language which has been made a source of pleasure, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narrative, and giving through pity and fear the purification of these emotions.' The surviving Greek tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are in accordance with Aristotle's discussion: the death of the protagonist is far from being invariable or if it does occur is not necessarily the distinctive tragic death. A few examples, from each of these tragedians. Aeschylus' 'The Persians' takes place at the court of the Persian king. A messenger arrives to announce the Persian defeat at the hands of the Greeks - this based on historical fact. King Xerxes arrives, a broken man, and the play ends with him a broken man. The first play of Aeschylus' Oresteian trilogy portray the death of Agamemnon, the second the death of his murderer Clytemnestra at the hands of Orestes, but the third play, 'The Eumenides,' portrays the acquittal of Orestes and is without a tragic death. In Sophocles' 'Oedipus the King,' Oedipus survives. When he does die, in 'Oedipus at Colonus,' his death is quiet, not a violent tragic death. Sophocles' 'Philoctetes' has a happy ending. (See my examination of Seamus Heaney's version of the play.) Euripides' 'The Women of Troy' portrays the sufferings of a group of women from a captured city awaiting slavery. The tragedies of the seventeenth century French dramatist Corneille, like 'Philoctetes,' end happily. The tragedies of Shakespeare do show the death of the protagonist, but although each of these takes place in what is obviously a tragedy, I'd argue that they are not necessarily tragic deaths, deaths with the distinctiveness of tragic deaths. In Hamlet, for instance, the death of Hamlet lacks tragic distinctiveness because it is part of a general blood-letting - Shakespeare to this extent repeating a notorious aspect of Titus Andronicus with vastly greater and more mature artistry. In a short period of time, not only Hamlet dies but Gertrude, Laertes and Claudius. The entire royal family is finished off. The death itself may be strangely muted, at least in comparison with the highly charged and dramatically momentous events which have preceded them, as with the deaths of Othello, Macbeth and King Lear. The death of King Lear has a linkage with the quiet death of Oedipus. The three 'Acts' which end with the death of a bull, repeated six times in a bullfight, last altogether about a quarter of an hour or a little longer. I write about this time-scale in my page aphorisms: 'There are no great theatrical masterpieces which last only a quarter of an hour. They need longer than that for their unfolding, to have their impact. Aristotle, in the 'Poetics,' wrote that 'Tragedy is an imitation of an action that ...possesses magnitude.' (Section 4.1) The word he uses for 'magnitude' is μέγεθος, and it expresses the need that the dramatic action should be imposing and not mean, not limited in extent. Aristotle's view here isn't binding, but it does express an artistic demand which more than the so-called 'unities' has a continuing force. The 15 minutes, approximately, which elapse from the entry of the bull until its death are far too little for the demands of a more ambitious art. The complete bullfighting session is simply made up of these 15 minutes repeated six times, with six victims put to death. This repetition doesn't in the least amount to magnitude, to 'megethos.' The scale of bullfighting doesn't have adequacy. The scale of Greek drama does have adequacy. Shakespearean themes needed a drama with still greater scale for adequacy. The history of tragedy has been very long and eventful, but we have to reckon too with the death of tragedy, or tragedy changed out of all recognition. In contemporary conditions, the tragic sense is modified, blunted, often overturned. We are forced to become critical, to become suspicious. Contemporary life gives us so many examples of deaths and sufferings which can be avoided, by the advances of science and technology, as well as deaths and sufferings which are brought about by science and technology. In both cases, human decisions, plans and mistakes are fundamental. Deaths in car crashes, like the death of Myrtle Wilson described above, are so often avoidable and easily avoidable - just take care to use a seat-belt, to observe speed limits, and so on. These risks can be lowered by passing suitable laws. The dangers, sufferings and deaths of the bullfight, we are reminded, aren't eternal, part of the tragic lot of humanity and the animal kingdom, but easily preventable - just ban the bullfight, and they are gone. Although death is inevitable, death at a certain time and place is very often anything but. The only reason why a bull dies in the late afternoon on a certain day at Arles or Nîmes is because the bullfight hasn't been abolished. When we read words to the effect that the bull was 'born and bred for this moment' (the moment of death in the bull-ring - not that the death usually takes only a moment) then we have to protest that this wasn't a destiny, it was far from being an example of tragic inevitability, it was the result of a decision. Modern scepticism has to be taken into account. There's a parallel with the scepticism which illusions bring to sensory experience. Not everything that people see or hear has to be acknowledged as real. Under certain conditions, people can see towers, trees or other objects which don't exist. The fact that some people experience hallucinations, like the experience of optical illusions, lead us to treat the senses with scepticism, suspicion, even if we have grounds for thinking that not all sensory experience is untrustworthy. Similarly with the intense emotions, intense aesthetic experiences and the pleasure and satisfaction which bullfight apologists claim to experience at a bullfight. They have to be approached with complete caution. Not all emotions are checked by scepticism any more than sensory experience - the emotions of mountaineers not at all, except for those emotions with a clear origin in pathology, such as ones brought on by oxygen starvation. But many emotions, sincerely and uncritically felt, don't withstand scrutiny. Nietzsche, 'Thus spake Zarathustra,' Part 3: 'For man is the cruellest animal. At tragedies, bullfights and crucifixions, he has hitherto been happiest on earth...' People are denied the intense emotions of a crucifixion for very good reasons: not due to modern squeamishness or sentimentality, but due to a real modern advance. Moral advances in our attitude to animals make the strong emotions of the bullfight just as wrong. Michael Jacobs, in his book 'Andalucia' is one of those writers who have described the silence before the bull is killed, a time of intense drama - supposedly. He claims that there isn't only 'butchery' in the arena. At times, bullfighting becomes 'one of the more moving and mysterious of human activities.' These intense experiences melt away with just a little attention to the disastrously misguided ethics of the killing. (Completely relevant too is the fact that whilst the audience is appreciating this 'moving and mysterious' experience, the picador's horse may well be shaking, in agony, after being charged by the bull and hit by the bull with full force.) A comparison: Richard J, Evans, in his 'Rituals of Retribution,' which is concerned with the history of capital punishment in Germany (and one of the most important of all works of 'humanitarian history') gives information about executions in Leipzig in the 1680's, at a time when Bach was composing there. The scene has to be imagined. 'There was a precise order laid down for the procession to the scaffold.' There was often beautiful music to accompany the procession, performed to a high standard (even if there's no record that Bach himself officiated.) One can imagine the malefactor awaiting the blow from the executioner's sword, the silence before the blow fell, the consummate emotion. These things may have been felt, but they could not be justified. High emotion isn't self-justifying. Of course, the victim may have been guilty of theft rather than murder, may have been innocent of the crime altogether. The silence, the intensity of emotion, were present at the execution of an innocent victim just as at another execution. In modern conditions, in liberal countries, the public beheading of a guilty murderer is unthinkable, no matter what the emotional loss for the spectators, the denial of their opportunity to feel spiritual intensity as the head of the victim falls with the swoop of the executioner's sword. Intense emotion may be due simply to ignorance, lack of knowledge. Someone who knows nothing about wine drinks a sample and is in ecstasy. With further experience, the memory of the ecstasy becomes embarrassing. The wine was one-dimensional, crude. Someone becomes interested in music and is delighted by a performance or a recording - which become hopelessly limited and crude with the growth of understanding. These insights can lead not just to an appreciation of the better and the worse within an activity but to the rejection of the activity itself: to the rejection of bullfighting as an activity, in this case. In 'Death in the Afternoon,' Hemingway discusses appreciation of wine, but doesn't allow for the growth of consciousness which would lead to the rejection of bullfighting. Although there can be 'better' matadors and 'worse' matadors, in the opinion of aficionados, bullfighting will be found hopelessly crude in comparison with developed art forms. George Steiner's book, 'The Death of Tragedy' is concerned with the literary genre of tragedy. He argues that a genre which includes some of the greatest works of literature - including the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, the tragedies of Shakespeare - is exhausted, at an end. I don't agree, but his discussion is interesting. George Steiner traces the decline and fall of tragedy in detail, and gives various reasons. For example, 'It is not between Euripides and Shakespeare that the western mind turns away from the ancient tragic sense of life. It is after the late seventeenth century.' The seventeenth century marks the beginning of the scientific revolution. 'It is the triumph of rationalism and secular metaphysics which marks the point of no return. Shakespeare is closer to Sophocles than he is to Pope and Voltaire...The modes of the imagination implicit in Athenian tragedy continued to shape the life of the mind until the age of Descartes and Newton.' There is also the impact of changes in social conditions. 'In Athens, in Shakespeare's England...the hierachies of worldly power were stable and manifest. The wheel of social life spun around the royal or aristocratic centre.' The tragic heroes of the ages of literary tragedy include King Lear and Oedipus the King. In actual fact, George Steiner does claim that literary works of tragic feeling were created subsequently, but now, tragic death and suffering were democratic. He claims that Büchner's Woyzeck 'is the first real tragedy of low life.' And, 'Büchner was the first who brought to bear on the lowest order of men the solemnity and compassion of tragedy.' The semi-mythical status accorded to the bull in so many accounts of the bullfighting apologists, the stress upon the bull's power, seem to be an attempt to equate the bull with the tragic hero created before the seventeenth century. In contemporary conditions, this is archaic and cannot work. A part, probably a large part, of the supposed artistry of the bullfight comes from the work with the cape, the swirling and flowing of the cape. If there were no death and cruelty involved, it might be fine, impressive, like those displays of flag swirling, but by no stretch of the imagination a major art form. Skiers can make beautiful, exhilarating patterns in the snow with their carved turns - and 'extreme' skiers, who can lose their life with one single mistake, are certainly engaged in a far more hazardous activity than bullfighters. The Telemark turn of downhill cross-country skiers '...is so elegant and graceful that onlookers often say it looks like a waltz.' (Steve Barnett, 'Cross-Country Downhill.') I used to be a cross-country skier, with a particular interest in cross-country downhill. But skiers don't generally claim that their turns amount to an art form. I wouldn't claim that in the least. The technique of bullfighting, such as the action of the wrists, is surely not nearly as subtle, intricate and complex as the technique of a developed skill such as violin playing, which makes extraordinary demands on neuro-muscular co-ordination, not just of the fingers and hand but the shoulder, arm, elbow and wrist, requiring intense, arduous and protracted study. Working at just one aspect of technique (and emotional expression) such as the vibrato, requires long and patient study. (I play the violin and viola.) Both bullfighters and musicians practise, bullfighters, for example, by sticking banderillas into a target on wheels or practising killing with a 'killing carriage' but even amateur musicians are surely practising skills which are vastly more complex than those of the bullfighters. My own studies with the Hungarian violinist Rudolph Botta have left an indelible impression. The appreciation of music generally demands insights and emotions of a vastly greater range, vastly more subtle and complex, than the appreciation of the crowd at a bullfighting. See my page music. 'The Rough Guide to Spain' on aficionados: 'a word that implies more knowledge and appreciation than "fan"' - but, I'm sure, far less knowledge and appreciation than that needed for a developed art. In my page on Poetry and Music, I give extracts from the writing of Basil Lam as evidence. Bullring ballet and bulls vomiting blood One of the comments on this Youtube video, 'Toro vomitando sangre,' 'Bull vomiting blood' 'Don't be deceived by your eyes. Just keep saying to yourself, "This is a beautiful art like ballet." ' To many defenders of bullfighting, including this comment-writer on the Youtube film, my revulsion at the blood pouring out of this bull's mouth will seem hopelessly crude and misguided. According to this perspective, the blood and stabbings, including the vomiting of blood after stabbing with the sword, are incidental, not the essence of the corrida: the corrida requires an appreciation of nimbleness, agility, dexterity, poise, grace, delicacy as well as strength and above all beauty. Some aficionados regard the corrida as having linkages with accomplished ballroom dancing - bullring dancing - but more often linkages with ballet - bullring ballet. Daniel Hannan writes, ' 'The Spaniard is watching, not a contest, but a ritualised dance: a relationship so tender and tragic that it might almost be called love.' I'm completely familiar with this viewpoint. Anyone with any knowledge of the writing of aficionados will be aware of it. But I believe that it's a grossly misleading viewpoint and can't possibly justify the corrida. Treating the violence of the corrida, its spilling of blood as incidental, amounts to active distortion and falsification. No bullfighter can guarantee that he (or she) will kill a bull instantly. A bull vomiting blood is a common, not a rare occurrence. The focus of attention here is on bullfighters on foot, not mounted bullfighters, 'rejoneadores.' In their case, it's the highly-trained horse which makes the agile and graceful movements. Clicking on this link shows the end result. The hideous photograph shows, in the words of the caption, 'Spanish 'rejoneador' or mounted bullfighter Pablo Hermoso de Mendoza celebrates his kill during his bullfight at the Santamaria bullring in Bogota, Colombia ...' The agility and nimbleness of the banderilleros are striking, but unlike ballet-dancers, their choreography is subject to powerful moral objections. Their nimble steps take them up to the bull and allow them to evade the bull, but the act of stabbing the bull with the six banderillas is no incidental matter. Hemingway acknowledges the suffering caused by these stabbings, but writes of the bull, 'I keep my admiration for him always, but felt no more sympathy for him than for a canvas or the marble a sculptor cuts or the dry powder snow your skis cut through.' This is aestheticism without ethics, an evasion, the failure to take into account the crucial and obvious difference between canvas, marble, snow on the one hand and the bull on the other: the bull is a sentient being, with the capacity for pain. Alexander Fiske-Harrison acknowledges the pain caused by the banderillas too, but only in his internet writing, not in his book. (His description of his killing of a bull makes it clear that the bull took some time to die: it's not in the least unlikely that this bull too was vomiting blood, like the bull in the film.) No aficionado makes any claim for artistry in the work of the picador who spears the bull in the first 'Act' of the bullfight, but the injury to the bull, the sentient being, is far from incidental in this case too. The 'matador,' like the banderillero, does attempt a kind of ballet and of a more ambitious kind. The choreography in both kinds is necessarily improvisational and the circumstances make completely unattainable any developed artistry fit to be compared with ballet. The word 'matador' means 'killer.' Aficionados may prefer to think of the bullring as the stage where the ballet is being performed but the bullring is after all a slaughterhouse. If nimbleness, agility, dexterity, poise, grace, delicacy as well as strength and above all beauty are the essence of the bullfight, then aficionados would find all these qualities in bloodless displays featuring performer and bull. Blood, violence and injury are intrinsic aspects of the corrida, central and not peripheral. The corrida's linkages with the Roman venationes are obvious. The Romans watched these fights between men (sometimes women) and wild animals in their arenas. If, in Roman times, these fights against wild animals, like the gladiatorial combats in which men and sometimes women were killed, had developed to stress 'artistry,' and Romans had appreciated the choreography of the wild animal killers and the choreography of the gladiators, then the ethical objections to the wounding and killing would be left undiminished. An aficionado could be described, not just as a person who appreciates the corrida in a 'knowledgeable' way, but as a person who, amongst other things, discounts and evades these intrinsic aspects of the corrida. When aficionados decry, from their superior knowledge, the use of the term 'bullfighting,' they are surely evading a central aspect. Hemingway refers to 'bullfighting' and 'bullfighters' throughout 'Death in the Afternoon,' but some aficionados would be unwilling to grant that Hemingway was an aficionado at all. The back cover of Alexander Fiske-Harrison's 'Into the Arena' mentions 'bullfighting,' 'the bullfight' and 'fighting bulls.' The 'true essence' of the bullfight is described as 'man against bull in a life or death struggle from which only one can emerge alive.' (But this is misleading. The bull is overwhelmingly likely to emerge dead, the bullfighter overwhelmingly likely to emerge alive, despite any impression of comparable risks.) As in the case of Hemingway, Alexander Fiske-Harrison uses throughout his book the terms 'bullfight,' 'bullfighting' and 'bullfighter,' in a way which may well offend refined aficionados who prefer not to associate their art with violence or even with what Daniel Hannan describes as 'contest.' The account in which Daniel Hannan claims that 'The Spaniard is watching, not a contest, but a ritualised dance: a relationship so tender and tragic that it might almost be called love' also contains this, 'The bull took two pics, the second of which went in repeatedly and way off to one side. After the banderillas, as the bull stood spurting fountains of blood ... ' there was 'a miserable excuse for a sword-thrust into the bull’s flank.' I'd prefer to use the term 'bull-stabber' rather than 'bullfighter.' There are three kinds of bull-stabber: the picador, who stabs the bull with a lance, the banderilllero, who stabs the bull with barbed banderillas, and the matador, who stabs the bull with a sword. But on this page, I use the established word 'bullfighter.' Any claim by aficionados that the anti-bullfighting activist is bound to have an 'external,' view of bullfighting, or, as they would prefer, the 'corrida,' that the activist can't possibly understand the world of the aficionado or the matador, is very much mistaken. We're not in the least fated to understand only those things we support and appreciate or to fail to understand those things we oppose. Readers have access to many, many worlds at great {distance} from what happens to be their own world, worlds provided by the great novelists and writers of non-fiction and worlds it's possible to understand by our own insights: the worlds of Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, Raskolnikov, Malone, of fictional and non-fictional politicians, shopkeepers, financiers, labourers, criminals, detectives and of course so many more worlds - including the worlds of aficionados and matadors. The aficionado who feels superior to bullfighting supporters who are non-aficionados and very much more superior to opponents of bullfighting relies amongst other things on superior knowledge of the correct terms - 'the corrida,' instead of 'bullfighting,' for example, and may well feel that correcting the misconceptions of others amounts to a confirmation of the importance and legitimacy of the activity - not so. The aficionado has a knowledge of these terms, and many more (the quotation is from 'Into the Arena,' Chapter 17): 'Using the language of the first matador, Pedro Romero, you need parar, templar and mandar. Parar means 'to stop' or 'to stake' - as in poker - and refers to the matador standing his ground. Templar means 'to temper' or 'to tune', adjusting the cape to the bull's charge and / or adjusting the bull's charge with the cape. Mandar means 'to send', with the sense of command, and refers to sending the bull safely away from the body to the place of your choosing.' There follows a discussion of a further term, cargar la suerte, which he translates as 'to load the dice'. (The Club Taurino of London proudly displays these terms on the Home Page of its Website.) John Gordon's account 'Morante de la Puebla:my Morantismo, his Tauromaquia' (published by the Club Taurino of London in 'La Divisa') is a fairly representative account of intricate and technical aficionado writing, more so than anything in Alexander Fiske-Harrison's book, or Hemingway's, for that matter. An instructive quotation: ' ... not only are his molinetes quite belmontinos, but his kikirikís are reminiscent of Gallito and his naturales de frente are his particular tribute to the post-war toreo of Manolo Vázquez.' He has an aesthete's as well as a technician's viewpoint, assessing the 'technical and aesthetic' performance of the matador Morante, commenting amongst other things on the common passes and the less common passes, including the 'media chicuendina. ' He discusses named individual passes and the linkage ('ligazón') of passes [not an aspect of linkage which appeals to me at all], and the various actions, such as swivelling, pivoting, leaning, the shifting of weight. Tristan Wood, also writing in 'La Divisa, in a very matter of fact way about another bullfighter:' ' 'At Barcarrota, he [José Luis Moreno] gave his opening Sepúlveda toro some decent verónicas [passes with the cape, the caape held up in front with both hands] before watching it savage the picador’s horse in a huge derribo, [knocking over] the bull rolling the caballo [horse] as it lay on the ground and inflicting a cornada [horn wound] in its right flank.' Tristan Wood is the author of 'How to watch a bullfight.' As soon as it's realized that watching gladiators fight to the death in the Roman arena would no more be legitimated by technical terms and 'knowledge' than bullfighting (or the 'corrida') then the aficionado's pride and status are suddenly shown to be without any foundation. If the Romans had developed the 'aesthetic' aspect of gladiator-fighting and had developed 'artistic' moves, instead of stressing brute force, skill and courage, then the {separation} of the aeesthetic and the ethical would be clear (I don't of course deny that there are linkages.) John Gordon notes that 'Morante is very poor with the sword in his hand, and this is surely the most mediocre side of his toreo. It is only necessary to watch the way he lines up for the kill, his right arm seemingly contorted and in the wrong place. What is worse, he goes “out” away from the bull before he has even reached the jurisdiction of the morrillo. [morillo: the large muscle mass in the region of the bull's neck.] Ultimately, there is a lack of conviction when he goes in for the swordthrust, and, when one does not enter believing that the sword will go in, more often than not, the result will be a pinchazo.' A pinchazo is the term for the sword hitting bone. There may be repeated pinchazos and when at last the sword sinks into the bull without hitting bone, the bull may not be killed. John Gordon writes purely as an aesthete, completely indifferent, it seems, to the fact that the bulls Morante attempts to kill so badly will be suffering intensely. He refers to 'the delicate grace that underlines his aesthetic personality.' John Gordon's account, like the account of other aficionados, is subject to extreme {restriction}. It takes no note of the moral dimension. In the same way, the gourmet-aesthete finds some foie-gras 'mediocre,' some, allegedly, 'heavenly,' and can supply some plausible taste-terms, without giving any thought to the moral dimension. It's often argued that aficionados deplore some common events in the bullring - bulls left weak or almost helpless when they have been lanced by the picador too vigorously, bulls which take a long time to die when the killing sword is used. Their objections have nothing to do with humanitarian ethics at all. They are simply thinking of their own enjoyment, with the limited perspective of the aesthete rather than a moral being. It would be possible to eliminate tampering with the bull before it enters the ring but once it's in the ring, it's impossible to eliminate these absolutely common events, since the picadors, banderilleros and matadors are never able to stab the bull in the 'correct' places, in the conditions of the bullfight, and even if they were, moral objections would remain. Aficionados' knowledge of the bullfight and its technical terms, the much lesser knowledge of almost all opponents of bullfighting, prove nothing about the moral status of the bullfight. If an opponent, unlike the aficionado, is unaware that the sword thrust is intended to pierce the aorta of the bull not its heart and is unaware that the sword thrust is called an 'estocada,' unless it hits bone, in which case the term is 'pinchazo,' then the act of killing is in no way legitimated by the superior knowledge of the aficionado. In the same way, the traditonal Roman Catholic doctrine of hell isn't legitimated by the superior knowledge of the Roman Catholic theologian and the misconceptions of the atheist, who may be unaware of the distinction, for example, between mortal and venial sins. The technical terms of bullfighting aren't to be equated with the technical terms of ballet. They're the technical terms for one or another instances of gross cruelty or its accompaniments. The aficionado knows that a mounted bullfighter is called a 'rejoneador' and that the rejoneador uses 'rejones de castigo' ('lances of punishment') before using the banderillas and eventually the 'rejón de muerte' ('lance of death), the 'descabello' being used on the spine after that in many cases. Opponents of bullfighting who know only that the bull is stabbed repeatedly before being killed have enough knowledge to come to an informed view of the morality of the acts - something which the superior knowledge of the aficionado doesn't guarantee in the least. Bullfighting has linkages with ballet, but ballet is an incomparably more developed art than bullfighting. Aficionados like John Gordon can point to a repertoire of movements in bullfighting, ones which they see performed very well or not nearly so well, but the actions of ballet are incomparably more intricate, skilful and varied. The predominant motion of the bullfight, on which other movements are superimposed, is monotonously elliptical to a considerable extent. The bull is forced to move around the bullfighter in approximate more or less elongated ellipses, more often ragged than smooth, again and again. The actions of ballet are anything but monotonous. (But bullfighting isn't objectionable primarily on aesthetic grounds such as these.) Aficionados who now feel an urgent need to supplement their 'knowledge' with an understanding of ethical dilemmas and ethical debate in general, have at least and at last begun to appreciate the enormity of their task, but are surely untypical. 'Afición' is generally knowledge of one sphere and shocking ignorance of other spheres of direct relevance to the continued existence of the activity they support. Bullfighting and comedy Hemingway had a less than sure feeling for comedy. He found comedy where there was none at all, in the death of the horses in the bull-ring, and was oblivious to comedy in his own writing. Isn't this comic, or, rather, bizarre? It comes from the Glossary of the book, where, as well as explaining the diseased world of bull-fighting, he includes an entry on, of all things: 'Tacones: heels; tacones de goma are rubber heels: these are sold by ambulatory vendors who will come up to you while you are seated in the cafe, cut the heel off your shoe with a sort of instant-acting leather-cutting pincers they carry, in order to force you to put on a rubber heel. The rubber heels they attach are of a low, worthless grade...If any rubber-heel attacker ever cuts a heel of your shoe without your having first definitively ordered a pair of rubber heels, kick him in the belly or under the jaw [!] and get the heels put on by someone else...There is one sinister-faced Catalan high-pressured heel ripper...I gave him that [whether a kick in the belly or under the jaw isn't specified] but he is more of a dodger by now and you might have difficulty landing on him. The best thing when you see this particular heel-selling bastard (hijo de puta will do) approaching is to take off your shoes and put them inside your shirt. If he then attempts to attach rubber heels to your bare feet [!], send for the American or British Consul.' For Hemingway, 'in the tragedy of the bullfight the horse is the comic character ... Therefore the worse the horses are, provided they are high enough off the ground and solid enough so that the picador can perform his mission with the spiked pole, or vara, the more they are a comic element.' And in connection with the disembowelling of the horses, 'There is certainly nothing comic by our standards in seeing an animal emptied of its visceral content, but if this animal instead of doing something tragic, that is, dignified, gallops in a stiff old-maidish fashion around the ring trailing the opposite of clouds of glory, it is as comic it was the horse which provided the comic touch' then according to Hemingway it is as comic as burlesque farce: 'If one is comic the other is; the humour comes from the same principle ... I have seen these, call them disembowellings, that is the worst word, when, due to their timing, they were very funny.' See also Seamus Heaney on the actions of the banderillero, (stabbing the bull six times) which he thinks are 'closer to comedy than tragedy.' The humour of some bullfighting enthusiasts, their idea of 'fun', make a deeply depressing study. The animal victims of the 'informal events' of Spanish fiestas are presumably regarded as hilarious, light relief from the solemn 'tragedy' of the corrida itself. A page on the impressive Web site of FAACE gives examples. The live goats thrown from the church tower in Manganeses de la Polvorosa, the pigeons and squirrels stoned in Robledo de Chavela, the live chickens hung from a line and hacked to pieces in Tordesillas, the chickens buried up to their necks and beheaded by the blindfolded villagers of Aduna, the bulls attacked with hundreds of darts in Coria. [This has now been ended.] See also the sombre, harrowing, informative, intelligent page on the same Web site, http://www.faace.co.uk/faqs2.htm. The same page includes comments on the 'hazy and outrageous mythology' of the bullfight industry and the economic momentum which perpetuates the bullfight. Donkeys are sometimes used in a 'hilarious' event which mimics the mainstream Corrida. (And sometimes there's another 'hilarious' character - a dwarf dressed as a bullfighter.) The horse is regarded as a comic character in the bullfight (so its sufferings are of no account) and a donkey is even more comic. Bullfighting and 'duende' He went and saw it often, Lorca: the bulls' as they stumbled and died suddenly glazed eyes, as if no longer able to comprehend the Spanish arguments for death and torture. From frantic sun to shade, overshadowing the dazed end of the poet and his monstrous lies - fated to be scythed and beginning to fade. He writes of duende that 'its most impressive effects appear in the bullring.' Duende, he claims, isn't needed for all phases of the bullfight, but 'in the work with the cape, while the bull is still free of wounds, and at the moment of the kill, the aid of the duende is required to drive home the nail of artistic truth.' And, 'Spain is unique, a country where death is a national spectacle, where death sounds great bugle blasts on the arrival of Spring.' He refers, of course, to the start of the bullfighting season at Easter, but his reference to Spanish uniqueness is obviously wrong, ignoring the bullfighting traditions in Southern France and Latin America. Duende encompasses the death of people as well as bulls. I give statements from one short paragraph of Lorca's essay, on separate lines, so that their profundity, or stupidity, stands out more clearly, depending on the views of the reader: 'In every country death has finality. Not in Spain. A dead person in Spain is more alive than is the case anywhere else.' The dead of the Somme, Passchendaele, Verdun and Auschwitz and the other extermination camps, being almost all non-Spanish and dying far from Spain, are denied, then, the consolation of being 'more alive' enjoyed by, for example, the Spaniards who died in the Spanish civil war, the Spanish women who died in childbirth before the development of modern medicine, the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, as well as their torturers and executioners. So many of Lorca's claims are superficially deep, reminding us of the 'dark gods' of D H Lawrence at his worst: 'the duende has to be roused from the furthest habitations of the blood,' and 'quoting the Spanish composer Falla: 'all that has dark sounds has duende.' Lorca sharply distinguishes duende from the Muse, 'which stirs the intellect' and the Angel. The Muse, according to Lorca, 'lifts the poet into the bondage of aristocratic fineness, where he forgets that he might be eaten, suddenly, by ants, or that a huge arsenical lobster might fall on his head - things against which the Muses who inhabit monocles, or the roses of lukewarm lacquer in a tiny salon, have no power.' In a similar style, he refers to 'that other melancholy demon of Descartes, diminutive as a green almond, that, tired of lines and circles, fled along the canals to listen to the singing of drunken sailors.' This from someone who has a towering reputation in European culture. He goes so far as to give a definition of duende, one of the most useless and empty definitions imaginable: 'a mysterious force that everyone feels and no philosopher has explained.' As is shown by the fact that the definition was originally drawn up by Goethe to describe the violinist and composer Paganini. How does an Andalucian with the Anadulucian view of death regard those who do everything they can to save life? Grudgingly? I think that the Andalucian attitude, like the acceptance of Rilke, fails. With apologies to the people of Andalucia who aren't so limited as to share these obsessions and confusions. Bullfighting and seduction 'From the Website of the French anti-bullfighting organization 'Alliance anti-corrida,' 'Bullfights use the very perverse effects of seduction: colours, costumes full of light, brass bands, sunshine. Everything is set up in order to mask the bloody reality. To this list could be added the haughty or grimly determined look of the bullfighter in his (or sometimes her) colourful costume. Although these are completely familiar, I include an image. It evidently shows a bullfighter superimposed on a separate image of a bullring background but the image of the bullfighter is important here, not the background. The morality of the bullfight can never be confirmed by any of its outward trappings. The costumes of the matadors, the procession before the bullfight, the language ('the moment of truth'), the music, to some people (but the brass bands may well be found completely unseductive) convert some people to the substitute religion or supplementary religion of the bullfight, they make the bullfight acceptable to many, many people, or far more than 'acceptable,' but that is all they are - trappings, appearances. If horses and bulls were treated in the bullring in exactly the same way as now but the bullfighters were people in nondescript clothes who made no attempt to pose, if 'the moment of truth' were to be described as 'the attempt at killing,' then the immorality of bullfighting would be even more widely recognized. Bullfighters and bullfighting supporters aren't 'Nazis' - this is a word that has to be used very carefully - but there are linkages in the use of seduction and propaganda and in their mythologizing. Nazi Germany understood very well how to seduce the senses and mask the reality of its brutal and degraded regime: torchlit processions, the vast displays of might at Nuremberg. Leni Riefenstahl's film 'Triumph of the Will' shows the Nuremberg uses Wagner's 'Götterdämmerung, the beating of drums, the singing of the Horst Wessel-Lied, the shadow of Hitler's plane, the consecration of Nazi Party flags, a giant swastika, silhouetted men, vast numbers of men. Ethical depth so often requires looking beyond the seductive appearance and if most Germans at the time never did so, some Germans were never fooled, and often paid with their lives. The Roman Catholic Church has brought many into its fold and kept many within it despite any doubts by its very often masterful use of visual spectacle, the visual appeal of priestly vestments, by the musical and architectural riches which are part of its heritage, by the evocative language of the Mass. But again, it's necessary to look beyond any seductive appearances. Roman Catholic theology - including the ban on artificial methods of contraception and abortion in all circumstances, the concept of mortal sin, until not so very long ago the belief that unbaptized babies could never enter heaven, the belief in hell, and the rest - cannot possibly be confirmed by any of these outward trappings. San Francisco Opera, Susan McClary and Carmen Below, there's information about the production of Carmen due to be given by San Francisco Opera later this year. Susan McClary, a musicologist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, is the author of the book 'Carmen.' There's a critical section on the book, with much more information on the background to the opera, in my page on Cambridge University (the book is published by Cambridge University Press, a department of the university.) Susan McClary completely neglected the topic of the ethical objections to bullfighting in her book on the opera - even though this is the only opera to have a bullfighting setting. San Francisco opera, in its obnoxious, misleading publicity material, which I quote, neglects the topic too. From the libretto of 'Carmen': ESCAMILLO (to Carmen) If you love me, Carmen soon you can be proud of me. CARMEN Ah! I love you, Escamillo, I love you, and may I die if I have ever loved anyone as much as you! TOGETHER Ah! I love you! Yes, I love you! The bullfighter Escamillo is soon to fight in the bullring. It's his prowess in the bullring which will supposedly make Carmen proud of him. 'Meet the hottest woman in all of Seville—a free spirit who knows what she wants and isn’t afraid to go get it. But what happens when the attention she attracts turns obsessive? Find out in this pulse-pounding, picturesque production.' And this propaganda-publicity The Art of the Bullfight 'If you want a more complete picture of Spanish culture, study bullfighting. Famous writers of various nationalities have eloquently expressed that sentiment from Federico García Lorca to Ernest Hemingway, most notably in the American author’s Death in the Afternoon. “It is impossible to believe the emotional and spiritual intensity and the pure, classic beauty that can be produced by a man, an animal and a piece of scarlet serge,” Hemingway wrote in 1932. Although he never visited the country, Georges Bizet (along with Carmen co-librettists Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halévy) knew that no story set in Spain would be complete without channeling the passion and mythos intrinsic to the bullfight—or toreo as it is known in Spanish-speaking countries. That fascination continues today with films such as Blood and Sand, based on Vicente Blasco Ibáñez’s best-selling novel, and Pedro Almodóvar’s Matador. 'Yet for outsiders there are still a number of misconceptions surrounding this vital aspect of Spanish culture. First, as Edward F. Stanton writes in his comprehensive Handbook of Spanish Popular Culture, bullfighting is neither sport nor entertainment. It is ceremony, a way of life deeply rooted in Spanish society—in effect, a solemn and sacred dance of life and death. What’s more, bullfighting is theater, as cathartic as ancient Greek tragedy. Not a competition between man and bull, but, as Stanton writes, “a mutual participation in a prescribed ritual, or as some have suggested, a kind of sublimated lovemaking.” But isn’t bullfighting inherently cruel and savage, in which the bull or (less likely) the man must die? Spaniards also fervently debate the question. “Take away the bull and we’ll see what is left,” wrote Spanish author Antonio Gala. “Would we recognize ourselves without the passion for and against the bull?” For the bull is the country’s most identifiable symbol. As early as the first century A.D., the Iberian Peninsula was described by the Greek geographer Strabo as a dried, stretched bull’s hide. Cattle still populate the Spanish countryside—in actuality and as 20-foot-tall, black billboards in the shape of a fighting bull (toro bravo). Originally advertisements for Soberano (“Sovereign”) brandy, these billboards have become national artistic monuments. Fans will trace the origins of Spanish bullfighting as far back as ancient cave paintings and Roman hunts, although the historical record isn’t so certain. What we do know is that for centuries, the Catholic Church in Spain registered its displeasure with bullfighting’s pagan associations, including one edict dating from 447 A.D. Two popes even attempted to outlaw the spectacles in the sixteenth century. During the age of the Enlightenment, Spanish monarchs also tried to prohibit the bulls, yet with little success. Government policy changed entirely during the dictatorship of Francisco Franco (1939–1975), when bullfighting was promoted owing to its strong connection to Spanish tradition. Today, in spite of protests by animal rights advocates and increasing government regulations, bullfighting remains popular. According to one count, there are approximately 8,000 bull-related events celebrated each year in Spain. These include not just the formal bullfight or corrida de toros, but the encierro or running of the bulls immortalized by Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises; capeas, the informal caping of calves, cows, or bulls during fiestas in thousands of town squares; and recortadores or competitions of bull-dodgers practiced by amateurs. In contrast, bullfighting is a centuries-old profession. Nowadays most bullfighters or toreros are trained in formal bullfighting schools, including one in San Diego. In 1976, it became legal for women to be professional bullfighters in Spain. 'In Bizet’s Carmen, there are notable inaccuracies about bullfighting, including the very term toreador which does not exist in Spanish. (It was purportedly invented by Bizet so that the syllables of the word would correspond with the music for the Toreador Song.) However, as Stanton notes in his history of bullfighting, “the most marginal ethnic group in all of Spain, the Gypsies, have made up a disproportionate percentage of matadores,” particularly in more recent times. The hot-blooded Carmen has met her match not with the cool and aloof Don José but with the brave Escamillo. In the end, passion, dignity, and tradition have become synonymous with Spanish bullfighting. Without bullfighters, as the aficionado Fernando Claramunt remarked, “Spain would be like any other place in the world. They are modern man’s last connection to the ancient, heroic past.” ' The misconceptions and falsifications to be found in this passage, and the many more lies and misconceptions used in defence of bullfighting, are addressed on this page. I point out that the bullfighters who are, supposedly, 'modern man's last connection to the ancient, heroic past' have now, and had in the past, only a very remote chance of being killed in the bullring, unlike the vast numbers of people in modern times who face incomparably greater risks. If I lived in San Francisco, I wouldn't attend any of the performances. I'd print leaflets to explain my revulsion and I'd offer a leaflet to people who decided that they would attend - as I've done in the case of a variety of causes, not just opposition to bullfighting. I hope that some San Franciscans will do something similar just before the performances start and during the time when the opera is being performed. I oppose disruption and damage as campaigning techniques in the case of all the causes which I've actively supported. I wouldn't oppose disruption and damage in the case of Nazism, of course. I oppose the view that because 'Carmen' is an opera which is ethically objectionable, in part - the part which is concerned with bullfighting - that the composer Bizet had no melodic gift or that Bizet had no musical strengths. That would be ridiculous. If people want to go to see a performance of 'Carmen' given by this opera company, or any other, then they're entitled to. I hope that audiences of the opera will have enough knowledge of the realities of bullfighting to see through the spurious glamour. Overall, I recommended this course of action to supporters of San Francisco Opera: San Francisco Opera's production of Carmen Stay away. Continue to support San Francisco Opera, but give this production a miss. Let the public at the performances of 'Carmen' be made up entirely of believers, people who in their ignorance really do believe that bullfighters are 'modern man’s last connection to the ancient, heroic past.' Aficionados out there are welcome to point out the mistakes and omissions they find in my account of bullfighting on this page, if they want to, and if they can. I don't take the view that because Susan McClary's book 'Carmen' is very deficient in some ways, such as the ignoring of the questions raised by bullfighting, that the book is completely hopeless. She has many, many strengths as a musicologist, although many, many weaknesses when she strays beyond musicology, which is often. I give a list of people involved in the production, but with no blame attached, with the exception of people who did make the decisions which compromise this production so severely, including Matthew Erikson, who compiled the pro-bullfight propaganda on the San Francisco Opera Website which is quoted above. I regard live opera as very important. I live in a city without an opera company, or a professional orchestra. Music can't flourish where recorded music is the only music on offer. The demands on professional and semi-professional musicians (and the staff of opera companies) are severe. Singers, instrumentalists and conductors face immense difficulties in launching their careers and in the rest of their careers. Except for a minority, they are paid not nearly enough. Cultural stagnation The attention given to the bullfight in Provence, Seville and other places is a sign not of colourful tradition but of stagnation. Any region or country with vitality tries to preserve its strengths and reduce its weaknesses. To be unchanging, to be oblivious to the better intellectual and cultural currents of the age, is a sign of weakness. Great Britain, but particularly England, has a very high regard for tradition but it has at least recognized that tradition can be a sign of weakness as well as strength. It's remarkable that Britain, with all its faults, transformed itself from a bull-baiting and bear-baiting and fox-hunting country, one with no real tradition of animal welfare, to one with such a care for dogs, cats, and injured wildlife, and one which has achieved a very great deal in the abolition of factory farming, although not nearly enough. Countries, as well as people, are not condemned to repeat the past, to perpetuate traditions that have become unacceptable for very good reasons. Practices that seem deeply embedded in a society, too much a part of its tradition to be reformed or abolished, can be ended. Hanging by the neck is an ancient English tradition that has gone. It might have been expected that Spain's fondness for the death penalty would have been reversed with more difficulty. Not so. Execution by garotte and shooting was ended in Spain in a dramatic way. To their credit, not one member of the Spanish parliament voted against abolition. Before bad practices are ended by legislation, though, they may wither away, regarded as obsolete, as an embarrassment. This will be an essential preliminary to the abolition of bullfighting in the bullfighting countries. Andalucia, along with Castilia, is the European region most closely associated with the bullfight. It's argued - more often, simply stated - that Andalucia is so receptive to bullfighting because of the attitude to death there. Northern Europeans, and others, are supposed to confess their limitations at this point, to confess, helplessly, that they can't possibly understand death like the Andalucians, being so much more superficial. That's why so many Northern Europeans, and others, are outraged by the bullfight. They lack this sense of life mysteriously interlinked with death. And how does an Andalucian interpret and make sense of, from the depth of Andalucian insight, those vast repositories of death outside Andalucia, such as the Somme, Passchendaele, Verdun, Stalingrad, and Auschwitz and the other extermination camps? Martin Seymour-Smith is a writer I appreciate very much. I quote him in a number of places in this site. Yet he supported the bull-fight (whilst opposing fox-hunting). His biography of Robert Graves has a photograph which shows the two of them attending a bullfight, Robert Graves looking very worried, Martin Seymour-Smith with a look of evident appreciation. He was a man of contradictions, although of course hardly alone in this. Goya was an ardent supporter of the bullfight and drew pictures of bullfighting scenes, but he is one of the painters who mean a great deal to me. As is clear from his unforgettable series of pictures 'The Disasters of War,' and from such masterpieces as 'The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid' and 'Saturn eating his son,' Goya had deep insights into the violence of the world. His failures in regard to bullfighting are, I think, failures in what I refer to as {adjustment}. I've digressed to make it clear that I see the need to recognize that bullfight supporters are not necessarily to be condemned totally, given no credit for any strengths. Their strengths may be very substantial. Arrival in Provence for the first time from Northern Europe. Impressions, the experience of countless travellers: the heat of the day, the wonderful warmth of the evenings, the powerful leafy scents, the quality of the light, the blue skies, the cypresses, the unexpected wildness of the landscape, French spoken unexpectedly, with a different accent. Is not the ordered bullfight just another sign of local distinctiveness? To abolish it to make a reduction of contrast? In other places in this site, I've made clear that reduction of contrast can't be regarded mechanically, as always good. It has to be evaluated. There are many, many colourful customs, distinctive of a region, which have involved unnecessary harm to men, women or children, as well as animals. Their loss has been a gain. If we carry out a ((survey)) of a region, or a whole country, we find that there is so much to interest us. Provence has so much to interest any traveller that the loss of the bullfight would be insignificant. A survey of the pleasures available would include so much - a very partial list would include the pleasures of eating, of wine, of emotional intensity, sexual intensity, of the landscape, of nature, of the genuine arts, the true arts not fatally compromised by any dependence on the infliction of suffering and death. The bullfight apologist might even discover that the world of animals becomes an absorbing interest. The English writer V S Pritchett describes the pleasures of life in Spain in 'The Spanish Temper' and 'Foreign Faces.' In 'Foreign Faces,' he gives a memorable portrait of Seville, the city of Figaro and Don Giovanni. The overwhelming impressions as he enters the city: 'Inside the city white walls are buried in bougainvillea and wistaria and all climbing flowers, geraniums hanging from thousands of white balconies, great lilies in windows, carnations at street corners, and roses climbing up the walls and even the trees so that all the gasps and hyperbole of pleasure are on our lips.' He goes on to describe momentous, thrilling, dramatic aspects of life in Seville. As for the bullfights held there, '...this spectacle has its terrible periods of boredom...There are plenty of people in the crowd coming away from the bull ring complaining of the enormous prices charged, the commercialisation of the show and the decline in its quality.' The 'decline in its quality:' V S Pritchett judged the whole thing purely in terms of human pleasure. He was uncritical, a gifted but limited writer. Animals: appreciation and abuse Umberto Saba on the pathos of one animal, the original followed by my translation I talked to a goat. He was alone in the field, tethered, fed up with grass, soaked with rain, bleating. That same bleating was brother to my sorrow. I answered, first as a joke, but then because sorrow's for ever, has a voice and never varies. This voice I sensed moaning in a solitary goat. In a goat with a semitic face I sensed all ills lamenting, all lives. There's a linkage between bullfighting, surely, and a pitifully limited appreciation of animals and care for animals, a linkage between bullfighting and other abuses of animals, even if there may be significant exceptions. Bullfighting apologists do, genuinely, appreciate the power of the bull, the magnificence of the bull (both the power and the magnificence are destroyed by the punishing power of the picador's lance and the banderillas, so that it's a shadow of the magnificent animal, an animal weakened by injury, loss of blood and pain which faces the final act.) Bullfighting apologists are far less likely than other people, surely, to appreciate, to sympathize with, to commune with, to feel pity for, to want to help, all the animals which lack the power and strength of bulls but which have grace, charm, usefulness, or which have no particular appeal to any human preferences but which simply have mysterious 'otherness.' To feel the compassion of Umberto Saba, or of Thomas Hardy. This is from Thomas Hardy's poem, 'Afterwards:' If I pass during some nocturnal blackness, mothy and warm, When the hedgehog travels furtively over the lawn, One may say, 'He strove that such innocent creatures should ...come to no harm,' Feelings like these, present in bullfighting countries but surely in stark contrast with the predominant ethos of a bullfighting country, are infinitely more valuable than the grandiose posturing which is bullfighting's depraved contribution to the world. As with life-enhancing feelings, so with opposition to organized mass cruelty, it could confidently be predicted that the bullfighting countries would not be in the forefront of opposition to the cruelties of factory farming. When the European Union voted to phase out the battery cage (although the so-called 'enriched cage,' a slightly larger battery cage, is a very poor compromise), the only country which voted against was - Spain. Bullfighting and mono-culture The 'culture' in 'monoculture' refers to the growing of crops, of course: monoculture is cultivation of one crop to the exclusion of all others, or the overwhelming dominance of a single crop. Monoculture has severe disadvantages. It may entail the loss of genetic diversity, aesthetic loss, loss of interest, the monotony of uniformity, and practical loss, such as the loss of plants which feed beneficial insects and other creatures. The term 'monoculture' is sometimes used without reference to agriculture. In this case, the reference is almost always to dominance, not to the complete exclusion of alternatives. I use the hyphenated term 'mono-culture' where the 'culture' refers not to cultivation of crops but to aspects of artistry, major or minor, and, to an extent, the wider world of 'ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge' (Collins English Dictionary). It seems to me that in the areas of Spain where bullfighting is actively pursued, there's a mono-culture of bullfighting which is unhealthy. Bullfighting doesn't exclude all other forms of 'culture,' obviously, in these areas, but it does have dominance. In Andalucia, for example, cante jondo flourishes, to an extent, but is less prominent than bullfighting and has linkages with it. The mono-culture of bullfighting is uninteresting as well as unhealthy. Nature writing in English is one of the glories of English literature - the nature writing of American writers such as Thoreau as well as such English writers as Gilbert White, in 'The Natural History of Selborne,' Richard Mabey and of course so many others, and in other countries as well as these, including a host of superb lesser-known writers. I'd include in this number Jennifer Owen, who wrote 'Garden Life.' She writes of swifts, 'In July, swifts wheel and scream in the sky above the garden. Their elegant, black silhouettes, tracing ever-changing patterns against the clear blue of early morning or the opalescent glow if evening, lift the spirits of the most earthbound gardener.' Many of these writers have revealed the glory of humble creatures, such as moths. They are prominent in 'Garden Life.' Thoreau writes in the closing section of 'Walden' that 'Every one has heard the story which has gone the rounds of New England, of a strong and beautiful bug which came out of the dry leaf of an old table of apple-wood, which had stood in a farmer's kitchen for sixty years ...' Spain's natural history is richer than England's, but the English have made incomparably more of their heritage of natural history than the Spanish, I'd claim. The mono-culture of bulls has surely impoverished Spanish nature writing. Apart from its cruelty, the mono-culture of bullfighting in large areas has impoverished Spanish culture. If it's conceded that nature writing and appreciation of nature are strengths of English culture but argued that English culture, unlike Spanish culture, largely ignores death, and that this is an obvious weakness of English culture, then I'd argue in turn that this is a gross distortion. I discuss it in the sections Bullfighting and 'duende' and Cultural stagnation. The Spanish preoccupation with death can easily be paralleled in earlier English culture. English parish churches - important to many an intransigent atheist, including myself - are full of reminders of 'memento mori.' English culture has far more of classical balance now: remembrance and grieving rather than preoccupation with death, the public and private remembrance of our war dead, including those who died fighting against fascism, and the countless acts of private remembrance and grieving obviously observed in every country, not only in Spain. The biography section of a very comprehensive library or a very comprehensive bookshop contains biographies and autobiographies of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, explorers, travellers, poets, novelists, essayists, politicians, generals, soldiers, sailors, airmen, painters, architects, financiers, administrators, nationalists, anarchists, communists, conservatives, comedians, gardeners, ordinary people with ordinary or extraordinary lives - but obviously, the number of categories is immense. It may even include, in the case of very comprehensive libraries, the biographies of a few bullfighters. Are the claims to importance made by bullfighting supporters to be believed in the slightest? Is the adulation in the least healthy? Would the biography section of a very comprehensive library or a very comprehensive bookshop be anything other than pitiful if it contained not much more than biographies of bullfighters or books such as Alexander Fiske-Harrison's 'Into the Arena,' which belongs to the genre of autobiography? Does bullfighting really encompass everything important in the world, or so much that's important? Miriam Mandel is the editor of 'Hemingway's Dangerous Summer: the complete annotations,' a scholarly pro-bullfighting work - but its accumulated detail undermines the bullfighting case (there's revealing information about the extent of 'afeitado,' tampering with the bull by 'horn shaving.' Miriam Mandel shows the usual aficionado's awe-struck and credulous opinion of bullfighters, extending even to bullfighters' biochemistry and physiology, or at least the biochemical and physiological processes concerned in wound healing. These, it seems, are different from those of lesser people: 'Injuries require a bullfighter to absent himself from the ring, but these enforced absences are often surprisingly short (bullfighters seem to heal more quickly than other people). Fadjen, a fighting bull, and Christophe Thomas This is a remarkable film from Pablo Knudsen showing the warm relationship between a bull bred for fighting and Christophe Thomas, the French man who saved him from ever fighting in a bullring, It shows too the gentle relationship between the bull and the goats who play with him and the bull's complete acceptance of a horse. 'Fighting bulls' are subjected to treatment which is artificial and abnormal, treatment calculated to make them aggressive. In the bullring, the bull has nowhere to escape or to hide. The film exposes this treatment and the trickery often used by bullfighters, which fools so many people. The idyll, the possibility of a wonderfully harmonious relationship between human and animal, is far from being a myth. It's no more impossible in the case of human and 'fighting bull' than in the case of human and dog. The film comes from Christophe Thomas's Website, which has other films about Fadjen. The site deserves a prominent role in the anti-bullfighting movement, www.sauvons -un-taureau-de-corrida.com I don't in the least claim that all bulls are non-aggressive, only that in this respect, as in others, they show variability. Campaigning techniques (1) The most effective techniques to win, in this case, to abolish the corrida. This will often demand short, vivid messages and simple slogans - as when the French Alliance Anticorrida organized an amazing air campaign over Nîmes in May, 2007, two planes flying and towing banners with a short message against the bullfight over a distance of 600km. It will often demand arguments presented very briefly, and action which is concentrated rather than diffuse, action which is not at all genteel, but action which keeps within the law. In a democracy, it may be necessary to break the law in exceptional circumstances if that seems the only way to end a serious abuse, but the most effective actions for opposing bullfighting don't require the law to be broken (I mention an exception below.) In fact, violence against people and damage to property damage the anti-bullfighting cause. I oppose these tactics in all cases. (Where the opponent is a totalitarian power, as in the occupied countries of Europe during the Second World War, then the use of violence and force an damage to property can easily be justified.) In fact, in most cases, anti-bullfighting activists use tactics which can be supported wholeheartedly, for example, the tactics used by these Spanish activists shown in this film. It shows them travelling to the scene of their protest outside the bullring, followed by horrific scenes during a bullfight. I support disruption of bullfights, whether or not they entail a public order offence which is a breach of the law. The rule of law is very important but a perfectionistic approach to observance of the law isn't possible or even desirable in every single case. People handing out leaflets opposing bullfighting (or some other activity) may be 'guilty' of obsruction if they stand still whilst doing so, but any feelings of guilt on that score are unnecessary. No bullfights take place here now, of course, as in the rest of Spanish Catalonia. (The same moral advance hasn't been made in French Catalonia so far.) (2) The reasoning which underlies the action. This should not be simple. It should be comprehensive (covering all relevant aspects of the subject rather than a few), fair-minded (taking every care to avoid distortions of reality, taking note of possible objections), sophisticated in moral argument and, also, factually correct. It's not true, for example, that the bull is killed by a sword thrust to the heart, as is often claimed, for example, in the current 'Rough Guide to France.' Very often, the bull isn't killed by a sword thrust to the aorta either, but, after hitting bone, by brutally prolonged attempts to sever the spinal cord. I would stress the power of ideas. The ideas which seem vastly more forceful, developed, persuasive than the opposing ideas are amongst the most important contributions to activism. They're a precondition for activism, or should be. One of the most striking demonstrations comes from the history of penal reform, on which the Italian thinker Beccaria has had an incalculable influence. To read more about his achievement, click here. Beccaria's achievement is amongst other things a massive practical achievement - concrete reforms can be traced back to his work - but these were due purely to his ideas. He had none of the attributes of an activist. The introduction to his work 'On Crimes and Punishments' in the Hackett edition describes the work as 'greater than its self-effacing author, a man of almost crippling shyness.' The philosophical literature to do with animals and animal suffering is now vast. The fact that most aficionados in the bullfighting regions of Europe, from Andalucia to Arles, are not aware that it exists is a serious deficiency. This literature, which reflects a fundamental change of consciousness, is comparable in importance with the literature and the changes which began the secularization of Europe during the Enlightenment. A non-technical statement by Jeremy Bentham, often quoted, is a good starting point. His 'utilitarian' view is now better termed a 'consequentalist' view. It appears in The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789, Chapter XVII, Section 1d: 'The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?' Three Spanish restaurants This section illustrates the discussion of the previous section on Campaigning techniques. It gives suggestions for practical action and gives further reasons in support of action. Abel Lusa is the owner of three Spanish restaurants in London. In an interview on ultravie.co.uk he mentions 'a strong torero influence' in answer to the question, 'Where do you take your inspiration from when creating your menus and the ambience in your restaurants?' These restaurants are within a short distance of each other on Old Brompton Road: 'Tendido Cero,' (174 Old Brompton Road), 'Capote y Toros' (157 Old Brompton Road) and 'Cambio de Tercio (163 Old Brompton Road.) In an interview 'Tendido Cero.' 'Tendido' refers to 'rows of open seats in a bull ring' (Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon.') 'Cero' is zero. The rows of seats are numbered. This restaurant has 'huge, rather camp photographs of matadors.' ('Time Out.') 'Capote y Toros.' 'Capote' is the cape of the bullfighter and 'toros,' of course, means bulls. In this restaurant there are ' ... framed pictures of bullfighters.' ('Time Out.') These can be seen by scrolling down a little way, past the images of some foods on offer, on this page on this page. 'Cambio de Tercio.' 'Cambio' means 'change' and the 'tercio' refers to one of the three parts of a bullfight, the 'tercio de varas,' in which the bull is lanced by the picador, the 'cercio de banderillas,' in which the bull is stabbed with the six banderillas, and the 'tercio del muerte,' where 'muerte' means death. This restaurant too makes use of a bullfighting theme, the bullfighter paintings of Luis Canizares, whose work is also prominent on their Website, cambiodetercio.co.uk Less indirect ways of opposing bullfighting would be preferable but anti-bullfighting activists in this country aren't able to make use of them, since there are no bullrings here, this country being so much in advance of Spain in matters of animal welfare. This being so, I believe there's a case to be made for action against these restaurants, but principally by handing out leaflets to customers. This would be my interpretation of 'direct action,' a form of action which is almost instinctive with me, but a form of action which has to be used with great restraint if it isn't to be counter-productive. (There's no reason, however, why leafletting should be conducted in too genteel a way.) In the past, my interpretation of direct action was far less restrained, but never to the point of advocating or of course taking part in violence and damage to property I can think of ways in which opposition to bullfighting which used these restaurants as a focus could be very useful. I think it's a mistake for activists to overlook actions which it could be argued are marginal. Small scale actions can make a contribution in this sphere as in others. This page is about bullfighting, not about other animal welfare issues, but I resolutely oppose the cruelty involved in producing foie gras. Its production is illegal in this country. In my page on Israel I mention the fact that Israel used to be the fourth largest producer of foie gras in the world but, to its very great credit, banned its production in view of the cruelty involved. Importation of foie gras into this country and selling it here aren't illegal. Many restaurateurs never use it, as a product of gross cruelty. It will come as no surprise that Abel Lusa isn't one of them and that his restaurants offer foie gras. Shops and large stores have sometimes come under intense pressure for this one issue, selling foie gras. Kirk Leech, writing in defence of Foie Gras (huffingtonpost.co.uk 'On Friday 9 December a small group of animal rights activists 'targeted' a list of Yorkshire based restaurants that serve foie gras. Van Zeller, a restaurant in Harrogate was subjected to a short but noisy demonstration. The protestors then made their way to the small village of Ramsgill where they protested outside the Yorke Arms Hotel. From there they moved onto Bolton Abbey, near Skipton where the Devonshire Arms Hotel was 'targeted'. Their activities included leafleting customers as they arrived to eat and making speeches condemning foie gras outside the establishments. Occasionally they book tables and then when seated stand up and denounce foie gras in front of other customers.' This will seem very unsophisticated behaviour to gourmet-aesthetes of a certain kind, or the usual kind. But the ethics of these gourmet-aesthetes, and the bullfighting-aesthetes, will seem very unsophisticated - primitive - to many people who have given thought to the matter. Matthew Norman gives an appreciation of the cooking at 'Cambio de Tercio' which is very, very effusive (in 'The Daily Telegraph.') A sample: “Ooh, ooh, ooooooohh,” moaned my friend. “Woo, wooo, woooooo,” I whimpered back.' This appreciation of 'a thing of genius' ( ... gazpacho decanted into a bowl hosting a juicy disc of lobster and a scoop of cherry sorbet) was succeeded by appreciation of another thing: 'This was a creamy, eggy, potatoey mush with caramelised onions at the bottom of a cocktail glass, followed by a sheet of foie gras terrine atop smoked eel and apple slices.' Could such a sophisticate be an ethical ignoramus, in matters appertaining to foie gras at least? Quite easily. Kirk Leech continues, 'Most restaurants and shops don't need the hassle of these protests and cave in to this degree of pressure. Only this week Brook's, in Brighouse Yorkshire, and Six Baltic, based in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art on the river Tyne, became the latest restaurants to drop foie gras.' 'Were it that all campaigns could be won with such little effort. In the past, animal rights activists have been known to participate in illegal and occasionally violent attacks against their opposition. Now it's phone calls, emails and small protests. 'Low input activism this maybe, but it's clearly effective.' I couldn't put it better myself. I resolutely oppose illegal and violent action and make phone calls, send emails and take part in small protests (I've travelled great distances to take part in these.) I advocate 'low input activism' as more effective than the alternatives. Kirk Leech does underestimate the difficulty and arduousness of action so often, or almost always. I think that the evidence available justifies taking action against these three Spanish restaurants, 'Tendido Cero,' 'Capote y Toros' and 'Cambio de Tercio' for selling foie gras and a second issue, bullfighting. Action against these restaurants could well be given a high priority, using the methods of 'low input activism.' It can be argued that opposition should only take the form of presenting ideas, arguments and evidence, with no attempt to target a specific individual, organization or commercial concern. My priority is very much to present contributions which belong to the realm of ideas, arguments and evidence, but I see the need to supplement these with specific action. I'm completely receptive to criticisms of this approach. I've given an outline of action which could be undertaken, part 1 in the previous section on Campaigning techniques. Part 2 in the previous section is concerned with the reasoning which underlines the action. Here, I concentrate on foie gras rather than bullfighting. The reasons for opposing bullfighting are given in the rest of this page. I now need to address the matter of foie gras, so that any opposition to these restaurants for their connections with foie gras and bullfighting can be carried out with a comprehensive set of arguments and evidence. However, the matter can't be decided by citation of biochemical, physiological, ethological and other scientific evidence alone, and this particular document has to be supplemented with other studies and other approaches, such as ones which make an appeal to moral philosophy. There are films available from 'show farms' which attempt to give an idyllic picture of the life of geese and ducks. It can be shown that these are misleading. For a very different perspective, an inquirer could watch this very harrowing film, Force-Fed to Death (the narrator is Reger Moore) and after watching it could well come to the conclusion that action against the three Spanish restaurants, and other restaurants and food outlets which sell foie gras, is fully justifiable. The film comes from the large organization PETA. In general, I don't endorse in the least some of the tactics used by PETA, which are sometimes deranged, or some of the deranged thinking which lies behind the tactics. Some of PETA'S work is genuinely impressive, and the film is an example of PETA at its best, I think. Abi Izzard of PETA changed her name officially to 'StopFortnumAndMasonFoieGrasCruelty.com' (changes to documents like her driving licence were necessary) to publicize the fact that the store Fortnum and Mason still sells foie gras - not in the least a useful contribution. This is the introduction to the Scientific Committee's document. It sets out the principles which I think should underlie all animal welfare work. Giving the reasons for practical opposition will not always entail the giving of very comprehensive evidence in dispassionate form, but the scrupulousness and comprehensiveness of an adequate ((survey)) should inform the practical action. 'There is widespread belief that people have moral obligations to the animals with which they interact, such that poor welfare should be minimised and very poor welfare avoided. It is assumed that animals, including farm animals, can experience pain, fear and distress and that welfare is poor when these occur. This has led to animal welfare being on the political agenda of European countries. 'Legislation varies, but E.U. member states have ratified the Council of Europe's Convention on the Protection of Animal kept for Farming Purposes. Article 3 of that Convention states that " Animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care in a manner which, having regard to their species and their degree of development, adaptation and domestication, is appropriate to their physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge” (Council of Europe, 1976). 'In addition to political debate, the amount of information based on the scientific study of animal welfare has increased. Scientists have added to knowledge of the physiological and behavioural responses of animals and philosophers have developed ethical views on animal welfare. Nevertheless, all agree that decisions about animal welfare should be based on good scientific evidence (Duncan, 1981, Broom, 1988 b). 'Scientific evidence regarding the welfare of ducks and geese in relation to foie gras production is gathered together in this report. In chapter 1, different definitions of animal welfare are presented, the four main indicators of animal welfare are discussed and the importance of combining results from several indicators is emphasised. In the second chapter the extent of production of foie gras is described and in the third, practical aspects of production are summarised. Chapter four concerns the behaviour of geese and ducks in relation to force feeding or “gavage”. The consequences for the birds of force feeding are described in chapter five. The remaining chapters concern the likely socio-economic consequences of any changes whose aim is to improve the welfare of the birds, suggestions for future research and conclusions. Finally, there is a list of references quoted in the report. 'There is widespread belief that people have moral obligations to the animals with which they interact, such that poor welfare should be minimised and very poor welfare avoided. It is assumed that animals, including farm animals, can experience pain, fear and distress and that welfare is poor when these occur. This has led to animal welfare being on the political agenda of European countries. 'Legislation varies, but E.U. member states have ratified the Council of Europe's Convention on the Protection of Animal kept for Farming Purposes. Article 3 of that Convention states that " Animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care in a manner which, having regard to their species and their degree of development, adaptation and domestication, is appropriate to their physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge” (Council of Europe, 1976). 'In addition to political debate, the amount of information based on the scientific study of animal welfare has increased. Scientists have added to knowledge of the physiological and behavioural responses of animals and philosophers have developed ethical views on animal welfare. Nevertheless, all agree that decisions about animal welfare should be based on good scientific evidence (Duncan, 1981, Broom, 1988 b). 'Scientific evidence regarding the welfare of ducks and geese in relation to foie gras production is gathered together in this report. In chapter 1, different definitions of animal welfare are presented, the four main indicators of animal welfare are discussed and the importance of combining results from several indicators is emphasised. In the second chapter the extent of production of foie gras is described and in the third, practical aspects of production are summarised. Chapter four concerns the behaviour of geese and ducks in relation to force feeding or “gavage”. The consequences for the birds of force feeding are described in chapter five. The remaining chapters concern the likely socio-economic consequences of any changes whose aim is to improve the welfare of the birds, suggestions for future research and conclusions. Finally, there is a list of references quoted in the report. ' Human welfare, animal welfare Bullfighting supporters quite often criticize animal welfare and animal rights supporters (I don't give arguments here for preferring one form of words or the other but I describe myself as involved in 'animal welfare,' not 'animal rights') for neglecting human welfare and human rights. More often than not, I would think, the bullfighting supporters haven't been very energetic themselves in furthering human welfare and human rights (they may have been too busy watching and reading about bulls being slowly put to death.) If one person has done little or nothing to reduce human suffering but a great deal to reduce animal suffering, whilst another person has done little or nothing to reduce human suffering or animal suffering, then I think that the moral advantage in this respect, if not necessarily in all respects, lies with the former. Another common criticism made by bullfighting supporters: you oppose bullfighting but you eat meat! This particular criticism can't be made of me - I've been a vegetarian for over thirty years. I'd wish to defend meat-eating bullfighting opponents, though. The argument used in the previous paragraph is applicable here, in modified form. I doubt if there are many vegetarian bullfighting supporters. I don't have the results of any meticulous surveys but I would think that almost every one eats meat. If one person eats meat and opposes the cruelty of the bullfight and another person eats meat and supports the bullfight, then the moral advantage in this respect lies with the former. If someone eats meat but takes care to eat meat from animals which have been humanely reared and humanely killed, then at least this is to observe the basic standards of animal husbandry and slaughter. There are abuses and imperfections in slaughterhouses, sometimes substantial, but at least it can be claimed that in a modern, well-regulated system, an attempt is made to ensure that slaughter is instantaneous and painless. Slaughter in the bull-ring is in anything but controlled conditions. It's impossible to ensure that the sword is placed so as to ensure instantaneous death. The bullfighter is often terrified of being gored as the sword goes in, so that the 'aim' is far from accurate. For whatever reason, again and again, the sword strikes bone, or is embedded in an animal which is still very much alive. If slaughter in the modern abattoir falls short of the ideal, sometimes very much so, then slaughter in the bull-ring is vastly more objectionable. Bullfighting apologists in my experience are usually fond of very short, supposedly conclusive but not at all conclusive arguments, such as this objection to meat-eating bullfight opponents. They're not nearly so good at addressing a very wide range of issues in depth, in detail. Other forms of bullfighting On this page, I discuss the 'corrida,' the form of bullfighting practised in Spain, the bullfighting countries of Latin America and Southern France. Southern France has other forms of bullfighting as well and Portugal has its own form of bullfight. A page which gives useful information about the Portuguese bullfight and is well written, although with typographic errors. Quotations below are from this page. The Portuguese bullfight is less objectionable than the corrida but is barbaric and activists do well to oppose it. The Portuguese bullfight is far from being bloodless. As in the corrida, the bull is stabbed with six banderillas and these are heavier than the ones used in the Spanish bullfight. This phase of the bullfight is brutal. The bull isn't killed in the arena, but it is killed later, and it may well wait for slaughter, suffering from its wounds, until the next morning or longer. Horses in the Portuguese bullfight in general suffer far, far less than in the corrida but the risk of severe injury and death is always present. 'The horses themselves, a cross of Arab and English thoroughbred, are animals of great beauty, quite unlike the horses in the Spanish bullfight, who are there primarily to be gored by the bull, and consequently, are beat-up old nags that can barely carry their mounts on a hot afternoon.' [Although horses are often gored in the Spanish bullfight, they aren't there 'primarily to be gored by the bull,' but they are there to be charged by the bull, hit by the bull and lifted by the bull, with all that this implies when the bull moves so fast and weighs about half a tonne.] Even so, the horses in the Portuguese bullfight are terrorized: '[a difficulty which] the horseman overcomes is the fear of his horse. Anyone who rides horses will know that courage is not one of the virtues of the animal, which shies even from a pile of rubble at the side of the road. Imagine, then, the control necessary to get this nervous animal to ride toward a charging, half-ton hulk of bull. Naturally, use of the spurs is necessary, and even the best of the horsemen leave unaesthetic patches of blood on the sides of their mounts from repeated spurring.' In fact, the dangers to horses in Portuguese bullfights are similar to the dangers of the horses of the rejoneadors in Spanish bullfights. This film shows what may happen to them: Pamplona: a proposal Efforts to carry out reform or to abolish abuses are always more difficult when reform or abolition involves an opponent which has great economic power. There is, of course, no linkage between economic power and powerful ethical arguments in favour. The fighting in the Roman amphitheatres brought economic benefits but required abolition. The festival of San Fermin at Pamplona involves not just bull running but bull-fighting. Scenes from bullfights at Pamplona are shown below. One of the bulls which ran at Pamplona earlier in the day. The sword-thrust (or perhaps multiple sword-thrusts) failed to kill it, as usual, and the animal is finished off with a dagger. Acknowledgments: Maroc's photostream Another scene from the San Fermin Festival, Pamplona: spearing the bull and terrifying the horse, or worse (but referred to by aficionados as the 'tercio de varas,' the first stage of the bullfight.) Acknowledgments: Elarequi61's photostream And another scene from the San Fermin Festival, Pamplona: stabbing the bull with the banderillas (the second stage of the bullfight, the 'tercio de banderillas.') Acknowledgments: Rufino Lasaosa's photostream A San Fermin festival at Pamplona without the bullfight, a festival without the killing, would do a very great deal for the reputation of Pamplona and the reputation of Spain. The people who have a riotous party at Pamplona and turn their backs on the bullfighter are on the right lines. If only Pamplona could transform itself during its festival into a place of drinking, high spirits, song, debauchery and general excess until the early hours or day and night, a place where there's still the thunder of hooves and people taking their chance with the bulls, but without the barbarity. This isn't to suggest that having a party and running with the bulls, or watching other people run with the bulls, has anything like the significance so often claimed. These are unimportant rather than important, except for the people who take part. The importance of Pamplona is primarily importance for the local economy. Pamplona shares the narcissistic exaggeration which is the 'soul' of bullfighting. As for the risks to life, running with the bulls, like fighting bulls, is a low-risk activity. For those who want it, running of the bulls could take place, just as now, offering exactly the same experience, and there could be bloodless bullfights in the arena, like the ones in Southern France, or activities involving bulls such as the 'Recortes.' A recortador in action Many animal welfarists would object, claiming, perhaps, that the bulls would be stressed, but I wouldn't. Better this by far than any corrida. Animal welfare, like politics, is the art of the possible. Animal welfare, like politics, is an area where perfectionism is likely to delay effective reform, perhaps for ever, rather than advance it. Reformers, like mountaineers, can attempt near-impossible objectives or objectives that seem impossible but which aren't so. But working for a world in which all living things are without stress, all living things are happy, is to attempt the impossible. 'HillmanMinx,' an uncompromising opponent of bullfighting, included this in one of his comments on a Website: 'I've been to the Pamplona bull run myself - Spain is fascinating, and bulls will always be part of their culture, but it takes little imagination to see that that could continue to be so without the savage cruelty inflicted on the animals.' 'I forget whether it was Stephen Ibarra or Rick Musica, those pillars of Pamplona, who said that if they took the bulls away from the feria, but kept the people, they’d still come, but if they took away the people, it wouldn’t be worth it for the bulls alone.' I don't think people would come in large numbers to a bull-free Pamplona but they would certainly come in large numbers to a bullfight-free Pamplona (a 'corrida-free Pamplona,' that is, a Pamplona where no bulls were killed in the bullring.) A Pamplona which offered thrills, excitement, riotous living and took away the abject barbarity would be worth supporting. As it is, no humane person should support the San Fermin festival. The probability of a Pamplona with bull-running but no bull-fighting is probably remote, but if other towns offered bull-running but no bullfighting (except perhaps for bloodless bullfighting or activities such as 'Recortes,' these towns could attract many, many people who attend the San Fermin festival at Pamplona but who have qualms about the cruelty of the corrida, or no interest in the corrida. They could offer real competition to Pamplona. Eventually, the economic arguments for Pamplona too abolishing corridas could become very strong. There are many, many towns and cities in bullfighting areas which could obtain great financial benefits by offering a festival similar to the San Fermin festival, but without the cruelty. Carcassonne in France would be a strong contender, I think. The town introduced corridas not so very long ago. It would gain rather than lose economically if it abolished them and began to offer a festival of the bulls without killing of the bulls. The appearance of the town would certainly be an advantage: It might be expected that Spanish towns and cities would be particularly resistant to bull-running without corridas, certainly in areas like Andalucia, but the Spanish financial crisis has made the chances of success greater. Bullfighting and the Spanish financial crisis was the subject of an article published in 'The Times' recently (4 June). A good article, not sympathetic to bullfighting. (Notice the mention of 'the prolonged agony that ends with the estocada (sword thrust.)' ‘… The crisis that has pushed Spain to the brink of financial ruin has produced (arguably) an unlikely winner – the fighting bull … 'Rather than ending their lives at the hands of a matador in the ring, increasing numbers of toros bravos are being slaughtered for their meat, a quick exit in an abattoir that is seen as somewhat kinder to[than] the prolonged agony that ends with the estocada (sword thrust). 'Since the financial crisis began, the number of bullfights has fallen by 46 per cent, from 2,177 in 2007 to 1,177 last year, according to government figures, a decline partly attributable to cultural changes but accelerated by economic decline. 'The cost of going to a bullfight has put off many fans … Local councils, which traditionally have paid for bullfights during civic festivals, have cut back on such expenditures. And the high cost of raising a fighting bull … has hit breeders … ' "We are looking for other sources of business,” Carlos Nunez, president of the Association of Fighting Bull Breeders, said. “We hope we can bring in tourists to see the bulls.” …’ '82.1 percent of 16 to 19 year-olds and 63.1 percent of 20 to 24 years looking for work can't find it. In total, 66.4 percent of people under 25 are unemployed.' This site isn't in the least a single issue site and although I concentrate on bullfighting on this page, understandably enough, it's not to the exclusion of other issues. I make this completely clear. The Spanish financial crisis isn't important only in its effects on bullfighting. The Spanish financial crisis is important, obviously, for a whole host of reasons. This is one of them: extreme financial difficulty - and the crisis may become worse, immeasurably worse - will often be the precursor of extreme political instability, instability which may even lead to wars. This is one of the extreme dangers facing Europe as a whole, far more than a very remote possibility for Europe as a whole, which everyone must hope will never materialize. Politicians and others have to do more than hope, however: they have to take decisions, often very difficult decisions. It's impossible to generalize. There are Spanish people living very pampered, very wasteful lives - aficionados amongst them - for whom it's impossible to feel any sympathy if they suffer hardship. There are also many, many good people in Spain - active opponents of bullfighting amongst them - who face extreme hardship, and many good causes in Spain likewise, and not just the anti-bullfighting causes. The duties of Spanish politicians aren't in the least confined to issues to do with bullfighting and taking steps to abolish bullfighting is only one issue with which they should be concerned. This is an elementary consideration. Opponents of bullfighting have to take care not to overlook or to minimize the responsibilities and skills of politicians, which obviously include matters such as taxation policy, planning policy, fiscal regulation, defence expenditure, and so much else. Financial and economic considerations have an impact on bullfighting but the decline of bullfighting and the defeat of bullfighting interests have to be based on more secure grounds. Otherwise, the ending of the financial crisis in Spain could end this particular threat to bullfighting. Ethical issues remain paramount. Pamplona's bullfighting connections bring it great economic benefit, but the same can be said of many morally flawed and morally disastrous practices. From a very different sphere, a flood of imports of cheap clothing, produced by badly paid, in fact, exploited workers, many of them children, has economic benefits for many people. Again, these are elementary considerations. I resist completely any suggestion that in situations of crisis, only issues which are relevant to the crisis are important. Unless it becomes more or less impossible, interest in the full range of human issues (which include issues to do with animals) should continue as before. There are many historical examples to show that this has been the case. The stupendous cultural achievements of 5th century Athens were achieved despite the fact that Athens fought the Peloponnesian War. The fact that Athens' survival was so often in doubt didn't lead to any ignoring of architecture, drama and other fields. During the Second World War, many, many books were published in Britain which had nothing to do with the winning of the war or Britain's fight for survival - books on poetry and so much else. Similarly with events in other countries. The atrocities and suffering in Syria don't consign the struggle to end bullfighting to irrelevance. Freedom of expression I've never at any time attempted to suppress pro-bullfighting views, Anti-bullfighting activists who do try to suppress pro-bullfighting views are very much mistaken - not mistaken about bullfighting, obviously, but very much mistaken in opposing the free flow of ideas. All attempts to suppress pro-bullfighting books or other printed materials, to suppress pro-bullfighting films or internet materials, to suppress pro-bullfighting talks and lectures, are deeply misguided. In 'the marketplace of ideas,' I regard anti-bullfighting arguments as decisively, overwhelmingly superior to pro-bullfighting arguments. The anti-bullfighting case needs no censorship of pro-bullfighting views at all. The principle that there should be a free flow of ideas, information and evidence is a principle under attack. It's essential to defend it. I know of one organization which called upon a bookseller to remove a pro-bullfighting book from sale and was successful. This was a bad mistake on the part of the organization and the bookseller. There are many threats to freedom of expression, threats which may be veiled or violent. They come from believers in political correctness, Islamists and others. A bookshop should be under no pressure to deny shelf-space to books which criticize political correctness, Islam and bullfighting and books which support political correctness, Islam and bullfighting, and similarly for other issues. Before I could read Alexander Fiske-Harrison's Into the Arena it was necessary for me to buy a copy. The idea that I should be expected to criticize Alexander Fiske-Harrison's defence of bullfighting on the basis of a few things I'd heard, without having read the book, is repugnant. My very critical discussion is given below. It includes information about Alexander Fiske-Harrison's censorship of my own comments but I include a further example here. Alexander Fiske-Harrison writes on his blog, 'By the way, I have noticed that various animal rights protesters are complaining that I have blocked their comments on this blog. Well, that’s easy enough to answer: I will post any comment that is civil and unthreatening.' This is simply not true. One comment I sent to him simply gave some of the material in the previous paragraphs about the importance of supporting freedom of expression for writers on bullfighting such as himself. That comment was blocked, perhaps because it included this: 'I regard anti-bullfighting arguments as decisively, overwhelmingly superior to pro-bullfighting arguments. The anti-bullfighting case needs no censorship of pro-bullfighting views at all.' The comment I submitted was completely civil and unthreatening, and all the other comments I submitted have been completely civil and unthreatening, but have been censored by him, except for a much earlier set of comments, very brief, simply stating my intention to discuss 'Into the Arena.' I showed that his reaction to one comment could easily be explained - he'd simply not read most of what I'd written, by his own admission. He was condemning what he hadn't read. He refused to post this as well. I'd raised one particular issue which he seems determined not to discuss openly - the fact that the bull he killed had blunt horns and had apparently been subjected to the procedure called 'afeitado,' judging by the photographs in 'Into the Arena.' This would have made the bull - which was in any case far from being a full-sized animal - much less risky to fight. After this mention of suppression of views by Alexander Fiske-Harrison, I return to suppression of views by some anti-bullfighting activists. The British bullfighter Frank Evans planned to give a talk at a bookshop in Manchester. It was cancelled because of the threat of disruption. Again, this was a bad mistake. Alexander Fiske-Harrison was invited to give a talk at Blackwell's bookshop in Oxford, death threats were made, allegedly, and the talk was rescheduled. I obtained a ticket for the event. On his Website, Alexander Fiske-Harrison writes, 'I am happy to announce that unlike Salman Rushdie, I will actually be talking at my venue - Blackwell’s of Oxford – regardless of protests.' It would have been better if he hadn't invited readers to compare his situation with that of Salman Rushdie. The danger in which Salman Rushdie found himself was incomparably more serious than the dangers facing Alexander Fiske-Harrison. As in the case of his exploits in the ring, Alexander Fiske-Harrison exaggerates the dangers he faces. The animal rights movement (for the record, I'd describe myself as involved in animal welfare, as one activity among many, not animal rights) includes dangerous as well as deluded people, but their dangerousness (their lethal intent) isn't to be equated with the fanatics who were out to get Salman Rushdie and anyone associated with his book, 'The Satanic Verses.' In that case, lethal intentions were followed by lethal results. Destruction of property in the name of animal rights is quite another matter. It has been far more extensive than media reports would suggest. I discuss briefly the Animal Liberation Front and its misguided and ineffectual tactics in my page Animal welfare: arrest and activism. Then Alexander Fiske-Harrison posted this on his blog: Following the temporary cancellation of my Oxford talk on my book Into The Arena and vastly exaggerated reports of death threats etc. abounding in the Oxford Times and Oxford Mail ... ' If so, why did he make any comparison with Salman Rushdie? In his case, the death threats weren't exaggerated. Now his talk has been cancelled, since hardly any tickets had been requested. Whatever the level of threats to the author, if bookshops have been put under pressure not to stock Alexander Fiske-Harrison's 'Into the Arena,' (or such books as Hemingway's 'Death in the Afternoon') then is this to be only a starting-point? I discuss the cruelties of foie gras production in the section Three Spanish Restaurants. Bookshops (and libraries) may have many books on their shelves which 'promote' the use of foie gras, particularly books on French cookery, and not just ones on haute cuisine. Are they to be removed? There are many animal rights campaigners who would agree with or use the slogan 'Meat is murder.' But most of these people would have the sense (I hope) to realize that removing all but vegetarian and vegan cookery books from bookshops and libraries is an impossible (as well as undesirable) objective. No bookshop can be anything like as comprehensive as a large library, of course. Are large libraries - including the largest of them all in this country, the British Library - not to include on their shelves 'Into the Arena,' Hemingway's 'Death in the Afternoon' and other books defending bullfighting? Published books have to be made available, to scholars, to readers of all kinds - including opponents of the views expressed in some of these books. A good bookshop should give hints of comprehensiveness, at least. This is very much supplementary information, but the most comprehensive library of all, an imaginary library, is described in a short story by the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges, 'The Library of Babel.' This contains 'all that it is given to express, in all languages. Everything ...' Running a bookshop is an intensely demanding activity, now more than ever. It's completely wrong to pressurize a bookshop for any of these reasons. If the owner or manager of a bookshop has scheduled a talk by a pro-bullfighting writer for the near future and is approached by a person or an organization asking for the event to be cancelled, what is the owner or manager to do? Abandon all but the most essential duties and spend an intensive week or two studying as many aspects of the issue as possible as thoroughly as possible before coming to a decision? Not forgetting to read 'Into the Arena.' Or assume that the objector's arguments (which are unlikely to be detailed ones - the objector is very unlikely to have read the book) are correct and cancel the event immediately? The anti-libertarian, pro-censorship 'principle' of 'no platform for ...' doesn't usually take the form of 'no platform for bullfighting supporters.' It's usually no platform for 'racists,' and a variety of other human rather than animal issues (and we're supposed to take it for granted that the objectors are correct in their understanding of 'racist' and 'racism,' that their intelligence and freedom from bias are beyond dispute. They may describe people who want to set limits to immigration into this country as 'racists.') The rallying cry 'no platform for ...' was applied to Sir Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Commissioner of Police (by an Indymedia Website) when he came to give a talk at Sussex University. Similar issues are raised when people who advocate boycotts of Israeli products approach the owner of a shop or the manager of a supermarket which stocks Israeli products. Again, is this owner or manager expected to examine the arguments and evidence in depth before coming to a decision? Or is the owner or manager to assume that the boycotters' case must be correct and clear the shelves of Israeli products at once? My page on Israel gives detailed information about another attempt to enforce a boycott of Israel. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was due to play at the Proms. Pro-Palestinian activists called for the performance to be cancelled. What were the management to do in the week or so after receiving this call? Study the relevant history of the Middle East, and in particular the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, make a comparative study of human rights in Israel and other countries of the Middle East, such as Iran, Syria and the Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, make a further comparative study of war and conflict and of the action which has been taken by democratic countries, totalitarian countries and countries with other forms of government in waging war, including such issues as blockades and protection of non-combatants, study the international legislation concerned with these issues, study the arguments and evidence deployed by supporters of Israel and opponents of Israel, do a little research into moral philosophy and the different approaches to deciding difficult moral issues, such as consequentialism - whilst continuing the intensely demanding task of coordinating the nightly concerts of the Proms season? Or was the management simply to assume that the pro-Palestinian activists must be correct and to cancel the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra's concert without delay - and to add the task of explaining the action to aggrieved concert-goers and defending themselves in the courts for breach of contract to their work-load? In the event, the management stood firm and the concert went ahead, but was disrupted. Anti-bullfighting censors are far outnumbered by censors of a very different kind, such as radical Islamist censors, They may well be unaware of the context, or indifferent to it: the assaults on freedom of expression from many different directions. Supporting freedom of expression - the general principle - is vital. The context includes this: 'A talk organised ... by the Queen Mary [University of London] Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society on ‘Sharia Law and Human Rights’ had to be cancelled after threats of violence.' Information from the excellent site www.studentrights.org which promotes freedom of speech in universities. The site reports the President of the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society and the statement issued by The Principal of Queen Mary College in support of free expression. The President of the Society: ‘Five minutes before the talk was due to start a man burst into the room holding a camera phone and for some seconds stood filming the faces of all those in the room. He shouted ‘listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live’, at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone’s face and then said ‘and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Mohammed, I will hunt you down.’ He then left the room and two members of the audience applauded. ‘The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Mohammed, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him.' The Principal of the College: 'Professor Simon Gaskell, Principal of Queen Mary, University of London said: "We are concerned about reports of a disturbance at a recent meeting of the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society. ' "The democratic right to freedom of expression and debate is one Queen Mary strongly upholds and promotes. Talks, meetings and debates are held peacefully at Queen Mary on a daily basis and we will continue to host such events. ' "We are equally committed to our duty of care to students. A police investigation of Monday night's incident is currently underway and Queen Mary will conduct its own review. We will do our utmost to ensure this occurrence is not repeated and that our students are able to gather and engage in debate freely without interference of any kind." ' In this page on Israel I write: 'Countries that can be considered free have been surrendering more and more of their freedoms. Complacency and lack of resolve have allowed them to slide towards an Age of Post-enlightenment. Most often, freedoms have been eroded by the growth of informal censorship, self-censorship, strong disapproval, but sometimes by new legislation.' Kenny Hodgart writes well about one such piece of legislation in this country: 'Freedom of speech was hard-won in the West; the freedom only to speak inoffensively is no freedom at all ... Never mind the freedom to speak offensively: people have been invited to believe there is such a thing as the right not to be offended. Never mind that 'incitement to hatred' is a grey, disputable thing, and a different thing to incitement to violence, which was already a criminal offence. Never mind that most ideas are capable of giving offence ... And never mind that in the marketplace of ideas, 'hate speech' can be challenged, debated or ignored. What we now have is moderated free speech at best.' Nigel Warburton, in his 'Free Speech: a very short introduction,' writes, 'Defenders of free speech almost without exception recognize the need for some limits to the freedom they advocate.' I think this is true, and well put. I'm a libertarian in matters of free speech but not an absolutist libertarian. In the terminology I use, I recognize {restriction}: (free speech). I discuss {restriction} and the {theme} theory of which it forms a part on other pages. Nigel Warburton writes, again very cogently: 'Holmes, like Mill, was committed to defending freedom of speech in most circumstances, and, explicitly defended the value of a ‘free trade in ideas’ as part of a search for truth: ‘the best test of truth,’ he maintained, ‘is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market’. Holmes wrote passionately about what he called the ‘experiment’ embedded in the US Constitution arguing that we should be ‘eternally vigilant’ against any attempt to silence opinions we despise unless they seriously threaten the country – hence the ‘clear and present danger’ test outlined in the quotation above. Holmes as a judge was specifically concerned with how to interpret the First Amendment; his was an interest in the application of the law. Mill in contrast was not writing about legal rights, but about the moral question of whether it was ever right to curtail free speech whether by law, or by what he described as the tyranny of majority opinion, the way in which those with minority views can be sidelined or even silenced by social disapproval. 'Both Mill and Holmes, then, saw that there had to be limits to free speech and that other considerations could on occasion defeat any presumption of an absolute right (legal or moral) to freedom of speech. Apart from the special considerations arising in times of war, most legal systems ... still restrict free expression where, for example, it is libellous or slanderous, where it would result in state secrets being revealed, where it would jeopardize a fair trial, where is involves a major intrusion into someone’s private life without good reason, where it results in copyright infringement (e.g. using someone else’s words without permission), and also in cases of misleading advertising. Many countries also set strict limits to the kinds of pornography that may be published or used. These are just a selection of the restrictions on speech and other kinds of expression that are common in nations which subscribe to some kind of free speech principle and whose citizens think of themselves as free.' I'd make the point that 'permitting' is obviously different from 'approving.' 'Permitting whilst loathing' will often be a response in a free society. It expresses my response to Alexander Fiske-Harrison's stance on bullfighting - and his killing of a bull - but I see the need not just to 'permit' the publishing and sale of his book and talks by the author but a passionate upholding of the principle of free expression, if not expression without some {restriction}. In a wide range of moral and other issues, some of the most fatuous objections often come from people who mechanically point out an alleged inconsistency and ignore the most significant differences. 'You object to bullfighting, but you eat meat!' Alexander Fiske-Harrison, a meat-eater himself, argues along similar lines. (I point this out, as a vegetarian.) 'You object to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But Britain has nuclear weapons! (Ignoring the vast differences in political responsibility and restraint.) If German research in atomic physics had been more advanced before the end of the Second World War, then the argument, equally idiotic, might have been, 'You object to Germany acquiring nuclear weapons. But the United States has now acquired nuclear weapons!' 'The Guide gives ticket agencies for the purchase of bullfighting tickets and where to find a bullfighting museum. Although it quotes polls saying that 75% of Spaniards have no interest in the sport, there is no mention of the large and growing anti-bullfighting movement spreading through Spain. 'The only attempt to show the “other side” is the question “An epic drama of blood and sand or a cruel blood “sport” that has no place in modern Europe? (Page 221) 'But the Madrid guide makes it obvious where the ‘Lonely Planet’ stands on the question of bullfighting. At the very beginning of the guide a picture is chosen featuring the interior of a pro-bullfighting restaurant concentrating on bullfighting memorabilia. 'They also write: ‘Nothing can exceed the gaiety and sparkle of a Spanish public going eager and full-dressed to the fight’ (Page 101) ‘at once picturesque, compelling theatre and an ancient ritual that sees 30,000 bulls killed in 17,000 bullfights each year in Spain.’ (Page 222) 'Tony Moore, Chairman of FAACE, wrote to the Editor on the 7th of January 2009 saying 'Your writer would be better employed making a good job of researching what is a very controversial subjecting instead of repeating the same old staid clichés. One wonders if he is just lazy or in the pocket of the bullfighting industry. 'You are doing no favors to Spain; they want to break away from the outdated and cruel picture that bullfighting paints. ask you to make sure that when the subject of bullfighting is mentioned in one of your travel guides, if you do not condemn it, at least you should not promote it! There was no reply to his letter. The author of the guidebook wrote this, but not as part of the guidebook. It was written in 2006 but the situation seems not to have improved - for bullfighting's defenders, that is - since then. For one thing, they have been defeated in Barcelona and the rest of Catalonia. They've made attempts to minimize the ban on bullfighting and explain it away but there's evidence that when it did happen, it was regarded as a severe setback. 'That bullfighting should become a thing of the past in separatist Barcelona is less important than that public apathy is taking hold in Madrid, Valencia and Andalusia, Spain's bastions of bullfighting. "Before, you put up a poster and the people came," says Juan Carlos Beca Belmonte, the manager of Madrid's Las Ventas bullring, Spain's most prestigious plaza de toros. "Now we are the ones who have to chase after the crowd." Luis Corrales, president of the Platform in Defence of the Bull Festival, says: "There used to be only bullfighting or soccer, or maybe a movie. But now there are so many other leisure choices." Spanish state television, mindful of the corrida's diminishing appeal, has also cut by almost one-third the air time it devotes to bullfighting, and many private channels no longer broadcast from the ring. The concomitant fall in advertising revenues is exacerbating the financial crisis confronting bullring operators, who must pay up to $50,000 for a full quota of bulls and as much as $575,000 for a top matador and his entourage for a single corrida. To break even for each fight, promoters must sell at least 75 per cent of seats. At one level, rumours of bullfighting's demise are premature, for this remains a multimillion-dollar industry that employs 150,000 Spaniards. Every year, Spain's 60 major bullrings draw about 20 million spectators who pay $1.35 billion into the industry's coffers. The mid-May Fiesta de San Isidro in Madrid, which heralds the start of Spain's most important bullfighting season, is a major social event where the great and good of Spain gather to be seen in illustrious company. Matadors, defined by their statuesque grace, dazzling traje de luces (suit of lights) and glamorous lifestyles, are national celebrities whose private lives are dissected by Spain's scandalised and scandalous prensa rosa (pink press). But the fact that the average Spaniard is now more likely to know a bullfighter's face from the pages of a magazine than they are to have seen him in the bullring reinforces the widely held view that bullfighting's glory days have passed. The figures that attest to the size of the industry also conceal the serious financial difficulties that confront almost every major bullring. Even members of the bullfighting fraternity admit that they no longer stand at the centre of Spanish life. "My goal is for bullfighting to form a part of today's society, instead of remaining on the margins," says Alejandro Seaz, a Spanish businessman and bullfighting promoter. Of far greater concern for supporters of bullfighting are two simple, telling statistics: the average spectator at Las Ventas bullring in Madrid is a fiftysomething male and just 17 per cent of Spaniards younger than 24 say that they are at least "somewhat interested" in bullfighting. In an attempt to attract a younger generation of bullfighting aficionados, and in order to pay the bills, promoters have been forced to transform the amphitheatre-style bullrings into multipurpose arenas. Bullfights now share the stage with rock concerts, and sanitised performances akin to circuses (where the bulls are not killed and acrobats leap over the bulls' horns) have begun to replace the traditional battle to the death between man and beast. In Valencia, ticket prices, which for keynote bullfights can run as high as $200, have been slashed, cocktail bars installed and free glossy magazines handed out so as to widen the corrida's appeal. In the largely conservative world of bullfighting, however, resistance remains to the idea that the tradition must reinvent itself. The corrida is an essential pillar of Spanish cultural identity, their argument runs, and something quintessentially Spanish would be forever lost were bullfighting forced to change. According to Jose Maria Garcia-Lujan, a lawyer involved in the running of Las Ventas: "They don't like to touch anything, lest the magic wear off". There are nonetheless signs that the magic may have already worn off for an industry showing the unmistakeable signs of permanent decline. Increasingly abandoned by younger Spaniards, tarnished by sordid kiss-and-tell scandals and suddenly peripheral in the country of its birth, bullfighting is being forced to ask whether it can survive as a viable tradition beyond the current generation of aficionados. The question has been asked before, not least by Hemingway, one of bullfighting's most trenchant defenders, who wrote in the 1930s: "How long the bullfight survives as a lynchpin of Spanish life probably depends on whether the majority of the population thinks it makes them feel good." Whether because bullfighting no longer makes Spaniards feel good or simply because they have better things to do with their time, the answer has never been less certain.' Courageous men, courageous women, and animals Tristan Garel-Jones, in his 'Proclamation of the Maestranza Bullring:' 'In the Anglo Saxon world ... they are no longer able to look death in the face. Indeed they are hardly able to pronounce so much as the word.' Alexander Fiske-Harrison, speaking in support of Tristan Garel-Jones: British and American culture is 'a culture which is afraid to even think of death.' See also the section The courage of the bullfighters - illusions and distortions. I show that the risk of a bullfighter being killed in the bullring is very, very low. The section includes material on the risks faced by bullfighters, rock climbers and mountaineers amongst others, including the remarkable achievements of Alex Honnold. Above, Alex Honnold on Liberty Cap, Yosemite, climbing without a climbing rope or any other form of protection - free climbing. This is a very varied section, like some other sections of the page. So much writing in support of bullfighting is suffocating in its exclusion of the world beyond bullfighting. I see no reason why my anti-bullfighting page should follow this example. The supplementary material I include in this section and other sections of the page goes far beyond the limited world of bullfighting. I give reminders of human courage and artistic achievement which owe nothing to bullfighting and discuss wildlife and wildlife conservation - and many other topics. Another example to show the variety of the page: it includes a section which compares the technique of violin playing and the 'technique' of bullfighting. The composer Philip Venables contacted me to ask if he could use this text as part of the violin concerto he was writing. (His works very often make use of texts.) I agreed, of course, and the world premiere of the concerto took place at the Royal Albert Hall in August 2018, at a Proms Concert. The violin concerto was a tribute to the Hungarian violin teacher Rudolf Botta - I was one of his pupils. In this section, I concentrate my attention on British and American courage because the ridiculous 'Proclamation' of the ridiculous Tristan Garel-Jones mentions the Anglo-Saxon world and the ridiculous Alexander Fiske-Harrison mentions British and American culture, but I also discuss the heroism of a Belgian woman. Lord Garel-Jones, in the Maenstranza Proclamation: 'The English word "pet" has no exact translation into Spanish ... The British have this sentimentalism towards animals ingrained in their DNA.' Below, photograph from the collection of the National Library of Scotland, with the caption: 'OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON THE BRITISH WESTERN FRONT IN FRANCE. R.A.F. men with their pet rabbits at a Squadron near the lines.' Below, Sergeant B Furst with the squadron mascot on return to Duxford, Cambridgeshire after combat during the Battle of Britain, September 7, 1940. Earlier that day, he had shot down the Messerschmitt of Wener Goetting, who parachuted from the plane uninjured and was made a Prisoner of War. Amongst those who attended the unveling was former gunner Col John Andrews of Winchester, Hampshire. He attended in memory of mules who helped during his time in the jungle in Burma in 1944. He said, 'My life was saved by the mules ...' [Two mules are shown above.] PDSA Director General Marilyn Rydstrom said the memorial was 'the nation's long-awaited and very welcome tribute' to the animals. 'It will also stand as a testament to the extraordinary bond that animals share with mankind in times of extreme adversity.' The Proclamation of the Maestranza Bullring ('El Pregón Taurino de la Maestranza') was issued on Easter Sunday 2012 by Tristan Garel-Jones. In the words of Alexander-Fiske Harrison, the Proclamation was At the beginning of his speech in defence of bullfighting is this extraordinary and disturbing statement: 'It was he, [Juan Belmonte, the bullfighter] during a conversation with a group of intellectuals in Madrid in the middle of the Second World War who said: "Every Englishman - unless the contrary can be proven beyond doubt - is a spy.' For Tristan Garel-Jones to say this, to accept, it would seem, its dismissive view of the English - it was made by someone living in Franco's pro-Hitler dictatorship against a country struggling to survive, but not just to survive, to play its part in liberating Europe - is almost surreal in its offensive stupidity. It's common for lacklustre speakers to make a strained attempt at humour at the beginning of a stilted speech. The quotation was a way of leading to the not so hilarious, 'I do assure you that the Brit who speaks to you today is not a spy!' Perhaps there were a few polite chuckles or perhaps there was embarrassed total silence. I wouldn't know. Perhaps the audience erupted in appreciative, uproarious laughter. Four women members of Special Operations Executive were executed at Ravensbrück during the war, each of them suffering from extreme malnutrition and the effects of relentless hard labour. Each of them had been tortured for days after being captured. Each of these volunteers faced the same risks as members of the resistance. The courage needed to parachute from the aircraft intto enemy-occupied territory, to face from that moment acute and unrelenting danger, is beyond praise. The four members of SOE who were executed at Ravensbrück are Violette Szabo, Cecily Lefort, Denise Bloch and Lilian Rolfe. Between 20 000 and 30 000 prisoners died at Ravensbrück. They came from over 30 different countries. A copyright-free photograph of Andrée de Jongh isn't available. The New York Times obituary article includes a photograph. These are photographs of (from left to right) Violette Szabo, Cecily Lefort, Denise Bloch and Lilian Rolfe: The reference made by the bullfighter Belmonte during the Second World War was probably to Englishmen in Spain at some time during the war years rather than Englishmen in general. Many Englishmen and other nationalities did find their way to neutral Spain during the war years, as escaped prisoners of war, and were able to make their way back to Britain from Gibraltar. Spain may have been officially neutral and a place of safety for escaped prisoners of war but supported the Axis powers in many ways. About 45 000 Spanish troops fought with the Nazis on the Eastern front. There were a number of lines over the Pyrenees into Spain. One of them, the Comet line, was organized by Andrée de Jongh, a member of the Belgian resistance. The line began in Brussels, With the British organization MI9 she helped 400 members of the Allied forces to return to Britain. How can the courage of a bullfighter be compared with courage of the Belgian resistance and the other resistance movements? They were in acute danger not for very short periods at a time, like a bullfighter, but for months at a time or years. If captured, it was overwhelmingly likely that they would be tortured and executed. When bullfighters are injured, they are whisked out of the arena with the adulation of the bullfighting public and given immediate medical treatment. When resistance workers were tortured, there was no solicitous care for their injuries. Andrée de Jongh was captured and tortured but she looked so unlikely a member of the resistance that the Germans didn't execute her. (But her father was executed by a firing squad.) She was released, arrested again later and sent to Ravensbrück, the concentration camp for women, and later Mauthausen. At both these camps, the system of Vernichtung durch Arbeit (Extermination through labour) was in force. Andrée de Jongh survived the war, however, and devoted her life to the care of patients suffering from leprosy by working in a hospital. From Douglas Martin's obituary article published in 'The New York Times (18.10.07):' 'Derek Shuff, in his book “Evader” (2007), told of three British crewmen whose bomber made a forced landing in 1941. They found their way to the Underground and were ensconced in a safe house when a slip of a young woman appeared. [After telling them that it was her job to get them to Spain] 'She left and the three sat in stunned silence. One finally spoke. “Our lives are going to depend on a schoolgirl,” he said. 'Two of the men survived the grueling trek along what became known as the Comet escape line, because of the speed with which soldiers were hustled along it. 'Ms. de Jongh eventually led 24 to 33 expeditions across occupied France, over the Pyrenees to Gibraltar. She herself escorted 118 servicemen to safety. At least 300 more escaped along the Comet line. 'When the Germans captured her in 1943, it was her youth that saved her. When she truthfully confessed responsibility for the entire scheme, they refused to believe her. 'The citation of her Medal of Freedom With Golden Palm, the highest award the United States presented to foreigners who helped the American effort in World War II, said Ms. de Jongh “chose one of the most perilous assignments of the war.” ... 'The Comet operation was complex: organizers needed to recover fallen airmen, procure civilian clothing and fake identity papers, provide medical aid for the wounded, and shelter and feed the men as they moved along their long obstacle course. 'It was also so dangerous that Ms. de Jongh warned recruits that they should expect to be dead or captured within six months. Her own father was captured and executed, along with 22 others. ' ... she was sent to the Ravensbruck concentration camp. There, among skeletal and shaven forms, she was so unrecognizable that the Gestapo could not identify her for requestioning.' When have the British and the Americans been afraid to look death in the face, even to think of death? Not when it counted. Not when British cities were being bombed in the Blitz, not when British and American troops were landing on the beaches on D-day to liberate Europe, not when their ships were being torpedoed, not when men of the merchant navy were volunteering to serve on oil tankers, not when the gruelling war in the Pacific was being fought. In all spheres,on land, sea and in the air, and not just in defence of their own countries and their own legitimate national interests but in defence of subjugated countries, British and American blood has been shed again and again. British casualties during the Second World War, civilian and military, included 450 900 killed, whilst 418 500 Americans were killed. Meanwhile, in Franco's Spain, officially neutral but supporting Hitler's Germany, two matadors died in the bullring. As I note above, no bullfighters have been killed in Spain in the bullring in the past twenty years. How exactly are the British and Americans supposed to learn how to face death like the Spanish? How is their view of death to alter? Why should it alter? Is it true that the Spanish are deeper and more profound than us in their attitude to death or an illusion? See also my examination of some Spanish attitudes to death in Bullfighting and 'duende.' When the bullfighter Manolete died, Franco declared three days of national mourning and Spanish radio in that time played nothing but funeral dirges. (Manolete is one of the minority of matadors who died not as a result of a car accident, suicide, venereal disease or other natural causes but from injury in the bullring.) Is this a 'healthy' attitude to death or an excessive one? See also Bullfighting: 'the last serious thing in the modern world?' Above. part of Tyne Cot cemetery, between Ypres and Paschendaele (now 'Passendale'), with the graves of 11 954 soldiers, on land assigned in perpetuity by King Albert I of Belgium in recognition of the sacrifices made by British and Commonwealth forces in the defence and liberation of Belgium during the First World War. Below, the Menin Gate Memorial at Ieper / Ypres recording the names of 54 389 officers and men from United Kingdom and Commonwealth Forces who died in the Ypres salient before 16 August 1917 and who have no known grave. Below, part of the American cemetery near Omaha beach, Normandy, with the graves of 9 387 American service men and women who died for the liberation of Europe on and after D-day. Tristan Garel-Jones and so many other apologists for bullfighting are in the grip of a severe error, which I'll call the deficiency error: Spanish culture and the culture of other bullfighting countries are regarded as complete and balanced, whilst the cultures of non-bullfighting countries are regarded as inadequate, deficient, like a diet which lacks some essential nutrient. They suppose that countries which lack the bullfight can only admit to inadequacy and look on in admiration at the courage and achievements of bullfighting countries. This deficiency would be corrected, allegedly, if only the non-bullfighting countries took up bullfighting. Once the British, the Americans, Belgians, Dutch, Swedes, Danes and others begin training, from childhood, in proper bullfighting schools, as matadors, banderilleros and picadors, once fighting bulls are imported through Dover, Rotterdam, Antwerp and other ports, once lorries transporting bulls to the bullrings become a familiar sight on motorways, once the construction industry has provided the bullrings for the bullfighters, once bullfights are held in London, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Brussels, Amsterdam, New York, San Francisco, Stockholm, Copenhagen and many other places, once the BBC and other broadcasting organizations start televising these bullfights, once aficionados in these countries are no longer compelled to make long journeys to satisfy their artistic desires, once achievement is recognized by the cutting of bulls' ears and tails, then people in these countries will be able to lift their heads up high. They will no longer have to admit to such inadequacies as a deficiency of courage and an impoverished artistic life, one which lacks the traditions of la corrida, los toros bravos, la fiesta brava. Once a British, American, Belgian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish or bullfighter of some other nationality is killed in the bullring (although it may be a long time before this happens at current fatality rates - zero fatalities in the last 30 years), then his or her countrymen and women will have an example of the highest courage of all to honour and admire. Football, cricket, baseball and other sports will survive and be supported, but people will increasingly recognize the immense superiority of bullfighting, will recognize that bullfighting is an art form, not a sport. Newspapers will have proper taurine correspondents, like the taurine correspondent of The Spectator, who is, or was, Tristan Garel-Jones. Bullfights will be reported in the culture sections of The Sun, The Times, the Guardian, The Now York Times, De Telegraaf and other newspapers, not the sports sections. 'Celebrity gossip' will include more and more gossip about matadors. The rest of the proclamation is yet more evidence that bullfighting supporters are panicking. (See also The Declaration of Asotauro,' 'For lovers of bullfighting [literally, 'lovers of bulls'] 'the time has come to take the offensive, leaving no lie unanswered, no fallacy unrefuted.') These ringing declarations have to be followed by attempts to answer the objections to bullfighting, such as the detailed and comprehensive objections I give on this page. I've drawn the attention of many individual bullfighting supporters and bullfighting organizations to this material and received replies - the most common responses amount to 'I'll see what I can do,' - but silence has followed. Not one defence of bullfighting against these arguments. If these people and organizations consider that there are lies on this page, then go ahead and answer them, if they consider that there are fallacies on this page, then go ahead and refute them. Any bullfighting defender who does respond to the arguments on this page will have to follow much higher standards of critical reading and critical debate than Alexander Fiske-Harrison, who did claim to find a lie, a fallacy on this page. His claim that I'd referred to him as 'the acceptable face of Nazism' was nonsensical, and I explain why this is so in the section 'Into the Arena' which begins with comments on bad causes. By his own admission, he'd only read a little of what I'd written about him. My contact in the Club Taurino of London was one of the people who said that he'd see what he could do. In fact, I've made strenuous efforts to begin a debate with members of the club, as I explain in the section which discusses the Club Taurino. In the light of their failure, these words of Tristan Garel-Jones in his speech in Seville don't inspire the least confidence: ' ... we need to be very aware that nowadays global discussion takes place through the internet. The detractors of the Fiesta are extremely active in promoting misleading information about the Corrida seeking to gain acceptance for the view that it is a cruel bloodsport. The London Taurine Club [the Club Taurino of London] - "aficionados" in the truest sense of the word - are very aware of this danger. A group of members are planning to launch a web site whose aim would be to respond one by one to the falsehoods that are put about on the internet and to explain the true reality of the Fiesta.' I look forward very much to the launching of this new site (if it ever happens), and to making a contribution to a vigorous exchange of views. I look forward very much to studying and responding to the arguments of the aficionados in defence of the 'fiesta brava,' to be supported, obviously, by all the appropriate historical, philosophical and factual evidence they can find. The regal proclamation of Tristan Garel-Jones contained gross falsifications. According to Alexander Fisk-Harrison, in his own speech in Seville: 'As Lord Garel-Jones said in his speech, the American and British mind is repelled by this aspect of the bullfight in a way which is symptomatic of a culture which is afraid to even think of death.' He comments on sentimental attitudes to animals as if they were a universal feauture of British life. Sentimentality exists, but it's far better for a culture to have a humanitarian attitude to animals, with sentimentality as an emotion taken to excess, than for a culture to lack this concern for animals, without the excess but without the warmth and without the moral and practical concern. Again and again, British people have shown an affection for animals in dire, dangerous circumstances. For example, this is Lt Colonel Singer, a medical officer attached the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, serving in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on what enables soldiers to withstand the intense pressures (his fine piece begins, 'Today we have a service to mourn another dead soldier ... Today's service is one that will be repeated across all bases in Afghanistan, large and small.') 'Soldiers ... cite the incidental therapy of our search dogs ... in the main delightfully energetic spaniels. To see them being walked of an evening lends a peculiar air of normality to this place, like a patch of Hampstead transposed to Helmand.' ('The Times Literary Supplement,' 20.04.12) The appreciation of the role of animals in time of war has a long history. This is Lord Garel-Jones in full flow: 'The english word "pet" has no exact translation into Spanish ... The British have this sentimentalism towards animals ingrained in their DNA ... In the adult world this translates into realities which are, at times, funny and, at times, profoundly immoral. Every day the British press carries a string of animal stories.' Lord Garel-Jones' devastating indictment of British civilization, as he obviously sees it, would benefit from a much wider range of evidence. British 'sentimentality' towards animals, as Lord Garel-Jones thinks of it, goes back a long way. What would he make of this, from the First World War - not a war in which the British troops could be described as soft sentimentalists? Lt Denis Barnett: 'There is a little grave about 2ft by 3ft in the middle of a bust-up farm, and the cross there is this: 'Here lies Tim, a little brown dog, killed by a shell during the bombardment of this house by teh Germans on April 23, 1915. R.I.P.' That was the end of our mascot.' (From Richard van Emden, 'The Soldier's War: The Great War Through Veterans' Eyes.' I give another example from the book below. He could consider this, for example. I have a publication called 'Sheffield at War,' published a few years after the Second World War ended. It contains just the sort of sentiment which he would condemn as sentimentality. It contains so much more, of course, such as this: In the air raids of December 12 - 13 and December 15, '602 people were killed and 1 671 injured. Of Sheffielders: 'If the object of the raids was to break their spirit this, too, failed: it left them an embittered and more determined people.' One hotel 'a seven storey building - received a direct hit from a heavy calibre bomb,' killing nearly 70 people. Survivors who were rescued 'told vivid stories of how they spent the night trapped in the cellars. How they could hardly breathe for smoke and dust ... how they dug with their hands to make an air vent - how they dozed, weary and light-headed from the loss of blood.' Accounts of the devastation and photographs of the devastation are followed by accounts and photographs of Sheffield's contribution to the military campaigns. 'Heavy losses on Italian Front' is the heading for one substantial article. After this, there's a long section on the massive and astonishingly varied contribution made by Sheffield's steel industry and other industries in the city. A few examples: 'For the first 18 months of the war the only drop hammer in the country that could forge crankshafts for Spitfires and other important planes was in the Vickers works at Sheffield.' The hammer weighed over 200 tons. The factory of the English Steel Corporation manufactured bullet-proof plates to protect the pilots of spitfire aircraft. Firth Brown produced 'over 1 000 000 tons of high quality alloy steels' during the war. Firth Brown could 'make shells to go through any armour and armour to resist any shell.' They manufactured many, many other things as well, such as marine forgings, components for submarine detector gear, and tools: 'In one week, during the peak period, over 250 000 individual tools were produced.' The gigantic Mulberry floating harbours were essential to the success of the D-day landings. Firth Brown (and other Sheffield firms) manufactured components for these harbours, for example 'special brake mechanisms ... were entrusted to the firm's engineers and metallurgists, and called for a very high standard of foresight and skill on such an untried and almost visionary undertaking.' The publication has eighty very large pages devoted to death, injury, determination, devotion, engineering achievement, but one of the pages has a section, illustrated with photographs, that Lord Tristan-Jones would dislike intensely, underneath a title in large print at the top of the page: THIS GOLDFISH PROVED THAT IT COULD "TAKE IT ! " These two brothers found their goldfish was safe, although the bowl was half-filled with debris after a bomb had fallen near their home. SO DID THE CANARY! Yes, this canary certainly has something to chirp about. He was found alive after the house had been badly damaged by a bomb.' Is this harmless, human, endearing, or evidence of something rotten in British life, as Lord Garel-Jones would have us believe? (On the evidence of his comments in 'The Proclamation.) On the next page of 'Sheffield at War,' there's a section on H.M.S. Sheffield, 'adopted by the city in October, 1941.' Amongst other achievements, it was involved in the very, very dangerous Arctic convoys: H.M.S. Sheffield 'safely escorted convoys through Arctic gales, U-boat and air attacks to Russia ... 'the ship was part of the cruiser force ... which took part in the sinking of the Scharnhorst, which was trying to attack a North Russian convoy ... During one passage through northern waters she encountered terrific storms which lasted for three days. Seas over 50 feet high swept down on the ship ... For three days the ship fought the gale, then the weather cleared and a course was set for port.' Not long ago, I took part in a demonstration to free Annie the elephant which I attended in Cheshire, : a peaceful and good-humoured demonstration, one of a series, which didn't prevent anyone from going to the performance of the circus which owned Annie, although hardly any members of the public did buy tickets. If this is described as an example of English sentimentality as regards animals, then I'd object to the choice of the word 'sentimentality.' This was an elderly elephant suffering from arthritis which had been repeatedly beaten, the beatings recorded on film by Animal Defenders International. The adverse publicity was successful. The elephant was rehomed in spacious surroundings at Longleat. Lord Garel-Jones agrees that there are 'serious and useful organisations.' He gives an example - The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.' But he says that 'there are others some of which, at least, might be described as eccentric. One of the charities he names in this category is the Buttercups Sanctuary for Goats.' Goats are domesticated animals, of course. Many of them are kept for milk and cheese production, of course. When they are abandoned or badly treated, they deserve adequate care and attention. He seems not to have bothered to find out anything much about the work of this sanctuary. If he had, he would have found out that the work of this charity is outstanding. The RSPCA (which he would almost certainly consider a 'serious and useful animal charity' regularly hands goats which have been rescued to the sanctuary for treatment and long-term homing. Some of the goats cared for by the sanctuary:: 'A pigmy goat found abandoned by the RSPCA and brought to Buttercups in 2008. At the time of his rescue, he was in a very poor state ... He was covered in engine oil and had an infected ear as the result of a poorly fitting ear tag. He was also suffering from foot rot, an agonizing bacterial infection of the foot’s horned area which causes the whole foot literally to rot away if untreated. 'He needed ongoing treatment over several months, and a creative approach was required to treat his unusual injuries ... Today [he] appears to be fully recovered from his problems.' Another case: 'Stocky was found with another goat locked in a shed. Both had been starved to such an extent that Stocky's friend could not stand. They were riddled with lice (left), so much so that their backs were bald, and they stood and slept in their own urine. Unfortunately, when the RSPCA came to their rescue, Stocky's friend could not be saved. A happy, healthy, Stocky at the sanctuary [photo given on the sanctuary's Website.] If Lord Garel-Jones is astonished that anyone can like goats, there are plenty of counter-examples, including ones from a long time ago, in the harshest of circumstances. Another example from Richard van Emden's 'The Soldier's War: The Great War through Veterans' Eyes,' one of the many fine books of oral war history: Lt Denis Barnett: 'I've lately made the acquaintance of a great character, the machine-gunner's goat. She's a most extraordinary beast ... She will fall in with the gun teams; you can pull her away by main force, but she comes back at the double ... When the guns are up, she stands in front and licks their noses lovingly. We're all very fond of her, and the gunners have adopted her entirely ...' The poet Umberto Saba even found a linkage between the plight of a goat and the plight of humanity - a bleak, compassionate and not at all sentimental vision. In view of Lord Tristan Garel-Jones' disapproval of the dominance of English, I don't provide a translation here, but I do give my translation in the section Animals: appreciation and abuse Another charity he describes as 'eccentric,' evidence of the sentimentality of the British, and one which he probably knows almost nothing about, is the Froglife charity, which works for frogs, toads, newts, lizards and snakes. Each of these groups of amphibians and reptiles is threatened by habitat loss. In the land I rent, I constructed two raised beds with a pond between them, on an area which couldn't otherwise be used for growing, or not without enormous effort. (I'd already created a pond in the other allotment which attracted a wide range of wildlife, including damsel flies - the pond is too small to attract dragonflies.) The area had been used as a rubbish dump long ago, and under the very thin layer of soil was an enormous quantity of broken glass, plastic and rusting metal. It was meant to be functional, to help with water storage and supply water in times of drought, but it was intended eventually to be a thing of beauty too. I planted the native white water lily, sedge, and later, aquatic mint. I planted Hemerocallis day lilies - in front of the pond. I thought it would have only limited wildlife potential - the height of the raised beds would deter such animals as hedgehogs, frogs and toads. In spring, though, I found that frogspawn had been laid in the water lily basket, and was overjoyed. Just as the pond is intended to be more than functional, amphibians are more than functional. They perform a very valuable service for gardeners, as slug controllers, but they are representatives of the mysteriousness and majesty of nature, despite their humble status - but for me, they aren't humble animals at all. I wasted no time in installing a sloping board to allow frogs to leave the pond - without it, they would certainly drown, and other boards to allow animals access to the tops of the growing beds. George Orwell wrote about other amphibians in his essay, 'Some Thoughts on the Common Toad. 'How many a time I have stood watching the toads mating, or a pair of hares having a boxing match in the young corn, and thought of all the important persons who would stop me enjoying this if they could. But luckily they can't.' He also wrote, 'I think that by retaining one's childhood love of such things as trees, fishes, butterflies and - to return to my first instance - toads, one makes a peaceful and decent future a little more probable ...' George Orwell was no soft sentimentalist, of course. He found joy in the sight of the humble common toad. He volunteered to fight for the Spanish republic, threatened by the coup of General Franco, and endured hardship and risked his life in the Spanish civil war. Hs magnificent book 'Homage to Catalonia' records his experiences. He was shot in the throat by a sniper during the war. 'What a characteristic and peculiar pleasure there is at the sight of every free animal pursuing its business without let or hindrance, going in search of its food, tending its young, or consorting with others of its species! It may be only a tiny bird, yet I am long able to watch it with pleasure; or it may be a water-rat, frog, or better still a hedgehog, weasel, roe or stag!' This passage, from the play 'The Caucasion Chalk Circle' by Bertold Brecht, mentions blackbirds. George Orwell would have agreed that taking pleasure in the singing of a blackbird, finding joy in the singing of a blackbird, isn't a matter of negligible importance, something for sentimentalists. THE SINGER As she was standing between courtyard and gate, she heard, or thought she heard, a low voice. The child called to her, not whining but calling quite sensibly at least so it seemed to her: 'Woman,' it said, 'Help me.' Went on calling not whining but calling quite sensibly: 'Don't you know, woman, that she who does not listen to a cry for help but passes by shutting her ears, will never hear the gentle call of a lover nor the blackbird at dawn, nor the happy sigh of the exhausted grape-picker at the sound of the Angelus.' Hearing this Grusha walks a few steps towards the child and bends over it, she went back to the child just for one more look, just to sit with it for a mement or two till someone should come its mother, perhaps, or someone else - She sits down opposite the child, and leans against a trunk. just for a ment before she left, for now the danger was too great the city full of flame and grief. The light grows dimmer as though evening and night were falling. Grusha has gone into the palace and fetched a lamp and some milk, which she gives the child to drink. THE SINGER loudly: Terrible is the temptation to do good! Grusha now settles down to keep watch over the child through the night ... For a long time she sat with the child. Evening came, night came, dawn came. Too long she sat, too long she watched the soft breathing, the little fists till towards morning the temptation grew too strong. She rose, she leaned over,she sighed, she lifted the child she carried it off. Human life has particular claims on us. If someone comes upon a baby and a chick and can save only one of them, it should be the baby, but the thought experiments of moral philosophers shouldn't be used in nonsensical ways. The idea of 'giving something back' is an important one. If someone has found great fulfilment in the hills and mountains, as a mountaineer or hill walker, then the idea of giving something back to the hills and mountains may well demand action to oppose an unnecessary scheme which destroys a particular hill or mountain. If someone has found joy in birdsong, then caring for an injured bird which seems to have a chance of survival - and seeing the bird fly into the sky after treatment - is giving something back. The bird can't have the claims upon us that a baby will have, but it can still seem to be calling: 'Help me.' For me, the common swift (Apus apus) has a particular interest. The migration routes of these birds between Britain and Africa involve flights of 22 000 (14 000 miles) a year, but they fly much longer distances than that. Swifts are the only birds which are constantly airborne, except when they nest and bring up their young. They feed and drink whilst flying, mate whilst flying and even sleep whilst flying. Each year, they fly at least 200 000 km Jennifer Owen's classic of garden ecology, 'Garden Life,' from the entry for May: 'The welcome return of old friends My attention is repeatedly distracted from planting and weeding as our local swifts, newly returned from Africa, wheel and scream overhead. Their arrival is so welcome that for the first few days after they arrive, I tend to stop whatever I am doing andwatch their aerobatics every time I hear their excited calls, until my neck aches from looking skywards.' From the entry for July: 'Suburban swifts In July, swifts wheel and scream in the sky above the garden. Their elegant, black silhouettes, tracing ever-changing patterns against the clear blue of early morning or the opalescent glow of evening, lift the spirits of the most earthbound gardener.' There are many excellent Websites concerned with swifts and showing concern for swifts - swifts are threatened, their numbers are declining, mainly as a result of changes to buildings which block off their nesting spaces. This is one Website, created for everyone who is interested in this extraordinary bird.' People 'give something back' by putting up nest boxes and by persuading local authorities, schools and other bodies to erect nest boxes. The may treat injured swifts and rear young swifts until they can fly. If people choose to spend time in this way, watching swifts and working for the welfare of swifts, why should Lord Garel-Jones object in the slightest? Isn't this a better use of time than watching hour after hour after hour of the more mindless TV programmes? Wildflowers, swifts, amphibians, just about every living thing which brings happiness and joy now requires work to safeguard its future, and Lord Garel-Jones' protestations and accusations of sentimentality miss the point. The froglife charity works to make such experiences as George Orwell's less of a rarity. Not only that, they combine care and consideration for animals with care and consideration for people, including very damaged people. Presumably, Lord Garel-Jones knows nothing about this aspect of their work, even though the information is very easily available, from the charity's Website, for example. The charity works with young offenders. The varied activities include 'The development of a wildlife allotment site (containing several wildlife ponds and a butterfly garden amongst other things).' Another project aims to help 'young people who are experiencing difficulty in their life, for a wide variety of reasons, and engage them in outdoor practical work that will benefit both wildlife and people in their local community. Green Pathways introduces young people to conservation and increases their confidence and their enjoyment of the outdoors whilst allowing them to absorb knowledge of the natural environment in the natural environment.' Froglife: ' Frogs, toads and newts are dependent on ponds and other water bodies to lay their eggs. These species all have an aquatic larval stage and the loss of ponds inevitably means the loss of amphibians. 'Froglife is trying to rectify the dramatic decline in the number of ponds through various projects.' The satisfactions of creating and maintaining a pond are very great, and I'm sure that Lord Garel-Jones is very badly mistaken, in his attitude to this organization and in so much else, of course. 'Here is J M Coetzee writing in his direct and unadorned way about dogs, some of the reasons which lead an animal lover to destroy dogs, and a tragic dilemma presented unflinchingly, without sentimentality, in a way well beyond the scope of Seamus Heaney in this poem or in any of his poetry. This is from J M Coetzee's novel 'Disgrace:' 'The dogs that are brought in suffer from distempers, from broken limbs, from infected bites, from mange, from neglect, benign or malign, from old age, from malnutrition, from intestinal parasites, but most of all from their own fertility. There are simply too many of them. When people bring a dog in they do not say straight out, 'I have brought you this dog to kill,' but that is what is expected...' From my page Aphorisms, 'The dog lovers who destroy the unwanted dogs they're unable to rehome are to be admired, not the dog lovers who give their dogs expensive hair-trims and shampoos, the best of everything.' (I used to work for an organization which offered subsidized spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, to reduce the need for euthanasia - but the enormity of the problem made it completely unrealistic for this organization to avoid carrying out euthanasia: either that or death by neglect or starvation. He devotes some of his time to a discussion of what he calls 'mono-culture,' including the dominance of English. If ever there was a culture which cultivated mono-culture it's the bullfighting culture of Spain, which singles out bulls for attention, neglecting the vast and varied worlds of other living creatures, and which singles out bullfighters for adulation, with a view of human achievement subject to extreme {restriction}. The section mono-culture gives amplification. To suppose that opposition to the dominance of the English language has any linkage at all with support for bullfighting - allegedly because languages other than English are threatened and bullfighting is threatened - is yet more evidence of his incapacity for coherent thought. As for myself, I can claim that I'm almost certainly less likely than Tristan Garel-Jones to ignore languages other than English, to promote a mono-culture of English. This site includes my translations from French, German, Dutch, Italian, Latin, Modern Greek and Classical Greek. The ignoring of death isn't an accusation which can be made against me. My page in Large Poem Design, Poems, gives many poems of mine concerned with death. My page Aphorisms includes a section which gives aphorisms of mine on 'Life and death.' There are many other sections of the site which are relevant. In his article 'The Fascination of the Corrida,' published in the prominent British magazine 'The Spectator' nearly ten years ago, Tristan Garel-Jones wrote, 'The editor of The Spectator invites me to be the taurine [bullfighting] correspondent of this magazine. [The present editor of 'The Spectator had nothing to do with the appointment.] I guess I shall be the only taurine correspondent in Britain and I cannot take for granted that British readers will be familiar with terms like volapic any more than Hispanic readers would be with LBW in the event that El Pais were to have a cricket correspondent.' (01.02.03) He claims that Belmonte 'changed the fundamentals of the art in Joycean fashion.' The reference, of course, is to the Irish modernist writer James Joyce, the author of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. If there's any justice in the world at all, then this pretentious and grotesque claim will have earned him an automatic appearance in Private Eye's 'Pseuds' Corner.' Belmonte is one of those many, many matadors who didn't die in the ring. He committed suicide. During most of his 'career,' vast numbers of horses as well as bulls died in the bullring, as many as 40 during each bullfight. From the section above, 'The Golden Age of Bullfighting:' 'Disembowelled dying and dead horses, the intestines of horses and the blood of horses made battlefields of the bullfighting arenas. In these scenes of utter carnage moved such bullfighters as Joselito, 'seen as a classical purist,' according to Alexander Fiske-Harrison, Belmonte and Ignacio Sánchez Mejías, the subject of the poem by the poet and dramatist Lorca.' This film shows what horses suffered when Belmonte was in the ring. 'My hope is that as Spectator readers deepen their understanding of the corrida we may, perhaps in two or three years, be able to organise a trip of aficionados to witness one of the greatest artistic spectacles in Europe today - the Goya-esque corrida in Ronda.' I believe that this expedition to look death unflinchingly in the face from a good viewing point in the bullring, or this jolly jaunt to see some bulls killed, followed perhaps by sherry and tapas or excellent wine and a gourmet meal in pleasant surroundings - whatever his plans or his views may have been, never materialized. The notion that Spectator readers have to leave these shores to experience explorations of death in art would be a travesty, of course. Would he discount 'King Lear,' Britten's 'Peter Grimes,' Janacek's 'House of the Dead,' and all the other evidence to the contrary from the astonishing cultural life of this country? If so, he could start by reading the articles of the Spectator's fine opera critics. I discuss Bullfighting as an art form above. I include this: 'Hemingway, 'Death in the Afternoon:' 'Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death.' I would emphasize a different aspect. Bullfighting is the only art form where the artist inflicts suffering and death, the only art form which is morally wrong. Bullfighting is the pariah amongst the arts. Suffering and death have enough power. An art should do nothing to increase it. In other arts, suffering and death are confronted, explained, found impossible to explain, raged against, transcended, balanced by consolation and joy, not inflicted.' A visit to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, to stand before the Vermeers, the Rembrandts and other paintings in that stupendous collection, would show suffering and death confronted, explained, found impossible to explain, raged against, transcended, balanced by consolation and joy, not inflicted. After Tristan Garel-Jones' miserable article there's this: 'The fee for this article has been donated to the World Wildlife Fund.' If the World Wildlife Fund was aware of the source of this donation, what was the World Wildlife Fund playing at in accepting this morally compromised money? In France, Spain and other bullfighting countries, bullfighting organizations often give money to charities, and the charities often hand the money back. When they try to give money to charities, the charities often refuse. Alliance Anti-corrida in France is one organization which is very active in pursuing the matter. After approaching l’Association des paralysés de France, which supports paralyzed people, and l’Association pour le don d’organes, concerned with organ donation, these organizations decided no longer to accept donations which originated with any bullfighting activity. The Honorary President of The World Wildlife Fund in Spain is King Juan Carlos, well known as a supporter of bullfighting, by his words and his appearances at bullfights. I use the term 'cross-linkages' to refer to linkages between people whose views are opposed in some significant way: there's a cross-linkage between people who support the death penalty (I oppose it) but who share my oppo-inio no pacifism. There's a cross-linkage between me and Tristan Garel-Jones. He supports bullfighting and I obviously oppose it. He supports the British Humanist Association and I share his secular, non-religious and anti-religious view of the world. But my anti-religious views are subject to {restriction}, as my page on Religions makes clear.	In fact, the dangers to horses in Portuguese bullfights are similar to the dangers of the horses of the rejoneadors in Spanish bullfights. This film shows what may happen to them: Pamplona: a proposal Efforts to carry out reform or to abolish abuses are always more difficult when reform or abolition involves an opponent which has great economic power. There is, of course, no linkage between economic power and powerful ethical arguments in favour. The fighting in the Roman amphitheatres brought economic benefits but required abolition. The festival of San Fermin at Pamplona involves not just bull running but bull-fighting. Scenes from bullfights at Pamplona are shown below. One of the bulls which ran at Pamplona earlier in the day. The sword-thrust (or perhaps multiple sword-thrusts) failed to kill it, as usual, and the animal is finished off with a dagger. Acknowledgments: Maroc's photostream Another scene from the San Fermin Festival, Pamplona: spearing the bull and terrifying the horse, or worse (but referred to by aficionados as the 'tercio de varas,' the first stage of the bullfight.) Acknowledgments: Elarequi61's photostream And another scene from the San Fermin Festival, Pamplona: stabbing the bull with the banderillas (the second stage of the bullfight, the 'tercio de banderillas.') Acknowledgments: Rufino Lasaosa's photostream A San Fermin festival at Pamplona without the bullfight, a festival without the killing, would do a very great deal for the reputation of Pamplona and the reputation of Spain. The people who have a riotous party at Pamplona and turn their backs on the bullfighter are on the right lines.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research.html	Why Animal Research? \| Animal Research at Stanford \| Stanford ...	WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH? The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals. Stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals. Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically. Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method. There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: • Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us! • Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. • With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system. The ethics of animal experimentation Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential. U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted. Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives. It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research. Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege. Stanford Researchers are Obligated to Ensure the Well-Being of All Animals in Their Care. Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry. Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members. It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted. Organizations and Resources There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.	The ethics of animal experimentation Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential. U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted. Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives. It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research. Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege. Stanford Researchers are Obligated to Ensure the Well-Being of All Animals in Their Care. Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry. Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members. It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://www.physiology.org/career/policy-advocacy/animal-research/Why-do-scientists-use-animals-in-research	Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research \| American ...	Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research? Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems that affect both humans and animals, and to assure the safety of new medical treatments. Some of these problems involve processes that can only be studied in a living organism. Scientists study animals when there is no alternative and it is impractical or unethical to study humans. Animals are good research subjects for a variety of reasons. They are biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems. Also, they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations. In addition, scientists can control the environment around the animal (diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease. Animals are needed in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover such drugs and procedures using research methods that do not involve animals. If the new therapy seems promising, it is then tested in animals to see whether it seems to be safe and effective. If the results of the animal studies are favorable, human volunteers are asked to take part in a clinical trial. The animal studies are done first to give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.	Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research? Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems that affect both humans and animals, and to assure the safety of new medical treatments. Some of these problems involve processes that can only be studied in a living organism. Scientists study animals when there is no alternative and it is impractical or unethical to study humans. Animals are good research subjects for a variety of reasons. They are biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems. Also, they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations. In addition, scientists can control the environment around the animal (diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease. Animals are needed in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover such drugs and procedures using research methods that do not involve animals. If the new therapy seems promising, it is then tested in animals to see whether it seems to be safe and effective. If the results of the animal studies are favorable, human volunteers are asked to take part in a clinical trial. The animal studies are done first to give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/why.htm	Why Animals are Used in Research \| grants.nih.gov	Why Animals are Used in Research Animals have unique and important roles in biomedical and behavioral research. Many medical advances that enhance the lives of humans are developed from research studies with animals. Good animal care and good science go hand in hand. NIH takes the involvement, role, and respectful use of animals in research seriously. The integrity of the research depends on ensuring that they are well cared for throughout the research process. Of note, NIH does not support research into cosmetic testing. Scientists thoughtfully and carefully choose and justify the specific animal models used in research based on their similarity to humans in anatomy, physiology, and/or genetics, or even everyday living conditions. Animals serve as “models” that represent certain aspects of a biological phenomenon to study. There are also times when certain animal models are used, like fish and frogs, whose anatomy and physiology may be quite different from humans, but still can help researchers address fundamental biological processes similar across species to develop knowledge to improve human health. Animals used in basic research can help researchers understand important biological and physiological processes. This understanding may inform how we can better prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure diseases. Likewise, clinical trials involving animals, such as in the Comparative Oncology Program , shed light on risk factors common to people. The tools and treatments resulting from this research are then used to improve the lives of humans. When researchers develop hypotheses (which are scientifically backed ideas) about the possible causes of diseases and potential treatments, these hypotheses must be evaluated very carefully so that benefits and risks from the proposed new approaches are clearly understood. When necessary, new hypotheses are tested in animal models first to gather sufficient evidence of these benefits and risks before considering use in humans or additional animals. Also, translational research often involves preclinical trials on animals before clinical trials with human participants can begin. Animal studies conducted in the laboratory allow scientists to control factors that might affect the outcome of the experiments. This includes factors like temperature, humidity, light, diet, or medications. Even the genetics of many animal models can be known and well understood, so only the factor being tested is changed and examined. These rigorous controls allow for more precise understanding of biological factors at hand and provide greater certainty about experimental outcomes when developing treatments. The findings also move the scientific process forward, setting the stage for future research and studies in humans. This is called translational research. Though not all research with animal models may result in human treatments, some research builds fundamental knowledge to enhance our understanding of physiological systems. This includes research to understand what might contribute to unexpected outcomes within animal research and to develop new models of health and disease. Scientists must clearly explain why animals are necessary for their research and that the minimal number needed to ensure rigor and reproducibility will be used when proposing ideas to NIH for funding and throughout the research activity itself. Every NIH-funded activity involving live vertebrate animals must describe in their NIH grant application: How it is scientifically important, hypothesis driven, and relevant to public health What specific animals and how many will be involved as well as why they were selected Why the specific animal is appropriate for the questions being asked A complete description of all procedures that will be performed on the animals How any potential discomfort, distress, injury, and pain the animals may experience will be minimized Why the study cannot be done using another model or approach The research findings and outcomes, and their potential benefits After the NIH-supported research is completed, we support the research institution’s interest in adopting out their research animals, should they choose to do so. While NIH funds may not be allowed to directly support these efforts, we developed a webinar to help research facilities create an adoption program.	Why Animals are Used in Research Animals have unique and important roles in biomedical and behavioral research. Many medical advances that enhance the lives of humans are developed from research studies with animals. Good animal care and good science go hand in hand. NIH takes the involvement, role, and respectful use of animals in research seriously. The integrity of the research depends on ensuring that they are well cared for throughout the research process. Of note, NIH does not support research into cosmetic testing. Scientists thoughtfully and carefully choose and justify the specific animal models used in research based on their similarity to humans in anatomy, physiology, and/or genetics, or even everyday living conditions. Animals serve as “models” that represent certain aspects of a biological phenomenon to study. There are also times when certain animal models are used, like fish and frogs, whose anatomy and physiology may be quite different from humans, but still can help researchers address fundamental biological processes similar across species to develop knowledge to improve human health. Animals used in basic research can help researchers understand important biological and physiological processes. This understanding may inform how we can better prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure diseases. Likewise, clinical trials involving animals, such as in the Comparative Oncology Program , shed light on risk factors common to people. The tools and treatments resulting from this research are then used to improve the lives of humans. When researchers develop hypotheses (which are scientifically backed ideas) about the possible causes of diseases and potential treatments, these hypotheses must be evaluated very carefully so that benefits and risks from the proposed new approaches are clearly understood. When necessary, new hypotheses are tested in animal models first to gather sufficient evidence of these benefits and risks before considering use in humans or additional animals. Also, translational research often involves preclinical trials on animals before clinical trials with human participants can begin. Animal studies conducted in the laboratory allow scientists to control factors that might affect the outcome of the experiments. This includes factors like temperature, humidity, light, diet, or medications. Even the genetics of many animal models can be known and well understood, so only the factor being tested is changed and examined.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/animals-science_en	Animals in science	Animals in science Overview The protection and welfare of animals is a priority for the EU. This includes wildlife, zoo animals, farm animals, animals in transport and animals used for scientific purposes. Regarding animals in science, EU legislation is unique as it sets a final goal of full replacement of all animals used for scientific and educational purposes and is taking concrete action towards that goal. Studies that still need to be carried out on animals must be done in compliance with specific regulations that aim to improve the welfare of those animals. This includes studies on increasing the basic understanding of human or animal biology, developing or producing new medicines, physiological studies, environmental effects or testing chemicals or new food additives. Objectives The EU aims to harmonise legislation to promote EU competitiveness and innovation improve animal welfare and establish the “Three Rs principle” (replacement, reduction and refinement) in all use and care practices when animals still needed in research and testing The “Three Rs” EU legislation on animals in science centers on the principle of the “Three Rs”: replacement, reduction and refinement, which first appeared in 1959. Replacement can be defined as methods, strategies or approaches that do not involve the use of live animals. Reduction covers any approach that will result in fewer animals being used to achieve the same objective. Refinement signifies the modification of any procedures or practices from the time the experimental animal is born until its death to minimise its suffering and enhance its well-being, or by moving from species that are considered more sentient to those less sentient. The EU undertakes several activities towards these shared goals, including The Joint Research Centre’s EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), established by Directive 2010/63/EU, works on the development and promotion of non-animal approaches to testing and research. Among its tasks is to validate methods which replace, reduce or refine the use of animals for the safety and efficacy/potency testing of chemicals, biologicals and vaccines. The Inventory of 3Rs knowledge sources is a result of an assessment of technologies, information sources and networks from all relevant sectors with potential impact on the advancement of the “Three Rs” carried out by EURL ECVAM. EURL ECVAM also works to advance non-animal models used in biomedical research. EURL ECVAM has published a series of studies to review available and emerging non-animal models being used for research in various disease areas with the aim to identify and describe specific research contexts where animal models have been put aside in favour of novel non-animal techniques. International harmonisation A regulatory acceptance of alternative methods is required internationally if true reduction in animal use is to be delivered. To that end, the Commission is actively promoting alternative approaches on international fora such as OECD, ICH and VICH, as well as during bilateral discussions with third countries. Moreover, the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM) includes governmental organisations from the EU, the US, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Brazil and China. It aims at promoting enhanced international cooperation and coordination on the scientific development, validation and regulatory use of alternative approaches. European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) The Partnership is a voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European trade associations, and companies from seven industry sectors. The partners are committed to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development, validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to further the "Three Rs" in regulatory testing. EU networks The Network provides support for EURL ECVAM validation studies aimed at assessing the reliability and relevance of alternative methods that have a potential to replace, reduce or refine the use of animals for scientific purposes. Various relevant EU regulatory agencies, including EFSA, ECHA and EMA , together with the Member States, constitute the Preliminary Assessment of Regulatory Relevance network, known as PARERE. EURL ECVAM systematically consults the Network on the proposed alternative approaches and strategies. The primary role of the Committee is to carry out high-quality independent peer reviews on validation studies to assess the scientific validity of test methods and specify the capacity and limitations of the proposed methods. The outcomes of the ESAC peer reviews are published as "ESAC Opinions." The Forum ensures a close dialogue between non-governmental stakeholders, including parties from industry, academia and civil society organisations. Implementation In line with Article 54(1) of Directive 2010/63/EU, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1010, Member States are required to submit a report on its implementation by 10 November 2023 and every five years thereafter. The Commission must publish a Union overview on the basis of that information within six months. Review of the Directive As required by the Directive, a review of the Directive was undertaken in 2017. The Review Report COM(2017) 631 is accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 353. The Staff Working Document provides further insight and contains several recommendations for different stakeholders, with the common aim of improving the attainment of the objectives of the Directive. Article 10 Feasibility Study The capture of non-human primates from the wild gives rise to animal welfare, health, and ethical concerns. To end the capturing of animals from the wild for both scientific and breeding purposes, the Directive has set as one of its aims to allow, after an appropriate transition period, only the use of non-human primates that are the offspring of animals which have themselves been bred in captivity, or that are sourced from self-sustaining colonies. A feasibility study (2017) was conducted to consider progress towards this aim. Considering the current and projected demand and supply of the non-human primate species used, and impacts on the animal welfare and health, the conclusions of the feasibility study do not support altering the dates set out in the Directive. A second feasibility study (2022) concludes that at this time, it is not possible to determine if or whether the aspiration of sourcing non-human primates only from self-sustaining colonies will be achieved in the future. With the recent changes in use, availability, demand and breeding practices in some centres, it is unlikely to be achieved for all commonly used non-human primate species in the foreseeable future. Statistical reports The ALURES Statistical EU Database contains data on the use of animals for scientific purposes collected by the Member States and submitted to the European Commission annually. The Commission also provides an annual summary report of the data submitted by Member States. These data provide an improved understanding of where and how animals are still used in science today and will help identify areas on which efforts for the development and validation of alternative approaches need to be intensified. The first EU summary report, under Directive 2010/63/EU, on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes by the Member States of the Union covers data from three years, 2015-2017. From 2018 onwards, EU summary reports will be published annually. 2018 Statistical Report, SWD(2021)204: Executive summary Parts A and B and Part C. It is important to note that from this summary report onwards, also data from Norway is included. Therefore, this report provides data of 2018 from 28 Member States and Norway. National Committees The Directive requires all Member States to establish a national committee for the protection on animals in science. The National Committee advises competent authorities and animal welfare bodies, exchange information and share best practises within the EU. Guidance documents and posters It is important that the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is implemented correctly. Therefore guidance material has been developed to help all stakeholders apply the principle of the Directive correctly. These publications aim to significantly improve animal welfare and science by enhancing a common understanding of the Directive's provisions across all Member States of the EU. Posters Posters can be downloaded, printed (up to AO size) and placed in work areas from here. A catalogue of published guidance, provided to the Commission by National Committees has been prepared. The content of the guidance provided by Member State National Committees does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is entitled to interpret EU law with legally binding authority.	Animals in science Overview The protection and welfare of animals is a priority for the EU. This includes wildlife, zoo animals, farm animals, animals in transport and animals used for scientific purposes. Regarding animals in science, EU legislation is unique as it sets a final goal of full replacement of all animals used for scientific and educational purposes and is taking concrete action towards that goal. Studies that still need to be carried out on animals must be done in compliance with specific regulations that aim to improve the welfare of those animals. This includes studies on increasing the basic understanding of human or animal biology, developing or producing new medicines, physiological studies, environmental effects or testing chemicals or new food additives. Objectives The EU aims to harmonise legislation to promote EU competitiveness and innovation improve animal welfare and establish the “Three Rs principle” (replacement, reduction and refinement) in all use and care practices when animals still needed in research and testing The “Three Rs” EU legislation on animals in science centers on the principle of the “Three Rs”: replacement, reduction and refinement, which first appeared in 1959. Replacement can be defined as methods, strategies or approaches that do not involve the use of live animals. Reduction covers any approach that will result in fewer animals being used to achieve the same objective. Refinement signifies the modification of any procedures or practices from the time the experimental animal is born until its death to minimise its suffering and enhance its well-being, or by moving from species that are considered more sentient to those less sentient. The EU undertakes several activities towards these shared goals, including The Joint Research Centre’s EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), established by Directive 2010/63/EU, works on the development and promotion of non-animal approaches to testing and research. Among its tasks is to validate methods which replace, reduce or refine the use of animals for the safety and efficacy/potency testing of chemicals, biologicals and vaccines.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://tnprc.tulane.edu/about-animal-research-medicine	About Animal Research \| tulane	Account Login Breadcrumb About Animal Research Animal Research Helps People and Animals Virtually everyone alive today has benefited from the medical advances made possible through animal research. Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, cholera and measles are no longer major threats to public health in the United States. Sophisticated diagnostic tests mean early treatment of cancer and heart disease. Advances in pharmaceuticals have given a new lease on life for tens of thousands of people with AIDS. New surgical techniques have opened the way for coronary bypasses, joint replacements and organ transplants. All of these advances have been made possible through animal research in medicine. Biomedical research has enhanced the lives of our animal companions, too. Pets, livestock, wildlife and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable and healthier lives as a result of animal research. Veterinarians can now treat diseases that once killed millions of animals every year. Vaccines for feline leukemia viruses, rabies, distemper and parvovirus, as well as treatments for heart worm, cancer and hip dysplasia are now available because of animal research. Animal research has also been integral to the preservation of many endangered species. Animal Research is Necessary While scientists have developed many valuable non-animal models that are useful in some types of medical research and can supplement work with live animals, these methods cannot mirror the complicated processes that occur in a living system. Development of any new medicine requires testing in animals to determine if it is safe and effective. Federal law mandates that tests be conducted in animals before approval can be given for clinical trials involving people. Animal Research is Humane Responsible scientists know that good science and good animal care go hand-in-hand and would not tolerate cruel or inhumane treatment of any laboratory animals. The U.S. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets strict standards of care and research for laboratory animals. Research facilities are registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which has responsibility for enforcing the mandates of the AWA. Stringent regulations on animal care are also in place for institutions receiving federal funds. Each research facility is also required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which includes at least one outside member as well as a veterinarian. The Committee scrutinizes research proposals to ensure that alternatives to animal use are considered and that all animals involved receive humane care. The vast majority of research institutions in the United States, including the TNPRC, voluntarily seek accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) in addition to complying with local, state and federal laws that regulate animal research. * Research using animals has resulted in significant advances in human and animal health. Sustained progress in the health sciences will require the continued use of animals as models of human and animal disease. The TNPRC is committed to the humane care and use of animals and adheres to the principles of humane animal experimentation proposed by Russell and Burch in their book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959). These principles, commonly referred to as the Three R's and defined as reduction, refinement and replacement, were proposed as key strategies to provide a systematic framework to achieve the goal of humane experimental techniques. Russell and Burch defined reduction as a means of lowering "the number of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision", refinement as any development leading to a "decrease in the incidence or severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals which have to be used", and replacement as "any scientific method employing non-sentient material which may in the history of animal experimentation replace methods which use conscious living vertebrates". The mission of Tulane University is to create and communicate knowledge that enriches and sustains individuals, organizations, and communities. Scientific and biomedical investigations, which often involve animals, are a core part of the research portfolio of the university. Tulane requires that research animals be treated in an ethically responsible way and with compassion and dignity. The university respects and accepts the moral and ethical implications of using animals in research, and it is committed to being compliant with all government regulations pertaining to animal research. It adheres to the tenets of W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch* that call for the refinement of experimental methods, the reduction of pain and distress experienced by test subjects, the minimization of the number of animals used in research where consistent with sound experimental design, and the replacement of animals with non-animal experimental methods wherever feasible. While the university is diligent in pursuing alternatives, certain experiments requiring animals are vital to the advancement of knowledge that benefits both animals and humans. The university is also committed to protecting and preserving the rights of individuals who use animals in their experiments. Tulane insists that its researchers be accorded respect and that they be able to pursue their work in an environment free from harassment, intimidation, and violence.	Animal research has also been integral to the preservation of many endangered species. Animal Research is Necessary While scientists have developed many valuable non-animal models that are useful in some types of medical research and can supplement work with live animals, these methods cannot mirror the complicated processes that occur in a living system. Development of any new medicine requires testing in animals to determine if it is safe and effective. Federal law mandates that tests be conducted in animals before approval can be given for clinical trials involving people. Animal Research is Humane Responsible scientists know that good science and good animal care go hand-in-hand and would not tolerate cruel or inhumane treatment of any laboratory animals. The U.S. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets strict standards of care and research for laboratory animals. Research facilities are registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which has responsibility for enforcing the mandates of the AWA. Stringent regulations on animal care are also in place for institutions receiving federal funds. Each research facility is also required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which includes at least one outside member as well as a veterinarian. The Committee scrutinizes research proposals to ensure that alternatives to animal use are considered and that all animals involved receive humane care. The vast majority of research institutions in the United States, including the TNPRC, voluntarily seek accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) in addition to complying with local, state and federal laws that regulate animal research. * Research using animals has resulted in significant advances in human and animal health. Sustained progress in the health sciences will require the continued use of animals as models of human and animal disease. The TNPRC is committed to the humane care and use of animals and adheres to the principles of humane animal experimentation proposed by Russell and Burch in their book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959).	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/gov-principles.htm	U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate ...	U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training The development of knowledge necessary for the improvement of the health and well-being of humans as well as other animals requires in vivo experimentation with a wide variety of animal species. Whenever U.S. Government agencies develop requirements for testing, research, or training procedures involving the use of vertebrate animals, the following principles shall be considered; and whenever these agencies actually perform or sponsor such procedures, the responsible Institutional Official shall ensure that these principles are adhered to: II. Procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of their relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society. III. The animals selected for a procedure should be of an appropriate species and quality and the minimum number required to obtain valid results. Methods such as mathematical models, computer simulation, and in vitro biological systems should be considered. IV. Proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative. Unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals. V. Procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia. Surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents. VI. Animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure. VII. The living conditions of animals should be appropriate for their species and contribute to their health and comfort. Normally, the housing, feeding, and care of all animals used for biomedical purposes must be directed by a veterinarian or other scientist trained and experienced in the proper care, handling, and use of the species being maintained or studied. In any case, veterinary care shall be provided as indicated. VIII. Investigators and other personnel shall be appropriately qualified and experienced for conducting procedures on living animals. Adequate arrangements shall be made for their in-service training, including the proper and humane care and use of laboratory animals. IX. Where exceptions are required in relation to the provisions of these Principles, the decisions should not rest with the investigators directly concerned but should be made, with due regard to Principle II, by an appropriate review group such as an institutional animal care and use committee. Such exceptions should not be made solely for the purposes of teaching or demonstration.**	U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training The development of knowledge necessary for the improvement of the health and well-being of humans as well as other animals requires in vivo experimentation with a wide variety of animal species. Whenever U.S. Government agencies develop requirements for testing, research, or training procedures involving the use of vertebrate animals, the following principles shall be considered; and whenever these agencies actually perform or sponsor such procedures, the responsible Institutional Official shall ensure that these principles are adhered to: II. Procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of their relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society. III. The animals selected for a procedure should be of an appropriate species and quality and the minimum number required to obtain valid results. Methods such as mathematical models, computer simulation, and in vitro biological systems should be considered. IV. Proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative. Unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals. V. Procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia. Surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents. VI. Animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure. VII. The living conditions of animals should be appropriate for their species and contribute to their health and comfort. Normally, the housing, feeding, and care of all animals used for biomedical purposes must be directed by a veterinarian or other scientist trained and experienced in the proper care, handling, and use of the species being maintained or studied. In any case, veterinary care shall be provided as indicated. VIII. Investigators and other personnel shall be appropriately qualified and experienced for conducting procedures on living animals.	yes
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	yes_statement	"animals" should be used for "research".. animal "research" is necessary for scientific advancements.	https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm	Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing \|	Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. . . .This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. Yet animals' rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment. Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. Their decisions are made for them because they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices. When humans decide the fate of animals in research environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals. Next, the pain and suffering that experimental animals are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. "The American Veterinary Medial Association defines animal pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage" (Orlans 129). Animals feel pain in many of the same ways that humans do; in fact, their reactions to pain are virtually identical (both humans and animals scream, for example). When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test, both ofwhich are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals. In the Draize test the substance or product being tested is placed in the eyes of an animal (generally a rabbit is used for this test); then the animal is monitored for damage to the cornea and other tissues in and near the eye. This test is intensely painful for the animal, and blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. The Draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life. The LD50 test is used to test the dosage of a substance that is necessary to cause death in fifty percent of the animal subjects within a certain amount of time. To perform this test, the researchers hook the animals up to tubes that pump huge amounts of the test product into their stomachs until they die. This test is extremely painful to the animals because death can take days or even weeks. According to Orlans, the animals suffer from "vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsion, and internal bleeding. Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia" (154). In his article entitled "Time to Reform Toxic Tests," Michael Balls, a professor of medial cell biology at the University of Nottingham and chairman of the trustees of FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments), states that the LD50 test is "scientifically unjustifiable. The precision it purports to provide is an illusion because of uncontrollable biological variables" (31). The use of the Draize test and the LD50 test to examine product toxicity has decreased over the past few years, but these tests have not been eliminated completely. Thus, because animals are subjected to agonizing pain, suffering and death when they are used in laboratory and cosmetics testing, animal research must be stopped to prevent more waste of animal life. Finally, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. In Against Animal Testing, a pamphlet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in London, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and Basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" is advocated instead of testing on animals (3).Furthermore, the Draize test has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin. Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals. Another alternative to this test is a product called Eyetex. This synthetic material turns opaque when a product damages it, closely resembling the way that a real eye reacts to harmful substances. Computers have also been used to simulate and estimate the potential damage that a product or chemical can cause, and human tissues and cells have been used to examine the effects of harmful substances. In another method, in vitro testing, cellular tests are done inside a test tube. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is unnecessary. However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with thisreasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Others respond that animals themselves benefit from animal research. Yet in an article entitled "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" Sheila Silcock, a research consultant for the RSPCA, states: "Animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" (34). Making human's lives better should not be justification for torturing and exploiting animals. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as well. Still other people think that animal testing is acceptable because animals are lower species than humans and therefore have no rights. These individuals feel that animals have no rights because they lack the capacity to understand or to knowingly exercise these rights. However, animal experimentation in medical research and cosmetics testing cannot be justified on the basis that animals are lower on the evolutionary chart than humans since animals resemble humans in so many ways. Many animals, especially the higher mammalian species, possess internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal organs. Also, animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires that are similar to human functions and capacities, and these similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of humans. Tom Regan asserts that "animals are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject of a life has inherent value. They are . . . ends in themselves" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Therefore, animals' lives should be respected because they have an inherent right to be treated with dignity. The harm that is committed against animals should not be minimized because they are not considered to be "human." In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves by randomly torturing and executing thousands of animals per year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products. Animals should be treated with respect and dignity, and this right to decent treatment is not upheld when animals are exploited for selfish human gain. After all, humans are animals too.	Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. . . .This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. Yet animals' rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment. Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. Their decisions are made for them because they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices.	no
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	no_statement	"animals" should not be used for "research".. animal "research" is unethical and should be banned.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/	The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation - PMC	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation I am deeply indebted to David DeGrazia, Tom Beauchamp, and John Pippin for their careful review and helpful comments. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the official position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. government. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract: Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. Introduction Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry.1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny.2 Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based, animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value.3 I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes,4 that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas,5 and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals.6 Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome.7 However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions. The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals.8 Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety.9 Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection.10 Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated.11 Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals’ stress markers.12 These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results.13 Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data.14 A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration.15 In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared.16 Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit.17 In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures.18 One notable effort was made by Crabbe et al. in their investigation of the potential confounding influences of the laboratory environment on six mouse behaviors that are commonly studied in neurobehavioral experiments. Despite their “extraordinary lengths to equate test apparatus, testing protocols, and all possible features of animal husbandry” across three laboratories, there were systematic differences in test results in these labs.19 Additionally, different mouse strains varied markedly in all behavioral tests, and for some tests the magnitude of genetic differences depended on the specific testing laboratory. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate. These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans. The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness.20 Even if the design and conduct of an animal experiment are sound and standardized, the translation of its results to the clinic may fail because of disparities between the animal experimental model and the human condition.21 Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients.22 In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans.23 One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards.24 Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation.25 Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don’t naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials.26 Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models’ ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis.27 These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs.28 Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS.29 The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized.30 More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival.31 Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI.32 In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals.33 Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD34 and inflammatory diseases,35 respectively. The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models.36 A notable systematic review, published in 2007, compared animal experimentation results with clinical trial findings across interventions aimed at the treatment of head injury, respiratory distress syndrome, osteoporosis, stroke, and hemorrhage.37 The study found that the human and animal results were in accordance only half of the time. In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans. In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market.38 More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent.39 The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests.40 Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases.41 Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies. In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior.42 The micropathology of spinal cord injury, injury repair mechanisms, and recovery from injury varies greatly among different strains of rats and mice. A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species.43 This suggests that factors inherent to the use of animals account for some of the major differences in results. Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results.44 In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond.45 These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date.46 Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.”47 The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents’ ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed. Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers.48 Consistent phenotypes (observable physical or biochemical characteristics) are rarely obtained by modification of the same gene, even among different strains of mice.49 Gene regulation can substantially differ among species and may be as important as the presence or absence of a specific gene. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species. To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share (largely) the same genes. Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. For example, if we play the keys in a certain order, we hear Chopin; in a different order, we hear Ray Charles; and in yet a different order, it’s Jerry Lee Lewis. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes. Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice.50 When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories.51 Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the “humanized” or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals. In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease, both in function and in pathology.52 Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson’s disease showed disappointing results in humans.53 The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women.54 HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans.55 After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths.56 Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken57—a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research. The implicit assumption that NHP (and indeed any animal) data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp120 were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments. Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk.58 In 2003, Elan Pharmaceuticals was forced to prematurely terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial when an investigational AD vaccine was found to cause brain swelling in human subjects. No significant adverse effects were detected in GM mice or NHPs.59 In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006.60 Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks.61 None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans—a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong. As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences,62 experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain. The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities, as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail.63 “Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned. It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information.64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods. Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources.65 Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans.66 As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments.67 Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals. An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests.68 As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals69 (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials.70 Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans.71 Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline. An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, “would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline” if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years.72 Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans.73 Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development.74 A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection.75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, “Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?”76 These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development. In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment.77 Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise. The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization.78 Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation.79 Conclusion The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering.80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm. The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health.81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies. Biography • Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom. 20.See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69–74. See also Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: The quest for quality in experimental stroke research. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2006;26:1465–78 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]. 24.See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. There is some dispute as to how vigorously investigators adhered to the suggested criteria. Nevertheless, NXY-059 animal studies were considered an example of preclinical studies that most faithfully adhered to the STAIR criteria. For further discussion see also Wang MM, Guohua X, Keep RF. Should the STAIR criteria be modified for preconditioning studies?Translational Stroke Research 2013;4:3–14 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]. 74.For data on aspirin, see Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra … Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009;37(Suppl 2):45–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]. See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see Koppanyi T, Avery MA. Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: A review. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1966;7:250–70 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]. See also Schneierson SS, Perlman E. Toxicity of penicillin for the Syrian hamster. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956;91:229–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 79.There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency’s budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH’s budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH’s funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH’s extramural funding is directed into animal research; see Greek R, Greek J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010;5:14 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar].	The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain. The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities, as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail.63 “Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned. It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information.64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.	no
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	no_statement	"animals" should not be used for "research".. animal "research" is unethical and should be banned.	https://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/	Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing \| PETA	Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing What’s wrong with animal testing? Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day’s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. The National Institutes of Health reports that 95 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. 3.It’s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of humans waiting for effective cures because the results mislead experimenters and squander precious money, time, and other resources that could be spent on human-relevant research. Animal experiments are so worthless that up to half of them are never even published. Bigotry begins when categories such as race, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or species are used to justify discrimination. “Without Consent,” PETA’s interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of animals used in twisted experiments from the past century, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings. Get PETA Updates Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox! E-Mail Address Sign me up for the following e-mail: Membership Updates PETA News Current subscribers: You will continue to receive e-mail unless you explicitly opt out by clicking here. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us. “Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?” READ MORE	Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing What’s wrong with animal testing? Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day’s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. The National Institutes of Health reports that 95 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. 3.It’s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of humans waiting for effective cures because the results mislead experimenters and squander precious money, time, and other resources that could be spent on human-relevant research. Animal experiments are so worthless that up to half of them are never even published. Bigotry begins when categories such as race, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or species are used to justify discrimination. “Without Consent,” PETA’s interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of animals used in twisted experiments from the past century, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings. Get PETA Updates Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox! E-Mail Address Sign me up for the following e-mail: Membership Updates PETA News Current subscribers: You will continue to receive e-mail unless you explicitly opt out by clicking here. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us. “Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved.	no
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	no_statement	"animals" should not be used for "research".. animal "research" is unethical and should be banned.	https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/	Answers to Common Arguments for Animal Testing \| PETA	These Answers to Arguments for Animal Testing Prove It’s Bad Science Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal testing is bad science and wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them. “Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.” This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that these experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical advances. Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities published a paper in TheBMJ titled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” The researchers systematically examined studies that used animals and concluded that little evidence exists to support the idea that experimentation on animals has benefited humans. In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the isolation of the AIDS virus. Between 1900 and 2000, life expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the fact that people are living longer lives. While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would not have been made without using animals. Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals. “If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people.” The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has noted that 95 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals. Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them. Despite rigorous animal tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people each year, making them our nation’s fourth-largest killer. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. More information about the failure of experiments on animals can be found here. “We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and organs in living animals.” Taking healthy beings from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never normally contract, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species (and even within a species). Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced. Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, remarked, “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.” Modern non-animal research methods are faster, cheaper, and more relevant to humans than tests on animals. Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. The HμREL biochip uses living human cells to detect the effects of a drug or chemical on multiple interacting organs, VaxDesign’s Modular Immune in vitro Construct (MIMIC®) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing vaccines, and Harvard researchers have developed a human tissue-based “lung-on-a-chip” that can “breathe” and be used to estimate the effects of inhaled chemicals on the human respiratory system. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer. Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. A research method called microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it’s metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that’s well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron. “Animals help in the fight against cancer.” Through taxes, donations, and private funding, Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on cancer research since 1971. However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals. The authors of this study point out that animal “models” of human cancer created through techniques such as grafting human tumors onto mice can be poor predictors of how a drug will work in humans. Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has observed, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Studies have found that the chemicals that cause cancer in rats only caused cancer in mice 46 percent of the time. If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans? The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer. Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education. Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives. We can beat cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to encourage healthier lifestyle choices. “Science has a responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures for all the horrible diseases that people suffer from.” Every year in the U.S., animal experimentation gobbles up billions of dollars (including 40 percent of all research funding from the National Institutes of Health), and nearly $3 trillion is spent on health care. While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U.S. still ranks 42nd in the world in life expectancy and has a high infant mortality rate compared to other developed countries. A 2014 review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. It concluded that “if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.” While incidences of heart disease and strokes have recently shown slight declines—because of a change in lifestyle factors, such as diet and smoking, rather than any medical advances—cancer rates continue to rise, and alcohol- and drug-treatment centers, prenatal care programs, community mental health clinics, and trauma units continue to close because they lack sufficient funds. More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world. “Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified.” The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief. Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time. In addition to the actual pain of experiments, a comprehensive view of the situation for animals in laboratories should take into account the totality of the suffering imposed on them, including the stress of capture, transportation, and handling; the extreme confinement and unnatural living conditions; the deprivation that constitutes standard husbandry procedures; and the physical and psychological stress experienced by animals used for breeding, who endure repeated pregnancies, only to have their young torn away from them, sometimes immediately after birth. Animals in laboratories endure lives of deprivation, isolation, stress, trauma, and depression even before they are enrolled in any sort of protocol. This fact is especially apparent when one considers the specialized needs of each species. In nature, many primates, including rhesus macaques and baboons, stay for many years or their entire lives with their families and troops. They spend hours together every day, grooming each other, foraging, playing, and making nests to sleep in each night. But in laboratories, primates are often caged alone. Laboratories often do not allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces softer than metal. Indeed, in many laboratories, animals are handled roughly—even for routine monitoring procedures that fall outside the realm of an experimental protocol—and this only heightens their fear and stress. Video footage from inside laboratories shows that many animals cower in fear every time someone walks by their cage. A November 2004 article in Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science examined 80 published papers and concluded that “significant fear, stress, and possibly distress are predictable consequences of routine laboratory procedures” including seemingly benign practices such as blood collection and handling. “We don’t want to use animals, but we don’t have any other options.” The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. Experimentation using animals persists not because it’s the best science but because of archaic habits, resistance to change, and a lack of outreach and education. “Don’t medical students have to dissect animals?” Not a single medical school in the U.S. uses animals to train medical students, and experience with animal dissection or experimentation on live animals isn’t required or expected of those applying to medical school. Medical students are trained with a combination of sophisticated human-patient simulators, interactive computer programs, safe human-based teaching methods, and clinical experience. Today, one can even become a board-certified surgeon without harming any animals. Some medical professional organizations, like the American Board of Anesthesiologists, even require physicians to complete simulation training—not animal laboratories—to become board-certified. In the United Kingdom, it’s against the law for medical (and veterinary) students to practice surgery on animals. “Animals are here for humans to use. If we have to sacrifice 1,000 or 100,000 animals in the hope of benefiting one child, it’s worth it.” If experimenting on one intellectually disabled person could benefit 1,000 children, would we do it? Of course not! Ethics dictate that the value of each life in and of itself cannot be superseded by its potential value to anyone else. Additionally, money wasted on experiments on animals is money that could instead be helping people, through the use of modern, human-relevant non-animal tests. Experimenters claim a “right” to inflict pain on animals based on any number of arbitrary physical and cognitive characteristics, such as animals’ supposed lack of reason. But if lack of reason truly justified animal experimentation, experimenting on human beings with “inferior” mental capabilities, such as infants and the intellectually disabled, would also be acceptable. The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who demonstrate measurably sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not only use tools but also teach their offspring how to use them. The experimenters’ real argument is “might makes right.” They believe it’s acceptable to harm animals because they are weaker, because they look different, and because their pain is less important than human pain. This is not only cruel but also unethical. Some experimenters never got the memo that animal experiments are bad science—and throughout history, experimenters tortured animals in twisted ways. PETA’s interactive timeline, “Without Consent,” brings to light almost 200 such stories. It will open people’s eyes to the long history of suffering inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings. Get PETA Updates Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox! E-Mail Address Sign me up for the following e-mail: Membership Updates PETA News Current subscribers: You will continue to receive e-mail unless you explicitly opt out by clicking here. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us. “Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?” READ MORE	This fact is especially apparent when one considers the specialized needs of each species. In nature, many primates, including rhesus macaques and baboons, stay for many years or their entire lives with their families and troops. They spend hours together every day, grooming each other, foraging, playing, and making nests to sleep in each night. But in laboratories, primates are often caged alone. Laboratories often do not allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces softer than metal. Indeed, in many laboratories, animals are handled roughly—even for routine monitoring procedures that fall outside the realm of an experimental protocol—and this only heightens their fear and stress. Video footage from inside laboratories shows that many animals cower in fear every time someone walks by their cage. A November 2004 article in Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science examined 80 published papers and concluded that “significant fear, stress, and possibly distress are predictable consequences of routine laboratory procedures” including seemingly benign practices such as blood collection and handling. “We don’t want to use animals, but we don’t have any other options.” The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow.	no
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	no_statement	"animals" should not be used for "research".. animal "research" is unethical and should be banned.	https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/animals-used-experiments-faq	Using animals in experiments \| The Humane Society of the United ...	How many animals are used in experiments each year? It is estimated that more than 50 million animals are used in experiments each year in the United States. Unfortunately, no accurate figures are available to determine precisely how many animals are used in experiments in the U.S. or worldwide. However, the animals most commonly used in experiments—“purpose-bred” mice and rats (mice and rats bred specifically to be used in experiments)—are not counted in annual USDA statistics and are not afforded the minimal protections provided under the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that sets minimal standards for the treatment of certain warm-blooded animals used in experiments. The law also requires that unannounced inspections of all regulated research facilities are carried out annually. In addition to purpose-bred mice and rats, animals such as crabs, fish, frogs, octopuses and turtles, as well as purpose-bred birds, are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The failure to protect these animals under the law means that there is no oversight or scrutiny of their treatment and use in the laboratory. And, because these animals are not counted, no one knows how many of them are suffering in laboratories. It also means that facilities using unprotected species in experiments are not required to search for alternative, non-animal methods that could be used to replace or reduce harmful experiments that use animals. Chimpanzees have thankfully not been subjected to invasive experiments in the U.S. since 2015, when federal decisions were made to prevent their use. Despite this, hundreds of chimpanzees are still languishing in laboratories while they wait to be moved into sanctuaries. Monkeys are taken from their mothers as infants to study how extreme stress might affect human behavior. Mice are force-fed daily doses of a chemical for two years to see if it might cause cancer in humans. Cats have their spinal cords damaged and are forced to run on treadmills to study how nerve activity might affect human limb movement. Ferrets are deliberately infected with extremely painful, potentially fatal diseases (such as RSV, COVID-19 or Ebola) and not given pain relief or treatment before their death to study how humans might be affected by the same disease. Pigs are implanted with various devices (such as pacemakers and dental implants) to study how human bodies might respond to such devices. Pregnant rabbits are force-fed toxic pesticides every day for several weeks to study how human mothers and babies might be affected if they were exposed to the pesticides. Sheep are subjected to high pressures (such as those experienced deep underwater) for hours at a time and then returned to normal pressure so that their response can be observed. Rats are placed in small tubes and are forced to inhale cigarette smoke for hours at a time to study how humans might respond to cigarette smoke. Baboons are injected with endometrial tissue to induce painful symptoms of endometriosis and study how humans might be affected by the disorder. Horses are infected with a potentially fatal virus (such as hepatitis) and their symptoms monitored to study how humans might be affected by the same virus. Experiments are often excruciatingly painful for the animals used and can vary in duration from days to months to years. The experiment can cause vomiting, diarrhea, irritation, rashes, bleeding, loss of appetite, weight loss, convulsions, respiratory distress, salivation, paralysis, lethargy, bleeding, organ abnormalities, tumors, heart failure, liver disease, cancer and death. There is no limit to the extent of pain and suffering that can be inflicted on animals during experiments. In some instances, animals are not given any kind of pain medication to help relieve their suffering or distress during or after the experiment on the basis that it could affect the experiment. Animals are typically killed once an experiment is over so that their tissues and organs can be examined, although it is not unusual for animals to be used in multiple experiments over many years. There are no accurate statistics available on how many animals are killed in laboratories every year. Read about our 2022 undercover investigation at Indiana laboratory Inotiv, one of America’s largest animal testing labs. We documented hundreds of dogs, monkeys, rats and pigs undergoing experiments, including terrified beagle puppies being force-fed potentially toxic drugs in cruel and ineffective months-long tests paid for by Crinetics, a pharmaceutical company in San Diego. Read about our 2019 undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners to be adopted. What kinds of institutions use animals in experiments? Chemical, pesticide and drug companies (as well as contract laboratories that carry out tests for those companies), public and private universities, community and technical schools, government facilities, Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities and hospitals all use animals in experiments. Where do laboratories get the animals they use in experiments? The majority of animals in laboratories are “purpose-bred” meaning that they are bred specifically to be used in experiments. People who breed and sell certain purpose-bred animals are called Class A dealers and are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Facilities that only sell purpose-bred mice, rats, birds or cold-blooded animals such as crabs, fish, frogs, octopuses and turtles to laboratories are excluded and are not licensed or inspected by the USDA. Some animals used in experiments are taken from the wild—including birds and monkeys. Historically, some cats and dogs were sold to laboratories by brokers known as random source Class B dealers, who acquired animals at auctions, from newspaper ads and various other sources, including animal shelters. Random source Class B dealers have not been allowed to operate since 2015 when Congress first passed legislation to prevent them from being licensed. Some cats and dogs in laboratories are still obtained directly from animal shelters, a practice known as “pound seizure.” Pound seizure laws vary from state to state with one state (Oklahoma) requiring shelters to give cats and dogs to laboratories, rather than euthanizing them, and others allowing or prohibiting laboratories from taking animals from animal shelters. Some states have no laws at all, leaving it up to the individual shelter or locality. What is life like for animals in laboratories? Animals in laboratories suffer immensely. In addition to the painful experiments that the vast majority of animals in laboratories experience over days, months, years or even decades, life in a laboratory is typically a miserable and terrifying experience. Typically kept alone in barren steel cages with little room to move around and few, if any, comforts, such as toys or soft bedding, animals often become excruciatingly lonelyand anxious, often devoid of the companionship of other animals or the loving touch of a human. Animals in laboratories can associate humans with painful situations and, with no way to hide or get away, they panic whenever a person approaches their cage or freeze with fear when they are taken into treatment rooms. Despite this, dogswill often still seek out human attention. Animals in laboratories typically also have to watch (or hear) other animals suffering, including their own parents, siblings or babies. High levels of constant stress can cause animals to exhibit unnatural behaviors. For example, it is not uncommon for monkeys to mutilate themselves or to rock or vocalize constantly as a way to help relieve their anxiety, mice to overgroom each other until they are completely bald, and dogs to continually pace. Very often the experiments themselves lead to suffering and death. In our 2022 undercover investigation we documented monkeys in “restraint chairs”—devices that are used to hold monkeys in place while the experiments are carried out—who accidentally hanged themselves while unattended. We also documented a dog named Riley used to test a substance so toxic that it brought him near death after only two days of forced dosing. He was hypersalivating, trembling, vomiting, and moaning, yet was dosed yet again with this highly toxic substance. Later, he lay on the floor, unable to stand. Our undercover investigator tried to comfort him while he was dying, but Riley was left to suffer in excruciating pain overnight because the laboratory’s veterinarian was unavailable on a weekend Animals in laboratories are also subject to mistreatment by inexperienced or careless staff. Although there are penalties for laboratories when animals are injured or killed due to negligence or when they fail to meet minimum standards of animal care, in reality, the fines are typically either very small or waived entirely. What happens to the animals once an experiment is over? Animals are typically killed once an experiment is over so that their tissues and organs can be examined, although it is not unusual for animals to be used in multiple experiments over many years. There are no accurate statistics available on how many animals are killed in laboratories every year. In some cases, animals die as a deliberate result of the experiment. For example, the LD50 (lethal dose 50%) test, which is typically performed on mice, rats, pigeons, quail and fish, involves determining the dose of a substance (such as a pesticide) that kills (or would lead to the death of) 50% of the animals tested. It is extremely rare that animals are either adopted out or placed into a sanctuary after research is conducted on them. However, more and more states are passing laws that require laboratories, when possible, to offer dogs and cats to shelters and other rescue organizations so they can be adopted into loving homes after the experiments they were used in have ended. As of December 2022, 15 states have such laws. Aren’t there laws to protect animals used in experiments? The Animal Welfare Act was designed to protect certain animals, like dogs and monkeys, used in experiments, but the law only offers minimal standards for housing, food and exercise. The Animal Welfare Act also stipulates that the proposed experiments be reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, whose members are appointed by the laboratory itself and largely made up of employees of the institution. A 2014 audit report reviewing Animal Welfare Act oversight of laboratories found that “animals are not always receiving basic humane care and treatment and, in some cases, pain and distress are not minimized during and after experimental procedures.” The animals most commonly used in experiments—“purpose-bred” mice and rats (mice and rats bred specifically to be used in experiments)—are not counted in annual USDA statistics and are not afforded the minimal protections provided under the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that sets minimal standards for the treatment of certain warm-blooded animals used in experiments. The law also requires that unannounced inspections of all regulated research facilities are carried out annually. In addition to purpose-bred mice and rats, animals such as crabs, fish, frogs, octopuses and turtles as well as purpose-bred birds are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The failure to protect these animals under the law means that there is no oversight or scrutiny of their treatment and use in the laboratory. And, because these animals are not counted, no one knows how many of them are suffering in laboratories. It also means that facilities using unprotected species in experiments are not required to search for alternative, non-animal methods that could be used to replace or reduce harmful experiments that use animals. Why are animals still used in experiments? The vast majority of experiments on animals are not required by government law or regulations. Despite that, government agencies often seem to prefer that companies carry out animal tests to assess the toxicity or efficacy of products such as industrial chemicals, pesticides, medical devices and medicines. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that a new pesticide be fed to dogs for 90 days as part of its evaluation and approval process. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates various products such as drugs, medical devices, food, fragrances and color additives, will not approve potential drugs unless they are first tested on animals, which usually includes dogs. In addition to tests on dogs, mice and rats, rabbits, birds and primates are also used to test pesticides and drugs. These types of tests have been performed for years, regardless of whether they provide valuable information. While some regulatory agencies, like the EPA, are now taking a critical look at these animal tests to determine if they provide information necessary for assessing how safe a product or substance is for humans, and if better approaches are available, others have done little. More efforts can be made by agencies to invest in and encourage the development of non-animal methods. Swapping animal experiments for non-animal alternative methods seems like a straightforward process, given that using animals has so many limitations and sophisticated new technologies offer countless possibilities for creating methods that are more humane and that more accurately mimic how the human body will respond to drugs, chemicals or treatments. Unfortunately, developing these alternatives is a complex process facing many obstacles, including inadequate funding. In most cases, a non-animal alternative must be formally validated—historically an expensive and lengthy process—in order to be accepted by government regulatory agencies, both in the U.S. and globally, although new, faster approaches to approving these methods are being developed. In contrast, animal experiments have never been subjected to the same level of scrutiny and validation. Despite these challenges, many scientists are increasingly committed to developing and using non-animal methods. What are the alternatives to experiments on animals? The world is continuously moving toward a future dominated by sophisticated methods that use human cells, tissues and organs, 3D printing, robotics, computer models and other technologies to create experiments that do not rely on animals. While animal experiments were developed decades ago and will always have severe limitations, advanced non-animal methods represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer, provide countless possibilities to improve our understanding and treatment of human diseases and will only continue to improve over time. Non-animal methods also have several advantages over outdated animal experiments: they more closely mimic how the human body responds to drugs, chemicals and treatments; they are more efficient and often less expensive; and they are more humane. Ultimately, moving away from animal experiments is better for both humans and animals. We advocate for the immediate replacement of animal experiments with available non-animal methods and funding to develop new methods. A concerted effort to shift funding and technological development toward more non-animal alternatives will lead us to a future where animal experiments will ultimately become a thing of the past. examples of non-animal alternative methods “Organs-on-chips” are tiny 3D chips created from human cells that look and function like miniature human organs. Organs-on-chips are used to determine how human systems respond to different drugs or chemicals and to find out exactly what happens during infection or disease. Several organs, representing heart, liver, lungs or kidneys, for example, can be linked together through a “microfluidic” circulatory system to create an integrated “human-on-a-chip” model that lets researchers assess multi-organ responses. Sophisticated computer models use existing information (instead of carrying out more animal tests) to predict how a medicine or chemical, such as drain cleaner or lawn fertilizer, might affect a human. Cells from a cancer patient’s tumor are used to test different drugs and dosages to get exactly the right treatment for that specific individual, rather than testing the drugs on animals. Specialized computers use human cells to print 3D tissues that are used to test drugs. Skin cells from patients, such as those with Alzheimer’s disease, are turned into other types of cells (brain, heart, lung, etc.) in the laboratory and used to test new treatments. Sophisticated computer programming, combined with 3D imaging, is used to develop highly accurate 3D models of human organs, such as the heart. Researchers then input real-world data from healthy people and those with heart disease to make the model hearts “beat” and test how they might respond to new drugs. What are you doing to end experiments on animals? We advocate for replacing animals with non-animal alternative methods when they are available and funding the development of new alternative methods to quickly replace antiquated and unreliable animal tests and experiments. Our two main areas of focus are ending cosmetics animal testing and ending experiments on dogs. Cosmetics testing on animals We—along with our partner, Humane Society International—are committed to ending cosmetics animal testing forever. Through our Be Cruelty-Free campaign, we are working in the United States and around the globe to create a world where animals no longer have to suffer to produce lipstick and shampoo. In the United States, we are working to pass the Humane Cosmetics Act, federal legislation that would prohibit animal testing for cosmetics, as well as the sale of animal-tested cosmetics. We are also working in several U.S. states to pass legislation that would end cosmetics animal testing. As of December 2022, 10 states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Virginia) have passed laws banning the sale of animal-tested cosmetics. Internationally, as of December 2022, 42 countries have passed laws to limit or ban cosmetics animal testing, including every country in the European Union, Australia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and several states in Brazil. We work with scientists from universities, private companies and government agencies around the globe to promote the development, use and regulatory acceptance of non-animal test methods that will reach beyond cosmetics. In April 2022, we released the results of our undercover investigation at Inotiv, an Indiana laboratory where thousands of dogs, monkeys, pigs and rats are used in experiments and killed. In 2021, we released a report examining the U.S. government’s role in using dogs in experiments. We found that the government uses millions of taxpayer dollars to fund harmful experiments on dogs each year—and also seems to prefer that companies carry out dog tests. Our researchers scrutinized public records and found that between 2015 and 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded more than $200 million to 200 institutions for 303 projects that used dogs in harmful experiments. Dogs were subjected to multiple surgeries, fitted with equipment to impair their heart function and implanted with devices to alter normal bodily functions. Following the conclusion of an experiment, dogs are typically killed instead of being adopted into loving homes. In 2019, we released the results of our undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a test year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs, agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners so they could be adopted. We are calling on federal agencies to develop a plan and create a timetable for phasing out and ending all experiments on dogs. We also want all the federal funding mechanisms to commit to supporting the development and use of non-animal methods. For example: After a recent analysis we performed that showed the 90-day dog test for pesticide registration was rarely used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the risk that pesticides pose to humans, we are urging the agency to eliminate or significantly limit this test in the near future. We also want the agency to reaffirm their previously stated commitment to end their reliance on using mammals to test pesticides and chemicals by 2035. We are asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support the development of alternative methods that replace dogs in experiments. We want the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to adopt the recommendations of an independent panel review released in 2020 that analyzed VA experiments using dogs, identified several areas where dogs are not needed and urged the agency to develop a strategy to replace all animal use. We are recommending that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scrutinize grant proposals for projects using dogs, by applying strict criteria that must be met before dogs can be used and that they ban the use of dogs in experiments that cause unrelieved pain. We are also requesting that the NIH define a date when they will no longer fund or support experiments on dogs. We are pushing states to pass laws that protect dogs in laboratories. We support bills to: prohibit or limit the use of dogs in experiments not required by federal law. What can I do to help animals in laboratories? One easy way to help animals suffering in cosmetics tests is to swap out your personal care and household products for cruelty-free versions! Cosmetics (such as shampoo, deodorant and lipstick) and household products (such as dish soap, laundry detergent and glass cleaner) are typically tested on guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and rats. Help us demand better for animals used in experiments through the following actions: Alternatives to horseshoe crab blood The Humane Society of the United States urges that horseshoe crab blood be replaced with non-animal methods when conducting endotoxin tests for medical products. Vaccine, injectable drug and medical device manufacturers must test for endotoxins, a type of bacterial contaminant that, if present, can cause patients to develop symptoms that can include fever, chills, headache and nausea. Blood from horseshoe crabs is used to conduct the Limulus amebocyte lysate (or LAL) test for endotoxins. The problem To create this test, horseshoe crabs are captured from the wild and up to 30% of their blood is removed by medical supply companies. The crabs are later returned to the wild; however, it is estimated that 10-15% or more of them die as a result of this process. In addition to being collected for their blood, horseshoe crabs are gathered up by fisheries, which use them as bait. These practices have led to a rapid decrease in the horseshoe crab population, putting them at risk of extinction. The decrease in wild horseshoe crab populations also impacts other species, including migratory shorebirds like the red knot, a threatened species that depends on horseshoe crab eggs for food. THE solution Scientists have developed recombinant Factor C, a synthetic alternative to the protein in horseshoe crab blood that can detect bacterial endotoxins. Repeated studies have demonstrated that rFC is equivalent or superior to the LAL test. A second method—the monocyte activation test— uses human cells and can not only detect bacterial endotoxins, but also pyrogenic non-endotoxins. what should be done As a member of the Horseshoe Crab Recovery Coalition, the Humane Society of the United States is advocating for the replacement of the Limulus amebocyte lysate test with recombinant Factor C (rFC) or the monocyte activation test (MAT). We urge the U.S. Pharmacopoeia—which sets quality, purity, strength and identity standards for medicines, food ingredients and dietary supplements—to encourage manufacturers to use rFC or MAT rather than LAL. We also urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to update its guidance for vaccine, injectable drug and device manufacturers to indicate that these non-animal tests are now the preferred methods for endotoxin and pyrogenicity testing. Also of interest: Get HSUS news and action alerts Thank you for signing up for text alerts! You will receive text messages with ways to help animals right from your phone. By providing your mobile number, you agree to receive autodialed, recurring text messages from the HSUS with updates and ways you can help animals. Message and data rates may apply. Text STOP to 77879 to opt out, HELP for info. Privacy policy.Terms and conditions. All Animals magazine The Humane Society of the United States is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions to the HSUS are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. The HSUS's tax identification number is 53-0225390.	How many animals are used in experiments each year? It is estimated that more than 50 million animals are used in experiments each year in the United States. Unfortunately, no accurate figures are available to determine precisely how many animals are used in experiments in the U.S. or worldwide. However, the animals most commonly used in experiments—“purpose-bred” mice and rats (mice and rats bred specifically to be used in experiments)—are not counted in annual USDA statistics and are not afforded the minimal protections provided under the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that sets minimal standards for the treatment of certain warm-blooded animals used in experiments. The law also requires that unannounced inspections of all regulated research facilities are carried out annually. In addition to purpose-bred mice and rats, animals such as crabs, fish, frogs, octopuses and turtles, as well as purpose-bred birds, are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The failure to protect these animals under the law means that there is no oversight or scrutiny of their treatment and use in the laboratory. And, because these animals are not counted, no one knows how many of them are suffering in laboratories. It also means that facilities using unprotected species in experiments are not required to search for alternative, non-animal methods that could be used to replace or reduce harmful experiments that use animals. Chimpanzees have thankfully not been subjected to invasive experiments in the U.S. since 2015, when federal decisions were made to prevent their use. Despite this, hundreds of chimpanzees are still languishing in laboratories while they wait to be moved into sanctuaries. Monkeys are taken from their mothers as infants to study how extreme stress might affect human behavior. Mice are force-fed daily doses of a chemical for two years to see if it might cause cancer in humans. Cats have their spinal cords damaged and are forced to run on treadmills to study how nerve activity might affect human limb movement.	no
Ethics	Should animals be used for research?	no_statement	"animals" should not be used for "research".. animal "research" is unethical and should be banned.	https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/arguments-against-animal-testing	Arguments against animal testing \| Cruelty Free International	Arguments against animal testing The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences. It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans. Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there. Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments. The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings. Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute Unreliable animal testing 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work. Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans. A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests. Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans. One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats. Dangerous animal testing Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide. Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects. A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans. A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first. Animals are different Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia. An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA. The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans. Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs. Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards. The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence. FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.	Arguments against animal testing The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences. It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans. Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there. Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments. The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings. Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute Unreliable animal testing 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work. Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans. A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.	no
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	yes_statement	"animals" should have the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" deserve the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is necessary.. it is justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".	https://brownfieldagnews.com/two-cents/animals-not-rights-humans/	Animals should not have the same rights as humans - Brownfield Ag ...	Animal rights or animal welfare? That is often the question being asked. One group makes no bones about it. It’s about animal rights for The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). Founded in 1996 by attorney Steven M. Wise, NhRP works to “secure legally recognized fundamental rights for nonhuman animals through litigation, advocacy, and education.” According to the group’s website, it works to change the legal status “of at least some nonhuman animals from mere ‘things’, which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to ‘persons’, who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them.” In a nutshell, this group considers that their clients (referred to by NhRP as plaintiffs) have many of the same rights as humans. NhRP says their current plaintiffs, which include great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales have been scientifically proven to be autonomous. I guess that all depends upon your definition of autonomous. In my worldview, an autonomous being is either a human being or an entity (like a country) comprised of human beings. I do not believe that any animal should have the same rights as human beings. Most humans have the capability to contemplate their actions and character. Animals do not. I am a proponent of animal welfare. We practice it on our farm. My husband and I have a deep-rooted passion for raising livestock that began when we were children. We share a commitment to raising cattle and poultry while maintaining the solid ethical standards with which we were raised. Practicing animal welfare was from the very beginning an integral part of our philosophy. It was and is an inherent part of who we are. We have a cat that is a very important part of our lives. I will cry alligator tears when my cat dies. He’s been a daily presence in our lives for more than 15 years. But I have known since we adopted him from a pet shelter exactly how much we would spend on vet bills if he got sick or hurt. That number has gone higher over the years as our fondness for him has grown, but we still have a number. He’s not a person. The Nonhuman Rights Project recently filed a petition for a common law writ of habeas corpus in Connecticut Superior Court on behalf of three elephants at a zoo in Conneticut. The aforementioned “writ” is a court order to a person or agency holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order and to show a valid reason for that person’s detention The suit demands that the court, in accordance with state common law and scientific evidence of elephants’ autonomy, recognize the elephants as legal persons with the fundamental right to bodily liberty. NhRP wants the court to move the elephants to a natural habitat sanctuary. If these elephants have the same rights as human beings, should it be up to someone other than the elephants to determine where to place them? It’s a slippery slope, friends. I certainly don’t wish to see any animal mistreated, but I don’t believe that any animal has the same rights as any human being. honestly I think that you are seriously wrong. I believe that animals should be protected in every way. Besides, how cares about your cat? (if it’s dead I’m so sorry for your loss) when you look up animal rights you expect to see informative stuff, just saying I don’t really agree with you. The U.S constitution doesn’t state that animals have rights, so why should we give it to them? You can’t even decide what the animals can feel! THEY CAN’T TALK! I agree, animals should be protected, but animals don’t know any better. They can’t follow the laws just like humans, let alone function like one. Uh, we’re animals as well? And animals can express themselves actually, what happened to all the onomatopoeia that we use for them? At least they didn’t cause global warming and attempt to destroy our earth. So, you’re basically saying WE shouldn’t have rights. We’re in the ANIMAL KINGDOM if you didn’t study your biology. I agree, animals should not be mistreated in any way but they should not have animal rights either. Animals don’t understand fully what’s right and wrong they only use instincts. Of course, animals have done good deeds but they have also attacked humans . If they had rights then it’d be extremely dangerous for humans to roam around without being attacked. I love animals but they should not be treated as humans because they aren’t. Since they’re not human, they should also be protected and treated kindly because we should appreciate the fact we have them. Animals don’t attack unless provoked to do otherwise. Also, if people are in their “hunting” area, they are the ones completely at fault for being injured. Animals are not malicious and don’t attack for no reason. People mainly get injured by animals because people get too close to their territory, don’t respect their personal space, ignore the warning signs of an attack or egg it on in some kind of way. Also, if they get rights its not like theyll magically start walking around the cities with us, they will be returned to natural habitats or have natural habitats made for them. Therefore if someone is attacked it’s solely their fault. You obviously live in a city if you think animals do not attack unprovoked. Also humans are not meant to live just in cities. We have every right to live in wild or country areas. I carry a gun and any animal that attacks me is getting shot, but if they leave me alone I will leave them alone. Have a nice day. I’ve lived in the city and the country, animals do not just attack someone for no reason. They hunt for survival if a human gets attacked it’s because the animal is either hungry, protecting family or protecting their home. If a stranger walks into your home or near your children at a store wouldn’t you be on guard and question why they are near you and your family? It’s the same for animals. Yes they make decisions based off of instinct but it’s a hunt, protect and survive instinct. Have a nice day. You do have every right to be in the city and country, but so do animals. And if you can’t just shoot a person for attacking you in every case, you can’t just shoot an animal. Just FYI. Nor should you. But you literally just contradicted yourself. They leave you alone you leave them alone. Makes sense right. They don’t attack unprovoked, city or country. There is always a reason. And most cases a human is always involved. You are right. Dogs are being used as weapons, a human faces animal cruelty charges for putting down an animal after being mauled by that animal. No laws in the state protected that man. But laws exist to punish that man for animal cruelty. This is absurd. Also I believe that if the dog owner is not responsible enough to own certain types of aggressive animals, should not be allowed. Incorrect, animals attack often without provocation. Dogs are being taught that it’s ok to attack. And the owners face zero legal action, unless someone dies. If a person is to irresponsible to keep a vicious dog retrained, then he should not be allowed to have that dog. I love my dogs. But if one viciously attacked a human being. Without provocation, it will be put down, right now dogs can brutally attack someone, if you put it down, you face charges. Insane Animals do not attack unprovaked. There is ALWAYS a reason, you did not respect their personal space. You are near them babies or home. Invaded their space, didnt not pay attention to the signs, provoked it yourself. Etc. Animals do not attack for no reason, city or country. Dogs are not being taught anything about attacking. Humans are being taught they can react however they want to an animal and it is okay but an animal can’t do the same when it is the human doing the wrong. And you shouldn’t be able to put down an animal just because it attacks. Like i said what did the human do, why did the dog do it? You can’t just put down an animal even if you want to and if you do you should face charges. If you can’t put down a human for doing such, why do you think an animal is less valuable and should be allowed for that to happen. Insane. You do not get to play god because an action mistake or not was made. If you try to you should be charged. People like you should not own dogs. Give your dogs to someone who values their life more. You clearly have a god complex. Narcissistic. OMG PERIOD like I truly agree with this statement and people are really saying that a living creature should not have right like no stop being ignorant because at the end of the day you are a guest in there home that WE destroyed and WE also kicked them out of THERE OWN HOME so if you are going to type behind a screen and come at me sideways dm me (@JOEGARCIA)and we can exchange words because you have NO right to say who deserves rights and who dose not AND THAT IS ON NOT BEING AN IGNORANT PERSON!! Animals take each others’ territories daily, whats wrong if we take some of theirs? Stop being a child and grow up, people take from each other, animals take from each other, humans take from animals and animals take from humans. If you havnen´t learnt this already then you are a fool. its funny how you said you will ‘cry alligator tears’ for your cat when s/he dies. Although it seems like a mistake since you don’t know its meaning, I think it is really apt- given your contention on animal rights. That is so true if you really cared for your cat and loved he/she, you would dread to even think about them dying. Really caring for your cat that much isn’t thinking about how much you would spend on them. I also have a cat and I love her a lot. When she’s sick I don’t think about how much it would cost to get her treated, I would just want her treated as soon as possible. thank you for your opinions and i respect your opinion and I hope the rest of the comments don’t hurt you but I also feel animals don’t have rights as humans but the have to be provoked to attack or ya know they might just attack for no reason we don’t understand animals enough to say but your information really helped me on a school project I hope you have a good day or night 🙂 thank you As you said, ” Most humans have the capability to contemplate their actions and character,” isn’t that a little counterintuitive? Humans with disabilities are still human beings and deserve what is deemed as “human rights.” I’m not saying animals deserve the “human rights” we have – as some humans are used for exploitation like many animals are – but they still deserve more than what they are given. animals wont attack unless desease, sickness or being provoked and i live in the country if they attack its a dog that was breed to do that and people need to remember that it was the animals home first and we can live in the country. but if the animal wanted to it could kill you with your gun or without your gun. if someone was randomly on your property you would attack them, this is why people that live in city hate us, they just know dumb people from the country. we took their home kidnap them for are personel games and then we force them to make children and then take their children and when they get old we eat them and thats ok to you! and people take their skin to WEAR! take those animal HOMES HOW IS THAT OK WITH PEOPLE! fbfhg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A little hysterical, huh? Not that you’re wrong, but you’re not entirely right either. Yes, we eat them, but, hey, would you rather the human race go extinct? It’s a matter of survival really. Would you prefer it if the human race just left planet Earth altogether? Yes, it was their home first, and we owe animals a lot, but it’s our home now. We can learn to share the land with the animals, but we’re not going to be pushed off of what we’ve made our home. We take their children, but the animal (if it’s domesticated) won’t react very miserably to that. Taking the kids of a wild animal is a different matter. And yes, we keep pets- but that’s not cruel. Now you’re just being crazy. There are people who really care for their pets- and vice versa. I am 100% against animal cruelty, but not 100% on board with the whole “animal rights” thing. And yes, sometimes we use animals to develop vaccines. Should we use a human instead? A human who can die? A human who has much more complex feelings than most animals? A human who loves and wants and lives and breathes? I’m not going to put it lightly- a human is more important than an animal. Deal with it. We don’t just eat them. We force them to have babies, take the babies at birth so humans can drink milk meant for their offspring, and restrict the baby’s movement so they suffer and then slaughter them for veal I completely disagree. You seem to think that an organism deserves full legal rights only if it is what we would consider a human, because humans are somehow apart from all other organisms because of our superior ability for reasoning and understanding the world around us. However, severely disabled people and young children are granted human rights, but I think we can agree this is not because of their capacity for intelligence. Many studies have proven that various animals such as crows, pigs, elephants, and even dogs will demonstrate higher levels of intelligence and comprehension than some humans who are disabled or are still very young. Why, then, if some humans are mentally inferior to animals, do we consider them to be deserving of rights? It is likely because of our acknowledgment that they have similar experiences to ourselves; that is that they can feel pain, and experience emotions like happiness, love, fear, stress, and loss. But these experiences that we might generally agree qualify a human to be deserving of rights are not remotely unique to our species. Almost all types of mammals have been proven to demonstrate all of these feelings, and current science suggests that any animal with a nervous system (basically anything that can move on its own) is capable of suffering from pain when it is sick or physically injured. As we further examine the similarities between our experiences and those of the creatures we share this world with, we are beginning to understand that many of them have a conscious experience of life very much like our own, minus the extremely high intelligence that most but not all humans are capable of. I will leave you to decide whether we should consider the individual experiences of a being when determining if they deserve personhood, or if we should arbitrarily say that all humans are above other creatures (a view very similar to and associated with other outdated sentiments like that men are above women, that one skin color or ethnic group is above the others, or that disabled people should be killed for being worthless to society). However, in my opinion, we should determine who deserves rights based upon a common basis for all organisms, either based on their capacity for reasoning (which would exclude severely disabled people and babies and include elephants and parrots) or based on their capacity for suffering and joy (which would indiscriminately include all animals with sophisticated brains and nervous systems). We are apex predators. In nature, no other apex predator considers what the prey is feeling. Why should we? Practically all other animals are, ecologically speaking, potential prey to us – so, in my opinion, our consideration of them should only extend to a) maintaining the function of ecosystems, because we can and it is beneficial, b) not inflicting suffering for its own sake, because that serves no function and is not typically befitting of an apex predator, c) making sure we can continue to extract whatever products we can get from them as efficiently as possible, and d) minimizing opportunities for zoonotic transfer of diseases. Ergo, I think we should maintain the mindset of apex predators (because that’s what we are) except where deviating therefrom is beneficial to society or the world at large. Seriously, we’re holding ourselves to an absolutely ridiculous standard here. We are competing for survival with other species in the Earth’s ecosystems – and despite the fact that we have been massively successful in doing so in the last few thousand years, it’s still a competition. Hey mr. Apex predator, let’s see you go head to head with any predatory animal in the ecosystem the same weight as you WITHOUT any weapons then come on here and talk about animal rights. You’re not a predator, you’re a human being, with common sense to wake up and see that all living creatures deserve life without constant fear of someone walking into THEIR house and shooting, stabbing, or trapping them because they’re a slab of meat. Unbelievable that it’s 2022 and we still have people justifying this, take it elsewhere bud I agree that animals should deserve more rights but to be honest I don’t think thats going to happen in a while. Lots of people still believe that black people should have less rights. (It is getting lower). But if people don’t respect people then it’s going to be much harder for people to respect animals. Animals do not deserve the same rights as humans. With rights there are responsibilities. Furthermore, what authority will make sure that every animals gets their rights? There should be a separate thing called animals rights that will protect animals from unjustified harm caused by humans, ie: torturing animals, having them caged up for no reason etc. But to say the animals deserves the exact same rights as humans is nonsensical. I agree, to put an animal down because it followed it s instincts to protect, defend, or survive is wrong. We are putting human laws on non human creatures. In nature there are no rights, just the survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle. If roles were reversed, if the “jungle” would treat me like any other animal. The jungle has no mercy on weak and disabled animals. Most Humans have that capacity. That’s one of the things that sets us apart from non humans. The ability to be merciful. In the “jungle there are no rights, only survival of the fittest. Weak and disabled animals usually don’t survive. If I were in the jungle, and I were weak, they would 9. Times out of ten show no mercy to me. Mercy is one of the distinguishing ccharacteristics of humans that sets me apart from non humans. Look, I’m sorry you don’t consider you cat to be a friend, but my dog is a friend to me, and not just a pet. Animals are more intelligent than we give them credit for, and should be made legal persons. This also applies to places like rivers and the Amazon rain forest. Recently, New Zealand made the Whanganui River a legal person, and Columbia made its portion of the Amazon rain forest a legal person as well. The implication being made here is that you treat nature as you’d want to be treated, or be prepared to be charged as though they’d committed a crime against a human being. I’m not talking about giving them voting rights, but unless we enforce stricter legal protections, nothing’s going to get better. Animals have no sense of right or wrong, and little ability to rationalize, therefore they shouldn’t have the same protection rights that humans have. This doesn’t mean that animals should be abused, but hunting is fine. Who thinks like that? That is a normal human being. You have a number for you cat on health expense? That is sad and pathetic. Let me tell you i will do whatever i have to no matter the cost to save my animals until the vet tells me otherwise. You wouldn’t cut your human kids or family off at a number and just say well its getting to expensive to keep you alive or save you or healthy so oh well. Trash humans think like that. Animals deserve the same love and care as a human child. You go hard for them. There is always a way. If you wouldn’t let your kids die you don’t let your animals just because you met a number. That is such a terrible and pos thing to say. Animals should have the same rights as humans as far as protection. If someone is trying to human my animal, im going to shoot that person all the same to protect my animal as i would to protect a human. As it should be. Animal are not less than us, their lives do not matter less. Who are we to same their lives are less valuable to be able to live and be protected as a humans. Anyone who thinks otherwise on that is an abusive pos with a superiority issue on life and values. Not someone with good character and morals. And people like that do not deserve animals in their life because those animals are settling and being short changed what they could be getting out of life with someone grown and pure of heart. I kinda feel like the human race (or atleast those in developed society) is devolving after reading most of these comments. There is a painful amount of willful ignorance from people who like inventing standards that they wouldn’t actually follow if it cost them anything. People who live relatively comfortable lives. I commend the author of this article but there is no point in trying to reason or logic with unreasonable people. “Apex Predator”, “superior species” my back side people who say stuff like this are really narcissistic & delusional and believes in their own hype way to much and needs a reality check Human laws are made by society to control the human population IN A SOCIETY that’s it that all Animals should not be obligated or expected to follow rules that where for people only (made by people for people) and some people don’t even follow the laws if I’m being completely honest but anyway back to the matter at hand Animals are very simple creatures they only follow the rules of nature always has been like that and it always will be like that Quick links All market data is provided by Barchart Solutions. Futures: at least 10 minute delayed. Information is provided 'as is' and solely for informational purposes, not for trading purposes or advice. To see all exchange delays and terms of use, please see disclaimer.	We don’t just eat them. We force them to have babies, take the babies at birth so humans can drink milk meant for their offspring, and restrict the baby’s movement so they suffer and then slaughter them for veal I completely disagree. You seem to think that an organism deserves full legal rights only if it is what we would consider a human, because humans are somehow apart from all other organisms because of our superior ability for reasoning and understanding the world around us. However, severely disabled people and young children are granted human rights, but I think we can agree this is not because of their capacity for intelligence. Many studies have proven that various animals such as crows, pigs, elephants, and even dogs will demonstrate higher levels of intelligence and comprehension than some humans who are disabled or are still very young. Why, then, if some humans are mentally inferior to animals, do we consider them to be deserving of rights? It is likely because of our acknowledgment that they have similar experiences to ourselves; that is that they can feel pain, and experience emotions like happiness, love, fear, stress, and loss. But these experiences that we might generally agree qualify a human to be deserving of rights are not remotely unique to our species. Almost all types of mammals have been proven to demonstrate all of these feelings, and current science suggests that any animal with a nervous system (basically anything that can move on its own) is capable of suffering from pain when it is sick or physically injured. As we further examine the similarities between our experiences and those of the creatures we share this world with, we are beginning to understand that many of them have a conscious experience of life very much like our own, minus the extremely high intelligence that most but not all humans are capable of. I will leave you to decide whether we should consider the individual experiences of a being when determining if they deserve personhood, or if we should arbitrarily say that all humans are above other creatures (a view very similar to and associated with other outdated sentiments like that men are above women, that one skin color or ethnic group is above the others, or that disabled people should be killed for being worthless to society). However, in my opinion, we should determine who deserves rights based upon a common basis for all organisms, either based on their capacity for reasoning (	yes
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	yes_statement	"animals" should have the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" deserve the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is necessary.. it is justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093145/	Do Animals Have Rights? - PMC	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice Associated Data Abstract Simple Summary Sentient animals have moral rights. This follows from the best justification for human rights that we can give. However, that does not mean that animals have the same rights as we do. First, they have partially different interests. Second, humans have special relationships with each other, from which special duties also follow. Humans live in states and are subject to compulsory laws. However, we have also made many animals existentially dependent on us through subjugation. A just coexistence with such animals is only possible if we also grant them political membership rights. Abstract Do animals have moral rights? An affirmative answer follows from the best justification for human rights that we can give. The moral status not only of humans but also of animals consists in an egalitarian right to have rights. From this equal status, however, substantially equal rights follow only if the morally relevant interests are equal. A reasonably broad and differentiated understanding of our own, human animal nature reveals which interests we share with many other animals. Thus, sentient animals have basic rights to life and well-being, including volitional activities and access to beneficial social relationships. Further rights arise from special human–animal relationships that are also politically relevant. By subjecting animals and, thus, making them existentially dependent on us, we owe them more than mere protection and help in easily remediable emergencies. We thereby also assume associative duties, as they exist among fellow citizens. Therefore, we should open our understanding of the common good to the reality of species-mixed communities and represent animals politically. 1. Introduction All humans have rights understood as morally valid claims that are important enough to deserve legal protection. Due to their moral justification, no state is legitimate that systematically disregards them. Do some or all other animals also have rights in this particularly strong sense? Although in more recent times some legal scholars have argued for legal animal rights [1,2,3], the prevailing view among lawyers is that animals lack legal personhood. Consequently, most defenders of animal rights concentrate on the possible moral foundations in order to show that animals also deserve the strong legal protection that humans already enjoy. The text is organized as follows. First, I outline the function and structure of rights. Then I sketch a model of moral reasoning in which we play the dual role of subjects and objects of moral consideration. Although animals are not capable of grasping the content of moral reasons, they share with us morally significant characteristics in which they basically deserve equal concern. Contrary to the prejudice that animals cannot have rights, I then show that at least the protective function of rights can also apply to them. All sentient animals have basic rights to life and well-being, including volitional activities and access to beneficial social relationships. Further rights arise from special human–animal relationships that are also politically relevant. Not all, but some animals thus have a valid claim to membership in a political community. 2. The Concept and Justification of Moral Rights Morality is about duties. Not all, but central duties arise from rights. They follow from the valid claims of others. Whoever violates them does not simply act wrongly; they act wrongly by doing a wrong to others. They violate directed duties whose fulfillment would be owed to some other party [4]. Certainly, rights in this sense are not metaphysical dowries. They are not natural or metaphysical properties of individuals, as the natural law rhetoric of ‘rights inherent to all human beings’ might have us believe. This rhetoric would be better understood to mean that our fundamental rights do not first come into the world through political or social acts of bestowal. Rather, they emerge from moral reasoning itself. A moral right is a special case of valid claims. It is a claim backed up by reasons that can be shared by all normatively responsible persons. I presuppose that at least human rights satisfy this condition. Since human rights, unlike animal rights, are in principle not very controversial, they shall serve me as a model case for the following conceptual explication. I will methodically progress from the more familiar to the less familiar by showing that from the best understanding of human rights claims it follows that many animals also have moral rights [5]. Claims always have a three-digit structure. A (a subject) has a claim to X (a good) against B (a bearer of the duty or obligation). The relation can also be logically reversed: B has a duty with respect to X against A. This fact supports the so-called correlativity thesis: no rights of one party without substantively corresponding duties of another [6]. This is not entirely wrong, but it must not obscure an essential asymmetry: Claim rights give rise to the duties that correspond to them. B is obligated to do or omit something because A has the practical authority [7] to demand this of B. B owes A the fulfillment of the obligation. The normative relationship emanates from A, the holder of the right [8]. The latter may directly and for their own sake expect B to do or not to do something. Without this practical authority embodied by A, the duty would not exist. Human rights are a subclass of claim rights. They are morally justified claims that every human being possesses as such. A minimal consensus states that every born and not (entirely) brain-dead individual member of the species Homo Sapiens is necessarily and inalienably endowed with certain rights, including the rights to life and physical integrity. Normatively, they apply even if the positive law of a state does not provide for them. The convincing moral justification, not the actual legal implementation and observance, constitutes the condition of the existence of human rights. We react specifically morally, for example with indignation [9], where we believe them to have been violated; and our indignation would not diminish if we learned that those in power did not believe in human rights and that the laws of the state therefore did not entail them. Rather, we would see this as an additional reason for moral resentment. What might a convincing moral justification for human rights look like? Let us imagine a moral discourse about what we owe to each other as human beings. Such a discourse has a practical purpose: it aims at reasons for norms of action that all normatively responsible persons should see as categorically binding. Every sane person should incorporate a validly grounded norm of morality into their conscience. The reasons that speak for the validity of the norm must therefore not only be valid relative to particular social positions. They must be acceptable for all independent of their bargaining power and other properties that separate agents from each other. Valid norms of morality are based on reasons all moral agents can share [10]. However, human persons are not only addressees of moral responsibility. They also require moral consideration from all other moral actors. They are not only moral agents, but also moral patients. We should therefore presuppose that any participant in moral discourse also regards themselves as a vulnerable being worthy of consideration. Each of them has their own point of view of the world, makes their own experiences, and is irreplaceable in the conduct of their life, the success of which is of ultimate value for any of them. Any agent will therefore want to reconcile the norms of morality with the pursuit of a successful life. In Kantian terms: Any moral agent sees themselves as an end and never merely as a means [11]. This rules out a purely aggregative view of morality, as represented by utilitarianism. Any moral agent will reasonably attach importance to not letting their most important interests fall under the wheels of collective goal pursuit. We will all demand guarantees that our individual good cannot simply be sacrificed for a supra-personal overall good. The moral status therefore consists in a right to have rights [5]. This concept, redundant only in appearance, emphasizes the difference from a purely aggregative moral conception. Moral agents not only have the right to appear with their utility functions in an ultimately impersonal moral calculus. The right to have rights gives each member of the moral community the normative authority to demand from all others a consideration owed to him or her. Otherwise, a normative order would not merit the consent of every participant in a moral discourse. The normative order must be characterized by the form of subjective rights. In addition, since the participants in the moral discourse are all human beings, they will grant each other rights as human beings. 3. Rights beyond Anthropocentrism The picture that emerges is apparently quite anthropocentric. This is true of the criterion of universal consent and equally true of the circle of rights holders that results from it. However, this is simply because I have started from a discourse in which moral agents seek to work out together what they owe to each other generally and reciprocally. Since only human persons can recognize and critically review moral duties as such, there is no alternative to an anthropocentrism of morality in this epistemological respect. However, a genuinely normative question distinct from this is who should count as a moral patient. Who belongs to the community of beings who deserve consideration for their own sake in the form of subjective rights? To answer this second question, participants in the discourse must refer to and reflect upon their own moral neediness as vulnerable individuals. They should ask themselves what aspects of their vulnerability give them valid reasons for claiming consideration in the form of human rights. In doing so, they should not be distracted by who else might benefit from the consideration owed to them. This follows from the formal generality of morality. It requires us to give equal consideration to the same morally significant properties in otherwise equal circumstances. Only the content of a valid justifying reason therefore determines the condition of moral belonging in the respect specified by this very reason, and only the facts decide who fulfills the condition of belonging. If respect is due to us because of our disposition to autonomy, then in that regard only individuals belong to it who are at least potentially normatively sane and morally responsible. With regard to the sensitivity to pain, on the other hand, all who can feel pain like we do belong to the community of beings to whom no unnecessary pain may be inflicted. After all, at least one reason that we (should) consider morally significant applies to them as well as to us [12]. This suggests a pluralistic picture of interests relevant to human rights [3]. It is not determined solely by the higher capacities that distinguish us as normatively sane persons and morally capable actors. Certainly, such specifically human capacities play a role in making some human rights intelligible. Only those who can reason and articulate linguistically have something to gain directly from the freedom of linguistic expression. Only those who can understand what offices and authorizing acts are can meaningfully exercise a political right to vote. Only those who can understand their own moral status have to worry about their self-respect. Even violations such as torture are also abhorrent in human rights terms because the victims are humiliated by them, and their will as autonomous beings is to be broken. However, that is hardly all that makes torture terrible and utterly reprehensible. Shall we give no weight of its own to the aspect of body-bound torment? After all, severe pain is bad in itself. It is so regardless of whether the victim is a brilliant intellectual or a one-year-old child, whether they can speak or only scream. Torture tends to reduce even mature people to mere creatures trembling for their lives and writhing in pain, and it makes them experience in an extreme way that they are creatures capable of suffering. Perhaps we suffer pain in a special way because we can also ask the question about its meaning and possible justification. In addition, we certainly do not interpret every intentional infliction of pain, no matter how severe, as torture. The interpretation of an infliction of suffering as torture implies the accusation that the procedure is at least prima facie wrong. However, it would certainly also be wrong to pull out the nails of a newborn child without compelling reasons. Moreover, it would be absurd to assume that the only decisive factor for the type and severity of the pain is whether the victim is aware of the injustice that he or she may experience through the treatment. Thus, although we started from human persons as participants in moral discourses, interests also become recognizable as relevant to human rights, which the participants have in common with many other creatures. Not only human beings who can relate to reasons as reasons and can obey duties out of insight can have a more or less good or even only bearable life. Immature and severely mentally impaired people can also experience their existence as more or less gratifying, and the same is true for many other animals. They all possess not only physical but also psychological characteristics that grant them their own perspective on their existence in the world. They are all irreplaceable individual subjects experiencing, or suffering, some of their life processes. This ontological feature separates humans and all sentient animals from inanimate objects, but equally, as far as we know, from simple animals such as nematodes, from all plants, fungi, and microorganisms [13]. This is also normatively relevant because all sentient beings possess interests that are eligible for morally owed protection and morally demanded promotion. In our own case, this protection and promotion take the form of human rights. Yet, we share some interests relevant to human rights in this way or in a similar way with many other animals capable of feeling and experiencing. After all, we are not only rational, linguistically gifted, and moral beings, but also bodily existing finite creatures that can suffer and need bonding. We should therefore also grant morally justified rights to all other such creatures. They share with us the fact that their lives matter to them subjectively and that the success of their lives is of ultimate value to them. Thus, they should all be recognized as ends and never merely as means [14]. It is worth noting that the argument sketched out so far is not identical to the notorious argument from human marginal cases (AHMC) [15]. The AHMC also starts with the basic moral imperative to treat like cases alike. We establish the rights of humans based on characteristics that we consider morally significant. We share some of these characteristics with many other animals. If we nevertheless exclude them or put them in a worse position, it seems to be only because of their different genetic makeup. Alternatively, we could try to base human rights solely on such properties that no other animal shares with us. This counts in favor of recourse to our ‘higher’ capacities such as linguistic agency and normative sanity. If only these higher abilities were relevant to our rights, we would indeed be allowed to exclude all other animals. Unfortunately, however, we would thereby also exclude many fellow human beings. Some born and not (completely) brain-dead members of our species are not even potentially capable of propositional language and normative sanity because they are, for example, severely mentally handicapped from birth. Do they therefore have no human rights? Those who consider this counterintuitive and downright abhorrent, however, seemingly have to concede that some nonhuman animals have the fundamentally same rights as comparably competent—or impaired—humans do. In short, our ‘higher’ traits may constitute human monopolies, but not all humans possess them. Such properties, on the other hand, which are possessed by just about all born and non (whole) brain dead humans, are not human monopolies; we share them with many other animals. Thus, we need to include these other animals as well. This simple ‘moral set theory’ is the essence of the AHMC. However, my argument presented above is not dependent on the truth of the AHMC. It does not refer specifically to mentally impaired people. Instead, it relies on an appropriately broad understanding of the animal nature of even all mature human beings. Such an understanding counts in favor of a pluralistic conception of the morally relevant interests of humans. It thus simultaneously forms a bridge across the species barrier. It allows us to decide, free of arbitrariness, which interests of animals also morally deserve protection and promotion. Many animals possess interests that we among us humans consider sufficient to protect and promote them by means of moral rights. Accordingly, it follows from the basic moral precept of equal treatment of equal cases that an animal possesses a right in precisely that respect in which it sufficiently resembles a human being who possesses a right in this very regard. A possible objection to this last claim is that it is inappropriately anthropocentric. It might suggest that the more an animal resembles us, humans, the more it is morally worthy of protection and promotion. However, an interest does not have to be the same in all respects for all people and all animals in terms of content. Different individual animals of different species have different needs and abilities and can therefore be hurt in different ways [13]. For example, sensory deprivation means something different for an animal that orientates itself primarily by means of the sense of smell than it does for an animal that uses an echo sounder. Once we recognize that we share a basic dimension of interest with other animals, we should be open to morally relevant differences within that dimension. Thus, it is only the epistemic starting point of morality which is necessarily anthropocentric: in moral judgments, we cannot help but begin with a substantive respect in which we owe something to each other in order to take the step across the species barrier from there. Without any similarities to us, we simply could not decide whether and with regard to what we should consider an animal. However, this does not force us to anthropomorphize those animal interests, which we in this way reveal as morally relevant. 4. Objections to the Possibility of Animal Rights Notwithstanding the partial overlap of morally relevant interests, some philosophers and lawyers argue that animals cannot have rights. Three such arguments should be considered. A first one starts with the correlativity of rights and duties. Almost all animals except humans are incapable of insightful compliance with the rights of others. They lack the ability to accept an obligation from insight into the validity of the reasons justifying it. However, the view that only those who can observe moral obligations arising from rights can have rights themselves is already implausible with regard to human rights. Even small children or people with severe dementia cannot insightfully respect other people’s rights. A second argument refers to a distinction drawn by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg [16]. Those who confidently make use of their normative possibilities as rights holders thus testify to their self-respect. By claiming rights, they can value themselves as holders of valid claims. Feinberg argues that this special self-relation is only conceivable in a world with rights. He illustrates this with the counter-image of a world only with duties. In this counter-world—Feinberg calls it Nowheresville—a considerate interaction on all sides would probably be possible. Perhaps no one would have to fear for their life, their health, or their basic freedoms. Perhaps everyone would treat each other nicely. However, no one could say that certain actions were owed to her. No one could demand that others do or refrain from doing something for her sake. In this important respect, Nowheresville would remain normatively deficient: it would be a moral world without self-respecting subjects. However, if rights enrich the moral universe by enabling self-respect, does this not confirm the thesis that only self-conscious subjects can have rights? After all, only they have a self-respect to gain or lose. Animals cannot conceptualize themselves as rights-bearers and cannot derive any self-respect from this status. There is a conceptual reason, however, why enabling self-respect cannot be the very ground of rights. Self-respect is not a good that we are entitled to because we desperately need it. It is a genuinely normative good. Those who respect themselves thereby testify that they know about and affirm their own moral status as subjects of rights. However, this means that the commanded respect logically precedes self-respect. Nobody has a claim to respect herself for something which is not already due to her independently of this self-relation. The fundamental claim can therefore only be the claim to respect itself. Self-respect is systematically secondary to it. This does not invalidate Feinberg’s insight that normative orders with rights, unlike those that entail only duties or even virtues, produce subjects who can respect themselves. This is an additional advantage of rights-oriented orders, but it does not give rise to the moral status on which self-respect is based. Feinberg himself denied that only possible subjects of self-respect could also be subjects of rights. Even though rights can be claimed, the person who claims something and the individual in whose name she claims it do not have to be identical with each other. According to Feinberg, every individual with their own interests can be considered a right holder. That applies to young children and likewise to many animals [17]. Others could exercise the claims as proxy representatives for them. However, does this not mean that something essential is lost? A merely advocatory use of rights may be conceptually possible, but it seems to be part of the special value of rights that they give us possibilities for the self-confident shaping of normative relationships. The connection between rights and self-respect points to the emancipatory value of valid claims. This added value of rights is emphasized by supporters of the will theory, which, as the name already suggests, accentuates the willpower of the rights holder [18]. The latter can use their rights as they see fit and thereby also change normative relationships. Thus, an owner can reclaim a loan, appeal to the courts, or even make others into owners with their consent. Holders of rights have freedoms and powers that they would not possess in a world with only duties or even virtues. Subjective rights in the sense of will theory are thus an important embodiment of the modern basic value of personal self-determination or autonomy. From the will theory emerges the third reason why animals could not have rights. Almost all of them, after all, are incapable of self-conscious and self-determined use of claims. They possess at best a rudimentary concept of moral claims and normative relations as such. However, do rights really always include freedoms such as the use of a thing at one’s own discretion and powers such as to transfer property? There are two reasons against such a generalization [19]. First, the will theory leaves no room for inalienable rights. An inalienable right is a valid claim that the holder may not relinquish or cede to others. Thus, the right not to be enslaved arguably includes the prohibition against offering oneself for enslavement. Consent to an enslavement contract would be normatively void: no one would possess the competence to enter into such a contract. Similarly, procedural rights such as the right to a fair trial are not primarily there to bring the free will of the accused to bear. The latter may have the freedom to choose a defense counsel or a particular defense strategy, but she does not therefore also have the freedom to forego overall fair treatment in court. Second, the will theory has a socially exclusive effect. It misses all subjects who are not yet, no longer, or never will be capable of self-conscious self-determination. This is not a marginal problem, and it does not only concern animals. It affects all human beings in the early, and many in the later stages of their lives. Once again, the solution lies in the possibility of using rights by proxy. The will theory is therefore not a good general framework for a conception of claim rights. It tells us how self-aware subjects can use some of their rights, but it tells us too little about what rights might be good for. That is rather the domain of the interest theory. The latter emphasizes the substantial benefits that rights offer us. According to the interest theory, an individual X can have rights if some aspect of X’s well-being (an interest) is weighty enough for holding some moral agents under a duty [20]. Sentient animals are capable of subjective well-being and can therefore be considered rights bearers in the sense of the interest theory. To be sure, animal rights lack the kind of emancipatory added value that will theorists emphasize. Their central purpose is protection, not personal autonomy; however, the protective function of the rights is essential, especially for animals. Today, many of them are even excluded by definition from the space of rights-bearers. They are labeled as ‘livestock’ or as ‘pests’ and thus reduced to possible contributions to the fulfillment or thwarting of human purposes. Likewise, humans dispose of animal habitats without appreciably considering their importance to the well-being and flourishing of untold numbers of animals. Humans decide on new settlements, roads, power lines, cultivation areas, or spoil heaps and regard animal territories as terra nullius [21]. In the meantime, many states have enacted laws to protect animals. German animal protection law, for example, stipulates that animals must be stunned before slaughter. However, the law basically serves to regulate the use and also killing of animals for foreign, primarily human purposes. The so-called farm animals are only in the world to be used or consumed by humans. They have no independent right to their own life. Our interests of use form the framework of their consideration by animal protection norms. These norms should ease the animals’ lot after it is already determined that they should give us meat, milk, eggs, leather, or other products and may be locked up and slaughtered for it. However, sentient animals are not our natural servants. They are individuals with a life of their own, which for each of them is the only one they have. To recognize them as holders of rights would mean to respect them as ends instead of seeing them merely as means. In addition, even if very few rights apply absolutely, they do imply strict justification obligations for any violation of basic goods [22]. Most animals would objectively benefit greatly if at least their painful and life-shortening use for comparatively trivial purposes such as meat-eating were excluded and if they were no longer allowed to be mere material for medical experiments. Animals would even benefit from rights in a special way: they are particularly vulnerable inhabitants of a world designed by humans for humans, they cannot defend their interests themselves through collective action, and the vast majority of them cannot hope for our spontaneous sympathy, as dogs, cats, or canaries might. 5. What Rights Do Animals Have? In order to have a morally relevant interest, an animal must only be sentient. Sensations are not value-neutral, for they have a more or less pronounced positive or negative valence such as joy or pain. In addition, sentient animals actively deal with their environment and care about their own well-being and survival in at least a behavioral sense. Therefore, we should not only regard them as sentient but also as capable of experiencing in a broader sense, including strivings and volitions [13]. We can therefore give a broad outline of the content of animals’ moral claims: All sentient animals capable of experience have at least interests in the dimension of well-being, which includes pleasant sensations and pleasurable experiences as well as scope for volitional activities. Negatively, this means we must neither let animals suffer without necessity nor prevent them from engaging in activities that are promising for them. In addition, as far as they are social beings, like all animals domesticated by us, they must be able to establish contact with conspecifics or other—human or non-human—animals in forms that fit their social dispositions. I think, moreover, what I can only assert here, that we should also grant animals capable of experiencing a fundamental interest in their own further life. After all, life is a condition of the possibility of any beneficial experiences and activities, and we should not deprive animals of this possibility without necessity by killing them. Last but not least, we also know how strong animal legal claims are in principle: they are just as strong as the claims of any human being based on similar interests. This, in turn, follows from the basic requirement of equal treatment of equal cases: equal morally relevant interests count alike, no matter whose interests they are. In this sense, all the bearers of moral rights possess fundamentally the same status irrespective of species affiliation. However, it does not follow from this that all animals that have any moral rights at all, therefore have the same rights as humans do [22]. The assumption of a fundamental equality of status is, first, compatible with the fact that animals do not have certain rights that humans have, because they do not bring them any advantages. Incidentally, this is again already true among humans. A political right to vote for very young children makes no more sense than a right to vote for foxes. Animals may benefit from how people exercise their right to vote who can exercise it intelligently, but they are then only indirect beneficiaries of a right that they themselves could not use with rhyme and reason. Rights to political and also personal autonomy are, generally speaking, only directly significant for individuals who can bear a normative responsibility for living together and for leading their own lives. For the vast majority of non-human animals, this does not apply even in a rudimentary sense. Likewise, protection against discrimination or symbolic degradation is at most indirectly significant for them, since they cannot understand their own valid claims as such and relate them to the valid claims of others. This means, for example, that animals cannot suffer as such from the fact that humans somehow dominate them [23]. In fact, it seems to me that human animal husbandry is permissible precisely when it is consistent with the principle of equal regard for all the interests that animals actually have: in continued life, in well-being, and also in volitional activities and access to beneficial social relationships. Conversely, however, this means that almost all commercial and, without exception, industrial animal husbandry is incompatible with this principle and should therefore be abolished. A second type of differentiation is permissible where animals have similar morally significant interests as we do, but these interests are less strong in their case. This is certainly the more complicated case, and we must not conclude from the fact that, e.g., a restriction of freedom of movement affects an animal and not a human being that it is therefore less severe. Nevertheless, some restrictions will affect a more complex experiencing animal more strongly and in more dimensions than a less complex experiencing animal, and human persons are the most complex animals we know. Maybe we should therefore also assume that human persons, or self-conscious subjects in general, have a uniquely strong interest in their own survival. After all, they can refer to their own existence in a forward-looking or also in a retrospective way, wish for its continuation, and pursue longer-term projects, which only consciously but not self-consciously living animals are not able to do. To argue for such a position on the gradability of the interest in life would lead us into our very own philosophical depths [24]. Here it may suffice to point out that the presence of an interest across species does not necessarily mean that it is present everywhere in the same strength. Moreover, to consider unequal interests unequally would not be arbitrary in itself. It would certainly be arbitrary, however, if we killed an animal for a minor advantage such as the pleasure of a palate. At least in societies like ours, all people could exist well and healthy without products for which animals live miserably and die violently. 6. Social Relations and Membership Rights I arrived at this result of a moral status equality of humans and (other) animals by inserting the principle of equal consideration of interests into the framework of a conception of moral rights. However, the obligations of moral agents toward an individual do not sufficiently emerge from the latter’s moral status. Also relevant is the relationship between the duty bearers and the bearers of the rights. This consideration sets limits on the conceptional continuity between human and animal rights. Human rights are not only moral ‘possessions’ of individual human beings, but they also regulate social relations and should enable social participation and joint action. As far as possible, all people would have to have, first, and fundamentally, institutionally secured access to as many human rights goods as possible [25]. Human rights therefore require more from us than just the renunciation of harmful behavior by moral actors, effective protection against such behavior, and reparation or compensation after such behavior. They require us to respond effectively, comprehensively, and even proactively to whatever threats to basic goods may arise. Consequently, we encounter human rights obligations on two different levels: on a directly goods-related level involving respect, protection, and assistance (if possible, for self-help); on a logically higher level as obligations to form or strengthen institutions in order to be able to fulfill obligations on the first level as effectively as possible. To be sure, we also need institutions to prevent people from hunting animals in the wild or harming them in other ways, such as by destroying the environment. Animal rights then form a protective belt to shield animal habitats and life forms against the negative consequences of human intrusion and encroachment. However, humans are not the only beings and forces that threaten animals’ basic interests. Wild animals are also at risk of starvation, thirst, freezing, or being killed by other animals regardless of the consequences of human activities. If we wanted to effectively protect them from all these dangers, we would have to cover their habitats with institutions that would turn the wilderness into a kind of giant wildlife park. To be sure, virtually every wilderness today is already heavily infused and shaped by human activities [13]; and to the extent that we have harmed wildlife as a result, we owe them reparation or compensation [26]. However, compensation cannot reasonably consist of moralizing and transforming the last remnants of wilderness according to human conceptions. Insofar as wild animals are to remain wild, the human rights ideal of a humane and justly regulated world cannot apply to their habitats. A second, related difference is that human rights, beyond their defensive and protective function, should secure the conditions of effective inclusion in political and social communities. They are meant to enable cooperative, solidary, and caring relationships among free and equal citizens. Some political philosophers even consider the membership function of human rights to be paramount [27]. However, once again, this finds no counterpart in our relationship with wild animals, as envisioned by most animal rights advocates. The prevailing view is that we should leave wild animals alone as far as possible and reasonable. Rights then have the primary function of protection from human encroachment [28]. At most, limited and predominantly interactional duties to help in emergencies are compatible with them. This does not mean, however, that our relationship with wild animals must be paradigmatic for our relationship with animals in general. Representatives of contextualist [26] and political [5,21,29] theories of animal rights emphasize that we have brought many animals directly into our ways of life through breeding and husbandry. Many domesticated animals, in particular, could not stay alive, or at least not have good lives, without regular human attention. A possible alternative to letting such animals slowly but surely die out would be to recognize them as members of our communities. Their rights would then also acquire a membership function. It would include social, and in the case of working animals, also labor rights [30]. Anyone who keeps animals thus has extensive support obligations towards them. The animals have the right to active attention to their welfare through appropriate housing, nutrition, supervision, and care. In addition, we must all ensure, through our state, that the animal keepers fulfill their guarantor obligations. One might spontaneously find the idea of compulsory health insurance for domestic pigs or state-guaranteed pension insurance for guide dogs laughable. However, the only normatively acceptable alternative would be not to keep and use such animals as companions or cooperation partners in the first place. Once such animals are there, we cannot excuse ourselves by insisting that they should see to it themselves how they might cope in case of illness or in old age. After all, we have forced them, directly or through our legislation, into circumstances in which they could hardly care for themselves. As citizens, we are responsible for the laws that permit the keeping and use of animals. This, in turn, speaks to a socially expanded understanding of the common good. We should make political decisions with the awareness that the collective for which they claim binding force includes humans and animals. For such a species-mixed community, what Ronald Dworkin understands as the sovereign virtue of political morality must apply: no state is legitimate that does not pay fundamentally equal consideration to the fortunes of all its members [31]. Although Dworkin limits this basic norm to fellow human citizens, we should apply it to all animals we subject through our institutional orders. We owe these animals the fulfillment of duties of social justice. The basic social order regulated by law and armed with coercion must be acceptable from the perspective of really all individuals who belong to it or are existentially dependent upon it. Each individual must be able to reconcile the norms that regulate coexistence with their fundamental claim to live their own life, according to their basic needs and capabilities. This fundamental claim is also possessed by animals that cannot take a stand on moral and political norms themselves. Every norm that concerns them must also be acceptable from their perspective. This follows from the extension of an all-subjected principle to human–animal relations. I therefore propose a political membership status for all animals whose living conditions we comprehensively control and who could not live well or at all without regular human attention. It would include the right to live on a state territory and to return to it. Likewise, the interests of animals should receive fundamentally equal consideration in determining the common good [21]. To this end, animals require representation by human proxies in the political process. The consideration of animal interests is a cross-cutting political task that should be anchored at the macro-level of political decision-making. However, how can we know which of the animals’ interests their human representatives should advocate for? The general answer is that animals could give us valuable clues about their needs and preferences through their own activity [21]. Many animals can communicate with us nonverbally. They can tell us what is important for their well-being. For this reason, animal members should have the right to become visible in our midst and to develop as unhindered as possible and feasible. For the same reasons, animals should also be allowed to express their own will in working relationships. We must first respect the fact that they have a will that we may influence, through offers and incentives, but which we must not break. Secondly, we must learn to interpret the animals’ expressions of will with a view to possible consequences for their welfare. Thirdly, we must offer them possibilities of evasion and refusal without penalty. Subjecting animals to an alien purpose against their stable will is a tyrannical form of exploitation. 7. Conclusions The moral status not only of humans but also of animals consists in an egalitarian right to have rights. From this equal status, however, substantially equal rights follow only if the morally relevant interests are equal. We do not need to resort to the argument from human marginal cases for this purpose. Already a reasonably broad and differentiated understanding of our own, human animal nature reveals which interests we share with many other animals. These, too, possess interests in the dimensions of life, well-being, and volitional activities. By contrast, at least the vast majority of animals have no interest in autonomy and self-respect. I consider justly regulated lasting relationships with some animals to be possible and also desirable. However, by subjecting animals and, thus, making them existentially dependent on us, we owe them more than just protection and help in easily remediable emergencies. We thereby also assume associative duties, as they exist among fellow citizens. Therefore, we should open our understanding of the common good to the reality of species-mixed communities and represent animals politically. However, we should essentially let wild animals be wild, even if this means that we restrain ourselves in our capacity to intervene. Acknowledgments The author thanks Diego Exposito Teixeira and the participants at the European Animal Rights Law Conference 2022 in Cambridge for valuable comments and follow-up questions. Open Access Funding provided by Freie Universität Berlin. Funding Statement This study received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement Not applicable. Data Availability Statement Data sharing is not applicable. Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest. Footnotes Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Last but not least, we also know how strong animal legal claims are in principle: they are just as strong as the claims of any human being based on similar interests. This, in turn, follows from the basic requirement of equal treatment of equal cases: equal morally relevant interests count alike, no matter whose interests they are. In this sense, all the bearers of moral rights possess fundamentally the same status irrespective of species affiliation. However, it does not follow from this that all animals that have any moral rights at all, therefore have the same rights as humans do [22]. The assumption of a fundamental equality of status is, first, compatible with the fact that animals do not have certain rights that humans have, because they do not bring them any advantages. Incidentally, this is again already true among humans. A political right to vote for very young children makes no more sense than a right to vote for foxes. Animals may benefit from how people exercise their right to vote who can exercise it intelligently, but they are then only indirect beneficiaries of a right that they themselves could not use with rhyme and reason. Rights to political and also personal autonomy are, generally speaking, only directly significant for individuals who can bear a normative responsibility for living together and for leading their own lives. For the vast majority of non-human animals, this does not apply even in a rudimentary sense. Likewise, protection against discrimination or symbolic degradation is at most indirectly significant for them, since they cannot understand their own valid claims as such and relate them to the valid claims of others. This means, for example, that animals cannot suffer as such from the fact that humans somehow dominate them [23]. In fact, it seems to me that human animal husbandry is permissible precisely when it is consistent with the principle of equal regard for all the interests that animals actually have: in continued life, in well-being, and also in volitional activities and access to beneficial social relationships. Conversely, however, this means that almost all commercial and, without exception, industrial animal husbandry is incompatible with this principle and should therefore be abolished. A second type of differentiation is permissible where animals have similar morally significant interests as we do, but these interests are less strong in their case.	no
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	yes_statement	"animals" should have the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" deserve the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is necessary.. it is justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".	https://www.ifp.co.in/1992/the-right-to-live-should-animals-be-given-the-same-rights-as-humans	The right to live: Should animals be given the same rights as humans?	The right to live: Should animals be given the same rights as humans? People are not asking for animals to have the same rights as humans but the animals should have the right to live free from human use and exploitation. ByN Munal Meitei Updated 24 Aug 2020, 7:30 pm Slow lorris (File PHOTO: IFP) All living beings on this earth have equal rights, the rights to live and also the rights to enjoy whatsoever is available on this planet. Animal rights are the rights that animals should entitle for their existence in moral value and basic fundamental protections just like we human beings. The animals should no longer be viewed as property or used for experiments, for bleeding and killing and no animals for food or clothes or medicine, or use as beasts of burden or selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal, no hunting and no zoos or use of animals in entertainment. In all the culture and religions around the world, it espouses the animal rights. Buying, selling, breeding, confining and killing animals infringes on the animals rights. The animal right is also a claim for animal welfare to apply physically. Everywhere, now zoos are closing down or busy on releasing animals to Parks and sanctuaries while turning themselves into research institutions devoted to endangered species. And in the developed world at least, national parks and sanctuaries already hold quasi-sacred status. People are not asking for animals to have the same rights as humans but the animals should have the right to live free from human use and exploitation. As per the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights include, "the right to life, liberty and security of person…an adequate standard of living...to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution...to own property...freedom of opinion and expression...to education...of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment, among others." These rights are different from animal rights because the humans have the right to access to food and housing and are free from torture and can have the expression but it is not in our hand to ensure the nest for every bird and an acorn for every squirrel. The animal rights are leaving the animals alone to live at their own, without encroaching upon their world or their lives. It is statistically demonstrated that those who abuse animals are more likely to abuse the other human beings also. The Humane Society cited on a survey that 71 percent of domestic violence victims said their abuser also targeted to the pets. Advertisement In 2014, the Supreme Court of India passed a precedent decision extending the mantle of Article 21 of the constitution, which protects human life and liberty to all animals, the court said, the animals have an inalienable right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere, not to be beaten, kicked, bitten, tortured, plied with alcohol by humans or made to stand in narrow enclosures amidst bellows and jeers from crowds. In Argentina two years later, a chimpanzee named Cecilia, confined alone in a concrete enclosure in a zoo in Mendoza, was sent to a Brazilian sanctuary after a judge declared for her fundamental right to be born, to live, grow, and die in the proper environment for the species. In July, a Colombian judge, citing the Argentinean precedent, set free an Andean spectacled bear. In the past four years, after longstanding negotiations between indigenous Maori people and the government, New Zealand has allow the Te-Urewera, a national park, making it, the first place on earth where humans have relinquished control. There is no gilding the lily, in either direction, towards rights for nature or continued human supremacy. Humans annually kill 100 billion animals, domestic and wild—an average of 14 animals per person and continue to wreak the havoc on the habitats of the survivors. The planet’s sixth great extinction now rolls on. In India, four species of fauna and 18 species of flora have gone to extinct in the past few centuries. India luckily with 2.8% of geographical area supports about 6.49% of all the fauna species in the world. As per the Living Planet Report 2016, the factors like competition, predation, natural selection and human induced factors like hunting, habitat degradation have led to nearly extinctions of half of our wildlife making India an ecological black spot. It also said that global wildlife populations are decline.by 67% between 1970–2020 and other population of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles has already also declined by 58%. The country lost 110 tigers and 491 leopards in 2019, a third of them to poaching as per the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI). In order to prevent a catastrophic loss of diversity of life on earth over the next 100 years, we need for a substantial transformation. The nature’s rights has the potential to spur a transformation of our ethics, laws and most importantly our behaviors, in a way that results in a sustainable future not just for humans but for the rest of creation and the world. Abusing animals is no more justifiable than abusing people. The moral touchstone is sentience and speciesism is analogous to homophobia, racism & misogyny. Cruelty is barbarism, whether inflicted on humans or on other species. Since we humans are an animal species, it is obvious that human rights are a form of animal rights and that human rights should include the animal species also. Many view humans and other animals as totally distinct: drawing a clear, sharp line between animal and human. It is true that other animals are less intelligent than humans and lack on mental-physical skills and the capacity for culture and conscience. But this is not justified for abusing them. We accept that we have a special responsibility to protect the weaker and more vulnerable humans. There is no great ethical gulf between the abuse of human and animals or between our duty of compassion towards other humans and other species. Advertisement Before we can liberate millions of oppressed humans and billions of exploited animals, we need to free our minds and to eliminate the mentality of subjugation and acquiesce against the sentient beings - human and non-human. Animals aren't really that different from us humans. Vertebrates share much similar DNA and our capacity for thought, feelings, emotions, sociability, language, altruism and empathy are almost same. We need to recognise and accept our common nature with animals. We discriminate against other living beings because they do not belong to our own species and thus the speciecist attitude is similar to discrimination of religionism, racism, sexism, or heterosexism. The killing or cruelty to animal are enacted in the Law to defend under section 428/429 of the Indian Penal code, u/s. 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Animals do not commit crimes; animals are not attacked for their moral views. Rights are a concept special to the human moral code. In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on animals rights, the question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer? All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and same degree as the humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Therefore, animals should be granted the same rights as human beings. Scientifically animals exhibiting similar attributes to human beings and animals are akin to human and thus we should protect the animal rights merging with our own human civilization.	& misogyny. Cruelty is barbarism, whether inflicted on humans or on other species. Since we humans are an animal species, it is obvious that human rights are a form of animal rights and that human rights should include the animal species also. Many view humans and other animals as totally distinct: drawing a clear, sharp line between animal and human. It is true that other animals are less intelligent than humans and lack on mental-physical skills and the capacity for culture and conscience. But this is not justified for abusing them. We accept that we have a special responsibility to protect the weaker and more vulnerable humans. There is no great ethical gulf between the abuse of human and animals or between our duty of compassion towards other humans and other species. Advertisement Before we can liberate millions of oppressed humans and billions of exploited animals, we need to free our minds and to eliminate the mentality of subjugation and acquiesce against the sentient beings - human and non-human. Animals aren't really that different from us humans. Vertebrates share much similar DNA and our capacity for thought, feelings, emotions, sociability, language, altruism and empathy are almost same. We need to recognise and accept our common nature with animals. We discriminate against other living beings because they do not belong to our own species and thus the speciecist attitude is similar to discrimination of religionism, racism, sexism, or heterosexism. The killing or cruelty to animal are enacted in the Law to defend under section 428/429 of the Indian Penal code, u/s. 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Animals do not commit crimes; animals are not attacked for their moral views. Rights are a concept special to the human moral code. In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration.	yes
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	no_statement	"animals" should not have the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is unnecessary.. it is not justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" do not deserve the same "rights" as "humans".	https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/	Answers to Common Arguments for Animal Testing \| PETA	These Answers to Arguments for Animal Testing Prove It’s Bad Science Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal testing is bad science and wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them. “Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.” This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that these experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical advances. Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities published a paper in TheBMJ titled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” The researchers systematically examined studies that used animals and concluded that little evidence exists to support the idea that experimentation on animals has benefited humans. In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the isolation of the AIDS virus. Between 1900 and 2000, life expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the fact that people are living longer lives. While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would not have been made without using animals. Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals. “If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people.” The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has noted that 95 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals. Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them. Despite rigorous animal tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people each year, making them our nation’s fourth-largest killer. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. More information about the failure of experiments on animals can be found here. “We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and organs in living animals.” Taking healthy beings from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never normally contract, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species (and even within a species). Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced. Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, remarked, “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.” Modern non-animal research methods are faster, cheaper, and more relevant to humans than tests on animals. Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. The HμREL biochip uses living human cells to detect the effects of a drug or chemical on multiple interacting organs, VaxDesign’s Modular Immune in vitro Construct (MIMIC®) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing vaccines, and Harvard researchers have developed a human tissue-based “lung-on-a-chip” that can “breathe” and be used to estimate the effects of inhaled chemicals on the human respiratory system. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer. Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. A research method called microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it’s metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that’s well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron. “Animals help in the fight against cancer.” Through taxes, donations, and private funding, Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on cancer research since 1971. However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals. The authors of this study point out that animal “models” of human cancer created through techniques such as grafting human tumors onto mice can be poor predictors of how a drug will work in humans. Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has observed, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Studies have found that the chemicals that cause cancer in rats only caused cancer in mice 46 percent of the time. If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans? The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer. Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education. Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives. We can beat cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to encourage healthier lifestyle choices. “Science has a responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures for all the horrible diseases that people suffer from.” Every year in the U.S., animal experimentation gobbles up billions of dollars (including 40 percent of all research funding from the National Institutes of Health), and nearly $3 trillion is spent on health care. While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U.S. still ranks 42nd in the world in life expectancy and has a high infant mortality rate compared to other developed countries. A 2014 review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. It concluded that “if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.” While incidences of heart disease and strokes have recently shown slight declines—because of a change in lifestyle factors, such as diet and smoking, rather than any medical advances—cancer rates continue to rise, and alcohol- and drug-treatment centers, prenatal care programs, community mental health clinics, and trauma units continue to close because they lack sufficient funds. More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world. “Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified.” The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief. Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time. In addition to the actual pain of experiments, a comprehensive view of the situation for animals in laboratories should take into account the totality of the suffering imposed on them, including the stress of capture, transportation, and handling; the extreme confinement and unnatural living conditions; the deprivation that constitutes standard husbandry procedures; and the physical and psychological stress experienced by animals used for breeding, who endure repeated pregnancies, only to have their young torn away from them, sometimes immediately after birth. Animals in laboratories endure lives of deprivation, isolation, stress, trauma, and depression even before they are enrolled in any sort of protocol. This fact is especially apparent when one considers the specialized needs of each species. In nature, many primates, including rhesus macaques and baboons, stay for many years or their entire lives with their families and troops. They spend hours together every day, grooming each other, foraging, playing, and making nests to sleep in each night. But in laboratories, primates are often caged alone. Laboratories often do not allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces softer than metal. Indeed, in many laboratories, animals are handled roughly—even for routine monitoring procedures that fall outside the realm of an experimental protocol—and this only heightens their fear and stress. Video footage from inside laboratories shows that many animals cower in fear every time someone walks by their cage. A November 2004 article in Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science examined 80 published papers and concluded that “significant fear, stress, and possibly distress are predictable consequences of routine laboratory procedures” including seemingly benign practices such as blood collection and handling. “We don’t want to use animals, but we don’t have any other options.” The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. Experimentation using animals persists not because it’s the best science but because of archaic habits, resistance to change, and a lack of outreach and education. “Don’t medical students have to dissect animals?” Not a single medical school in the U.S. uses animals to train medical students, and experience with animal dissection or experimentation on live animals isn’t required or expected of those applying to medical school. Medical students are trained with a combination of sophisticated human-patient simulators, interactive computer programs, safe human-based teaching methods, and clinical experience. Today, one can even become a board-certified surgeon without harming any animals. Some medical professional organizations, like the American Board of Anesthesiologists, even require physicians to complete simulation training—not animal laboratories—to become board-certified. In the United Kingdom, it’s against the law for medical (and veterinary) students to practice surgery on animals. “Animals are here for humans to use. If we have to sacrifice 1,000 or 100,000 animals in the hope of benefiting one child, it’s worth it.” If experimenting on one intellectually disabled person could benefit 1,000 children, would we do it? Of course not! Ethics dictate that the value of each life in and of itself cannot be superseded by its potential value to anyone else. Additionally, money wasted on experiments on animals is money that could instead be helping people, through the use of modern, human-relevant non-animal tests. Experimenters claim a “right” to inflict pain on animals based on any number of arbitrary physical and cognitive characteristics, such as animals’ supposed lack of reason. But if lack of reason truly justified animal experimentation, experimenting on human beings with “inferior” mental capabilities, such as infants and the intellectually disabled, would also be acceptable. The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who demonstrate measurably sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not only use tools but also teach their offspring how to use them. The experimenters’ real argument is “might makes right.” They believe it’s acceptable to harm animals because they are weaker, because they look different, and because their pain is less important than human pain. This is not only cruel but also unethical. Some experimenters never got the memo that animal experiments are bad science—and throughout history, experimenters tortured animals in twisted ways. PETA’s interactive timeline, “Without Consent,” brings to light almost 200 such stories. It will open people’s eyes to the long history of suffering inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings. Get PETA Updates Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox! E-Mail Address Sign me up for the following e-mail: Membership Updates PETA News Current subscribers: You will continue to receive e-mail unless you explicitly opt out by clicking here. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us. “Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?” READ MORE	“Animals are here for humans to use. If we have to sacrifice 1,000 or 100,000 animals in the hope of benefiting one child, it’s worth it.” If experimenting on one intellectually disabled person could benefit 1,000 children, would we do it? Of course not! Ethics dictate that the value of each life in and of itself cannot be superseded by its potential value to anyone else. Additionally, money wasted on experiments on animals is money that could instead be helping people, through the use of modern, human-relevant non-animal tests. Experimenters claim a “right” to inflict pain on animals based on any number of arbitrary physical and cognitive characteristics, such as animals’ supposed lack of reason. But if lack of reason truly justified animal experimentation, experimenting on human beings with “inferior” mental capabilities, such as infants and the intellectually disabled, would also be acceptable. The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who demonstrate measurably sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not only use tools but also teach their offspring how to use them. The experimenters’ real argument is “might makes right.” They believe it’s acceptable to harm animals because they are weaker, because they look different, and because their pain is less important than human pain. This is not only cruel but also unethical. Some experimenters never got the memo that animal experiments are bad science—and throughout history, experimenters tortured animals in twisted ways. PETA’s interactive timeline, “Without Consent,” brings to light almost 200 such stories. It will open people’s eyes to the long history of suffering inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.	yes
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	no_statement	"animals" should not have the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is unnecessary.. it is not justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" do not deserve the same "rights" as "humans".	https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/on-the-human/2011/05/regan-preface/	The Case for Animal Rights « On the Human	The Case for Animal Rights from the Preface to the 2004 edition, The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan. (c) 2004 by the Regents of the University of California. Published by the University of California Press. I started to write The Case in September 1980 and finished in November 1981. I had been writing about ethics and animals in general, and animal rights in particular, for several years, so I did not begin from ground zero. My philosopher’s bags were packed with some more or less settled convictions as well as some more or less well-developed arguments. I thought I knew where I wanted to go and the best way to get there. I was (or so I fancied myself) very much in charge. Here is a question: Are animals aware of anything? There is a blank page. Assignment: Fill the blank page with my thoughts. It was effortless work. I enjoyed it immensely. However, when I began to work my way through chapter six (which is mainly devoted to a critique of utilitarianism), something happened. It was as if—and I know this will sound strange, but I’ll risk it anyhow—it was as if I ceased to be the book’s author. Words, sentences, paragraphs, whole pages came, from where, I did not know. What I was writing was new to me; it did not represent anything I had ever thought before. But the words took up permanent residence on the page as fast as I could write them down. This was more than enjoyable. This was exhilarating. But here’s the real puzzle. The exhilaration did not last for a few minutes, or hours, or days, or even weeks. I was in this state, without interruption, for months. It is no exaggeration for me to say that during this time, I had lost control over where the book was going. For all intents and purposes, I was just along for the ride. Which is why I think the most original parts of The Case (the final four chapters, where I state and defend the respect, harm, mini-ride, worse-off, and liberty principles) are not something for which I can take much credit. In a very real sense, they came to me as a gift. . . . My position, roughly speaking, may be summarized as follows. Some nonhuman animals resemble normal humans in morally relevant ways. In particular, they bring the mystery of a unified psychological presence to the world. Like us, they possess a variety of sensory, cognitive, conative, and volitional capacities. They see and hear, believe and desire, remember and anticipate, plan and intend. Moreover, what happens to them matters to them. Physical pleasure and pain—these they share with us. But also fear and contentment, anger and loneliness, frustration and satisfaction, cunning and imprudence. These and a host of other psychological states and dispositions collectively help define the mental life and relative well being of those (in my terminology) subjects-of-a-life we know better as raccoons and rabbits, beaver and bison, chipmunks and chimpanzees, you and I. Line drawing challenges arise for anyone who believes that not all animals are subjects-of-a-life. Amoebae and paramecia, for example, are in the world but not aware of it. Where exactly on the phylogenic scale do subjects-of-a-life appear? I have always believed that no one knows the exact answer, and I personally have never tried to give one. Instead, I adopt a conservative policy by asking whether a line can be drawn that minimizes otherwise endless disputation. The line I draw is mentally normal mammals of a year or more (78). Wherever we draw the relevant line, these animals are above it. This is what I mean when I say the policy I adopt is conservative. How can we talk about these animals without using needlessly cumbersome language? In The Case, I answer this question by stipulating that, unless otherwise indicated, the word animal will refer to “mentally normal mammals of a year or more.” (I make this same stipulation here.) Having explained these matters, I go to some length to make it as clear as I possibly can that other sorts of animals might be subjects-of-a-life. In my most recent writings, in fact, I argue that we have abundant reason to think that birds are and that fish may be. (Regan, 2003b) Even so, some philosophers, apparently more interested in dismissing my conclusions than in understanding my premises, confidently inform their readers that, in my view, subjects-of-a-life “turn out to be mammals and no other form of life” (Hargrove 1992: x). The preceding considerations provide the rights view’s basis for denying that human and animal welfare differ in kind. “Both animals and humans,” I write, have…interests, some biological, some psychological, some social…the overall tone or quality of the life of each, to a greater or lesser degree, is a function of the harmonious satisfaction of those preferences that it is in the interests of each to have satisfied. Granted, the sources of satisfaction available to most humans are at once more numerous and varied than those available to animals; even granted, in Mill’s memorable words, that it is ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’; nevertheless, the same categories of thought (interests, benefits, harms, etc.) that illuminate the most general features of human welfare are equally applicable to animal welfare (119-120). Now, both human and nonhuman subjects-of-a-life, in my view, have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. Of course, moral positions can be advanced that either dispense with rights altogether or, while affirming the rights of human beings, deny them in the case of nonhuman animals. But (or so I argue in chapters 5 through 7) such views prove to be deficient—for example, because they are inconsistent or needlessly complicated, because they lack precision or adequate scope, or because their implications clash with a large body of our well-considered moral beliefs, our moral intuitions. The basic moral right to respectful treatment places strict limits on how subjects-of-a-life may be treated. Individuals who possess this right are never to be treated as if they exist as resources for others; in particular, harms intentionally done to any one subject cannot be justified by aggregating benefits derived by others. In this respect, my position is anti-utilitarian, a theory in the Kantian, not the Millian, tradition. But the rights view parts company with Kant (see, e.g., 239) when it comes to specifying who should be treated with respect. For Kant, only moral agents exist as ends-in-themselves; only those who are capable of applying abstract, impartial moral principles to their decision making share the equal right to be treated with respect. By contrast, the rights view recognizes the equal inherent value of all subjects-of-a-life, including those who lack the capacities necessary for moral agency. These moral patients (as I call them) have the same equal right to respectful treatment as do moral agents. According to the rights view, therefore, nonhuman animals who are subjects-of-a-life have this right as certainly as do those human subjects-of-a-life who read these words. Thus, although I believe that human life contains within it the possibility of a richness not to be found in the life of other animals—because, for example, of our advanced cognitive, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual capacities—this difference provides absolutely no basis whatsoever for our exploitation of other animals. It is on this basis that I reach conclusions that, in Jan Narveson’s cheerful words, qualify me as “a starry eyed radical” (Narveson, 1987: 38). For example, since the utilization of nonhuman animals for purposes of fashion, research, entertainment or gustatory delight, harms them in the process of treating them as our resources; and since, given the rights view, such treatment violates their right to be treated with respect; it follows that such utilization is morally wrong and ought to end. Merely to reform such institutional injustice (by resolving to raise only “happy” cows or to insist on larger cages for lions in circuses, for example) is not enough. Morally considered, abolition is required. My critics are of a different mind; indeed, if they are right, I have secured for myself (by dint of my dogged determination, so to speak) the unenviable distinction of being mistaken about everything having the slightest presumption to philosophical importance. Mistaken about the minds of animals. Mistaken about how to evaluate moral theories. Mistaken about what rights are and who has them. Mistaken about what our moral duties are. Even mistaken about what moral philosophy is and how it should be done. With such a full plate of imputed failure, a large portion of selectivity in what I am able to consider is unavoidable. While I cannot reply to all the objections raised, I believe those to which I do reply are among the most important. Objections and Replies The Appeal to Intuition How might we justify our acceptance of various moral principles? How can we rationally choose between the conflicting moral theories of which these principles are a part? Anyone familiar with the history of moral philosophy knows how divisive and controversial these questions are. In The Case, I explain and attempt to defend a set of appropriate criteria for making such decisions. The criteria I deploy (131ff) are consistency, precision, scope, parsimony, and conformity with our intuitions. Of these five, the last has occasioned the most numerous critical responses, some of which, as I shall illustrate shortly, are demonstrably ill focused. Intuition is an ambiguous concept, and a troublesome one no matter how it is understood. In The Case, after explaining several ways in which others have understood it, I explain what I call the “reflective” sense of the idea: [In the reflective sense,] our intuitions are those moral beliefs we hold after we have made a conscientious effort…to think about our beliefs coolly, rationally, impartially, with conceptual clarity, and with as much relevant information as we can reasonably acquire. The judgments we make after we have made this effort are not our ‘gut responses,’ nor are they merely expressions of what we happen to believe; they are our considered beliefs…. To test alternative moral principles by how well they conform with our reflective intuitions is thus to test them against our considered beliefs, and, other things being equal between two competing moral principles (i.e., assuming that the two are equal in scope, precision, and consistency), the principle that matches our reflective intuitions best is rationally to be preferred (134). Having set forth how I understand intuition, and explained the role it plays in my thinking, I go on to explain why some of our intuitions themselves might stand in need of revision or even abandonment if, as is possible, they conflict with principles that are otherwise validated. What we seek, in other words, is what John Rawls (Rawls, 1971) refers to as “reflective equilibrium” between our intuitions, on the one hand, and our organizing general principles, on the other. Moreover (and here my theory becomes even more complicated than Rawls’s), I also explain why, given the ideal background conditions of arriving at our considered moral beliefs (impartiality, rationality, etc.), a proper humility should lead us to understand how elusive moral knowledge is. In my view, in sum, while we can be rationally justified in accepting some moral principles and rejecting others—because we have done all that we can be reasonably expected to do by way of evaluating the competitors—it does not follow that the principles we select are true. What we can know, rather, is that we have done our best to evaluate the competing principles fully and fairly, with a view to deciding which ones best satisfy the appropriate criteria, including the test of conforming with our moral intuitions. However, because satisfying the criteria mentioned above represents an ideal that might never be fully realized, we never will be in a position to claim to know that the principles we accept, and the general theory of which they are a part, are in fact true, their competitors, false. For his part, Narveson is unhappy with my appeal to our moral intuitions. Sometimes his consternation has my ideas as its object; more often the objections he raises are not objections against my views, expressed or implied. For example, Narveson at one point makes light of my supposed belief that the “property” of inherent value is something I “intuit” (38) while at another place he takes exception to my supposed view that deciding who possesses inherent value is “a matter of moral perception” (39). Now, this may be an accurate way to characterize G. E. Moore’s position (Moore, 1903) regarding our acquaintance with (in his theory) the simple, unique, non-natural property of intrinsic goodness; and it is true that I have written rather extensively about Moore’s philosophy (Regan, 1986a; 1986b; 1991c). But what Narveson says in the passages to which I have just alluded is manifestly an inaccurate way to characterize my views. “Properties” (whatever they are) are not “intuited,” in my view, and neither are our intuitions “a matter of moral perception” (whatever that is). To suppose otherwise is to do battle with someone other than the author of The Case for Animal Rights. Narveson is not always this ill-focused in his understanding of how I understand moral intuitions. He writes (correctly) that, when I appeal to intuitions, I am referring to “reflective intuitions, a la Sidgwick, Ross, and Rawls rather than sheer seat-of-the-pants pronouncements” (33). Even so, Narveson believes that the appeal to intuition, when used as a test for choosing between competing moral principles, “is theoretically bankrupt” (ibid.). Why? Because, he objects, “two mutually contradictory proposed moral principles could each pass it” (34). Passing this test, he asserts, “therefore can’t be sufficient” (ibid.) as a basis for justifying our acceptance of one moral principle rather than another. It should be plain from the argument above, however, that I never assert or imply that conformity with our considered moral beliefs is a sufficient condition for choosing between moral principles or theories. The appeal to our intuitions is only one among a set of criteria of evaluation I employ, and it is no objection to this position to insist, as Narveson does, that passing this test “can’t be sufficient.” Still, it is appropriate to ask whether conformity with our moral intuitions should play any role in our evaluation of moral principles. Narveson thinks not. Our intuitions, he seems to think, just as likely as not represent the dominant cultural biases of our time, place and circumstances; as such, they should not be relied upon to do any heavy lifting when we turn to the serious business of theory evaluation. For my part, I am not convinced that this is a mistake. Recall that the intuitions to which we are to appeal are moral beliefs we form or retain after we have made a conscientious effort to think about them rationally, coolly, and impartially, assuming we understand the concepts involved and assuming we have secured as much relevant information as it is reasonable to demand. These conditions, as I am at pains to explain, set forth an ideal that, imperfect creatures that we are, none of us may ever fully realize. Given my view, then, as I noted earlier, while we can be rationally justified in accepting a given theory, in part because its principles conform with our moral intuitions, it does not follow that the preferred theory is the one and only true theory. Narveson might protest that he wants more; in particular, he might want to know which theory is the one and only true one. But if there is one thing the history of moral philosophy teaches, it is that those who think they have found the one and only true theory are just as likely to be correct as are those who, after years of toil, think they have found the one and only true snark. Which does not mean, I hasten to add, for reasons already given, that we must view all moral theories as equally worthy of acceptance. To conclude my discussion of Narveson’s criticisms: while I am not so brazen as to suppose that my appeals to intuition are free of potentially serious difficulties, I do not believe he has identified what these might be. The Idea of Inherent Value Among my most persistent critics is R. G. Frey (Frey, 1980, 1987) who argues against ascribing rights to nonhuman animals. And to humans, too. His is the stance of the unrepentant act-utilitarian, an imperturbable partisan who, when confronted with the ghastly things his theory could permit, ranging from deceitful promises to the judicial execution of the innocent, tightens his grip on his theory rather than abandoning it. Whereas the confidence of some philosophers might be shaken when it is pointed out that their favorite theory could (literally) have murderous consequences, Frey’s commitment to utilitarianism does not waiver. Frey does more than deny rights to animals; he also denies animals all but the faintest trace of mind. “Sensations,” some pleasant, some painful, he concedes they experience. But that’s about it. Barren of preferences, wants and desires; lacking memory and expectation; unable to reason, plan, or intend: Frey’s conception of the mental life of nonhuman animals comes within a whisker, so to speak, of Descartes’s. I address this aspect of Frey’s work in The Case (pp. 36ff) and will not repeat my criticisms here. Instead, I limit my discussion to his criticisms of an idea that is central to the rights view, the idea of inherent value. To understand what this idea means and how it functions in my theory, inherent value needs to be seen in the larger context of the other sorts of values that play a role in the rights view. These values include (1) well-being (understood as quality of life or welfare); (2) intrinsic values (including various mental states, such as pleasure and satisfaction); (3) utility (understood either as what is useful as a means, as what exists as a resource relative to someone’s purposes or interests, or as the aggregation of values such as welfare or pleasure, for example); (4) uniquely human values, including the satisfaction of aesthetic, scientific and sacramental interests; (5) merit or excellence; (6) the value of a life (understood by asking how much is lost, how much harm is done, when individuals die); and (7) inherent value (understood as a kind of value possessed by certain individuals, after the fashion of Kant’s idea of individuals existing as ends in themselves). Concerning inherent value, I argue four things. First, while an ethical theory would be simpler if it could dispense with this kind of value, simplicity isn’t everything; in order to have the best theory, all considered, I argue that we must postulate inherent value. Second, inherent value is logically distinct from, is not reducible to, and is not a function of the other kinds of values previously mentioned. An individual’s moral status as one who possesses inherent value is logically independent of how happy she is, how talented or deserving, how useful, and so on. Third, inherent value is a categorical concept; an individual either has it, or that individual does not; and all those who have inherent value have this value equally. Fourth, all those individuals who are subjects-of-a-life, as this concept was explained in the preceding, have inherent value and thus enjoy an equal moral status, the subject-of-a-life criterion constituting a sufficient condition for the possession of such value. (4) Many are the critics who have taken exception to the idea of inherent value; Frey, who disputes the idea of itself as well as its alleged equality, is chief among them. Concerning the former, Frey informs his readers that he “do[es] not regard all human life as of equal value. I do not accept,” he writes, that a very severely mentally-enfeebled human or an elderly human fully in the grip of senile dementia or an infant born with only half a brain has a life whose value is equal to that of normal, adult humans. The quality of human life can plummet, to a point where we would not wish that life on even our worst enemies; and I see no reason to pretend that a life I would not wish upon even my worst enemies is nevertheless as valuable as the life of any normal, adult human (Frey, 1987: 58). It will be noticed that, in the passage just quoted, Frey refers to “the quality of human life” and to the fact that “the quality of human life” can vary from individual to individual, sometimes “plummet[ing]” to an unquestionably undesirable level indeed. It should be clear, then, that by challenging my position in the way he does, Frey has confused the idea of inherent value with the very different idea of individual welfare. To speak of “quality of life” is to refer to how well an individual’s life is faring, while to speak of the “inherent value” of an individual is to refer to the value of the individual whose life it is. Human subjects-of-a-life who are confused, enfeebled or otherwise disadvantaged, let us agree, have a life that is of a lesser quality than those who realize the highest level on Maslow’s scale of self-actualization. But this does not entail that human subjects-of-a-life with a poorer quality of life lack inherent value. Not for a moment do I deny that the experiential welfare of different individuals can vary greatly. But as I have never said or implied that quality of life is everywhere the same, Frey’s insistence that it can differ fails as a criticism against my position. The same is true of what Frey has to say about my views regarding the equality of inherent value. After first (falsely) attributing to me the position that “all human life, however deficient, has the same value,” he then goes on to say, “I [Frey] do not agree. For me, the value of life is a function of its quality, its quality a function of its richness, and its richness a function of its scope or potentiality for enrichment; and the fact is that many humans lead lives of a very much lower quality than ordinary human lives, lives which lack enrichment and where the potentialities for enrichment are severely truncated or absent” (57). Once again, however, Frey does not so much challenge my views as miss what they are. First, I do not state or imply that “all human life…has the same value,” including the same inherent value (this because inherent value is possessed by individual subjects-of-a-life, not by the life these subjects have); second, while in my view all humans who satisfy the subjects-of-a-life criterion in my view have inherent value, and have it equally, it does not follow that the value of their life, any more than its quality, is equal. In short, given my theory of value, the quality of an individual’s life is one thing; the value of the one whose life it is, another. Since Frey treats the two ideas as if, in my theory, they are one and the same, his protestations misfire. (I will have more to say about the different value different lives can have below, in the section “Evaluating Lives.”) . . . Peter Singer…weighs in on the side of those who charge me with inconsistency (Singer, 1985). If I am willing to have a dog thrown overboard in order to save a human life, he thinks I should be willing to experiment on a diseased dog in order to save humans who suffer from the same illness. However, if I am willing to allow experimentation in this case, then I cannot consistently claim to be an anti-vivisectionist, someone opposed to all research using animals. …Singer fails to recognize the moral disanalogies between lifeboats and research laboratories. None of the survivors on the lifeboat is there because his or her rights were violated. None is there as a result of being treated with a lack of respect. As soon as we enter a laboratory in which animals are experimented upon, however, the moral scene changes dramatically. When one solitary animal is brought into a laboratory, there to be used in pursuit of human benefits, that animal’s right to be treated with respect has been violated. Once this much is recognized, Singer’s charge of inconsistency has no traction. It is not inconsistent to adopt my view in lifeboat cases and to oppose vivisection in all cases. …A few weeks after the final manuscript had been mailed to the publisher, I remember walking the cold December streets of New York jostled by the holiday crowds, thinking that in every stranger’s face I saw a future animal rights advocate. I looked forward to the glorious day when The Case for Animal Rights would transform America, the world even, into a safe haven for animals, a place where, at long last, they would be treated with respect. Talk about being mistaken. Not only did I greatly overestimate the power of The Case, I greatly underestimated the many challenges standing in the way of society’s full acceptance of animal rights. If I have learned anything in the past twenty years, it is that the struggle for animal rights is not for the faint of heart. The pace of social change requires the plodding endurance of the marathoner, not the lightning speed of the sprinter…. My unrealistic expectations about how The Case would change the world have been properly chastened by increasing age and the lessons of time. Even so, I like to hope that this old friend of mine, this book, helps us better understand—by means of rigorous philosophical cartography, shall we say—where the animal rights movement should be heading. And why. Footnotes Some of the material in this new Preface has been adapted from “The Case for Animal Rights: A Decade’s Passing.” A Century of Value Inquiry: Presidential Addresses of the American Society for Value Inquiry, Richard T. Hull (ed.), Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi (1994): 439-459. Works Cited All references to The Case for Animal Rights are given by page number in the text. I adopt the same policy when a single volume by another author is cited multiple times. 19 comments to The Case for Animal Rights Thanks, Tom, for taking the time to update your classic book. I hope it receives wide readership globally. We can easily apply your ideas to a wider range of animals beyond “mentally normal mammals of a year or more.” While it may have been more difficult to develop a strong case for their inclusion 3 decades ago, it is clear that many animals who we thought weren’t sentient or didn’t have rich emotional lives clearly do, including at least fish and chickens — http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions. I’m sure as we study a wider range of animals we’ll learn they too care very much about what happens to them. I realize we have to begin somewhere (as did The Great Ape Project) but perhaps in your “retirement” you’ll include these other beings in your circle of concern. Of course, I know you do in your daily life. Thank you very much for all you’ve done for animals. Since we are not philosophers we do not feel that we are capable of judging whether the “subject’s of a life” approach you have taken or Singer’s utilitarianism is the better philosophical argument. What we can say is that we appreciate the fact that you have always stood consistently over the years for the Animal Rights position. Too often we have seen others in the Movement depart from Rights to some form of welfarism. No one can say that about you. In our opinion you have made the most articulate and cogent arguments in defense of nonhuman animals. We can honestly say that no one has ever stated it better : “It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands…. but empty cages. The philosophy of animal rights asks for nothing more, but neither will it be satisfied with anything less.” When the revolution comes, and we all know it will, we believe that it will be your contributions that will be cited as the source. Congratulations and thank you for all that you have contributed to the movement. Joe and Jacquie I have some suspicions about the consistency of holding the claim that subjects-of-a-life have inherent value while (1) conceiving of it as “logically” independent and “categorical” and (2) founding such moral status on the possession of capacities which being a subject-of-a-life consists in. Let me explain. Regan starts with the idea that “Some nonhuman animals resemble normal humans in morally relevant ways. In particular, they bring the mystery of a unified psychological presence to the world. Like us, they possess a variety of sensory, cognitive, conative, and volitional capacities… These and a host of other psychological states and dispositions collectively help define the mental life and relative well being of those (in my terminology) subjects-of-a-life we know better as raccoons and rabbits, beaver and bison, chipmunks and chimpanzees, you and I.” It seems, then, that a (perhaps necessary but at least sufficient) condition for having inherent value is being possessed of a set of “psychological states and dispositions”, or, roughly, capacities. Now, I guess it can be agreed that these are empirical facts about those beings which actually count as subjects-of-a-life. But if – one supposes – inherent value is a moral property of those very same beings which, ex hypothesi, is insensitive to variations in empirical features that make for the psychological and physiological life of a being, why take this set of capacities as the foundation of value in the first place? How can it be that, magically as it were, empirical properties cease being of moral relevance at some point? Two options seem available: (a) either one adds the further assumption that the empirical properties of which the property “being a subject-of-a-life” consists are species-specific and normatively ascribed to whichever being happens to be a member of such-or-such species; (b) or, if only individual (intrinsic, species-independent) features matter, one is committed to upholding two claims which, I think, are at odds, namely: (i) the foundations of inherent value are empirical and, as such, liable to significant variations in degree, over time, within species, across contexts, etc. (ii) inherent value is categorical and, as such, insensitive to such variations. But then there must be a rather peculiar sense in which any relevant being can equally be said to be a subject-of-a-life in virtue of having those very capacities which, contingently, it might not have had. Regan seems committed to moral individualism in the sense that not every member of a species should have inherent value. But then, the stipulative threshold disappears. It seems that inherent value is not independent of every logically relevant empirical fact, but only of those which do not make one a subject-of-a-life (happiness, usefulness, desert…). At least Kant found himself less embarrassed by the idea of value insofar as its foundation was for that matter not empirical: rational beings are not so in virtue of their birth condition (by contrast with the possession of (say) intelligence or sense as a matter of making good use of one’s understanding). Here is a moral absolute: It is wrong to hurt a feeling creature needlessly. I think we can all agree to that, because whatever reservations we may have are all packed inside the qualifier “needlessly.” But that brings us to moral relatives: Is it wronger to hurt several feeling creatures than one feeling creature, if something inescapably needs to be hurt? Is it wronger to hurt some feeling creatures than other feeling creatures? I suggest we leave the moral relatives aside for now (medical research, puppy mills), because so very much hurting already rides on the absolutes. Hundreds of billions of animals are being needlessly hurt and killed annually to feed humans and yet in most cases it is unnecessary. I am a healthy vegan. Every other Canadian, American and European, at least, could be a vegan too. Their health, and the planet’s would only be the better for it. If there are exceptions, let’s leave them aside, for the day we take on the moral relatives. So much needless hurt could be prevented if we at least acted on the absolutes. I of course agree with Tom that animals should be treated with respect, but I think respect’s too vague to serve as a basis for practical action. The morally absolute case can also be made without getting into the contentious issue of “rights” (although I of course agree that animals have a right to be spared needless hurt, just as we all do). There’s much more to say — not just about moral relatives, but about “utility.” (I happen to think that pleasure and pain are incommensurable: a recent way of putting it is that no number of orgasms can compensate for one fallen sparrow — and certainly not if the orgasms are not the sparrow’s, or the sparrow is not the one doing the calculation.) But I’d rather keep this comment simple and focused. (1) Hypothetical “lifeboat” problems are of course examples of moral relatives rather than moral absolutes. (2) A principle of relative morality (which is really a corollary of absolute morality) is: “Minimize hurt” — but it is complicated by the question of whose hurt, which is something that does not come up in the case of absolute morality: “Don’t hurt needlessly.” (3) It follows from the incommensurability of pain and pleasure that the relative principle is not “Minimize hurt and/or maximize pleasure.” Pleasure is a hedonistic mattert, not a moral one. (4) I think “feels” covers the same territory as “subject of a life,” and rather more directly. I am deeply sympathetic to Regan’s aim of ruling out the use of animals in research, but I am not yet persuaded that an appeal to their right to be treated with respect can do the necessary work. Regan notes Singer’s objection that if we are entitled to throw a dog overboard to save the other occupants of a lifeboat, we must also be entitled to experiment upon the dog to save human sufferers of the same disease. Regan replies that there is a moral disanalogy: None of the survivors on the lifeboat is there because their rights were violated. None is there because they have been treated with a lack of respect. As soon as we enter a laboratory in which animal experimentation is proposed, however, the moral scene changes dramatically. . . . [A]s soon as that solitary animal is brought into a laboratory, there to be used in pursuit of human benefits, that animal’s right to be treated with respect has been violated. The problem, it seems to me, is that the relevant analogy is not between the dog in the lifeboat, whose right to respect has not been violated, and the dog in the laboratory, whose right has already been violated, but between potentially equally respected dogs in the lifeboat and in the world at large. No one’s rights need be violated for humans and a dog to end up aboard a lifeboat that will not support them all. In the circumstances, Regan agrees that it is permissible to throw the dog overboard and that such a choice evinces no disrespect for the dog. The basic reason is that the typical human loses more in losing her life than does the typical dog in losing his. Though they equally deserve respect, there is no way to save the lives of all aboard, so equal respect does not require it. If some subject-of-a-life must go overboard, it is better that it be the dog, even if the dog cannot consent. (Were circumstances different, so some human being had less to lose than the dog, the same argument would license sacrificing that human without her consent.) The important structural feature is that the humans and the dog in the lifeboat innocently share a common plight from which not all can be saved. That structure, however, is replicated in a plausible rendition of Singer’s case: No one’s rights need be violated for humans and a dog to be afflicted with the same disease. Lethal experimentation upon one subject-of-a-life with the disease may save the rest; without it, they will all die. Here, just as in the lifeboat, humans and another animal share a plight in which not all can be saved. All equally deserve respect, but since not all can be saved, equality of respect cannot require it. Selecting the dog for experimentation need evince no disrespect for him. The dog is selected, not out of lack of respect, but as the individual with the least to lose when not all can be saved. If some subject-of-a-life must be subjected to lethal experimentation, it is better that it be the dog, even if the dog cannot consent. (Were circumstances different . . . etc.) The cases seem parallel. The analogy is between the situation of the lifeboat occupants, none of whose rights have been violated, and the situation of the disease sufferers, none of whose rights have been violated. In each case, the practical must has the same status: One must be thrown overboard to save the rest. One must be experimented upon to save the rest. In each case, there is a problematic point of decision: in the lifeboat, when it is decided to throw the dog overboard, and in the disease case, when it is decided to experiment upon the dog. And in each case, the dog has been treated with all due respect prior to the problematic decision. We are faced with uncomfortable questions: • If it is not wrong to throw the dog overboard, how can it be wrong to select the dog for experimentation? • If it is wrong to select the dog for experimentation, how can it be permissible to throw the dog overboard? If the two cases could be distinguished in some morally relevant way, we could consistently affirm the permissibility of throwing the dog overboard in one case while denying the permissibility of animal experimentation in the other. What is not clear is how to distinguish them. Interestingly, a utilitarian, at least one who is doubtful about the utility or benefits of animal research (as Regan also is), may be in a better position to rule it out than Regan himself. Regan’s approach has the attractive feature that whether animal research is permissible will not turn upon delicate calculations of expected benefit. It will be ruled out, according to him, because it is a violation of animals’ right to be treated with respect. If that tack is unsuccessful, however, as the arguments above suggest, a utilitarian approach may deserve a second look. The utilitarian, of course, cannot dismiss calculations of consequences or settle matters by direct appeal to animals’ rights to respectful treatment, since it will always be theoretically possible to pile up enough benefits from animal research to outweigh any harms done. But the theoretical permission may amount to little in practice. The reason is that there is no prospect of authorizing all and only that subset of animal research that credibly promises substantial human benefit. Instead, what has to be justified, to earn utilitarian endorsement, is the institutionalization of animal research, and it may be—I have argued elsewhere that it is—very doubtful that that kind of justification is forthcoming. We may get permission in principle but prohibition in practice. Tom Regan’s candid description of his experience while writing The Case for Animal Rights paints a moving portrait of philosophical inspiration. He felt less like an author than a transcriber, waiting in suspense for the ending to come. What a book! I remember reading it in astonishment, an “animal lover” who at last found arguments to support my feelings and also reveal my inconsistencies. This book established him as the founder of the philosophical animal rights movement. It also provides the foundation for principled activism on behalf of suffering and abused nonhumans all over the globe. Utilitarian theories, by contrast, only go so far, aimed as they are at the amelioration of suffering that exceeds the limits of overall utility. Consistency, as the amazing writings of R. G. Frey show, leads utilitarians to throw cognitively disadvantaged humans as well as nonhumans under the bus, provided that experimentation and organ harvesting is as humane as possible and the “greater good” best served. Regan forthrightly reminds us that the rights view is abolitionist, not ameliorative. All “subjects-of-lives,” i.e., all beings with an experiential welfare who thereby care about what happens to them, are equally worthy of respect, be they chipmunks, cows, or humans. All have equal inherent value, Regan argues. As he notes, many critics have misunderstood this claim. I will take the liberty of adding just a few words to this discussion. Being a subject-of-a-life is a sufficient condition for inherent value. I think the key here is that one be able to care about what happens to oneself: such a life is valuable to the bearer of it. This qualifies one to be considered an end in oneself—to be respected–rather than regarded as a merely instrumentally valuable being. One either is a subject-of-a-life or one is not: degrees of intelligence, rationality, sensitivity, etc., are irrelevant to one’s moral status. Regan is careful to leave open the possibility that inherent value might be had on the basis of other properties too; he has never claimed that being a subject-of-a-life is necessary for one to be worthy of respect. Who counts as a subject-of-a-life is an empirical question. Much has been made of Regan’s original decision to conservatively draw the line at mammals who are at least one year old. The line was always tentative, as he stressed, open to adjustment as science fills in blanks (to us) about nonhuman cognitive and emotional capacities. He now agrees that birds should be included and probably fish as well. He has always subscribed to the “benefit of the doubt” principle for members of other species who could possibly qualify. Invertebrates, for example brainy mollusks, could well be subjects-of-lives too. We may adjust the age downward as well; research with human babies well under a year old suggests that they are able to recognize just and unjust behavior, to be angry on behalf of abused others, and to plot for better outcomes. Many nonhumans at a tender age likewise act like subjects-of-lives. Regan deserves all possible accolades for his philosophical defense of the rights of all subjects-of-lives. Philosophical arguments have consequences. Spain’s 2008 declaration that all the great apes have the legal rights to liberty and protection from torture is an example of what Regan began. Of course, there is so much farther to go. May the inspiration behind this book give us the resolve to persevere. Thanks, Tom, for your dedication to and work for animal rights. Unless I’m misunderstanding your argument, I think the lifeboat/research-lab analogy displaces the locus of the problem. You say: None of the survivors on the lifeboat is there because their rights were violated. None is there because they have been treated with a lack of respect. As soon as we enter a laboratory in which animal experimentation is proposed, however, the moral scene changes dramatically. . . . [A]s soon as that solitary animal is brought into a laboratory, there to be used in pursuit of human benefits, that animal’s right to be treated with respect has been violated.” Suppose the dog in the lifeboat is the animal-companion of one of the other six passengers. And suppose the dog in the research lab is the animal-companion of one of the six researchers. Neither dog is being considered as a subject for being thrown overboard or for being experimented upon. Both dogs are simply on the scene as companions of their respective humans. Suddenly, it becomes clear that the lifeboat is sinking and someone needs to be thrown overboard to save everyone else. At the same time — on shore in the research lab — it becomes clear that everyone (including the dog) has contracted an unknown illness, and that someone needs to be experimented upon to save everyone else. It is only at this point — in both situations — that thoughts turn to sacrificing someone to save everyone else. Until this emergency, no dog or human has been considered for possible use for anything — thus no individuals are in the lifeboat or the lab because their rights were violated. When the decision is made about whom to sacrifice (either human or dog) in either the lifeboat or the laboratory — it is made by criteria that are respectful of all. The suggestion that there has been some prior violation of rights in the laboratory but not in the lifeboat is misleading. Of course, if there is a prior violation, that’s relevant, but there doesn’t have to be any. There may have been no violation in either case prior to thought or deliberation about whom to sacrifice. It seems that the venue of lifeboat or laboratory is irrelevant. Thanks, again, for all your wonderful work on behalf of animals, both human and non-human. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the intellectual merit of Tom Regan’s arguments and for the compassionate tone he brings to the discussion of rights for other animals. I’ve always been fascinated by the lifeboat situation and it is this line of debate between Regan and, primarily, Singer, that I will focus upon in my comments. Extreme situations requiring direct action, such as the lifeboat situation, have the power to reveal our most basic values. In this case, either a human or a dog goes overboard. Period. My overall argument is that Regan’s concept of equal inherent value cannot inform this decision. Someone is going overboard and somehow that decision will be based upon some calculable factors that appeal to everything from speciesism to utilitarianism. But once the decision is made based upon these other factors one is clearly beyond the bounds of Regan’s theory. Unlike Regan, I do not think that the lifeboat situation is fundamentally different from that of using the dog for research. It seems irrelevant whether the context is a laboratory where decisions have clearly been made about the relative worth of dogs versus humans or a lifeboat where the decision to throw someone overboard will ultimately come down to the same issue. Indeed, one could argue that the laboratory, the factory farm, the zoo – are all simply “lifeboats” in the end. But the concrete lifeboat situation is, perhaps, the most straightforward way to probe our beliefs push-comes-to-shove (no pun intended). So, given this, I will focus upon the question of whether the lifeboat decision can be made by appealing to Regan’s idea of inherent value. In this essay, Regan articulates his idea of inherent value with the following statements: “…inherent value is a categorical concept; an individual either has it, or that individual does not; and all those who have inherent value have this value equally. Fourth, all those individuals who are subjects-of-a-life, as this concept was explained in the preceding, have inherent value and thus enjoy an equal moral status, the subject-of-a-life criterion constituting a sufficient condition for the possession of such value.” These statements reflect a deontological philosophy of inherent value that is categorical and implies equality of moral status. It is not, at face value, utilitarian. With that said, the only logically consistent response to the lifeboat situation is to admit that it would be impossible to decide upon who goes overboard without letting some utilitarian or speciesist concerns into the picture — or drawing straws. Taken in their pure form, Regan’s statements say that both human beings and dogs have equal inherent value and, therefore, equal moral status. If one takes these premises seriously, they do not provide any basis upon which to make the choice about who to throw overboard. Regan argues that just because inherent value is categorical that does not mean that all lives are equally valuable. But here is where he gets into trouble. If we take Regan’s notion of inherent value at its word, then to argue that the dog should always be sacrificed for the human in the lifeboat is to be inconsistent with this tenet. Regan has attempted to rescue this situation with “wiggle room” provided by the harm principle or the worse-off principle, stating that the harm to a human of being thrown overboard is greater than the harm to a dog and that no reasonable person would deny that the loss of a human would be greater than the loss of a dog. But on what basis are these assumptions made; is it logically admissable to make a categorical concept into one that is graduated or, at best, fuzzy, in order to default back to the case for human life over the lives of other animals? I argue that the worse-off principle necessarily appeals to either speciesist or utilitarian notions. If harm to a dog is always considered to be lesser than harm to a human, given that they are of equal inherent value, then that is speciesist. If we appeal to other calculable factors, such as whether more humans will suffer from the loss of a person than loss of the dog, then we are in utilitarian territory (whether that equation is based on empirical evidence or cultural beliefs is not the issue). In any case the decision will be based on some factor or factors that undermine the equal inherent value principle. I am not arguing one way or the other for who should be tossed overboard but I am pointing out that if Regan’s theory of equal inherent value is taken seriously (without fudge factors) then we are left with two moral outcomes in the lifeboat. Either we cannot decide or we draw straws. But if we make a decision — any decision — Regan’s concept of equal inherent value is no longer part of that process. Regan’s concept of equal inherent value has merit. But I wish he would have stopped there and upheld the obvious, albeit revolutionary, conclusion. But, in the end, even Regan attempts to justify favoring humans over other animals by appealing to the worse-off principle. And this principle seems to favor humans invariably. The fact is that other animals will never really be equal unless we are willing to toss a member of our own species overboard — at least once in a while. Tom Regan’s argument has always been the rock on which a thoroughgoing animal liberation movement could be built. I certainly embraced it wholeheartedly … until a few years ago, when I suddenly realized that the notion of inherent value did not jibe with my otherwise materialist worldview. The so-called Argument to the Best Explanation of the world as we know it simply does not have room for any such “animal.” There are quarks and gluons and maybe even trees and rabbits and human beings and beliefs and desires, but it does not seem plausible to the scientific-minded to suppose that there are also inherent values (among many other mythological beasts). What there are are subjective values, and also, let us grant, valuers — the “subjects” of those values. A distinction that is often lost on folks who discuss these things is between inherent value and intrinsic value. The latter is quite subjective and contingent; it is distinguished only from instrumental or “extrinsic” value. For example, you value your cat extrinsically if you like her for ridding your house of mice; but you value your cat intrinsically if you simply find her lovable and wonderful and wish only her good “for her own sake.” Inherent value is quite different from either of these. And Regan certainly recognizes this in Chapter 7 of his book. But it leaves me wondering, now that I have taken a skeptical turn regarding objective value, just what basis Regan thinks inherent value has. It is a distinct concept, yes. But is it instantiated in reality? If so, how? I did not use to care very much about questions of moral metaphysics, since the issues of so-called applied ethics were so compelling to me, and the “existence” of morality seemed inescapable. But now I find moral metaphysics absolutely crucial. Without some spelled-out basis for fitting inherent value into the universe we accept on nonmoral grounds, where is that rock for us to stand on when we affirm the truth of animal rights (in a non-derivative and merely utilitarian sense)? My present position on animal liberation is that it is something I value intrinsically. But if someone else happens not to, and I am unable to find any flaws in their facts or their logic, I don’t think I have anything else to say to them … that is, if I am only going to speak truthfully and noncoercively to them. What I still do have in abundance are other avenues of trying to further what I desire and value, such as striving to persuade other human beings to give up eating and otherwise using other animals, to support legislative initiatives, etc. — by means of educating them to the facts of animal (ab)use and also the environmental repercussions thereof, treating them to delicious vegan meals and showing them how easy it is to prepare them themselves, having them read books by Marc Bekoff on what animals are really like, and so forth ad inf. Like Professor Regan, I find the lifeboat scenarios distracting. Suppose three human beings who are 8 months, 18 years and 80 years old are in a lifeboat. Someone must be thrown overboard or they will all drown, and suppose that is an impermissible outcome. Whatever decision-making procedure is used here, no outcomes here would help justify “vivisecting” one of these human beings in ordinary contexts: imagine someone trying to argue that since some human being should be thrown overboard (for whatever reasons, and perhaps good ones), harmful, terminal, non-consensual experimentation on that individual is permissible. Why would this be different when some animal is in the boat? I don’t see why it would. Tom’s work shows that subjects-of-a-life have a basic moral right to respectful treatment, and that harming animals in treating them as mere resources violates that right. Most urgently, animal defenders need to end the unjust harms done to living animals; but I would like to elaborate the notion of respect as it bears on our treatment of the animal dead—in particular, our practice of bearing witness for animal victims of human injustice. Why is it important to remember human atrocities such as the Holocaust? Some rationales are forward-looking and consequentialist. We remember in the spirit of “never again”: to prevent atrocities’ recurrence. But there are also backward-looking, expressive reasons: we bear witness to show respect for the dead, to express our solidarity and grief, to affirm the moral value of both the lost and the saved. Recent work by Jeffery Blustein, W. James Booth, James Dawes, James Hatley, and Avishai Margalit illuminates the nature and moral purpose of bearing witness for human victims of injustice. Those who bear witness become “living reminders of a past…,” serving as “sentinel[s] of memory” who urge others to remember, too. (Booth) Bearing witness is “an exercise of agency:” an act of communication directed to a contemporary or future audience. (Blustein) It is required when people have been “grievously injured or harmed” through acts of injustice, and when this is something “others may … not want disclosed.” (Blustein) The witness has a “moral purpose” of exposing evil that was deliberately concealed, and he “ascribes intrinsic value to his testimony, regardless of instrumental consequences,” as a way of expressing solidarity with victims of evil. (Margalit) Bearing witness “ … asserts the moral status of the victims, their coequal membership in the moral community,” by giving them a voice. (Blustein) Thus bringing atrocities to light is not merely a prelude to justice, as it is in judicial settings aimed at punishment. Rather, “doing justice is, in key parts of its practice, memory work.” (Booth; my emphasis) Keeping alive the memory of crimes, victims, and perpetrators is a constituent element of justice. Tom shows that caring about animals is not exhausted by concern with welfare and humaneness; that rights, obligations, and justice are at the center of what has been profoundly wrong with humans’ treatment of animals. Past (like present) atrocities visited on animals did not only inflict terrible suffering, but violated animals’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and bodily integrity. This moral dimension of the past brings with it memorial obligations of the same type as corresponding obligations to bear witness to human suffering in cases of massive injustice. Bearing witness to animal suffering is not primarily an act of compassion, nor is its importance exhausted by its beneficial consequences. It is something we owe to the animal dead as an affirmation of respect. Bearing witness, however, carries moral risks, so that it matters greatly how one does so. We must choose our methods carefully, for some can undercut the aims of moral witness. Sometimes, it seems that only documentary film will do justice to a brutal injustice: will adequately capture the hideous truth of what happened and rouse us to activism. Yet this form of testimony does not find its way only to the compassionate, but also to others who will use it in pernicious ways and some who are simply voyeurs, so that the witness can unwillingly become “a pornographer of pain.” (Dawes) Given the aim of paying respect to victims, this is the last outcome a moral witness desires. For the dead to be displayed before the uncaring or sadistic compounds the original wrong done them, and bearing witness makes this possible. If displaying the abuse of animals compounds their degradation but advances the recruitment aims of activists, we face a moral dilemma. I am uncertain of how Tom would approach it. Would he accept that we have memorial obligations to animals who did not and perhaps could not have an interest in being remembered and in having their moral status affirmed after their deaths? Would he accept that animals have interests in non-degrading lives and deaths, so that they can be wronged posthumously as humans can, in ways examined by Joel Feinberg and seemingly endorsed by Tom? If he believes that we have memorial obligations to animals, how would Tom approach the witness’s dilemma? For him, no aggregated good consequences can justify a violation of individual rights. Thus if animals’ right to respect entails discretion in witnessing their unjust deaths, we may be severely limited in our use of images, at a substantial cost to enlisting animal defenders. Tom’s prohibition on overriding rights for the sake of maximizing future welfare seems too strong, from that perspective. Moreover, it seems potentially in conflict with the obligation to go beyond refusing to participate in unjust practices: the obligation to work for change in our culture’s treatment of animals. Tom argues that we must “help to educate those who presently support the animal industry to the implications of their support; to help to forge the opinion that this industry … violates the rights of farm animals; and to work … to effect the necessary changes….” Activists know that there are few ways more powerful to accomplish these aims than showing up-close documentaries about industry’s abuse of animals. Perhaps the worse-off principle for resolving conflicts of rights can help. If showing graphic films of animals’ murders can help to prevent even one murder of another, then perhaps the right not to be brutally killed simply overrides the right of the animal dead not to have their degradation publicly displayed. The problem, though, is that we can never be sure that overriding a right in this way will prevent the unjust killing of any particular animal. In any case, how to bear witness is a matter of moral judgment that those who would honor the animal dead must take on. That struggle for wise judgment is itself a labor of respect. Thank you profoundly, Tom, for your lifetime of world-changing work and for all that you have taught me. One of the most common objections to arguments in defense of animals like Professor Regan’s is this: “Although many non-human animals are indeed subjects of lives — they are conscious, sentient and with lives that can go better and worse from their own point of view — that is insufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) for possessing basic moral rights or being someone for whom there is a serious obligation not to harm. To have such rights, an individual must be able to engage in sophisticated mental activities, like moral reasoning, scientific theory creation, aesthetic contemplation, religious worship, reflection on the nature and meaning of existence and so on. Since animals are not able to do that, they have no rights and there are no serious moral obligations toward them.” This reasoning is subject to the glaringly oblivious objection that many human beings are not able to engage in such sophisticated mental activities: the very young, the very old, the severely mentally or emotionally challenged, and many more. So if this argument against animals succeeds, it also “justifies” eating, wearing and experimenting on weak and helpless human beings as well. Since that’d be morally wrong, the argument against animals (regrettably often called “The Argument from Marginal Cases”) fails. Some respond to this objection by arguing that human beings normally are mentally sophisticated and so all human beings should be treated as if they were, while animals normally cannot be mentally sophisticated and so it’s permissible to treat them badly. But human beings normally have four limbs, are able to see, and are able to read, and human beings who do not have four limbs, are blind and are not able to read should not be treated as if they can. What this shows is that individuals should be treated on the basis of their own characteristics, not the characteristics of other members of groups they are members of. This is true for humans and for animals and it appears that since being a subject of a life is sufficient for human beings having basic moral rights, it is true for many animals as well. There are many other responses to try to circumvent this “Argument from Marginal Cases.” Standing on the shoulders of a philosophical and moral giant, Tom Regan, I have argued in a number of places that they do not succeed. But I hope that Tom Regan will review what he thinks is the strongest response to this kind of argument, which is surely important since it is common in many people’s thinking about these issues. One of the great achievements of The Case for Animal Rights is the sustained critique of utilitarian ethics contained within it. Regan argues both that utilitarianism is not an acceptable theory of ethics, and that even if it were, it would not support the conclusion that most everyone should be a vegetarian. I believe that this second kind of criticism is important and deserves further elaboration. When confronted with the unspeakably painful and degrading treatment most animals raised for food are forced to endure, many people rightly believe that this practice is wrong and that it is wrong for anyone to take part of it in any way (e.g. by eating meat). Utilitarians like Singer certainly think this, and Singer has argued extensively that his utilitarian theory implies that almost all normal adults living in affluent countries have a moral obligation to become, at the very least, vegetarians. His reasoning appears to be rather simple and straightforward: if we weigh the interests an average meat-eater has in continuing to eat meat against the interests animals have in living a life that is free from painful and degrading treatment, the best consequences will be achieved by not eating meat. According to him, the only real interest a meat-eater has in eating meat is that meat tastes good, and this is a trivial interest in comparison of the animals’ interests in avoiding painful and degrading treatment. But a problem emerges for this deceptively simple argument. Is it not true that the modern meat industry is simply too big for any one person to have any effect on the number of animals raised and killed for food with their individual decisions? If so, then a person who becomes a vegetarian simply sacrifices her interests without thereby furthering the interests of any other animal. Perhaps Singer would respond to this by pointing out that there is some probability that an individual’s choice to become a vegetarian would prevent the painful and degrading treatment of at least some animals, and given the fact that the interests at stake for humans in eating meat are so trivial, safety would require us to refrain from eating any meat. There is a flaw in the reasoning, however. Singer assumes that the only interests that are stake for the average meat-eater in eating meat is the trivial interest in eating tasty food. I want to suggest that eating meat can further the interests meat-eaters have in eating meat in such obviously important areas such as achievement and creating and maintaining deep personal relationships (among others). The first concept I need to introduce is the psychological concept of a person’s identity, or their self-concept: how a person thinks of herself. This concept is important to understanding a person’s well-being for how a person thinks of herself will be part of how she arrives at conceptions of her achievement and will determine in part which relations she thinks are worth pursuing and maintaining. Furthermore, a person’s eating history forms part of her self-concept. This should not be surprising, as eating is the third most time consuming activity we do, after sleep and work (Rozin, “The Integration of Biological, Social, Cultural, and Psychological Influences on Food Choice”, in Shepard and Raats, The Psychology of Food Choice). In Sobal et. al.’s useful terminology, each person has a Personal Food Trajectory that has been influenced by such things as their culture, society, government and other political systems, families, friends, colleagues, and so on. What we eat, how we eat, with whom we eat, and how much we eat form a core part of how we conceive of ourselves (Sobal et. al., “A Conceptual Model of the Food Choice Process over the Life Course”, in Shepard and Raats). A person’s Personal Food Trajectory can influence what success is for a person: think of chefs trained to cook classic French dishes, or BBQ pitmasters who run their family’s business. Likewise, someone raised to be an adventurous eater might become a foodie who seeks out the most authentic and best food wherever they go. A home cook might turn the daily meal into a showcase for his talents, or an opportunity to demonstrate his love and care for his family. These passions are for more than good tasting food; they are, instead, for being a certain kind of person, and for achieving what that kind of person can achieve. Perhaps the most important way that eating meat can influence the interests of a person comes from our interactions with others. Few people choose what to eat without pressure from others. This is especially obvious in a family setting, where the choice of food requires careful negotiating. A family who refuses to become vegetarian can pose a serious problem for a cook who desires to make this change. But there are other kinds of societal influences as well, and as Leon Rappoport notes, “those who violate the food conventions of their group or society do so at their own risk” (How We Eat). A person who lives among non-vegetarians can find his choice of becoming a vegetarian to be a cause of strife among his friends and family. In deciding to eat meat, then, it is possible such a person is interested in maintaining the relations that are of obvious importance to him. Singer could try to argue that none of these concerns amount to much, that a chef could easily cook vegetarian food, that a foodie could seek only vegetarian fare, and that one could easily find vegetarian friends to replace your meat-loving ex-friends. In other words, Singer could try to show that there is, in fact, a harmony between self-interest and morality. But I am not as sanguine about this issue as this response presupposes. I suspect that for some people, refraining from eating meat will constitute a setback to their interests. Notice that the interests I mention are much more serious than mere gustatory pleasure—they are what most everyone agrees are the most important components of the good life. If refraining from eating meat has only a slight probability of preventing pain to animals, and will lead to such sacrifices for at least some meat eaters, it becomes a seriously open question whether Singer’s view will require that most everyone become a vegetarian. It is at this point that a meat-eater will start talking about bigger cages, about more humane treatment, in order to make the balance shift to his favor. The advantage of Regan’s Right’s View is that he can acknowledge that the switch to a vegetarian diet may require a serious sacrifice on the part of some meat-eaters without thereby undermining his support for vegetarianism. His Principle of Respect requires that we treat animals with the respect they deserve, and it is certainly a failure to do this if you eat the dead corpse of an animal, even if your refusal to do so does not save any other animal’s life. What’s more, acknowledging the sacrifice required by meat-eaters in switching to a vegetarian lifestyle might have further practical benefits, for if those of us who argue for such a switch constantly minimize or negate the sacrifice we are asking others to make (by e.g. claiming their interests are so trivial) we run the risk of not only alienating our target audience, but also of causing them to think that, given our Personal Food Trajectory, we simply do not understand what is at stake for them. Regan can acknowledge the interests he is asking them to sacrifice, and still insist that the sacrifice must be made. Many have noted Tom’s achievements, which are considerable. I’d like to add only that Tom’s work is complemented and reinforced by a theme that has emerged over the years here at On the Human, a Darwinian theme that differences between mammalian species are differences of degree rather than kind. On the view of animals many of us were taught, there’s a vast and unbridgeable gulf between us. Various human capacities are invoked to explain the gulf; we can control our actions on the basis of reasons; animals can’t. We have free will and moral autonomy—or language, culture, or a soul—animals don’t. There’s the divide. Tom’s work narrows the gap. One cannot read The Case for Animal Rights without having to decide what one thinks about his argument about the moral implications of our shared biology. The argument, that is, that a) since many normal adult mammals have mental states at least as sophisticated as humans who are severely neurally challenged then b) the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that we may not exploit the one group and may exploit the other. Regan requires, at least, that one justify discriminatory practices toward animals. By emphasizing the cognitive diversity of the human species and the psychological sophistication of some nonhumans Regan’s achievement is to raise animals toward people, as it were, reducing the gap from the bottom up. In OTH we have read essays that might provide fodder for an argument that the gap is also being reduced from the top down. Accumulating data from the neurosciences and experimental psychology seem to advance Regan’s strategy insofar as they suggest that we overestimate the original elevation of humans. We’re lower than we presume. For if a certain line of interpretation of the data is correct—a line that can be found in OTH postings—then Regan’s strategy to reveal the full depths of animal psychology finds an ally in the work of those who are exploring the depths of human psychology. What they seem to find, oversimply, is a quasi-neo-Freudian self, a self over which we lack much mastery. What I have in mind is not the idea that some animals exercise control over their mental states in a way analogous to the way that severely cognitively impaired humans do but, rather, that some animals exercise control in exactly the same way as do ordinary humans. Consider what John Doris here calls the situationist literature: that normal humans exercise far less control over their beliefs and desires than they like to think. Or consider what Chris Suhler and Pat Churchland here call the nonconscious control hypothesis: that control of our attention functions much more via autonomic and automatic means than we usually imagine. If recent developments in evolutionary psychology, experimental economics, and the brain sciences seem deflating, that sound of the air being let out of the balloon may be attributable to the fact that we started with an over-inflated sense of our capacities. If developments lead to a reduced assessment of our cognitive skills, then the same developments may make it even more difficult to deny that animals exercise control over their beliefs, desires, emotions, and plans in the same way we do–by largely nonconscious means. Do the empirical results about humans strengthen Tom’s hand as he makes his case for animal rights? I’d be curious to know if other folks join me in thinking that they do. I find this discussion fascinating and a measure of just how important Tom Regan’s ideas have been in this domain. I don’t agree, however, that the lifeboat situation is distracting. I think that its purity reveals what we actually think at bottom line. But, even if there are disagreements about the utility of the lifeboat situation, there is, in my view, a singular question at the core of this issue. That is, under what circumstances would one throw a human overboard to save the rest? That question has the potential to reveal exactly how authentically we are willing to live out the premise of equal moral rights. It seems to me that our threshold, if you will, for sacrificing a member of another species is significantly lower than that for our own species. For instance, in one of my classes on animal welfare a student told me that he would save the life of Adolf Hitler before his family dog. Why? Because Hitler was a human being. Many students articulate a very similar philosophy. So, my question is, when is it ever permissible to favor another animal over a human? Our answers would be quite telling, I think. A lot of water has flowed under the dam since the first appearance of Tom’s book and some of his early papers. His criticisms of me I have dealt with in a sheaf of papers on animal experimentation. There is no confusion between inherent value claims by Regan and quality of life claims by me. I don’t know of anyone in ethical theory that has made sense of his inherent value notion. Again, Tom deploys his intuitions constantly, and it is not merely utilitarians who are wary of this way of proceeding to develop an adequate ethical theory. Does Tom have an adequate ethical theory? He seems deeply suspicious of Hare’s students–Singer and myself in particular–because we eschew rights-theory. And yet it seems that most rights theorists find his strong account of animal rights unconvincing, too. This fact may explain why even many rights theorists do not draw from rights theories the practical conclusions Tom draws. On this issue, a great amount of water indeed has flowed under the dam. Tom needs to address it. Tom’s work sets about the discussion of animals through regarding them as moral patients. Much contemporary work proceeds to discuss animals in terms of agency, however, finding in at least some animals the rudimentary elements of agency and linking rights talk to this fact. Is Tom amenable to this? Do we get the same set of rights whichever path we go down? And what of people who go down the path of agency but whose rights ascribed to animals are weaker than the ones Tom favors? Are they guilty of some sort of mistake? I want to thank each of you for taking the time and going to the trouble of sending your comments about my work. To those of you who have conveyed your positive impressions, I am grateful. But the same is no less true of those of you who have conveyed your informed criticism. I have learned and benefited from both sorts of comments. Again, I thank you.	The preceding considerations provide the rights view’s basis for denying that human and animal welfare differ in kind. “Both animals and humans,” I write, have…interests, some biological, some psychological, some social…the overall tone or quality of the life of each, to a greater or lesser degree, is a function of the harmonious satisfaction of those preferences that it is in the interests of each to have satisfied. Granted, the sources of satisfaction available to most humans are at once more numerous and varied than those available to animals; even granted, in Mill’s memorable words, that it is ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’; nevertheless, the same categories of thought (interests, benefits, harms, etc.) that illuminate the most general features of human welfare are equally applicable to animal welfare (119-120). Now, both human and nonhuman subjects-of-a-life, in my view, have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. Of course, moral positions can be advanced that either dispense with rights altogether or, while affirming the rights of human beings, deny them in the case of nonhuman animals. But (or so I argue in chapters 5 through 7) such views prove to be deficient—for example, because they are inconsistent or needlessly complicated, because they lack precision or adequate scope, or because their implications clash with a large body of our well-considered moral beliefs, our moral intuitions. The basic moral right to respectful treatment places strict limits on how subjects-of-a-life may be treated. Individuals who possess this right are never to be treated as if they exist as resources for others; in particular, harms intentionally done to any one subject cannot be justified by aggregating benefits derived by others. In this respect, my position is anti-utilitarian, a theory in the Kantian, not the Millian, tradition.	yes
Philosophy	Should animals have the same rights as humans?	no_statement	"animals" should not have the same "rights" as "humans".. granting "animals" the same "rights" as "humans" is unnecessary.. it is not justifiable to give "animals" the same "rights" as "humans".. "animals" do not deserve the same "rights" as "humans".	https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html	An Animal's Place - The New York Times	An Animal's Place TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers. The first time I opened Peter Singer's ''Animal Liberation,'' I was dining alone at the Palm, trying to enjoy a rib-eye steak cooked medium-rare. If this sounds like a good recipe for cognitive dissonance (if not indigestion), that was sort of the idea. Preposterous as it might seem, to supporters of animal rights, what I was doing was tantamount to reading ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' on a plantation in the Deep South in 1852. Singer and the swelling ranks of his followers ask us to imagine a future in which people will look back on my meal, and this steakhouse, as relics of an equally backward age. Eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, killing animals for sport: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view ''speciesism'' -- a neologism I had encountered before only in jokes -- as a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism. Even in 1975, when ''Animal Liberation'' was first published, Singer, an Australian philosopher now teaching at Princeton, was confident that he had the wind of history at his back. The recent civil rights past was prologue, as one liberation movement followed on the heels of another. Slowly but surely, the white man's circle of moral consideration was expanded to admit first blacks, then women, then homosexuals. In each case, a group once thought to be so different from the prevailing ''we'' as to be undeserving of civil rights was, after a struggle, admitted to the club. Now it was animals' turn. That animal liberation is the logical next step in the forward march of moral progress is no longer the fringe idea it was back in 1975. A growing and increasingly influential movement of philosophers, ethicists, law professors and activists are convinced that the great moral struggle of our time will be for the rights of animals. So far the movement has scored some of its biggest victories in Europe. Earlier this year, Germany became the first nation to grant animals a constitutional right: the words ''and animals'' were added to a provision obliging the state to respect and protect the dignity of human beings. The farming of animals for fur was recently banned in England. In several European nations, sows may no longer be confined to crates nor laying hens to ''battery cages'' -- stacked wired cages so small the birds cannot stretch their wings. The Swiss are amending their laws to change the status of animals from ''things'' to ''beings.'' Though animals are still very much ''things'' in the eyes of American law, change is in the air. Thirty-seven states have recently passed laws making some forms of animal cruelty a crime, 21 of them by ballot initiative. Following protests by activists, McDonald's and Burger King forced significant improvements in the way the U.S. meat industry slaughters animals. Agribusiness and the cosmetics and apparel industries are all struggling to defuse mounting public concerns over animal welfare. Once thought of as a left-wing concern, the movement now cuts across ideological lines. Perhaps the most eloquent recent plea on behalf of animals, a new book called ''Dominion,'' was written by a former speechwriter for President Bush. And once outlandish ideas are finding their way into mainstream opinion. A recent Zogby poll found that 51 percent of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children. What is going on here? A certain amount of cultural confusion, for one thing. For at the same time many people seem eager to extend the circle of our moral consideration to animals, in our factory farms and laboratories we are inflicting more suffering on more animals than at any time in history. One by one, science is dismantling our claims to uniqueness as a species, discovering that such things as culture, tool making, language and even possibly self-consciousness are not the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens. Yet most of the animals we kill lead lives organized very much in the spirit of Descartes, who famously claimed that animals were mere machines, incapable of thought or feeling. There's a schizoid quality to our relationship with animals, in which sentiment and brutality exist side by side. Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig -- an animal easily as intelligent as a dog -- that becomes the Christmas ham. We tolerate this disconnect because the life of the pig has moved out of view. When's the last time you saw a pig? (Babe doesn't count.) Except for our pets, real animals -- animals living and dying -- no longer figure in our everyday lives. Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there's no reality check, either on the sentiment or the brutality. This is pretty much where we live now, with respect to animals, and it is a space in which the Peter Singers and Frank Perdues of the world can evidently thrive equally well. Several years ago, the English critic John Berger wrote an essay, ''Why Look at Animals?'' in which he suggested that the loss of everyday contact between ourselves and animals -- and specifically the loss of eye contact -- has left us deeply confused about the terms of our relationship to other species. That eye contact, always slightly uncanny, had provided a vivid daily reminder that animals were at once crucially like and unlike us; in their eyes we glimpsed something unmistakably familiar (pain, fear, tenderness) and something irretrievably alien. Upon this paradox people built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away. But that accommodation has pretty much broken down; nowadays, it seems, we either look away or become vegetarians. For my own part, neither option seemed especially appetizing. Which might explain how I found myself reading ''Animal Liberation'' in a steakhouse. This is not something I'd recommend if you're determined to continue eating meat. Combining rigorous philosophical argument with journalistic description, ''Animal Liberation'' is one of those rare books that demand that you either defend the way you live or change it. Because Singer is so skilled in argument, for many readers it is easier to change. His book has converted countless thousands to vegetarianism, and it didn't take long for me to see why: within a few pages, he had succeeded in throwing me on the defensive. Singer's argument is disarmingly simple and, if you accept its premises, difficult to refute. Take the premise of equality, which most people readily accept. Yet what do we really mean by it? People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all -- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. ''Equality is a moral idea,'' Singer points out, ''not an assertion of fact.'' The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of ''what abilities they may possess.'' Fair enough; many philosophers have gone this far. But fewer have taken the next logical step. ''If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?'' This is the nub of Singer's argument, and right around here I began scribbling objections in the margin. But humans differ from animals in morally significant ways. Yes they do, Singer acknowledges, which is why we shouldn't treat pigs and children alike. Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment, he points out: children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain. Here Singer quotes a famous passage from Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century utilitarian philosopher, that is the wellspring of the animal rights movement. Bentham was writing in 1789, soon after the French colonies freed black slaves, granting them fundamental rights. ''The day may come,'' he speculates, ''when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights.'' Bentham then asks what characteristic entitles any being to moral consideration. ''Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse?'' Obviously not, since ''a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant.'' He concludes: ''The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?'' Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosophers call the ''argument from marginal cases,'' or A.M.C. for short. It goes like this: there are humans -- infants, the severely retarded, the demented -- whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee. Even though these people cannot reciprocate our moral attentions, we nevertheless include them in the circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzee? Because he's a chimp, I furiously scribbled in the margin, and they're human! For Singer that's not good enough. To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he's not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he's not white. In the same way we'd call that exclusion racist, the animal rightist contends that it is speciesist to discriminate against the chimpanzee solely because he's not human. But the differences between blacks and whites are trivial compared with the differences between my son and a chimp. Singer counters by asking us to imagine a hypothetical society that discriminates against people on the basis of something nontrivial -- say, intelligence. If that scheme offends our sense of equality, then why is the fact that animals lack certain human characteristics any more just as a basis for discrimination? Either we do not owe any justice to the severely retarded, he concludes, or we do owe it to animals with higher capabilities. This is where I put down my fork. If I believe in equality, and equality is based on interests rather than characteristics, then either I have to take the interests of the steer I'm eating into account or concede that I am a speciesist. For the time being, I decided to plead guilty as charged. I finished my steak. But Singer had planted a troubling notion, and in the days afterward, it grew and grew, watered by the other animal rights thinkers I began reading: the philosophers Tom Regan and James Rachels; the legal theorist Steven M. Wise; the writers Joy Williams and Matthew Scully. I didn't think I minded being a speciesist, but could it be, as several of these writers suggest, that we will someday come to regard speciesism as an evil comparable to racism? Will history someday judge us as harshly as it judges the Germans who went about their ordinary lives in the shadow of Treblinka? Precisely that question was recently posed by J.M. Coetzee, the South African novelist, in a lecture delivered at Princeton; he answered it in the affirmative. If animal rightists are right, ''a crime of stupefying proportions'' (in Coetzee's words) is going on all around us every day, just beneath our notice. It's an idea almost impossible to entertain seriously, much less to accept, and in the weeks following my restaurant face-off between Singer and the steak, I found myself marshaling whatever mental power I could muster to try to refute it. Yet Singer and his allies managed to trump almost all my objections. My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another? (Ben Franklin tried this one long before me: during a fishing trip, he wondered, ''If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you.'' He admits, however, that the rationale didn't occur to him until the fish were in the frying pan, smelling ''admirably well.'' The advantage of being a ''reasonable creature,'' Franklin remarks, is that you can find a reason for whatever you want to do.) To the ''they do it, too'' defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do. (Though if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure.) This suggests another defense. Wouldn't life in the wild be worse for these farm animals? ''Defenders of slavery imposed on black Africans often made a similar point,'' Singer retorts. ''The life of freedom is to be preferred.'' But domesticated animals can't survive in the wild; in fact, without us they wouldn't exist at all. Or as one 19th-century political philosopher put it, ''The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all.'' But it turns out that this would be fine by the animal rightists: for if pigs don't exist, they can't be wronged. Animals on factory farms have never known any other life. Singer replies that ''animals feel a need to exercise, stretch their limbs or wings, groom themselves and turn around, whether or not they have ever lived in conditions that permit this.'' The measure of their suffering is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts. O.K., the suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first! Sounds good, and yet all the animal people are asking me to do is to stop eating meat and wearing animal furs and hides. There's no reason I can't devote myself to solving humankind's problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics. But doesn't the fact that we could choose to forgo meat for moral reasons point to a crucial moral difference between animals and humans? As Kant pointed out, the human being is the only moral animal, the only one even capable of entertaining a concept of ''rights.'' What's wrong with reserving moral consideration for those able to reciprocate it? Right here is where you run smack into the A.M.C.: the moral status of the retarded, the insane, the infant and the Alzheimer's patient. Such ''marginal cases,'' in the detestable argot of modern moral philosophy, cannot participate in moral decision making any more than a monkey can, yet we nevertheless grant them rights. That's right, I respond, for the simple reason that they're one of us. And all of us have been, and will probably once again be, marginal cases ourselves. What's more, these people have fathers and mothers, daughters and sons, which makes our interest in their welfare deeper than our interest in the welfare of even the most brilliant ape. Alas, none of these arguments evade the charge of speciesism; the racist, too, claims that it's natural to give special consideration to one's own kind. A utilitarian like Singer would agree, however, that the feelings of relatives do count for something. Yet the principle of equal consideration of interests demands that, given the choice between performing a painful medical experiment on a severely retarded orphan and on a normal ape, we must sacrifice the child. Why? Because the ape has a greater capacity for pain. Here in a nutshell is the problem with the A.M.C.: it can be used to help the animals, but just as often it winds up hurting the marginal cases. Giving up our speciesism will bring us to a moral cliff from which we may not be prepared to jump, even when logic is pushing us. And yet this isn't the moral choice I am being asked to make. (Too bad; it would be so much easier!) In everyday life, the choice is not between babies and chimps but between the pork and the tofu. Even if we reject the ''hard utilitarianism'' of a Peter Singer, there remains the question of whether we owe animals that can feel pain any moral consideration, and this seems impossible to deny. And if we do owe them moral consideration, how can we justify eating them? This is why killing animals for meat (and clothing) poses the most difficult animal rights challenge. In the case of animal testing, all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals. That's because the unique qualities of human consciousness carry weight in the utilitarian calculus: human pain counts for more than that of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our deaths are worse than an animal's because we understand what death is in a way they don't. So the argument over animal testing is really in the details: is this particular procedure or test really necessary to save human lives? (Very often it's not, in which case we probably shouldn't do it.) But if humans no longer need to eat meat or wear skins, then what exactly are we putting on the human side of the scale to outweigh the interests of the animal? I suspect that this is finally why the animal people managed to throw me on the defensive. It's one thing to choose between the chimp and the retarded child or to accept the sacrifice of all those pigs surgeons practiced on to develop heart-bypass surgery. But what happens when the choice is between ''a lifetime of suffering for a nonhuman animal and the gastronomic preference of a human being?'' You look away -- or you stop eating animals. And if you don't want to do either? Then you have to try to determine if the animals you're eating have really endured ''a lifetime of suffering.'' Whether our interest in eating animals outweighs their interest in not being eaten (assuming for the moment that is their interest) turns on the vexed question of animal suffering. Vexed, because it is impossible to know what really goes on in the mind of a cow or a pig or even an ape. Strictly speaking, this is true of other humans, too, but since humans are all basically wired the same way, we have excellent reason to assume that other people's experience of pain feels much like our own. Can we say that about animals? Yes and no. I have yet to find anyone who still subscribes to Descartes's belief that animals cannot feel pain because they lack a soul. The general consensus among scientists and philosophers is that when it comes to pain, the higher animals are wired much like we are for the same evolutionary reasons, so we should take the writhings of the kicked dog at face value. Indeed, the very premise of a great deal of animal testing -- the reason it has value -- is that animals' experience of physical and even some psychological pain closely resembles our own. Otherwise, why would cosmetics testers drip chemicals into the eyes of rabbits to see if they sting? Why would researchers study head trauma by traumatizing chimpanzee heads? Why would psychologists attempt to induce depression and ''learned helplessness'' in dogs by exposing them to ceaseless random patterns of electrical shock? That said, it can be argued that human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude. This qualitative difference is largely the result of our possession of language and, by virtue of language, an ability to have thoughts about thoughts and to imagine alternatives to our current reality. The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett suggests that we would do well to draw a distinction between pain, which a great many animals experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a few animals appear to command. Suffering in this view is not just lots of pain but pain intensified by human emotions like loss, sadness, worry, regret, self-pity, shame, humiliation and dread. Consider castration. No one would deny the procedure is painful to animals, yet animals appear to get over it in a way humans do not. (Some rhesus monkeys competing for mates will bite off a rival's testicle; the very next day the victim may be observed mating, seemingly little the worse for wear.) Surely the suffering of a man able to comprehend the full implications of castration, to anticipate the event and contemplate its aftermath, represents an agony of another order. By the same token, however, language and all that comes with it can also make certain kinds of pain more bearable. A trip to the dentist would be a torment for an ape that couldn't be made to understand the purpose and duration of the procedure. As humans contemplating the pain and suffering of animals, we do need to guard against projecting on to them what the same experience would feel like to us. Watching a steer force-marched up the ramp to the kill-floor door, as I have done, I need to remind myself that this is not Sean Penn in ''Dead Man Walking,'' that in a bovine brain the concept of nonexistence is blissfully absent. ''If we fail to find suffering in the [animal] lives we can see,'' Dennett writes in ''Kinds of Minds,'' ''we can rest assured there is no invisible suffering somewhere in their brains. If we find suffering, we will recognize it without difficulty.'' Which brings us -- reluctantly, necessarily -- to the American factory farm, the place where all such distinctions turn to dust. It's not easy to draw lines between pain and suffering in a modern egg or confinement hog operation. These are places where the subtleties of moral philosophy and animal cognition mean less than nothing, where everything we've learned about animals at least since Darwin has been simply . . . set aside. To visit a modern CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) is to enter a world that, for all its technological sophistication, is still designed according to Cartesian principles: animals are machines incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this any more, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert your eyes on the part of everyone else. From everything I've read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America at least still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick. And broiler chickens, although they do get their beaks snipped off with a hot knife to keep them from cannibalizing one another under the stress of their confinement, at least don't spend their eight-week lives in cages too small to ever stretch a wing. That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral ''vices'' that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding. Pain? Suffering? Madness? The operative suspension of disbelief depends on more neutral descriptors, like ''vices'' and ''stress.'' Whatever you want to call what's going on in those cages, the 10 percent or so of hens that can't bear it and simply die is built into the cost of production. And when the output of the others begins to ebb, the hens will be ''force-molted'' -- starved of food and water and light for several days in order to stimulate a final bout of egg laying before their life's work is done. Simply reciting these facts, most of which are drawn from poultry-trade magazines, makes me sound like one of those animal people, doesn't it? I don't mean to, but this is what can happen when . . . you look. It certainly wasn't my intention to ruin anyone's breakfast. But now that I probably have spoiled the eggs, I do want to say one thing about the bacon, mention a single practice (by no means the worst) in modern hog production that points to the compound madness of an impeccable industrial logic. Piglets in confinement operations are weaned from their mothers 10 days after birth (compared with 13 weeks in nature) because they gain weight faster on their hormone- and antibiotic-fortified feed. This premature weaning leaves the pigs with a lifelong craving to suck and chew, a desire they gratify in confinement by biting the tail of the animal in front of them. A normal pig would fight off his molester, but a demoralized pig has stopped caring. ''Learned helplessness'' is the psychological term, and it's not uncommon in confinement operations, where tens of thousands of hogs spend their entire lives ignorant of sunshine or earth or straw, crowded together beneath a metal roof upon metal slats suspended over a manure pit. So it's not surprising that an animal as sensitive and intelligent as a pig would get depressed, and a depressed pig will allow his tail to be chewed on to the point of infection. Sick pigs, being underperforming ''production units,'' are clubbed to death on the spot. The U.S.D.A.'s recommended solution to the problem is called ''tail docking.'' Using a pair of pliers (and no anesthetic), most but not all of the tail is snipped off. Why the little stump? Because the whole point of the exercise is not to remove the object of tail-biting so much as to render it more sensitive. Now, a bite on the tail is so painful that even the most demoralized pig will mount a struggle to avoid it. Much of this description is drawn from ''Dominion,'' Matthew Scully's recent book in which he offers a harrowing description of a North Carolina hog operation. Scully, a Christian conservative, has no patience for lefty rights talk, arguing instead that while God did give man ''dominion'' over animals (''Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you''), he also admonished us to show them mercy. ''We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but . . . because they stand unequal and powerless before us.'' Scully calls the contemporary factory farm ''our own worst nightmare'' and, to his credit, doesn't shrink from naming the root cause of this evil: unfettered capitalism. (Perhaps this explains why he resigned from the Bush administration just before his book's publication.) A tension has always existed between the capitalist imperative to maximize efficiency and the moral imperatives of religion or community, which have historically served as a counterweight to the moral blindness of the market. This is one of ''the cultural contradictions of capitalism'' -- the tendency of the economic impulse to erode the moral underpinnings of society. Mercy toward animals is one such casualty. More than any other institution, the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint. Here in these places life itself is redefined -- as protein production -- and with it suffering. That venerable word becomes ''stress,'' an economic problem in search of a cost-effective solution, like tail-docking or beak-clipping or, in the industry's latest plan, by simply engineering the ''stress gene'' out of pigs and chickens. ''Our own worst nightmare'' such a place may well be; it is also real life for the billions of animals unlucky enough to have been born beneath these grim steel roofs, into the brief, pitiless life of a ''production unit'' in the days before the suffering gene was found. Vegetarianism doesn't seem an unreasonable response to such an evil. Who would want to be made complicit in the agony of these animals by eating them? You want to throw something against the walls of those infernal sheds, whether it's the Bible, a new constitutional right or a whole platoon of animal rightists bent on breaking in and liberating the inmates. In the shadow of these factory farms, Coetzee's notion of a ''stupefying crime'' doesn't seem far-fetched at all. But before you swear off meat entirely, let me describe a very different sort of animal farm. It is typical of nothing, and yet its very existence puts the whole moral question of animal agriculture in a different light. Polyface Farm occupies 550 acres of rolling grassland and forest in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Here, Joel Salatin and his family raise six different food animals -- cattle, pigs, chickens, rabbits, turkeys and sheep -- in an intricate dance of symbiosis designed to allow each species, in Salatin's words, ''to fully express its physiological distinctiveness.'' What this means in practice is that Salatin's chickens live like chickens; his cows, like cows; pigs, pigs. As in nature, where birds tend to follow herbivores, once Salatin's cows have finished grazing a pasture, he moves them out and tows in his ''eggmobile,'' a portable chicken coop that houses several hundred laying hens -- roughly the natural size of a flock. The hens fan out over the pasture, eating the short grass and picking insect larvae out of the cowpats -- all the while spreading the cow manure and eliminating the farm's parasite problem. A diet of grubs and grass makes for exceptionally tasty eggs and contented chickens, and their nitrogenous manure feeds the pasture. A few weeks later, the chickens move out, and the sheep come in, dining on the lush new growth, as well as on the weed species (nettles, nightshade) that the cattle and chickens won't touch. Meanwhile, the pigs are in the barn turning the compost. All winter long, while the cattle were indoors, Salatin layered their manure with straw, wood chips -- and corn. By March, this steaming compost layer cake stands three feet high, and the pigs, whose powerful snouts can sniff out and retrieve the fermented corn at the bottom, get to spend a few happy weeks rooting through the pile, aerating it as they work. All you can see of these pigs, intently nosing out the tasty alcoholic morsels, are their upturned pink hams and corkscrew tails churning the air. The finished compost will go to feed the grass; the grass, the cattle; the cattle, the chickens; and eventually all of these animals will feed us. I thought a lot about vegetarianism and animal rights during the day I spent on Joel Salatin's extraordinary farm. So much of what I'd read, so much of what I'd accepted, looked very different from here. To many animal rightists, even Polyface Farm is a death camp. But to look at these animals is to see this for the sentimental conceit it is. In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it, animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and here I was seeing it in abundance. For any animal, happiness seems to consist in the opportunity to express its creaturely character -- its essential pigness or wolfness or chickenness. Aristotle speaks of each creature's ''characteristic form of life.'' For domesticated species, the good life, if we can call it that, cannot be achieved apart from humans -- apart from our farms and, therefore, our meat eating. This, it seems to me, is where animal rightists betray a profound ignorance about the workings of nature. To think of domestication as a form of enslavement or even exploitation is to misconstrue the whole relationship, to project a human idea of power onto what is, in fact, an instance of mutualism between species. Domestication is an evolutionary, rather than a political, development. It is certainly not a regime humans imposed on animals some 10,000 years ago. Rather, domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own. Humans provided the animals with food and protection, in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk and eggs and -- yes -- their flesh. Both parties were transformed by the relationship: animals grew tame and lost their ability to fend for themselves (evolution tends to edit out unneeded traits), and the humans gave up their hunter-gatherer ways for the settled life of agriculturists. (Humans changed biologically, too, evolving such new traits as a tolerance for lactose as adults.) From the animals' point of view, the bargain with humanity has been a great success, at least until our own time. Cows, pigs, dogs, cats and chickens have thrived, while their wild ancestors have languished. (There are 10,000 wolves in North America, 50,000,000 dogs.) Nor does their loss of autonomy seem to trouble these creatures. It is wrong, the rightists say, to treat animals as ''means'' rather than ''ends,'' yet the happiness of a working animal like the dog consists precisely in serving as a ''means.'' Liberation is the last thing such a creature wants. To say of one of Joel Salatin's caged chickens that ''the life of freedom is to be preferred'' betrays an ignorance about chicken preferences -- which on this farm are heavily focused on not getting their heads bitten off by weasels. But haven't these chickens simply traded one predator for another -- weasels for humans? True enough, and for the chickens this is probably not a bad deal. For brief as it is, the life expectancy of a farm animal would be considerably briefer in the world beyond the pasture fence or chicken coop. A sheep farmer told me that a bear will eat a lactating ewe alive, starting with her udders. ''As a rule,'' he explained, ''animals don't get 'good deaths' surrounded by their loved ones.'' The very existence of predation -- animals eating animals -- is the cause of much anguished hand-wringing in animal rights circles. ''It must be admitted,'' Singer writes, ''that the existence of carnivorous animals does pose one problem for the ethics of Animal Liberation, and that is whether we should do anything about it.'' Some animal rightists train their dogs and cats to become vegetarians. (Note: cats will require nutritional supplements to stay healthy.) Matthew Scully calls predation ''the intrinsic evil in nature's design . . . among the hardest of all things to fathom.'' Really? A deep Puritan streak pervades animal rights activists, an abiding discomfort not only with our animality, but with the animals' animality too. However it may appear to us, predation is not a matter of morality or politics; it, also, is a matter of symbiosis. Hard as the wolf may be on the deer he eats, the herd depends on him for its well-being; without predators to cull the herd, deer overrun their habitat and starve. In many places, human hunters have taken over the predator's ecological role. Chickens also depend for their continued well-being on their human predators -- not individual chickens, but chickens as a species. The surest way to achieve the extinction of the chicken would be to grant chickens a ''right to life.'' Yet here's the rub: the animal rightist is not concerned with species, only individuals. Tom Regan, author of ''The Case for Animal Rights,'' bluntly asserts that because ''species are not individuals . . . the rights view does not recognize the moral rights of species to anything, including survival.'' Singer concurs, insisting that only sentient individuals have interests. But surely a species can have interests -- in its survival, say -- just as a nation or community or a corporation can. The animal rights movement's exclusive concern with individual animals makes perfect sense given its roots in a culture of liberal individualism, but does it make any sense in nature? In 1611 Juan da Goma (aka Juan the Disoriented) made accidental landfall on Wrightson Island, a six-square-mile rock in the Indian Ocean. The island's sole distinction is as the only known home of the Arcania tree and the bird that nests in it, the Wrightson giant sea sparrow. Da Goma and his crew stayed a week, much of that time spent in a failed bid to recapture the ship's escaped goat -- who happened to be pregnant. Nearly four centuries later, Wrightson Island is home to 380 goats that have consumed virtually every scrap of vegetation in their reach. The youngest Arcania tree on the island is more than 300 years old, and only 52 sea sparrows remain. In the animal rights view, any one of those goats have at least as much right to life as the last Wrightson sparrow on earth, and the trees, because they are not sentient, warrant no moral consideration whatsoever. (In the mid-80's a British environmental group set out to shoot the goats, but was forced to cancel the expedition after the Mammal Liberation Front bombed its offices.) The story of Wrightson Island (recounted by the biologist David Ehrenfeld in ''Beginning Again'') suggests at the very least that a human morality based on individual rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world. This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature? We may require a different set of ethics to guide our dealings with the natural world, one as well suited to the particular needs of plants and animals and habitats (where sentience counts for little) as rights suit us humans today. To contemplate such questions from the vantage of a farm is to appreciate just how parochial and urban an ideology animals rights really is. It could thrive only in a world where people have lost contact with the natural world, where animals no longer pose a threat to us and human mastery of nature seems absolute. ''In our normal life,'' Singer writes, ''there is no serious clash of interests between human and nonhuman animals.'' Such a statement assumes a decidedly urbanized ''normal life,'' one that certainly no farmer would recognize. The farmer would point out that even vegans have a ''serious clash of interests'' with other animals. The grain that the vegan eats is harvested with a combine that shreds field mice, while the farmer's tractor crushes woodchucks in their burrows, and his pesticides drop songbirds from the sky. Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat. When I talked to Joel Salatin about the vegetarian utopia, he pointed out that it would also condemn him and his neighbors to importing their food from distant places, since the Shenandoah Valley receives too little rainfall to grow many row crops. Much the same would hold true where I live, in New England. We get plenty of rain, but the hilliness of the land has dictated an agriculture based on animals since the time of the Pilgrims. The world is full of places where the best, if not the only, way to obtain food from the land is by grazing animals on it -- especially ruminants, which alone can transform grass into protein and whose presence can actually improve the health of the land. The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply. Indeed, it is doubtful that you can build a more sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature -- rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls -- then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do. There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity -- our own animality. Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere ''gastronomic preference.'' We might as well call sex -- also now technically unnecessary -- a mere ''recreational preference.'' Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed. Are any of these good enough reasons to eat animals? I'm mindful of Ben Franklin's definition of the reasonable creature as one who can come up with reasons for whatever he wants to do. So I decided I would track down Peter Singer and ask him what he thought. In an e-mail message, I described Polyface and asked him about the implications for his position of the Good Farm -- one where animals got to live according to their nature and to all appearances did not suffer. ''I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all,'' Singer wrote back. Since the utilitarian is concerned exclusively with the sum of happiness and suffering and the slaughter of an animal that doesn't comprehend that death need not involve suffering, the Good Farm adds to the total of animal happiness, provided you replace the slaughtered animal with a new one. However, he added, this line of thinking doesn't obviate the wrongness of killing an animal that ''has a sense of its own existence over time and can have preferences for its own future.'' In other words, it's O.K. to eat the chicken, but he's not so sure about the pig. Yet, he wrote, ''I would not be sufficiently confident of my arguments to condemn someone who purchased meat from one of these farms.'' Singer went on to express serious doubts that such farms could be practical on a large scale, since the pressures of the marketplace will lead their owners to cut costs and corners at the expense of the animals. He suggested, too, that killing animals is not conducive to treating them with respect. Also, since humanely raised food will be more expensive, only the well-to-do can afford morally defensible animal protein. These are important considerations, but they don't alter my essential point: what's wrong with animal agriculture -- with eating animals -- is the practice, not the principle. What this suggests to me is that people who care should be working not for animal rights but animal welfare -- to ensure that farm animals don't suffer and that their deaths are swift and painless. In fact, the decent-life-merciful-death line is how Jeremy Bentham justified his own meat eating. Yes, the philosophical father of animal rights was himself a carnivore. In a passage rather less frequently quoted by animal rightists, Bentham defended eating animals on the grounds that ''we are the better for it, and they are never the worse. . . . The death they suffer in our hands commonly is, and always may be, a speedier and, by that means, a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.'' My guess is that Bentham never looked too closely at what happens in a slaughterhouse, but the argument suggests that, in theory at least, a utilitarian can justify the killing of humanely treated animals -- for meat or, presumably, for clothing. (Though leather and fur pose distinct moral problems. Leather is a byproduct of raising domestic animals for food, which can be done humanely. However, furs are usually made from wild animals that die brutal deaths -- usually in leg-hold traps -- and since most fur species aren't domesticated, raising them on farms isn't necessarily more humane.) But whether the issue is food or fur or hunting, what should concern us is the suffering, not the killing. All of which I was feeling pretty good about -- until I remembered that utilitarians can also justify killing retarded orphans. Killing just isn't the problem for them that it is for other people, including me. During my visit to Polyface Farm, I asked Salatin where his animals were slaughtered. He does the chickens and rabbits right on the farm, and would do the cattle, pigs and sheep there too if only the U.S.D.A. would let him. Salatin showed me the open-air abattoir he built behind the farmhouse -- a sort of outdoor kitchen on a concrete slab, with stainless-steel sinks, scalding tanks, a feather-plucking machine and metal cones to hold the birds upside down while they're being bled. Processing chickens is not a pleasant job, but Salatin insists on doing it himself because he's convinced he can do it more humanely and cleanly than any processing plant. He slaughters every other Saturday through the summer. Anyone's welcome to watch. I asked Salatin how he could bring himself to kill a chicken. ''People have a soul; animals don't,'' he said. ''It's a bedrock belief of mine.'' Salatin is a devout Christian. ''Unlike us, animals are not created in God's image, so when they die, they just die.'' The notion that only in modern times have people grown uneasy about killing animals is a flattering conceit. Taking a life is momentous, and people have been working to justify the slaughter of animals for thousands of years. Religion and especially ritual has played a crucial part in helping us reckon the moral costs. Native Americans and other hunter-gathers would give thanks to their prey for giving up its life so the eater might live (sort of like saying grace). Many cultures have offered sacrificial animals to the gods, perhaps as a way to convince themselves that it was the gods' desires that demanded the slaughter, not their own. In ancient Greece, the priests responsible for the slaughter (priests! -- now we entrust the job to minimum-wage workers) would sprinkle holy water on the sacrificial animal's brow. The beast would promptly shake its head, and this was taken as a sign of assent. Slaughter doesn't necessarily preclude respect. For all these people, it was the ceremony that allowed them to look, then to eat. Apart from a few surviving religious practices, we no longer have any rituals governing the slaughter or eating of animals, which perhaps helps to explain why we find ourselves where we do, feeling that our only choice is to either look away or give up meat. Frank Perdue is happy to serve the first customer; Peter Singer, the second. Until my visit to Polyface Farm, I had assumed these were the only two options. But on Salatin's farm, the eye contact between people and animals whose loss John Berger mourned is still a fact of life -- and of death, for neither the lives nor the deaths of these animals have been secreted behind steel walls. ''Food with a face,'' Salatin likes to call what he's selling, a slogan that probably scares off some customers. People see very different things when they look into the eyes of a pig or a chicken or a steer -- a being without a soul, a ''subject of a life'' entitled to rights, a link in a food chain, a vessel for pain and pleasure, a tasty lunch. But figuring out what we do think, and what we can eat, might begin with the looking. We certainly won't philosophize our way to an answer. Salatin told me the story of a man who showed up at the farm one Saturday morning. When Salatin noticed a PETA bumper sticker on the man's car, he figured he was in for it. But the man had a different agenda. He explained that after 16 years as a vegetarian, he had decided that the only way he could ever eat meat again was if he killed the animal himself. He had come to look. ''Ten minutes later we were in the processing shed with a chicken,'' Salatin recalled. ''He slit the bird's throat and watched it die. He saw that the animal did not look at him accusingly, didn't do a Disney double take. The animal had been treated with respect when it was alive, and he saw that it could also have a respectful death -- that it wasn't being treated as a pile of protoplasm.'' Salatin's open-air abattoir is a morally powerful idea. Someone slaughtering a chicken in a place where he can be watched is apt to do it scrupulously, with consideration for the animal as well as for the eater. This is going to sound quixotic, but maybe all we need to do to redeem industrial animal agriculture in this country is to pass a law requiring that the steel and concrete walls of the CAFO's and slaughterhouses be replaced with . . . glass. If there's any new ''right'' we need to establish, maybe it's this one: the right to look. No doubt the sight of some of these places would turn many people into vegetarians. Many others would look elsewhere for their meat, to farmers like Salatin. There are more of them than I would have imagined. Despite the relentless consolidation of the American meat industry, there has been a revival of small farms where animals still live their ''characteristic form of life.'' I'm thinking of the ranches where cattle still spend their lives on grass, the poultry farms where chickens still go outside and the hog farms where pigs live as they did 50 years ago -- in contact with the sun, the earth and the gaze of a farmer. For my own part, I've discovered that if you're willing to make the effort, it's entirely possible to limit the meat you eat to nonindustrial animals. I'm tempted to think that we need a new dietary category, to go with the vegan and lactovegetarian and piscatorian. I don't have a catchy name for it yet (humanocarnivore?), but this is the only sort of meat eating I feel comfortable with these days. I've become the sort of shopper who looks for labels indicating that his meat and eggs have been humanely grown (the American Humane Association's new ''Free Farmed'' label seems to be catching on), who visits the farms where his chicken and pork come from and who asks kinky-sounding questions about touring slaughterhouses. I've actually found a couple of small processing plants willing to let a customer onto the kill floor, including one, in Cannon Falls, Minn., with a glass abattoir. The industrialization -- and dehumanization -- of American animal farming is a relatively new, evitable and local phenomenon: no other country raises and slaughters its food animals quite as intensively or as brutally as we do. Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to do it this way. Tail-docking and sow crates and beak-clipping would disappear overnight, and the days of slaughtering 400 head of cattle an hour would come to an end. For who could stand the sight? Yes, meat would get more expensive. We'd probably eat less of it, too, but maybe when we did eat animals, we'd eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and respect they deserve. A correction was made on Dec. 15, 2002 : An article on Nov. 10 about animal rights referred erroneously to an island in the Indian Ocean and to events there involving goats and endangered giant sea sparrows that could possibly lead to the killing of goats by environmental groups. Wrightson Island does not exist; both the island and the events are hypothetical figments from a book (also mentioned in the article), ''Beginning Again,'' by David Ehrenfeld. No giant sea sparrow is known to be endangered by the eating habits of goats.	Yes they do, Singer acknowledges, which is why we shouldn't treat pigs and children alike. Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment, he points out: children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain. Here Singer quotes a famous passage from Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century utilitarian philosopher, that is the wellspring of the animal rights movement. Bentham was writing in 1789, soon after the French colonies freed black slaves, granting them fundamental rights. '' The day may come,'' he speculates, ''when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights.'' Bentham then asks what characteristic entitles any being to moral consideration. '' Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse?'' Obviously not, since ''a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant.'' He concludes: ''The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?'' Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosophers call the ''argument from marginal cases,'' or A.M.C. for short. It goes like this: there are humans -- infants, the severely retarded, the demented -- whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee. Even though these people cannot reciprocate our moral attentions, we nevertheless include them in the circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzee? Because he's a chimp, I furiously scribbled in the margin, and they're human! For Singer that's not good enough. To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he's not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he's not white.	yes

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.