Translate

vrijdag 13 februari 2026

In Defense of Animals USA, the 10 worst zoos for elephants: for female zoo elephants breeding is a punishment, Chai, at Woodland Park Zoo Seattle, endured 112 brutal insemination attempts and when all failed was shipped to St Louis Zoo

 https://www.idausa.org/campaign/elephants/10-worst-zoos-for-elephants-2025


Tulsa Zoo

When Packy was born at the Oregon Zoo in 1962, he was the first elephant calf born in North America in over 40 years. His birth skyrocketed ticket sales and triggered a nationwide breeding frenzy. Today, a new baby boom is in full swing, with 12 calves born in 2025 alone, luring in unsuspecting visitors by the millions. 

TWZ Hall of Shame - Oregon Zoo

But zoo baby fever is a sickness that plunges elephant lives into tragedy. Each new calf draws crowds, but behind the smiles and photo ops lies a cycle of exploitation, heartbreak, and death.


Zoo-born elephants are twice as likely to die as wild-born calves before age 2. Source: In Defense of Animals analysis; Turkalo et al. 

One in four elephants born in zoos dies before age 5 — a rate far surpassing wild mortality. By age 2, the death rate for zoo calves is double that of the wild, even though captives are protected from drought, predation, and poaching.

Visitors pay to watch playful youngsters, while older elephants sway from zoochosis caused by brain damage, shuffle with crippling osteoarthritis, and are dosed with painkillers for incurable, often fatal foot disease. A data review by In Defense of Animals found that over a third of elephants born in zoos since 2004 have died prematurely. Most captive-born elephants fail to reach even half of their natural life expectancy.

Independent studies consistently show that elephants in zoos suffer persistent, chronic health and psychological problems, even at facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). Breeding underpins, perpetuates, and causes it. A new report exposes the devastating results of captive breeding worldwide.

Bred to Breaking Point

Zoos increasingly rely on artificial insemination, an invasive procedure forced on females again and again. It produces three times as many males, who are notoriously difficult to manage in captivity and lead some of the most tormented, tragic lives in zoos. 

Males are shipped between zoos to breed, which traumatically breaks bonds with friends and family. This shuffling increases mortality by 50 percent

For females, zoo breeding is a miserable punishment. Chai, at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, endured 112 brutal insemination attempts — often tightly restrained with chains or in an “iron maiden”. All failed, so she was shipped to Dickerson Park Zoo in St Louis to mate with a live bull, despite the risk of contracting deadly elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (EEHV). She returned pregnant, but her baby was infected and died at six years old.

Rare documentary footage shows one zoo’s distressing birthing process in 2012. Chained elephants give birth onto concrete, and the stricken mothers are immediately separated from their newborns.

/
Too Young To Breed, Too Young To Die

Zoos are so desperate to have babies that the AZA allows females to be bred as early as 8 years old, far younger than 12-14 years old which is typical in the wild. 

The pace is relentless. In the wild, mothers wait four to six years between calves. In zoos, some are impregnated within a year of giving birth.

Male elephants in zoos enter musth as young as 11 years old, when wild bulls commonly enter sexual maturity in their 20s or 30s. 

The relentless demand and stress of captivity causes miscarriages, stillbirths, and deadly diseases like EEHV. 

Zoos mislead the public by claiming EEHV is found equally in the wild. In truth, it is not a threat to wild elephants, but in zoos, it kills. Breeding spreads the virus from zoo to zoo as elephants are traded on breeding loans. 

A few zoos are testing an experimental vaccine, but even if it works, it would only prolong the suffering of elephants kept in unnatural conditions that make the disease deadly in the first place. While zoos highlight dangers elephants face in the wild, zoos themselves are far more deadly to elephants.


Breeding for Commerce, Not Conservation

No elephant born in a North American zoo has ever been released to the wild. The AZA’s Species Survival Plan (SSP) is not a conservation program, but an attempt to maintain a fresh supply of elephant prisoners for zoos. The SSP leaves a trail of dead infants and traumatized parents in its wake. 

Captive breeding funds a conservation con that diverts millions of dollars toward zoo infrastructure and away from genuine efforts to protect wild elephants where they live.


A Better Way Forward

In 2025, the Louisville Zoo made the compassionate choice to close its exhibit and retire its last two elephants to sanctuary, earning our deep gratitude and Path to Progress designation. More than 40 North American zoos have already shuttered their elephant exhibits. We hope more follow this progressive path.

10 Worst Zoos 2024:
  1. Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens, Los Angeles, California
  2. Bronx Zoo, Bronx, New York
  3. Edmonton Valley Zoo, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  4. Cameron Park Zoo, Waco, Texas
  5. Two Tails Ranch, Williston, Florida
  6. Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Colorado Springs, Colorado
  7. Topeka Zoo & Conservation Center, Topeka, Kansas
  8. Little Rock Zoo, Little Rock, Arkansas
  9. Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, Cincinnati, Ohio
  10. Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, Arizona

Path to Progress Award: Oakland Zoo, Oakland, California

PRESS RELEASE : The Dutch Society for Protection of Animals under fire for giving 'euthanasia instructions' of Scottish Folds cats (read why)

 


 'euthanasia instructions' of Scottish Folds

AMSTERDAM, February 12, 2026 – Animal welfare organization House of Animals says it is shocked by an internal work instruction from the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals stating that shelters are no longer allowed to accept Scottish Fold cats and that stray animals of this breed will be euthanized after a 14-day "retention period," regardless of their condition. 

Karen Soeters of House of Animals finds it unacceptable that the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals is so ruthlessly closing the door on all these cats. "Refusing to take these animals encourages people to find other ways to dispose of them. There's a transitional arrangement for these animals for a reason, and they shouldn't be treated differently than any other animal. Not every Scottish Fold experiences the same level of pain. It's up to a veterinarian to assess each individual animal's level of unbearable suffering."

Ban on keeping

Since January 1, 2026, a ban on keeping Scottish Folds, cats with the characteristic folded ears, has been in effect. These folded ears are the result of a hereditary cartilage defect that can lead to painful osteoarthritis and joint problems. A breeding ban for the breed has been in place since 2014. The internal instructions, which, according to House of Animals, were drafted by a veterinarian from the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals, state, among other things, that every Scottish Fold that arrives at a Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals shelter "will be euthanized after the statutory retention period of 14 days, regardless of condition or approachability."

Illegal killing

Former veterinarian Paul Bours, who worked in companion animal practice for twelve years and served as a senior policy officer for animal welfare at the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality for over twenty years, also expressed reservations about the instruction. "The routine killing of animals after a retention period of 14 days due to a hereditary condition, regardless of their condition or approachability, is prohibited by law if the preconditions set out in Article 1.10 of the Decree on Animal Keepers are not met. Euthanasia may only take place in cases of unbearable suffering. If this requirement is not met, the killing is illegal and ethically reprehensible."

Unrest among asylum workers

According to House of Animals, several shelter staff members of the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals were shocked by the instructions and have expressed their concerns. Veterinarians have also reportedly indicated they do not want to cooperate with such a policy. According to Soeters, the work instructions do not differentiate between individual animals. "It states that these cats suffer constant pain due to serious abnormalities. That doesn't necessarily apply to every Scottish Fold, and certainly not to the same degree. Only unbearable suffering should be grounds for euthanasia, not the fact that an animal belongs to a particular breed."

Call for Adaptation

House of Animals says it has sought dialogue with the Animal Protection Association and expects that the work instructions will be fundamentally amended immediately.

Karen Soeters:

"A message must be sent immediately to the thirty animal protection shelters to prevent irreversible decisions from being made based on the previous work instructions. As far as I understand, that hasn't happened yet. It's incomprehensible anyway that a separate protocol is being drawn up for Scottish Folds."

 

-END PRESS RELEASE-


Scottishfold | © House of Animals

Scottishfold | © House of Animals


donderdag 12 februari 2026

Annually In Costa Rica 100 monkeys are burned due to unsafe electrical infrastructure: after thousands of people signed a petition the courts are punishing the companies responsable

 


dinsdag 10 februari 2026

Can we feed the world without destroying the planet and supporting animal cruelty? Industrial farming is an environmental, medical & ethical concern

 



Each year, more than 94.9 billion terrestrial animals are kept and killed for food. Behind this staggering number lies a global system of industrial animal agriculture—one that is often devastatingly cruel and environmentally destructive. This is also a system that is capital-intensive, meaning there is money involved—a lot of money.


She is in a cage and is never able to even touch her babies.

Financial institutions, both public and private, are pivotal actors in this system. Their decisions shape which production models thrive, which innovations are scaled, and ultimately, what kind of food system is passed on to future generations. It is therefore immensely important that considerations of animal welfare and a shift toward plant-forward food systems are integrated into core financing and investing strategies.

That’s why we at Humane World for Animals work with financial institutions to integrate higher animal welfare and plant-forward strategies into their core funding policies and practices. Our goals are clear: Improve the lives of animals currently in production and stem the growth in the number of animals kept and killed for food.


It was in this spirit that members of our staff recently joined a panel discussion at the World Bank Spring Meetings. While we don’t always agree with the positions of the World Bank or the International Financial Corporation, we value continued engagement and the opportunity to help shape a more humane and sustainable future. The panel was called How Can IFC Support the Shift to Sustainable Food Systems, and it was a timely and important conversation.

Calves are taken away from their mothers when they are a few hours old. Put in cages where they get iron low feed. The calf has anemia that keeps the meat pale. 

During the panel, IFC’s head of global agribusiness outlined several animal production practices the institution no longer finances, such as confining hens in the egg industry to battery cages and confining pregnant pigs in gestation crates for their entire pregnancy. (Under common industry practice mother pigs kept for breeding in the pork industry spend the majority of their lives confined to crates so small they are unable to turn around.) These exclusions, while not comprehensive, go further than many other financial institutions, over 100 of which reference IFC’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards in their own frameworks, which guide risk and impact assessments.

Yet, referencing IFC standards is not the same as implementing them. Many major financial players, such as Citigroup, Bank of America, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Santander and Credit Suisse, among others still lack any public-facing commitments to animal welfare. As of March 2023, private financial institutions held more than $323.3 billion in assets in the world’s largest animal production companies—financing and investments likely made without meaningful consideration of farm animal welfare or the many other harms of industrial animal agriculture.

Recent shareholder resolutions at Bank of America and Citigroup asked these institutions to disclose how they manage material risks related to poor animal welfare. Both boards opposed the proposals and signaled no intention to address the issue publicly. That’s not just disappointing, it’s dangerous.

And it is not just commercial banks that are putting their funds at risk. A recent incident involving Daybreak Foods in South Africa, for instance, highlights the financial and reputational risks of supporting industrial animal agriculture operations. After reportedly running out of funds, the company left over 350,000 birds to starve. Daybreak is owned by the Public Investment Corporation, which manages assets for the Government Employees Pension Fund—one of Africa’s largest. Like many other financial institutions, PIC doesn’t have a public-facing animal welfare policy. The case reflects a broader concern: mass killing events, or “depopulation,” are common across industrial animal farming, underscoring the link between financial support and systemic welfare issues.

Poor animal welfare is clearly a moral issue, and it’s also bad for business. As a material risk-and-return consideration, bad practices relating to animals can impact a company’s success and profitability. From shifting consumer preferences and regulatory changes to supply chain volatility and reputational damage, the costs of inaction are mounting. Strong animal welfare practices also align with global sustainability guidelines and standards such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, as well as sector standards from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board and the Global Reporting Initiative.

The bigger picture

Industrial animal agriculture is a leading driver of biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change and public health risks. It also displaces small-scale farmers and undermines food security. At the World Bank Spring Meetings, the IFC reiterated its support for large-scale agriculture, citing under-consumption of meat in emerging markets as a cause of malnutrition. But we already produce enough food to feed the world. Food security is about more than yield and availability—it also includes access, utilization and stability.

Efficiency alone won’t save us, and science-based, practical solutions exist that can sustainably feed a growing population without relying on large-scale industrial animal agriculture. We can feed the world without destroying the planet and supporting cruelty.

A path forward

Financial institutions have a choice. They can continue to fund systems that harm animals, people and the planet, or they can lead the transition to a more humane and sustainable future. That means incentivizing higher-welfare systems, disincentivizing harmful ones, and shifting capital toward plant-forward food systems.

Financial institutions must do more. They must move beyond symbolic references and integrate animal welfare into their due diligence process, investment agreements and active engagement strategies. They must recognize and reject humane washing. They must meet the growing demand for more ethical and environmentally friendly food options, because stronger welfare practices and plant-forward strategies are not only ethically sound—they’re essential to building resilient, future-proof food systems.

We at Humane World for Animals are here to forge this path. We are working with financial institutions conducting training and knowledge sharing on higher welfare practices, providing opportunities to meet with producers and corporate buyers, and offering resources through the Farm Animal Responsible Minimum Standards Initiative (FARMS Initiative) coalition. We will continue to engage in the IFC’s sustainability framework consultation to advocate for stronger animal welfare standards. Because a more humane and sustainable food system cannot come soon enough.

Follow Kitty Block