Our Blogs

Trophy hunting is often presented as an activity reserved for wealthy foreigners: expensive safari camps, professional hunters, private vehicles, exclusive concessions, imported rifles, and the opportunity to kill iconic African wildlife.In a sense, this image is accurate. A legal hunting safari can cost tens of thousands of dollars once the full package is included: guides, accommodation, staff, vehicles, permits, firearms paperwork, trophy preparation, taxidermy, and export logistics.But this luxury image hides a deeper and more disturbing reality.The official price attached to killing an individual wild animal can appear shockingly low when compared with the ecological, emotional, cultural, and symbolic value of that animal.This raises a question we shouldn’t ignore:How much is a wild animal truly worth?The Hidden RealityWhen people say trophy hunting is “for rich people,” they usually refer to the total cost of the safari. But the game fee, the price paid for an animal hunted or wounded by a tourist hunter, reveals another reality.In Tanzania, for example, tourist hunting is regulated through The Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting) Regulations, 2015, and licensed hunting includes animals such as buffalo, crocodile, leopard, lion, and elephant under species-based trophy fee systems.For African wild dogs, the game fee is USD 1,200, roughly the price of an iPhone. For secretary birds, the fee is USD 340, roughly the price of AirPods. Both species are classified as Endangered on the IUCN Red List.This is where the ethical problem begins.These animals are part of ecosystems. They are part of landscapes, family groups, food chains, cultures, local identities, and national heritage. They are sentient beings with their own lives, behaviours, interests, and ecological roles. Some are also endangered, meaning that they face a very high risk of extinction in the wild.Yet trophy hunting systems turn them into financial categories: quota, permit, fee, trophy, skin, skull, horn, or tusk.This is not conservation in the deepest sense. It is commodification.Why Do Some Countries Allow Trophy Hunting?Countries that allow trophy hunting usually defend it through economic and conservation arguments.Supporters of regulated trophy hunting argue that, when properly governed, it can generate conservation incentives by funding wildlife management, anti-poaching activities, local benefits and habitat retention, especially in areas where photographic tourism may be commercially unviable. This argument is reflected in IUCN’s guidance on trophy hunting as a potential conservation incentive, in Lindsey et al.’s review of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa, and in studies on the complementary financial role of hunting and tourism in African conservancies.Botswana lifted its hunting moratorium in 2019, partly arguing that elephant numbers and human-elephant conflict were creating serious problems for rural communities and farmers. Namibia often presents regulated hunting as a part of its communal conservancy model, where communities are expected to receive benefits from wildlife-based land use.Zimbabwe has historically defended hunting through community-based conservation models such as CAMPFIRE, arguing that rural communities should receive income from wildlife.Tanzania defends licensed hunting as part of its wildlife-use model, but recent elephant hunts near the Kenyan border have created serious controversy due to elephants from Kenya’s Amboseli ecosystem crossing into Tanzania, where they may legally be hunted. Conservationists have argued that such hunting threatens rare “super-tuskers” and undermines cross-border conservation efforts. Where Is Trophy Hunting Legal in Africa?Trophy hunting remains legal and regulated in several African countries, especially in Southern and Eastern Africa.Countries where trophy hunting is generally legal under permit systems include South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Ethiopia.Available comparative estimates suggest that trophy hunting activity in Africa has historically been concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, particularly South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania. Lindsey et al. (2007) estimated that South Africa accounted for approximately 45.6% of international trophy hunters visiting Africa, followed by Namibia (29.0%), Zimbabwe (10.0%), and Tanzania (7.3%).However, these figures originate from older datasets and should be interpreted cautiously, as there is currently no standardized and regularly updated Africa-wide database tracking trophy hunting participation across countries. More recent information is often fragmented, with statistics usually reported at national rather than continental level.Despite these limitations, recent national statistics illustrate how concentrated the industry remains. In South Africa alone, approximately 6,052 international hunting visitors reportedly hunted more than 34,000 animals in 2023, reinforcing South Africa’s position as one of the continent’s largest trophy hunting destinations.The broader scale of the industry should also not be underestimated. Lindsey et al. (2007) estimated that trophy hunting occurred across 23 sub-Saharan African countries, generated at least USD 201 million annually, involved approximately 18,500 international hunting clients per year, and covered around 1.4 million km² of hunting land. Although these figures are dated, they remain among the most widely cited continent-wide estimates and demonstrate that trophy hunting is not a marginal activity, but rather a large-scale wildlife use system affecting extensive landscapes, numerous species, and many rural communities.Where Is Trophy Hunting Banned or Restricted?Some countries have rejected trophy hunting, or even heavily restricted it.Kenya is the clearest African example. Big-game hunting has been banned since 1977, and the country has built a major wildlife tourism identity around photographic safaris and living wildlife. Other countries have had bans, moratoriums, or restrictions at different times. Botswana banned trophy hunting in 2014, then lifted the moratorium in 2019. This shows that hunting policy can change depending on political pressure, rural livelihoods, conservation debates, and human-wildlife conflict. Nevertheless, a key point remains: Africa does not have one single approach to trophy hunting. Some countries treat it as a conservation tool. Others reject it and rely on photographic tourism, protected areas, community conservation, and non-lethal wildlife economies.Does Trophy Hunting Mean Conservation?Supporters often present trophy hunting as conservation by default.But generating money from wildlife does not automatically mean wildlife is being protected effectively or ethically.In fact, its implications and challenges are numerous and significant.First, revenue is often difficult to trace. If the public cannot clearly see how much money is paid, where it goes, how much reaches communities, and how much directly funds conservation, then the conservation claim remains weak. For example, several analyses of community-based hunting programs in parts of Southern Africa have questioned how much revenue actually reaches local communities compared with government agencies, operators, or intermediaries. Critics of Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE program, while recognizing some local benefits, have argued that financial distribution has sometimes been uneven and lacked transparency. Similarly, debates in Botswana following the lifting of the hunting ban highlighted concerns about who benefits financially from wildlife use and whether rural communities receive sufficient compensation.Second, weak governance can undermine the system. Quotas may be poorly monitored, permits may be misused, and enforcement may be insufficient. Tanzania has faced criticism over elephant trophy hunting near the Kenya border, where conservationists argued that elephants crossing from Kenya’s protected Amboseli ecosystem could legally be hunted once they entered Tanzanian territory, creating challenges for transboundary conservation. In several African countries, weak enforcement capacity, corruption risks, and limited monitoring resources have also raised concerns about whether hunting quotas are always evidence-based or effectively enforced.Third, trophy hunting often targets the most impressive animals: the largest horns, the biggest tusks, or the strongest-looking males. Removing these animals can affect social structures, genetics, reproduction, and group stability. A well-known example is the killing of Cecil the lion, in Zimbabwe in 2015, which triggered global outrage, partly because removing dominant adult males can disrupt prides and increase cub mortality when new males take over territories. Similar concerns exist for elephants: the selective targeting of large-tusked individuals may reduce the frequency of desirable genetic traits over time and disproportionately remove older individuals with important ecological and social roles.Fourth, conservation based on killing creates an ethical contradiction. It conveys  that wildlife becomes valuable when someone is willing to pay to kill it. This creates a philosophical dilemma: if wildlife is protected primarily because someone pays for access to kill it, then economic value becomes linked to death rather than life. That is not the future of conservation we should promote. Wildlife should not have to die in order to prove its economic value.Can Ethical Tourism Generate the Same Profit?This is a key question when discussing the intersection of hunting and tourism.In many places, ethical tourism can generate far more long-term value than trophy hunting.Photographic safaris, birdwatching, walking safaris, conservation tourism, cultural tourism, wildlife photography, research tourism, education programs, and ethical guiding can create employment without killing animals.A living elephant or lion can generate income repeatedly over many years through park fees, guides, lodges, transport, restaurants, photography, documentaries, research, and global conservation interest. A hunted animal generates direct trophy income only once.Kenya’s model shows that a country can build a powerful international tourism identity around living wildlife rather than trophy hunting. In 2024, Kenya received more than 2.39 million international visitors and generated approximately KSh 452.20 billion in inbound tourism earnings. Holiday and leisure travel represented the largest purpose of visit, with 44.2% of arrivals, showing the central role of non-hunting tourism in the country’s tourism economy. Kenya’s approach is not perfect, and human-wildlife conflict still exists, but it proves that non-lethal wildlife tourism can become central to a nation’s conservation economy. However, the answer must remain realistic and transparent. Some remote areas have poor roads, limited tourism infrastructure, insecurity, low visitor demand, or landscapes that are less attractive to mainstream photographic tourism. In those areas, governments sometimes argue that hunting brings faster revenue than ecotourism.But this should not be the end of the discussion. It should be the starting point for investment.Where to Invest to Replace Hunting Tourism?Several African examples show that people are willing to pay not only for wildlife consumption, but for conservation learning and ethical wildlife experiences as well.In Rwanda, high-value gorilla tourism has become one of the country’s strongest conservation success stories. Visitors pay approximately USD 1,500 per permit to observe mountain gorillas alive while learning about conservation challenges and local ecosystems. This model generates substantial conservation revenue while creating economic incentives to keep wildlife alive.Uganda developed a similar approach through gorilla trekking and the Gorilla Habituation Experience, where visitors pay premium prices for longer educational encounters focused on gorilla behaviour, research, and conservation.Recent evidence from Namibia also challenges the idea that hunting is always economically superior. Research on communal conservancies found that photographic tourism generated approximately 447% greater median annual income than hunting in conservancies earning revenue from both activities.Tanzania already demonstrates the potential for conservation education tourism. The country attracts international students, researchers, photographers, and volunteers through wildlife field schools, research programs, conservation projects, and protected-area learning experiences focused on biodiversity, wildlife management, tourism impacts, and human-wildlife conflict.Educational tourism itself may represent an underused opportunity. Instead of paying to kill wildlife, visitors could pay to participate in citizen science projects, learn wildlife tracking techniques, support wildlife monitoring, attend photography workshops, take part in habitat restoration activities, understand human-wildlife conflict mitigation, visit community conservation initiatives, join conservation field schools, or learn directly from local conservation professionals and communities.This type of tourism creates a different economic model: one where wildlife continues generating value because it remains alive.

We spend a lot of time talking about how to protect animals.We talk about legislation, rescue, conservation strategies, and enforcement.But we rarely ask ourselves something simpler.When do we actually start teaching animal welfare and responsibility toward animals within our education systems?I remember being in school and doing a project on animal extinction. I don't remember all the details of the assignment, but I remember how it made me feel. I remember realizing that animals were disappearing because of human actions. That connection between our choices and their lives stayed with me.At the time, I didn’t know I would become a veterinarian or that I would go on to work in animal welfare. But that early exposure shaped my perception of responsibility.Education does that. It plants ideas quietly. Sometimes those ideas grow into careers. Sometimes they simply grow into values.Research supports what many of us intuitively know. Children who develop empathy toward animals are more likely to demonstrate empathy toward other people (Ascione, 1992; Signal and Taylor, 2007). Humane education programs have been associated with increases in prosocial behavior and reductions in acceptance of violence (Arbour et al., 2009).This is not simply about being sentimental. It’s about development.The way children are taught to view animals influences how they understand power, vulnerability, and responsibility.There is also a broader system dimension to this conversation.The One Health framework reminds us that human health, animal health, and environmental health are interconnected. When children learn about responsible animal care, wildlife coexistence, and biodiversity, they are also learning about public health and environmental stability.Teaching animal welfare is not separate from teaching sustainability. It’s a part of it.If animal welfare is included in schools, it should go beyond telling children to be kind. It can include understanding that animals are sentient beings with species specific needs. It can include discussions about responsible guardianship, habitat protection, and how human decisions affect other species.These conversations don’t necessarily have to be complex. They need to be consistent.As someone working in animal welfare, I often see the consequences of gaps in education. Neglect is not always rooted in cruelty. Sometimes it’s rooted in lack of knowledge. Sometimes it is rooted in normalization.If we want long-term change, we cannot rely only on rescue or policy. Those are reactive. Education is preventive.Attitudes formed in childhood tend to persist. If respect for animals is integrated into how we teach science, ethics, and environmental studies, it becomes part of cultural expectations rather than an afterthought.Legislation can protect animals.Rescue can help individuals.Conservation can protect species.But education shapes how people think before harm happens.For me, a simple school project opened a door. Not dramatically. Not overnight. But steadily.If we intentionally integrate animal welfare into education systems, we are not just teaching children about animals.We are shaping how the next generation understands responsibility.

When it comes to protecting wildlife and ecosystems, flagship species are key to winning hearts and minds for conservation. Large mammals dominate these iconic portrait galleries, with tigers, whales, polar bears, and elephants regularly serving as the faces of conservation campaigns. Some of these icons are indeed facing extinction and play key roles as umbrella species, but they do not reflect the full biodiversity that also deserves protection. In short: we need to praise the ugly ones as well.I know, I know: some of you reading this may already feel your skin crawl, far from the admiration we might feel when observing majestic big cats or towering pachyderms. Few will look at a Californian condor (G. californiatus) with awe, or at many other critically endangered vultures which, despite their odd appearance, are key pillars of their respective ecosystems. Fewer will shed a tear on learning that many amphibians, such as the 5 kg goliath frog (C. goliath), are facing imminent extinction. Some may even feel a faint sense of relief knowing that snakes like Ashe’s bush viper (A. desaixi), crocodilians such as the Philippine crocodile (C. mindorensis), or sharks like the mako shark (I. oxyrinchus) could soon vanish from our world. Why? Because none of these animals has been depicted as positively as the ones we relate to most: the beautiful, charismatic ones. The ones that convince people that these ecosystems are worth saving.The very civilizations and nations to which we belong have built their cultures around iconic species, most of which embody one or more of these sought-after traits: nobility, beauty, intelligence, strength, empathy. From the mighty eagle to the wise elephant and the noble lion, human cultures have shaped our views of wildlife for millennia. Some species have become symbols of virtue, while others have been feared and hunted to extinction because of fear, misunderstanding, or religious beliefs. Some of these judgments run deep and do not necessarily change over time, even as scientists continue learning more about these animals and challenging the poor public image some of them still have today. A tiger preying on a deer will always be seen as less repulsive than a python doing so. A raven’s brilliant intelligence will always be undermined by its gloomy looks. And the list goes on.Mammals also suffer from this strange beauty contest, with species like the bald uakari (C. calvus), the naked mole-rat (H. glaber), the saiga antelope (S. tatarica), and many others being deemed unfit to please our eyes. The impact of these aesthetic preferences may not be immediately apparent, but their overall effect is to reduce biodiversity, in the public imagination, to a very small percentage of species people can easily relate to. Sure, this is a strategy that pays, in every sense of the term, as conservation funders will likely feel better about sponsoring a visually appealing big cat rather than a mucus-covered toad or a fish whose toothy grin looks like nightmare fuel. But what about their ecological roles? What about the fact that so many of these “ugly” or “scary” contenders are vital engineers of their ecosystems, aerating soil through burrowing, spreading seeds, regulating food chains, and more?Scientific studies show it year after year: without scavengers like vultures, ecosystems and human populations face greater risks of disease spread. Without predatory fish like sharks, marine food webs are destabilized. Without strange-looking rodents, birds, lizards, primates, and many other species, forests would shrink and wither. Their presence in these environments makes possible the presence of the bigger, more charismatic animals. Biodiversity does not care about looks. It is about richness, balance, and ecological roles being fulfilled. And if the “less sexy” species start disappearing, do not expect the situation to turn anything but ugly.

There are two worlds that have shaped me: criminal law and animal protection.Before working in animal welfare, I worked within the police system as a civil servant and later in a police-court environment. Criminal law was one of my main interests then, and it still is today. In my free time, I have always followed crime cases and watched documentaries about serial killers, not out of fascination for violence, but to understand how it starts.What strikes me most, again and again, is that extreme violence rarely appears suddenly. It often begins early, quietly, and in ways that are easy to dismiss.When studying the childhood and adolescence of several infamous serial killers, a recurring element appears: violence against animals, or an early fixation on animal death and control over vulnerable beings. In many documented cases of extreme violence, animal abuse was part of a broader developmental trajectory, one marked by desensitization, domination, and gradual escalation.Take Jeffrey Dahmer. Long before his crimes against humans, Dahmer displayed a sustained fascination with dead animals. He collected roadkill, preserved bones, and dissected animal bodies. These acts mattered not because they were “strange,” but because they reflected an early normalization of death and a lack of emotional response to suffering. Violence did not begin with murder; it was rehearsed.A similar pattern can be observed in the case of Dennis Rader. Rader later described killing animals during childhood and linked these acts to feelings of power and control. His trajectory shows how small acts of cruelty can function as a first experience of domination, testing boundaries, reducing empathy, and paving the way for escalation.Even in cases where the record is more debated, such as Ted Bundy, researchers have pointed to early violent tendencies, boundary violations, and cruelty toward vulnerable beings as part of a wider pattern. The exact details matter less than the logic they reveal: violence develops. It is practiced. It becomes familiar.What these cases have in common is not a single behavior, but a process. Animals are often the first victims because they are accessible, defenseless, and voiceless. Their suffering is easier to ignore, minimize, or excuse. But that minimization is precisely what allows escalation to continue unnoticed.This perspective deeply informs my work today.Last year, through Voices for Animal Welfare, we proposed within our campaign Safe for Every Being a focus on the link between child abuse and animal abuse. The aim was prevention. Violence does not exist in silos. Where animals are harmed, other forms of violence may also be present, or may follow.For me, this connects everything I have done: criminal law, prevention, and animal protection. Recognizing the link between violence against animals and violence against people is not an emotional claim. It is a violence-prevention insight.Animals are often the first victims.Ignoring them means ignoring the warning signs.

Guardians of Balance: the role of megafauna in healthy ecosystemsI was about five years old, in 2002, when my parents took me to the cinema to watch one of the latest animated movies: Ice Age. I remember being instantly mesmerized and enthralled by the main characters, it was probably the first time I had seen such strange, large animals like Manny (the mammoth) and Diego (the sabre-toothed tiger), which I instantly adored. I couldn’t quite put my finger on why they gave me such a nostalgic feeling, though, and it wasn’t until later - maybe when I was seven or eight - that I realized these animals no longer existed. They were extinct.Although the movie effectively shows the migration of these animals in response to climate changes (glaciation and subsequent ice-sheet melting), it does not portray their fate thousands of years later: due to a combination of rapid environmental shifts and growing human pressure, these giants were ultimately lost. I then realized that watching Ice Age was not so different from watching Jurassic Park: both depict megafauna that once existed, but no longer do. And it seems that the further back in time we go, the larger these animals were. The biggest animals alive today are small compared to the megafauna of the dinosaur era or even the Pleistocene, which included larger relatives of familiar creatures such as elephants and lions, as well as extraordinary species like giant ground sloths, car-sized glyptodonts in the Americas, rhino-sized marsupials in Australia, and gorilla-sized lemurs in Madagascar.Figure 1 - Vintage drawing of Glyptodon in the Pleistocene. Source: J. Lange, n.a.In this sense, interacting with megafauna can feel like a form of time travel: just as walking through the Parthenon in Athens offers a glimpse into the distant past, traveling to places like Africa to observe these increasingly rare giants, now so unusual to encounter, feels like peeking into an ancient version of our planet. This highlights the importance of Africa’s role in megafauna preservation: some African savannas and woodlands are among the few places where megafauna persist at high abundances.Since the Late Pleistocene, large herbivores and carnivores have undergone widespread decline and extinction, marking a profound ecological transition from a megafauna-dominated world to one largely devoid of it. Research suggests that this shift involved the loss of up to a billion large terrestrial animals and has fundamentally altered Earth’s ecological functioning as manifested through different factors explained below:Ecosystem Trophic Structure: Megafauna play a central role in structuring food webs through their position as large herbivores and apex predators. Their loss disrupts trophic interactions, often triggering cascading effects that disrupt predator-prey dynamics and can lead to population imbalances and secondary extinctions.Ecosystem Physical Structure and Fire Regimes: Large herbivores maintain open landscapes by browsing, trampling vegetation, and reducing woody plant density. Their decline has allowed forests and shrublands to expand into formerly open systems, altering habitat structure and landscape heterogeneity, which in turn influences fire regimes: increased woody biomass and fuel loads can lead to more intense or more frequent fires.Vegetation Composition: Many plant species evolved alongside large animals, relying on them to control competitors, disperse large seeds, and maintain plant diversity. Therefore, the disappearance of megafauna leads to shifts in plant communities and the dominance of species less dependent on animal-mediated dispersal or disturbance, reshaping ecosystems at the foundation of the food web.Ecosystem Biogeochemistry: By consuming vegetation and transporting nutrients through dung, urine, and carcasses across large distances, megafauna connects ecosystems that would otherwise remain isolated. Their loss has severely reduced the redistribution of key nutrients such as phosphorus across ecosystems.Regional and Global Climate: By shaping vegetation cover, influencing fire regimes, and regulating carbon storage and albedo effects, large animals indirectly affected Earth’s energy balance and atmospheric processes. This highlights megafauna as active agents in regulating Earth’s climate at large spatial and temporal scales.Together, these factors reveal that megafaunal extinction was not merely a loss of species, but a reorganization of Earth’s ecological processes at planetary scale. And this is not something confined to the distant past: it still happens today. A clear contemporary example is the decline of African elephants and other large herbivores, mainly driven by poaching, habitat loss, and human land conversion. As mentioned, elephants maintain open savanna landscapes by knocking down trees and browsing shrubs, so when their population decreases, woody vegetation expands unchecked, transforming open grasslands into dense shrublands - a process known as bush encroachment. This structural shift cascades through the ecosystem: grazing species such as zebras and wildebeest decline as grasslands disappear, while dense vegetation provides ideal shelter for small mammals. Studies in East Africa show that the loss of large wildlife leads to sharp increases in rodent populations, which in turn host more fleas and ticks carrying zoonotic pathogens such as Bartonella, a bacterium linked to human febrile illnesses. In this way, the removal of megafauna indirectly increases disease risk for local human communities, illustrating how their decline can reshape ecosystems, alter species interactions, and feed back into human health and livelihoods.This is only one example of the ripple effects of losing giants, which reinforces the importance of conservation efforts to stop the decline of these species’ populations, as well as rewilding efforts to reintroduce them into certain habitats.It’s too late to bring Manny and Diego back, but we’re still on time to prevent future generations from watching movies like The Lion King and discovering that species such as elephants and lions exist only in fiction.

Animal welfare, while being a relatively new concern, is a very legitimate one with many ways to approach it. The ethical parameter is of course the first one that comes to mind. Animals,  deprived of a voice, cannot explicitly raise their opinion, only show us, and it is up to us to take these signs into consideration. For centuries, animals were not believed to be capable of emotions; we now know that they are conscious beings and thus their welfare must be taken into consideration, just like that of children and people in general.Another approach to animal welfare concerns their health, which is directly linked to ours. Every action we take towards animals impacts the individual, the herd, the farmers and their families, and down the line the people consuming their byproducts. Every antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, vaccine, or lack thereof, can have drastic consequences for countless individuals, regardless of the species. We cannot discuss animal welfare without mentioning zoonotic diseases either. Zoonotic diseases are pathologies of different aetiologies that are transmitted between animals and humans. As much as we can transmit bacteria, viruses, fungi and so on to them, they can transmit them to us.In this article, we will do our best to clearly show how animal welfare and public health are directly linked, and why caring for our animals ultimately protects us.The relationship between animal welfare and public healthAnimal welfare is a very broad term. To assess it, a series of parameters such as space, bedding, floor material, sunlight, air quality; feed quality and hygiene is evaluated. It is not just an idea projected by humans onto the animals’ lives, but a complex analysis of one’s environment and quality of life to determine if the conditions are not only adequate but also optimal. Welfare applies to pets, farm animals, working animals, but also wildlife… and humans.Over 60% of human pathogens are of animal origin, whether from wildlife, pets, or farm animals. This does not mean that animals are dangerous, but emphasizes their importance in decisions about our daily life and food consumption, as the impact they have on our own welfare is tremendous. Diseases such as Rabies, Salmonella, and even major epidemics like SARS, MERS, swine and bird flu, and COVID-19 have confirmed or suspected animal origins. Understanding this link is crucial to recognize that human and animal health are deeply connected.The relationship between animal welfare and antimicrobial resistanceAntibiotics are vital for both human and animal health, as they protect us from bacterial infections that would otherwise be fatal. Unfortunately, misuse leads to the reproduction of resistant bacteria, and renders our antibiotics powerless. This applies in veterinary and human medicine, but the impact is often greater in farm settings.Imagine being on a crowded bus during winter, surrounded by people coughing or sneezing. You would likely get sick quickly. Now, picture the same scenario in a barn filled with animals stacked closely together; poor ventilation, manure piling up, and stressed animals. High density, poor hygiene, and stress weaken animals’ immune systems, leading to more frequent infections, increasing the need for antibiotics. Incorrect treatment or missed withdrawal period can introduce resistant bacteria, and drug residues, into humans.On the other hand, farms where animals are given adequate space, a cleaner environment and more attention tend to have healthier populations, lowering the need for antibiotics and thus risks for the community.The relationship between good welfare and public healthWe have established that a dense crowd is the best way to transmit many pathogens at a very fast rate, but what happens when we keep the density of a population to a more reasonable level? That population will show less signs of illness.Reduced stress is directly translated into a calmer population, which leads to less abrupt movements, reducing the rate of injuries. A less stressed animal (or person as a matter of fact) will also have a better sleep cycle, will be more enticed to eat, will socialise more, and will generally care for itself better. These animals will also have a stronger immune system, reducing the rate of infections and thus the use of antibiotics, anti-inflammatory and veterinary bills for the farmer. For the consumer, healthier animals mean a healthier family, but also a reduced price of production and thus purchase, and altogether a much better quality of meat, milk or eggs.A farming system where the crowd is less dense also means that it will be easier for the farmers to care for their animals. The young will have more room to express themselves and grow at an adequate rate, the older animals will be able to grow old without injuries and infections going unnoticed, and the veterinarians will have an easier time diagnosing the individual instead of the entire herd. Feeding becomes easier as it can be more tailored to the needs of each group of animals, and overall, the health of animals, caregivers and consumers alike will be better.Farming systems: welfare, ecology and public healthWhen considering animal welfare in the context of farming, we know that different farming systems have profound effects on animals, humans, and the environment. Large pasture farms look very good in our minds but such farming systems have limitations. Endless pastures often mean deforesting the area, which has a disastrous impact on the local biodiversity, but also exposes the animals to wildlife, which comes with a risk of injury and exposure to pathogens. They are also very labour-expensive.The solution that was brought in order to combat this problem are the indoor, intensive farming systems that reduce the impact on nearby biodiversity, contact between wild and domesticated animals, and reduce air pollution for nearby inhabitants. Unfortunately, these farms are a real threat to animal welfare and a real reservoir of zoonotic pathogens due to the concentration of animals and their waste.Smaller semi-outdoor farms are the win-win solution for the environment, animal welfare, and public health, but do not satisfy the increasing demand for animal products worldwide. Changing our consumption habits would be the first win for animal welfare, biodiversity and public health.Micro-scale backyard farms where families raise a few animals are often very good for welfare but demand a lot of knowledge and proper veterinary oversight to avoid disease risks for both the animals and the families.ConclusionUltimately, our consumption choices heavily influence farming systems, and thus animal welfare, local ecology and biodiversity, antimicrobial resistance and public health. Every individual, from farmer to consumer, is affected by the state of animal welfare worldwide. In short, protecting the animals we depend on directly protects us.

East Africa is rapidly urbanizing, reshaping both human settlement patterns and the environment in which people and animals coexist. As cities expand, animal welfare has become a more complex issue at the intersection of social welfare, environmental management, and public health. This paper examines urbanization's impact on animal welfare in East Africa, focusing on the Maasai Mara and the Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp case, which highlights the tension between luxury tourism and wildlife conservation.Urban animal welfare in this paper is understood in a broad, multispecies way: it includes wildlife living in or near expanding cities, as well as livestock and companion animals that move together with people into urban and peri-urban spaces. Rather than treating animal welfare as a purely veterinary or conservation issue, the analysis adopts a “One Welfare” perspective, where human wellbeing, environmental quality, and animal welfare are deeply interconnected. Urbanization in East Africa is therefore approached not only as a spatial process of city growth, but also as a political-economic transformation driven by land markets, tourism investments, and unequal access to services. This lens helps to reveal how decisions about roads, waste management, zoning, and tourism infrastructure directly shape which animals are protected, which are tolerated, and which are made invisible or expendable.Urbanization leads to habitat loss and fragmented migration corridors for wildlife. In cities like Nairobi, Kampala, and Dar es Salaam, the migration of rural populations brings livestock such as cattle, goats, and donkeys into urban areas, often resulting in poor living conditions and inadequate care. Stray dogs and cats also increase due to poor waste management and lack of affordable spay-neuter programs, leading to malnutrition, disease transmission, and conflicts with humans (Kenya Wildlife Service [KWS], 2025). In the Maasai Mara, one of the most significant concerns is the impact of urbanization on the wildebeest migration. The Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp, located in a critical area near the Sand River, has faced accusations of blocking wildlife migration corridors. These concerns have prompted the Kenya Wildlife Service to clarify the situation, emphasizing that the camp meets environmental and regulatory standards designed to protect migration routes.The Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp case exemplifies the challenges of balancing luxury tourism with wildlife conservation. The Kenya Wildlife Service (2025) has addressed claims that the camp obstructs migration corridors, asserting that the Maasai Mara’s zoning and management plan, backed by GPS collar data from over 60 wildebeest herds, shows that migration routes remain intact. The camp is located in a low-use tourism zone, and the data confirms that wildebeest use the entire reserve for migration, with no significant impact from the camp's presence.This case underscores the need for sustainable tourism that minimizes environmental impact while generating economic benefits. The integration of scientific data, such as GPS tracking and spatial planning, is crucial for ensuring that developments do not obstruct migration routes and disrupt wildlife habitats.In East Africa, legal frameworks like zoning regulations and wildlife corridor protection laws play a critical role in safeguarding wildlife. In the Maasai Mara, the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan ensures that tourism developments adhere to ecological standards, preventing habitat destruction (The Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan, 2023). The use of scientific data, such as GPS tracking, provides real-time insights into animal movement, guiding decision-making on land use and development.While urbanization poses challenges, it also presents opportunities for integrating conservation with urban planning. For instance, urban agriculture, such as backyard poultry and rooftop gardens, can promote sustainable practices while alleviating pressure on rural land. Livestock routes in urban areas can help reduce animal injuries and conflicts, creating safe spaces for both humans and animals (Bradley & Altizer, 2006). Additionally, the growth of the middle class in East African cities has led to a demand for pet care services and animal welfare initiatives, providing an opportunity for non-profit organizations and local governments to improve animal welfare through vaccination drives, awareness campaigns, and veterinary services (KWS, 2025).Urbanization in East Africa brings both challenges and opportunities for animal welfare. The Ritz-Carlton Safari Camp case highlights the importance of integrating sustainable tourism with wildlife conservation through scientific monitoring and strong legal frameworks. While urban development may pose risks to wildlife, it also creates opportunities for innovative planning that supports both biodiversity conservation and economic growth. With the right policies and planning, East African cities can create environments where humans and animals can coexist harmoniously.

They look like magic in the sky for humans.For animals, they can feel like a bomb going off, without warning, without meaning, and with nowhere to run .Fireworks are usually linked to joy, tradition, and shared moments. But for animals, they often mean sudden explosions, blinding flashes, and powerful vibrations that trigger fear and intense physical stress. This reaction is not about animals being “too sensitive”, it has been repeatedly observed and measured across veterinary, wildlife, and animal welfare studies.The core problemMost animals experience the world more intensely than humans do, especially through sound. Fireworks are loud, abrupt, and unpredictable. Animals cannot understand that these noises are harmless or temporary, so their bodies react instinctively.Heart rate increases. Stress hormones surge. The urge to flee, hide, or freeze takes over. From an animal’s perspective, this is exactly what danger sounds like, and there is often no clear escape.Companion animalsFor many dogs and cats, fireworks are one of the most frightening experiences of the year.During fireworks, animals often:tremble, hide, pant, or vocalizetry desperately to escape, sometimes breaking through doors, windows, or fenceshave accidents indoors or develop digestive problems linked to stressdevelop long-term anxiety and noise phobias that spread to other soundsVeterinary behavioral work describes how common these reactions are and how they can become stronger over time if not properly managed (Riemer, 2020). Physical stress has also been measured, not just observed: dogs exposed to fireworks show increased stress markers such as salivary cortisol alongside visible fear behaviors (Ramos et al., 2024) .This helps explain why fireworks nights are often followed by spikes in lost pets, injuries, and emergency veterinary visits.WildlifeWild animals suffer quietly and mostly out of sight. But the impact can be massive.When fireworks explode at night, birds may take off suddenly in large numbers, flying higher and farther than usual. Radar tracking in the Netherlands documented these mass panic flights immediately after midnight on New Year’s Eve (Shamoun-Baranes et al., 2011). Similar large-scale disturbance has since been recorded using radar in more recent work (Wayman et al., 2023) .Even when fireworks are launched in one location, the effects can extend far beyond it. A broader ecological analysis shows that disturbance decreases with distance but remains elevated well outside the immediate area (Hoekstra et al., 2024) .For wildlife, the stress doesn’t always end when the noise stops. Changes in movement and resting patterns have been described as persisting after fireworks events, based on research discussed by the Max Planck Institute for Animal Behavior drawing on Conservation Letters findings .Horses and farm animalsBeing bigger does not make animals less sensitive. Horses, in particular, are flight animals. When frightened, they may bolt, collide with fences, or injure themselves, and sometimes the people trying to help them.An academic study on horse management during fireworks describes high levels of anxiety and real injury risks when horses panic and attempt to escape (Gronqvist et al., 2016). Animal welfare reporting from the UK and elsewhere also documents serious incidents involving horses and livestock during fireworks events .Compassionate celebrations: joy without harmCelebrating differently does not mean celebrating less. It means choosing ways to come together that don’t cause predictable harm.More and more communities are turning to alternatives such as:Drone light shows with strong visual impact and minimal noiseProjection mapping on buildings and landscapesLaser or LED light shows paired with music at safe volumesIf fireworks will happen near youWhen fireworks are unavoidable, small steps can make a real difference.Before the eventCheck microchip details and ID tagsSecure doors, windows, and gardensPrepare a quiet “safe room” with bedding and waterIf possible, start gradual sound preparation weeks in advanceDuring fireworksKeep animals indoors and avoid walks at peak timesUse background sound (TV, radio, white noise)Stay calm and reassuring; never punish fearFor severe anxiety, plan ahead with a veterinarianAfterMaintain routineWatch for lingering stress, injuries, or behavior changesSeek professional help if fear continuesCelebration should not require sufferingFireworks are a human tradition, but their cost is paid by animals who cannot understand, escape, or consent. Across species, patterns repeat: panic in pets, measurable stress responses, large-scale wildlife disturbance, and injury risks for horses and livestock.At Voices for Animal Welfare, we believe joy should never come at the expense of animal welfare.We can keep the beauty.We can keep the celebration.And we can choose ways that do not cause harm. 

Tanzania is home to some of Nature’s most impressive giants. From tall girafes to massive elephants, sturdy rhinos and more, the country is a stronghold for the african megafauna. Yet, far from the bush and its giants, a small and elusive critter gathers the attention of scientists, conservationists and wildlife lovers alike. Its name ? Lygodactylus williamsi, William’s dwarf gecko.With only a few centimeters from head to tip of the tail and weighting only 5 grams at best, this humble reptile isn’t a match for the savannah’s heavy league when it comes to being under the spotlight. The distinctive bright turquoise-blue color of the male may be its most advantageous trait, but it also proved to be part of its downfall. Across the recent decades, exotic pet enthusiasts have shown much interest in the species and so did poachers. It is estimated that close to 15% of the species’ population was collected illegaly to feed exotic pet trades.Yet, illegal poaching is not the only threat faced by these lizards. William’s dwarf gecko is an endemic species of Tanzania and survives only in the Kimboza forest, one of Africa’s most ancient forest ecosystems. Its survival is heavily linked to its territory, with the gecko proving fiercely territorial and dwelling mostly on local screw pines (Pandanus rabaiensis). Logging, forest fires, intense deforestation and planting of invasive species reduced the gecko’s territory even more, with now less than 8 square kilometers of original forest left, leadin to the classification Critically endangered for the species.With so much pressure on its tiny shoulders, it may seemsthat future is grim for L. williamsi. Thankfully, local and international conservationists found a way to ensure its survival. Through years of active campaigns of sensibilization and both in and ex situ actions, the dwarf gecko has turned into the very face of its ecosystem, Kimboza forest. A surprising umbrella species, whose protective actions will also help preserve trees, plants, chameleons, birds, primates, and all species within Kimboza. Easy to maintain and breed in captivity, L. williamsi found its way into many zoological parks across the world, sustaining a large captive population. Said population, breeded as part of conservation programs, can enable numerous relocations and reintroductions in their natural habitat. Funds gathered from these parks and various conservation programs help develop local initiatives towards a better protection of Kimboza’s ecosystems.Raising awareness about the forest’s issues led to changes made by neighboring communities to preserve the environment by reducing the risk of forest fires, regeneration of indigenous plant species but also alternatives sources of income such as ecotourism. While still ongoing, those efforts help enforce a better perception of the forest’s ecosystem by locals and more attention of the fate of Kimboza’s unique species of which our little gecko is one of the crown’s jewels.

On the May 6th 2025, some newspapers reviewed a story told by rangers from Kruger National Park,South Africa. « Massacre » and « devastating » were some of the strong words used to depict the scene observe by wildlife experts : more than 120 dead vultures, poisoned on purpose by poachers who tainted an elephant carcass. This technique is often used by criminals to get rid of scavengers, especially vultures whose larges flocks are easy to spot from a distance. So many birds killed might be amongst the deadliest counts for this type of felony and yet, few talk about vultures. Too few, considering that these birds are sliding fast towards extinction. There are 23 species of vultures across the world, including 11 in Africa. Easily identified by an appearance shared by most species, these birds are mostly scavengers and feed on carcasses of animals which died of old age, diseases or left by predators. Unique gut system and specialized diets (some consume predominantly bones while others feed on flesh and skin) have vultures play the role of Nature’s cleaners. They get rid of carcasses which can propagate diseases, being responsible of up to 70% of the african continent’s carrion. Or at least they did, since vulture populations have been crashing down over the last few decades. The numbers are striking : almost 70% population loss betwen 1970 and 2000, with some species now reaching up to 95% population loss across the whole continent. But what is killing these birds? Poaching is a strong driver of vulture extinction, with many traditional doctors still using the scavengers’ parts as medicine, a technique debunked by scientists and health experts alike. Poisoning and active extermination are other strong contenders, with vultures being often victim of their rumored and erronated « bad reputation ». Habitat degradation, especially logging of nesting trees, has also proven particularly damaging to these species in need of specific breeding areas. The combination of all these factors have resulted in the drastic loss of vultures, loss which needs to be countered fast. Protective measures, albeit rare, have shown results : preserving habitats and fighting clichés surrounding these birds are the best tools to preserve them over time. Changing the image people associate with vultures and undelining their unique role in ecosystems are the keys to ensure these birds’ survival. In a world more and more vulnerable to diseases and spreading zoonosises, we all need vultures to keep doing the dirty work.

During a recent trip to rural Kenya, I made a stop by a large tourist-centered indoor market while on the way to Tsavo National Park. Despite being in the early hours of the day, the place was already packed with visitors stopping for a coffee or a WC break before entering the park and most were scurrying around the souvenir-covered tables, looking for a nice gift to bring home. Kenyan arts and crafts have always been a favorite of mine since childhood and I did spend a few minutes like so many others looking at the thousands of wooden or carved in stone animals of all sizes. Rhinos, elephants, lions and other « Big Five » roamed as kings in the vendors’ collections but one specific sculpture stopped me in my track. A small, scaly figure I had never seen in any of these animal displays. Sensing my interest, the vendor told me a few words : « It’s a pangolin. They’re pretty rare. ». I asked him if he had others but he brushed me off : « No. It’s the only one I made. People don’t know about this animal. They never see it. » And for a good reason : pangolins are nowadays considered the most poached animals in the world…Covered in thick keratin scales that have them resemble reptiles, pangolins are unique mammals found across Asia and Africa. Eight species have been described, sharing this unique armor-like plates which gave them their name (in Malay, pengguling means « rolling up ») and helps them protect their soft bellies against various predators. Sadly for them, these harmless anteaters have seen their scales and meat used in many traditional medicine recipes across  Asia, especially in China and Vietnam. Due to high demand from these countries, wild populations of these animals have crumbled down over the last few decades. The three asian species are now considered critically endangered, pushing the asian buyers and traffickers to focus on the five african ones which are more common and considered « only » endangered or vulnerable. Between 2014 and 2021, it was estimated that close to 8.5 million pangolins were hunted and sold illegally in Africa. In Lagos (Nigeria), a key area of the African-Asian wildlife contraband, some shipments of 4 tons of pangolin scales were stopped and destroyed in 2023 alone. An unsustainable plundering for these solitary, slow breeding animals. Raising awareness around pangolins and their senseless poaching is the best way to prevent further destruction of these species, some of which are already on the brink of extinction. If some african cultures depict the pangolin as a valuable bushmeat prey, myths and traditions revolving around these animals are often very positive. In parts of Eastern Africa, crossing paths with a pangolin in your farmlands means that crops will be especially good this year and therefore pangolins are held in high regard by locals. More importantly, pangolins are unique engineers of their ecosystems. Being good diggers, they help keep soils in good health by burrowing for insects with their huge claws. Their unique taste for ants and termites make them essential to keep these bug populations in check and help their environment thrive. Their rarity has turned pangolins into bioindicators, their presence in ecosystems helping to monitor their degradation or recovery. Pangolins in Africa currently face a fate similar to their asian cousins but extinction doesn’t have to be the conclusion. By raising awareness around these poorly known animals, both locally and internationally, much can be done. While most african countries have already started to act in order to protect pangolins and punish wildlife traffickers more harshly, another way to preserve these delicate scaly mammals is potentially to have them become more famous. The status of the « Big Five » is what helped these animals and the ones sharing their habitats get more recognition internationally while being endangered species as well. With its unique looks and gentle nature, pangolins surely deserve to turn into wildlife icons as well. And then, maybe we’ll see their populations numbers soar again alongside souvenir wooden sculptures depicting them.

In the landscape of food choices and lifestyle choices, vegetarianism and veganism represent two distinct but often confused approaches. Both stem from the desire to reduce or eliminate the negative impact that food and production practices have on animals and the environment, but they differ in the principles and daily habits that characterize them. Although they share some aspects, the differences between these two lifestyles are significant and are reflected in diet, product choices, and the underlying philosophy.Vegetarianism is a dietary choice that excludes the consumption of animal flesh but allows the use of other animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs, and honey. There are several variations of vegetarianism, including:Ovo-lacto vegetarianism: Those who follow this diet consume dairy products and eggs but not meat or fish.Lacto-vegetarianism: Includes dairy products but not eggs, meat, or fish.Ovo-vegetarianism: Allows the consumption of eggs but not dairy, meat, or fish.Vegetarianism, although much more widespread than veganism, has often been chosen for reasons related to health, animal protection, and reducing environmental impact. For vegetarians, adopting a diet that excludes animal flesh is motivated by the desire not to support the meat industry, which involves the sacrifice of animals, but not necessarily by the to avoid all forms of animal exploitation.Veganism, on the other hand, goes beyond diet and is configured as a true philosophy of life that aims to minimize, and if possible completely eliminate, animal exploitation in all aspects of daily life. This implies not only the exclusion of meat and fish from one's diet but also the rejection of any product of animal origin, such as dairy products, eggs, honey, and also leather, wool, silk, and other materials derived from animals.Veganism is a choice that has deeply ethical roots. Vegans do not see animals only as food or resources but as sentient beings who have the right to live without being exploited for our pleasure or profit. This approach also extends to other areas of life, such as cosmetics, where products that are not tested on animals and free of ingredients of animal origin are preferred.Both lifestyles have positive implications for health and the environment. A well-balanced vegetarian diet can reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer, thanks to the high content of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, and the reduction of saturated fats from meat. However, a diet that includes dairy and eggs may still involve some risks related to the consumption of animal fats and cholesterol.Veganism, while equally beneficial for health, completely eliminates foods of animal origin, further reducing the risk of chronic diseases related to the Western diet.From an environmental point of view, both vegetarianism and veganism have positive effects, reducing the demand for meat and intensive farming, which are among the main causes of deforestation, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Veganism, however, has an even more positive impact, as it totally eliminates the consumption of resources related to animal farming, such as water and agricultural land.To date, the market for vegan products has experienced exponential growth, offering increasingly similar alternatives to animal-derived products. In fact, it is possible to find plant-based substitutes for meat, milk, cheeses, and even eggs, made with innovative ingredients and proteins from peas, soy, almonds, and oats. Furthermore, thanks to technological advances and increasing demand, these alternatives are increasingly accessible and widespread, even in cosmetics and beyond, thus contributing to an increase in sustainability.As an NGO, our goal is not only to promote this philosophy but also to raise awareness about the importance of fully understanding the significance of this type of sustainability. While vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly widespread in Europe, in many parts of Africa this trend is still little known, and often there isn't even a clear distinction between a vegan and a traditional diet. For this reason, we are committed to disseminating correct information regarding these alternatives even in contexts where awareness of these issues is still limited.

The discussion about animal welfare is a highly relevant topic in modern society, ethics, law, industry, agriculture, and science (Bayvel & Cross, 2010). This article will attempt to highlight different approaches for understanding animal welfare issues through a conceptual framework involving science, ethics and natural living. In the end, this article will also discuss the importance of animal welfare in society with cases reported in literature from Brazil and Norway.I. Foundations of Animal WelfareA. Historical Relationship Between Humans and AnimalsAnimal welfare issues have likely been discussed within human societies since the first animals were domesticated. Early human communities have developed unique bonds with other animal species through domestication of wildlife (Larson & Fuller, 2014). The first animal domestication event occurred near the end of the Pleistocene, when dogs approached human settlements (Larson et al., 2012). Later throughout human history, several domestications with various species have occurred, including cats, cattle, pigs, horses, chicken, yak, guinea pigs, and many more (Larson & Fuller, 2014). The relationship between humans and their domesticated animals have consequently changed together with farming practices and so has the question of animal welfare risen into relevance. Animal welfare was a topic discussed by philosophers already in 1789 (Bentham, 1879), but was more formalized into an active welfare movement later in the 1960s-80s (Broom, 2011), with several animal welfare laws were implemented in Europe after the second world war (Caporale et al., 2005).B. Conceptual Frameworks: Understanding Animal WelfareThe idea about “animal welfare” is rather complex, involving both value-based judgements and scientific approaches. Different approaches can lead to clashing conclusions about animal welfare, even while discussing the same conditions, as described in (Fraser, 2008).  A conceptual model for approaching animal welfare is shown in Fig. 1, from (Fraser, 2008). In this model, “animal welfare” is from three different perspectives: animals exhibiting growth, are free of sickness, and having a generally healthy physiology fulfils the “basic health and functioning” approach of animal welfare. The animal’s “affective states”, such as hunger, pain, fear, etc., should also be managed in a satisfying manner. From the “natural living” approach, the animal’s natural behaviour (i.e. in the natural habitat) is encouraged.Figure 1) Conceptual model about animal welfare, involving the degree in which the animal’s physical and emotional states are satisfied (“affective states”), physical health (“basic health and functioning”), and in what ways the animal is allowed to recreate its natural behaviour (“natural living”) (Fraser, 2008).II. The Societal Importance of Animal WelfareA. Ethics, Agriculture, and Public HealthFrom the model presented above, multiple approaches are necessary to discuss the ethics of animal welfare. A heavily “natural living” approach might be suitable for the individual adult animal, but costly with high numbers of neonatal deaths. Likewise, a heavily “basic health and functioning” approach might only consider the individual animal’s weight and absence of injuries but otherwise ignore the animal’s need for exploring its surroundings (Fraser, 2008). The importance of animal welfare extends beyond the animals themselves, especially for management of public health and food safety. Animal welfare is therefore beneficial for preventing the outbreak of zoonotic diseases (Tomley & Shirley, 2009), though certain animal welfare practices could increase the frequency of parasite infections in free-range animals (Pozio et al., 2021).  Activists have long argued for improved animal welfare among farm animals, especially considering the high density of individual animals within a constrained farm area (Sayer, 2013). The farmer may realize that production efficiency is highly correlated with animal welfare, yielding more per individual animal, but may still choose to increase the population density to increase profitability per unit area (Lusk & Norwood, 2011). Intensive cattle farming, where large numbers of cattle are confined within a feedlot, is a common practice in Brazil (Vale et al., 2019). Feedlots may be beneficial against deforestation in Brazil, as smaller land areas are required to keep livestock, though the high population density poses a serious risk of pollution to the environment and spread of diseases (Vale et al., 2019).B. Animal Welfare in Practice: The Case of Mink FarmingImproving animal welfare should be achievable using the conceptual model presented in Fig. 1. Mink farming, an industry oriented towards fur production for the clothing industry, is also known for problems related to animal welfare, where unproper animal welfare often appears as stressful behaviour among the minks (Hansen & Jeppesen, 2006). In this case, “natural living” approach by (Møller, 2023) suggested a confinement more close to the mink’s natural habitat, with water sources for swimming. The minks are living together in social groups, until they are separated after reaching adulthood. This example illustrates how knowledge about the mink’s biology can be used to improve animal welfare.  Animal welfare activism has been very efficient changing the mink fur industry in Norway (E. Larsen, 2013; Norsk pelsdyrhold - bærekraftig utvikling eller styrt avvikling? Gjennomgang av pelsdyrnæringen., 2019). Concerns about the poor animal welfare seen at the mink farms in Norway was documented and brought to public attention, finally leading to a ban on mink farms, effective since February 2025 ("I natt: Stortinget vedtok å avvikle pelsdyrnæringen innen 2025," 2019).Animal welfare is essential for all animals in human captivity, satisfying the three approaches considered above. This means that the persons responsible for the animal in captivity should aim to both minimize stress, sickness and damages to their animals, while ensuring that the physiological conditions are healthy, and giving the animal opportunity to replicate some of its natural behaviour (without significantly compromising the other two approaches). To achieve this goal, better understanding of animal biology is essential to understand the benefits and challenges in each approach. Public attention to animal welfare issues is effective, as in the case of mink fur farms, where laws were changed to improve animal welfare.