As a biologist specializing in animal behavior, I’ve spent 15 years studying the natural world and how animals communicate, think and feel. Despite our growing understanding of their complexity, we continue to overlook the profound suffering inflicted upon animals in the name of profit. Industries that exploit animals often have a human toll as well, harming workers, damaging the environment and spreading disease.
Denver voters are being asked to decide whether two such industries — fur and slaughter — have a place in their city, a decision with implications for the well-being of animals and humans alike. While opponents argue that Initiated Ordinances 308 (fur ban) and 309 (slaughterhouse ban) are based on emotion, they are actually strongly rooted in science.
Nearly 100 million animals are slaughtered for fur annually, including dogs and cats whose fur is sometimes illegally sold in the US under deceptive labels. Most animals killed for fur spend their lives in tiny cages, where they exhibit signs of extreme stress, including self-mutilation. To preserve their fur, they are gassed to death, anally electrocuted or even skinned alive. The remainder of furs come from wild animals, who often die slow and agonizing deaths in traps, sometimes gnawing their own foot down to the bone to free themselves and return to their dependent young.
Beyond causing immeasurable suffering to animals, fur farms are reservoirs for human diseases, including the virus causing COVID-19. The World Health Organization has warned that “spillover from fur farm animals to humans poses a serious public health and socio-economic threat,” and infectious disease experts have strongly urged that fur farming “be eliminated in the interest of pandemic preparedness.”
Initiated Ordinance 308 gives Denverites the opportunity to take a stand against the cruel and dangerous fur industry, just as Boulder voters did in 2021. Measure 308 provides exceptions for Native American cultural uses and taxidermy, and still permits the sale of leather, wool, other sheared fibers and used furs.
Initiated Ordinance 309, which would ban slaughterhouses in Denver, is equally important. Located in the primarily Latino neighborhood of Globeville, Denver’s lamb slaughterhouse has repeatedly violated the Clean Water Act, and was recently fined $119,200 for mishandling toxic chemicals.
Slaughterhouses have a severe psychological toll on workers, who face increased risks of depression, PTSD and substance abuse, with some studies linking slaughterhouse work to an increase in violent crime. According to Jose Huizar, a former worker at the Denver slaughterhouse, “You come home and you’re f*cked up, whether from drugs or just from killing animals all day, slitting their throats, spilling their guts, hearing them scream. It disrupts your family dynamic, how you’re supposed to relate to your wife and kids.”
The slaughterhouse measure prioritizes workforce retraining for impacted employees, helping them transition to healthier careers.
While opponents of the ban claim that regulations sufficiently protect animals, a recent investigation of the Denver slaughterhouse revealed criminal animal cruelty, including lambs being kicked in the head, thrashing fully conscious after their throats were cut, and workers pantomiming sex acts on lambs as they were bleeding out. Even if properly followed, these regulations are woefully inadequate to prevent suffering.
As an animal behavior scientist, I know that contrary to popular belief, sheep are highly intelligent and emotionally complex. Studies have demonstrated that sheep can recognize at least 50 other sheep from photographs and remember them for years, recognize fear in one another’s faces, and like humans, form stronger bonds when they have been through a traumatic experience together.
With a growing understanding of animals’ emotional complexity, it’s time to start moving away from industries that harm them.
Regardless of whether we personally eat meat, we can all recognize that we must produce significantly less of it to ensure that our children inherit a habitable planet. According to a University of Oxford study, a plant-based food system would reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, cause 66% less biodiversity loss, use 54% less water, and require 75% less farmland than our current system. Another Oxford and University of Minnesota study warned that without significant reduction of animal agriculture, there is virtually no chance of meeting the Paris Climate Agreement goals.
Opponents of the slaughterhouse ban cite Colorado State University’s flawed report on the potential economic impacts. Yet even the report’s “most pessimistic scenario,” which University of Colorado-Denver economist Dr. Kyle Montanio calls “so far beyond reasonable that it is concerning it is even listed,” would impact just 0.086% of jobs in Colorado at a time when our state has a major labor shortage. Even if this projected figure were realistic, can retaining these jobs in the short term justify the devastating impact that slaughterhouses have on workers, animals, and the environment?
Transitioning away from the fur and slaughter industries isn’t just a moral imperative, science shows us that it’s an investment in a safer, more equitable and more sustainable future.
Mickey Pardo, who lives in Fort Collins, is a professional biologist, has a Ph.D. from Cornell University in animal behavior and has 15 years of experience studying the ecology and behavior of mammals and birds.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at [email protected].
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
This post was originally published on here
