The Banning of Mink Farming in Ireland: The Legislative Framework for the Protection of Animals in Captivity

1. Introduction

The American mink was introduced to Ireland in the early 1950s for the sole purpose of being farmed for their fur. Ireland’s mild climate was observed as being well suited to produce superior quality pelts [1]. A survey conducted in 1960 found that forty individuals were employed in the farming of mink fur [1] (p.198). By the early 2000s, there were six mink farms in Ireland, however, that number had reduced to five by 2012 and to three by 2014. The economic value of fur farming to the Exchequer and the employment such farms provided were cited as the main reasons for its continued legitimacy at a time when state sanctioned animal welfare harms were considered an afront to modern sensibilities. The animal welfare concerns surrounding animals in captivity, while raised for many years by proponents of animal welfare and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA, now known as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, NSPCA), were eventually bolstered by Veterinary Ireland’s call for the immediate prohibition on the farming of mink (and similar wild animals) for the purposes of the production of fur. Veterinary Ireland was influenced by The Case Against Fur Factory Farming: A Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’ which was published in 2015 and revised in 2023 [2,3]. The 2015 Review found that, in Ireland, 200,000 farmed mink were killed for fur production in 2014. Veterinary Ireland in its Policy Document on Fur Farming 2018 expressed its ‘significant concern…for the welfare of wild animals in captivity’ [4] (p.3).

As part of the 2020 Irish Programme for Government, a commitment was made to ‘immediately’ prioritize the drafting of legislation for the phasing out of fur farming [5] (p.68). In keeping with its commitment, the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 was enacted which amended the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. The 2022 Act inserted into the 2013 Act a statutory prohibition on the breeding, rearing or keeping of specified animals solely or primarily for the value of, or the manufacture of products from, their fur or skin.

This article will begin with a brief overview of the development of the mink fur farming industry in Ireland from the 1950s to the early 2000s. It will proceed to examine the regulation of the mink farm industry beginning in 1965. It will then discuss the first attempt to introduce a legislative ban on fur farming in 2004. The ineffective attempts of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) to appease the growing opposition to fur farming in the form of a Review Group and subsequent Report published in 2012 will be addressed. The domestic and global causal factors that led to the legislative ban will be examined. The provisions of the 2022 Act in relation to the banning of fur farming in Ireland and recent developments at European Union (EU) level will be explored.

The prohibition of mink farming in Ireland reflects a policy move towards prioritizing animal welfare over the continuation of an industry, an albeit declining one. It concludes that scientific evidence, ethical considerations, and sustained advocacy played a significant role in shaping legislative change. Furthermore, Ireland's adoption of a fur farming ban anticipated broader developments at European Union level, positioning it among the Member States that acted proactively in the regulation of animal welfare. The legislative framework surrounding mink fur farming in Ireland has been overlooked in academic and legal discourse, thus this article seeks to remedy that omission.

2. Development of the Fur Farming in Ireland: The State-Sanctioned Captivity of the American Mink

The American mink was introduced into Ireland in 1951 for the purposes of commercial fur farming [6] (p.201). The scientific name for American mink is Neogale vison or Neovison vison [7] (p.3). Its binomial nomenclature was assigned by German naturalist, Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber in 1777. A successful escape of mink from captivity as well as the deliberate release of others resulted in the establishment of a community of American mink living in the wild [8]. The feral mink was ‘believed to be in existence as early as 1956’, however, it was not until the early 1960s that their existence in the wild was first documented [9] (p.233). The global demand in 1950s for mink fur coupled with the relatively low cost of mink fur farming compared to other agricultural activities provided the impetus for the government to seek the establishment of fur farms in Ireland. The Irish government offered fiscal incentives to entice fur farmers from other countries to establish mink fur farms in Ireland. A fifteen-year tax-break along with affordable land resulted in a Finnish family moving to Ireland to establish a mink fur farm [10]. One family, the Sjoholm family moved to Ireland in 1967 and established a fur farm in 1969. A third-generation family member explained that a family member saw an advertisement in the Fur Rancher Magazine which prompted the move to Ireland in 1967. The location of their farm was not disclosed, according to an interview in 2014, due to attacks by anti-fur farming protestors [11]. The Irish government continued to actively promote the establishment of fur farms in the 1960s. By the early 1960s, there were twenty-four fur farms in operation in Ireland, however, following the introduction of regulations in 1965, the number reduced to nine [12] (col.1225).

The Musk Rats Act 1933 was introduced to regulate and control the importation and keeping of musk rats and certain other destructive non-indigenous animals. At the time of the introduction of the 1933 Act, the American mink had yet to be introduced to Ireland. The 1933 Act provided for the extermination of musk rats and other animals found at large. Other animals were defined under section 38 as ‘every mammalian species’ that were not commonly kept in a domesticated state. Under the Act, a license was required to import and keep musk rats. It was at the discretion of the Minister for Agriculture whether to grant the license. The license was subject to conditions including that the musk rats were kept at a specified location. A license could be revoked if the license holder breached any of the conditions and if the Minister found that it was in the public interest, all licenses in the state could be revoked under section 15 (2). The Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink Order) 1965, with effect from 1 January 1966, prohibited the keeping of mink except under and in accordance with a license from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries [13]. The order also imposed an obligation on occupiers of land to report to the Minister any instances in which they knew mink were being kept without a valid license.

3. Legislative Framework: Prescribing Minimum Protections

In 1984, the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act came into force. The application of the Act was defined under section 2 as including any animal who ‘is bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur or feathers or for use in, or for the purposes of, the farming of land or of animal husbandry’. Section 4 of the Act placed a statutory obligation on the owner of the animals or the person in control of the animals kept in an intensive unit to make daily health and welfare inspections and to ensure that all equipment was free from defect. Intensive unit referred to a ‘building or structure which is of a type or description which for the time stands specified in regulations under section 6 of this Act, or any other building or structure which is one in which animals are kept under a husbandry system relying, for the purpose of providing for the care of the animals, on automatic equipment to such an extent that a failure of that equipment would, if it were not rectified or if some other suitable provision were not made for the care of the animals, cause the animals unnecessary suffering’. The Act defined unnecessary suffering as ‘pain, distress or suffering that in its kind or degree, or in its object, or in the circumstances in which it occurs, is unreasonable or unnecessary’. In situations where an animal was found not to be in a state of well-being, the person in control or owner was required to take measures deemed necessary to prevent the animal unnecessarily suffering [14]. Section 7 mandated that the owner or person in control to keep records of the daily inspections. The Act granted powers of entry and inspection to officers appointed by the Minister, including the power to take away samples from the animals, food, or liquid for further analysis. Section 8 (1) of the Act detailed the powers of entry and inspection. Section 8(2)(b) provided that a member of An Garda Síochána (the Irish Police force) was vested with all the powers of an inspector under this section, save for the power to examine, assess, or take samples from animals.

In line with Ireland’s obligations under EU Law, the European Communities (Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes) Regulations 2000 (the Regulations) were enacted to give effect to Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes [15]. The Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes. Under the Regulations, the word animal is defined to include fish, reptiles or amphibians bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin, or fur or for other farming purposes.

The Regulations detail statutory duties in relation to the care of farmed animals in general as well as species-specific requirements for certain farmed animals including calves, pigs and laying hens. Regulation 5 states that the Minister (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development at the enactment of the legislation) may appoint such and so many persons they think fit to be authorized officers for the purposes of these Regulations. Regulation 6 details the powers of authorized persons to enter and inspect at all reasonable times any premises or land where the authorized person has reasonable grounds for believing that animals kept or bred for farming purposes are present. Regulation 7 augments the provisions of the 1984 Act. It provides that where an authorized officer is of the opinion that an animal is being caused unnecessary suffering, pain or injury, there is a serious risk to the welfare of an animal and the conditions in which an animal is being kept are in contravention of the Regulations, a notice may be served on the owner or person in control. The notice may prescribe that an injured or ill animal should be cared for appropriately, veterinary advice should be obtained if an injured or ill animal is not responding to treatment, or that an animal be fed an appropriate supply of food to maintain good health. The notice may also provide that the animal should be moved to and kept in a specified location and/or the animal should be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed as directed by the authorized officer. The Annex to Directive 95/58 states: ‘No animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare’ [15] (para. 210). This provision is replicated in Regulation 20 of the 2000 Regulations.

Veterinary Ireland in referring to the Directive contended that this supported a ban on fur farming at EU level [4] (p.5). As the domestic legislation incorporating the Directive also includes Regulation 20, at national level the continued legality of fur farming became increasingly questionable. Unlike the Directive which referenced the detrimental effect on health and welfare under the sub-heading of breeding procedures, the Irish Regulations do not limit the application of the provision. Given that the mink is semiaquatic and solitary, the confinement in cages without access to water to swim and being in close proximity to each other, mink fur farming was contrary to Regulation 20. However, a ban on mink fur farming would not form part of the legislative framework until 2022. As the next part discusses, there was an attempt to ban fur farming in 2004.

4. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill 2004

The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill 2004 was introduced by a member of the Green Party, Dan Boyle. Under the bicameral system in Ireland, as with Government bills, Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) must be passed by both Houses, Dáil Éireann (the House of Representatives, the lower house) and Seanad Éireann (the Senate, the upper house). The premise of the Bill ‘was to put into law the important principle that the practice of fur farming is inconsistent with ethical agricultural behavior’ [12] (col. 1206). The Bill proposed to repeal whole Act of The Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink) Order 1965. Mr. Boyle added: ‘Animal welfare issues tend to be put on the back burner. However, their importance to the public is often higher than members of the political system are prepared to admit. Animal welfare issues rate highly with the Green Party. That is the reason, on one of the rare opportunities we have to introduce legislation in the House, we have chosen to argue for this Bill’ [12] (col. 1207).

In the parliamentary debates in the lower house, Mr. Boyle conceded that amendments could be made to the Bill at Committee Stage including a phasing out of mink fur farms and a compensation scheme. At the time of the Bill, there were six fur farms operating in Ireland and one farm breeding arctic foxes solely for the purpose of killing the animals for their pelts.

4.1. Proponents of the Bill

In support of his Green Party colleague, Mr. Ryan referred to the ‘150,000 creatures’ slaughtered for their fur as ‘immoral, unethical and wrong’ [12] (cols. 1207-1208). He observed that the number of those employed in mink fur farms was limited. Mr. Ryan countenanced the argument that the closure of mink fur farms in Ireland would lead to the industry moving to other countries where there are inferior standards of animal welfare and lack of regulation. He submitted that ‘it is about time we legislated for certain moral and ethical certainties’ [12] (col. 1208). Others in support of the Bill stated that the proposed legislation was about compassion and concern for animals and as humans we have a moral duty ‘to speak out for animals’ as they ‘suffer, pain, stress and boredom’ [12] (col. 1208).

Those in support of ending fur farming contended that its continuation was abhorrent to long established welfare principles and unnecessary in modern Ireland. It began as an alternative enterprise in the 1960s but failed. Fur was an expensive luxury and could be easily replaced by synthetic material. Proponents of the Bill spoke of there being a difference between animals used in the food chain and animals used solely for their pelt, referred by one proponent of the Bill as such animals being ‘used uniquely to cater for a perceived social status’ [12] (c. 1211). The speaker, Mr. Ferris, did acknowledge that Roger Scruton argues that the objections to fur farming are no different from those made against raising animals for food [12] (col. 1211). Mr. Ferris conceded that ‘[p]erhaps he is correct, but such a dislike is based on weighing the misery of a captive wild animal against the frivolous luxury enjoyed by people who have many other outlets through which to pursue pleasure’ [12] (col. 1211). Mr. Ferris referred to research by zoologist Dr Georgia Mason whose research found that after 70 generations of mink bred in captivity, the offspring still had the same instincts as wild mink [12] (col. 1211).

In a philosophical debate that incorporated scientific evidence and moral reasoning, the proponents of the Bill championed the ethical and welfare imperatives underlying the proposed legislation. Mr. Cuffe referred to the 2001 Report by the European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production [12] (col. 1207). Its conclusions regarding mink referred to issues with cages and management methods, the Committee noted that it should be ‘greatly improved’. It identified welfare issues including self-mutilation and the need for exercise. In echoing Directive 98/58 and Regulation 20, it concluded that ’normal mink behavior…cannot be carried out in typical farm housing’ as mink are precluded from running, climbing, and swimming. The Report surmised that more humane methods of euthanizing mink should be developed [16] (p.183-4). The Report concluded that captive mink are unable to exhibit natural behavior, it is impossible for mink to be housed humanely, and it was estimated that there was a 20% mortality rate among kits [16] (p.185). Dr Cowley opined that as humane society, the captivity of animals solely for the purpose of being slaughtered (‘this cruel practice’) for their fur could not be morally justified [12] (col. 1213).

Dr Upton argued that the term ‘fur farming’ was misleading as it gave ‘the impression that animals are allowed to roam over open fields’, it was more appropriate to refer to ‘fur farms’ as ‘fur factories’ [17] (col. 1733). Dr Upton also referred to a survey where it was found that 64% of the public was opposed to fur farming [17] (col. 1734). She also pointed to the apparent lack of qualification or training of those who slaughter the animals and that a veterinary practitioner was not present [17] (col. 1734). Mr. Gregory castigated the opposition which he viewed as ‘politically out of touch on animal welfare and animal rights, which are becoming increasingly significant issues internationally’ [17] (col. 1733). Ending fur farming would constitute a crucial step toward eradicating unnecessary animal cruelty that undermined modern sensibilities and public morality. A common thread that appeared through the speeches of those supporting the Bill was that fur farming had no defensible economic or moral justification. It was considered a ‘marginal barbaric business’ that required 30-70 mink to produce one fur coat, ‘[t]hat is 30 to 70 mink brought into this world and stripped of their fur to produce an item of fashion’ [17] (col. 1743). Yet it takes just ‘one dumb animal to wear it’ [17] (col. 1743).

In concluding that the Bill was a ‘modest and sensible proposal’ and while admittedly, it was not a major triumph for animal rights, it was nonetheless a positive step toward improving basic animal welfare in Ireland [17] (col. 1744).

4.2. Opponents of the Bill

The arguments raised by those who opposed the Bill closely mirrored the objections advanced two centuries ago in response to animal welfare reforms. When the House of Commons debated the Ill-Treatment of Horses Bill in 1821, the Bill countenanced a range of objections that questioned both the necessity and narrow scope of the proposed legislation [18]. In opposition to the 2004 Bill, Mr. Moloney contended that the Bill served ‘no useful purpose’ [17] (col.1727). Mr. Ellis referred to the allegations that had arisen in the debate in relation to ‘cruel practices’ that were ‘employed in the fur farming sector’ [17] (col.1727). He was ‘satisfied this is not the case’ and labelled certain discussions surrounding the topic of fur farming as ‘misinformation’ [17] (col.1727). Mink fur farming was referred to as a ‘legitimate farming activity here in this country, a view that is shared among the vast majority of member states of the European Union’ [17] (col.1720). Opponents questioned the motives behind the Bill, suggesting that it was driven by political symbolism rather than practical animal welfare benefits. Mr. Hayes contended that conditions of an animal coat is a key indicator of its wellbeing, mink in Ireland were well nourished, housed and cared for and domestic fur breeders had every incentive to look after their animals by applying the best animal husbandry and welfare standards [17] (col.1727).

Those in opposition to the Bill referred to the adequacy of existing legislation, namely the Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink Order) 1965, the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act 1984, European Communities (Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes) Regulations 2000, and the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP) Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals [19]. Reference was also made to the European Communities (Protection of Animals at Time of Slaughter) Regulations 1995, which gave effect to Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. Mr. B. Smith proffered that slaughtering methods were comparable to those used by veterinary practitioners when they euthanize farm animals. The use of an injection to end the life of an animal was deemed to be the most humane. Slaughter under the 1995 Regulations was carried out on the farm, thus in the words of Mr. B. Smith, 'minimizing the need for stressful transport’ [17] (col 1721). The Government considered these statutory measures indicative of a well-regulated industry, in which inspections occurred routinely, and animal welfare obligations were duly observed.

Mr. B Smith, in contradiction of the available science, defended the captivity of mink as he asserted that the sheds in which the mink were housed provided a suitable living environment, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. He asserted that the sheds in which the mink were housed provided: ‘normal temperature and light conditions while protecting against direct sunlight, wind and rain. Wire cages are placed in rows in the sheds. The cages are raised off the ground to ensure good hygiene. In mink farming, year-round nest boxes bedded with straw or wood shavings are located adjacent to each holding cage’ [17] (col.1727).

More troubling, however, was the response of Mr. Boyle; he referred to the unnatural living conditions depicted in the statement above as sounding ‘like Heaven’, a characterization diametrically opposed to scientific assessments of the stress and deprivation experienced by captive mink.

The Minister of State, Deputy Browne referred to the responsibilities of farmers as the ’traditional custodians of animal welfare’ who are entrusted to safeguard the well-being of their animals and the best way to remain in business is to ensure their animals are properly treated [12] (col.1217). Opponents of the Bill leveraged the economic aspect of the industry to argue against its prohibition. However, counterarguments highlighted the disparities. It was claimed that there were eighty full-time and eighty-five seasonal workers employed [12] (col. 1226), however, this was questioned by Mr. Morgan who estimated there to be around twenty employees [17] (col. 1738). Mr. Morgan cited statistics obtained from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) which provided that the value of fur exports was €1.6 million. If all eighty full-time employees were in receipt of the minimum wage, Mr. Morgan calculated that this would amount to approximately €1.5 million. He questioned whether fur farms operated at a loss or if ‘they are some class of charitable foundation set up to employ people and provide warm homes for poor old foxes and mink or even poor young foxes and mink?’ [17] (col. 1738). Statistics were furnished by both sides of the debate, however, there was no confirmation as to the exact number of employees or how much the industry was worth to the Exchequer on the part of the Minister for Agriculture. Given that the chances of the Bill being passed in the Dáil were remote, the Government may have reasoned that semantics were unlikely to influence an outcome that was already predetermined.

The opposition proceeded to refer to fur farming as a legitimate business and farming activity albeit small, which provided employment in disadvantaged areas, it did not receive financial support from the state and that the current legislative framework placed a statutory obligation on the Department to monitor compliance thus ensuring a high standard of animal welfare. Mr. Hayes questioned the agenda underpinning the debate, challenging claims about the conditions experienced and the cruelty endured by animals subjected to live importation [12] (col.1227). He referred to the situation in the 1970s and 80s where he claimed the cattle ‘were treated in top-class conditions’ [12] (col.1227). Opponents of the Bill contended that a ban would be ineffective, since Ireland’s market share would arguably be replaced by that of another fur producing country, one with lower or no animal welfare protections. Consequently, a ban might unintentionally undermine global animal welfare protections. Mr. Browne insisted that improved regulatory oversight, rather than prohibition, offered a more proportionate response [12] (col.1219). In concurrence with that view, Mr. O’Connor asserted that ‘the Bill does nothing to improve the lot of animals generally’ [12] (col.1222).

Mr. Naughton advocated a mid-way approach, proposing a seven- to ten-year phase-out period for mink fur farming [12] (col.1225). He expressed concern that an immediate ban might prompt the deliberate release of captive mink, which could have disastrous consequences for wildlife throughout the country. He also suggested that, during the transition period, no new licenses should be issued.

In contradiction of the scientific evidence, Mr. Ellis stated that ‘[f]armed mink have adapted to their environment and farming systems have evolved to meet the animal’s needs’ [17] (col. 1728) and thus enjoyed a high standard of animal welfare, a claim that disregarded well-documented behavioral and physiological indicators of distress in captive mink

The threads that emerge from the Government’s opposition to the Bill were the economic importance of the industry, the loss of employment in disadvantaged rural areas, the scientific developments that had improved the welfare of mink and that mink as an invasive species presented a danger to protected wildlife. In effect, the mink was portrayed negatively and othered, absent any recognition that its presence in Ireland was the result of deliberate introduction and subsequent support of the State for a marginal industry whose very presence was an affront to modern sensibilities.

The Bill was defeated by sixty-seven votes to fifty, however, the support of a sizeable minority offered a measure of optimism for future reform. The importance of the Bill should not be understated. The proponents of the Bill referred to scientific data, the position of animals within diverse cultures and religions and the moral underpinnings of their arguments demonstrated a deep commitment to effecting change. The contributions from both sides of the debate provide significant information on an issue that remains underexplored in existing literature.

5. Developments After the 2004 Bill

According to Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council in its 2009-10 Annual Review [20], a working group of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Animal Health and Welfare (SACAHW) was commissioned to review the slaughter practices in Irish fur farms, consider welfare impacts, and issue recommendations. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries established the SACAHW in 2002. Its role is to provide the Minister with scientific advice in relation to animal health and welfare when the opinion of an independent expert is required. The SACAHW produced a report titled Welfare aspects of the slaughter of fur-producing animals in Ireland and presented it to the to the Minister [21]. The Report noted that its purpose was not to discuss the ethical aspects of fur farming but rather to focus on the scientific assessment on the welfare of the animals at time of slaughter and to produce ‘scientifically based recommendations on how practices can be improved to enhance their welfare at this time’ [21] (p.2). The Report concluded that there should be unannounced inspections of slaughter conditions by the competent authority, formal training for those employed to slaughter animals should be introduced and training should be documented and subject to unannounced inspections [21] (p.8). In impliedly recognizing the sentience of animals bred for fur, the Report recommended that there should only be one animal at a time in the killing chamber and for ‘death to be achieved prior to introduction of the next animal [21] (p.8).

5.1. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine Review Group 2011

In 2011 the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine Review Group was established to examine all aspects of fur farming in Ireland and produce a report [22]. The Group was tasked with evaluating the existing legislative framework, the economic impact of the industry, and the effectiveness of animal welfare controls and to make recommendations for improvement. In conducting its work, the Group received over four hundred submissions from members of the public and relevant stakeholders. There is no record of the Report online, and thus reference to the Review Group’s terms of reference in a parliamentary debate provides the information [23].

The Report, which was published in 2012, concluded that it did not find the arguments in favor of banning the farming of fur animals in Ireland compelling and recommended that instead, fur farming be allowed continue under license and subject to official control [23]. In November 2012, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now DAFM) spoke of the contribution of mink farms to the Irish economy which employed sixty-two people and was worth €5 million to the Exchequer. Instead of phasing out mink farming, the five mink farms were granted temporary 12-month licenses to give the DAFM time to introduce new regulations recommended by the Report including unannounced inspections [24] and the introduction of ‘more rigorous controls on license holders in the areas of animal welfare, animal accommodation, security and nutrient management’ [23]. The inspection data intended to reflect the implementation of these rigorous controls suggest otherwise. From 2015 to 2018, a total of thirty-six inspections were undertaken in the three existing farms: 12 in 2015, 12 in 2016, 11 in 2017, and a single inspection in 2018 [23]. The information was supplied in June 2018; consequently, the figures for 2018 do not represent the full year.

By 2014, staffing levels on mink fur farms had doubled relative to those recorded in the 2012 Report, as farmers increased investment following earlier uncertainty arising from the defeated Bill and the DAFM’s commitment to continue with the licensing system. The industry was projected to contribute approximately €15 million annually to the Exchequer [11].

6. Causal Factors that Led to the Ban: Drivers of Change

There were five main ethical drivers of the ban on mink farming both domestic and international: Veterinary Ireland’s 2018 Policy [4], the Programme for Government 2020 [5], the ‘One Health, One Welfare’ approach [25], the Covid-19 pandemic, and developments in other EU Member States.

6.1. Veterinary Ireland in its Policy Document on Fur Farming 2018

In 2018, Veterinary Ireland called for the immediate prohibition on the farming of mink (and similar wild animals) for the purposes of the production of fur [4]. Veterinary Ireland was influenced by The Case Against Fur Factory Farming: A Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’ which was published in 2015 [2]. The 2015 Review found that, in Ireland, 200,000 farmed mink were killed for fur production in 2014 [2] (p.11). Veterinary Ireland in its Policy Document on Fur Farming 2018 expressed its ‘significant concern…for the welfare of wild animals in captivity’ [4] (p.3). The Policy underscored the contrast between wild and farmed mink. Wild mink, which occupy territories of 1–3 km² and naturally swim and dive, differ markedly from farmed mink, who are kept in proximity in small wire-mesh cages (90 × 30 × 45 cm) [4] (p.3). Such confinement inhibits natural behaviors and leads to stress, injury, and stereotypic behavior. The Policy cited Mason, Cooper, and Clarebrough whose research found that depravation of water is akin to depravation of food for the captive mink [28]. Their research concluded that caging mink on fur farms does cause the animals frustration, mainly because they are prevented from swimming [28] (p.36). In short, Veterinary Ireland concluded that fur farms were incapable of meeting the Five Freedoms. It also criticized the WelFur Programme, identifying several shortcomings, including its failure to adequately address key welfare issues [4] (p.4).

6.2. Programme for Government 2020 and Animal Welfare Strategy

The Programme for Government promised to fully implement the One Health, One Welfare Strategy, which focuses on the interdependency between humans and animals [5]. The Animal Welfare Strategy 2021 to 2025 is the first standalone animal welfare strategy in Ireland [25]. The interconnectedness between humans and non-humans is recognized as a key driver of change in the move towards better health and welfare protection for animals. To ensure that Ireland is a world leader in the One Health, One Welfare movement, an Animal Welfare Division within the DAFM was established in October 2020 [26]. The Animal Welfare Strategy aims to ‘broaden the dissemination of knowledge concerning animal welfare through education and other means of knowledge transfer’ [25] (pp. 6, 8-9, 12, 14-17, 24, 26). As part of its commitment to education, the Animal Welfare Strategy provided for the creation of a Chair in Animal Welfare and Veterinary Ethics at the School of Veterinary Medicine in University College Dublin (UCD) [27]. The 2026-30 Animal Welfare Strategy is being finalized following a non-statutory public consultation which closed on 2 January 2026 [29].

6.3. Covid-19 pandemic

While the Covid-19 pandemic’s influence was anthropocentric in nature, focusing on human health and biosecurity, it played a significant part in accelerating political momentum towards a ban. In November 2020, the DAFM issued a statement which, echoing the Department of Health’s concerns, warned that ‘the continued farming of mink represents an ongoing risk of additional mink-adapted SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging’ and recommended the culling of all farmed mink as a risk-mitigation measure [30].

6.4. Developments in other EU Member States

Out of the 27 EU Member States, sixteen have fully banned mink fur farming. In 2021 it was banned in Italy, Estonia and France. Ireland could not remain immune to this external pressure that questioned the optics of the State continuing to allow for the practice, particularly as EU-wide norms increasingly framed mink production as ethically and socially indefensible.

7. Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022

With the above causal factors providing context, the 2022 Act originated as a Government bill and thus had the support of the majority. As part of the 2020 Programme for Government, a commitment was made to ‘immediately prioritize the drafting of legislation for the phasing out of fur-farming, publishing legislation in this area as soon as possible’ [31] (p.68). In keeping with its commitment, the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 was enacted. Introduced by the Minister for DAFM on 22 October 2021, the debates that surround the Bill provide for interesting reading. Deputy Bacik stated that the ‘prohibition on fur farming in the interests of animal health, welfare and rights’ [32]. Proponents of the bill referred to fur farming as unnecessary and cruel. To mitigate the effects the ban would have on those who own fur farms, a compensation scheme was proposed which would be designed to offset financial losses and encourage the establishment of alternative industries.

In 2022 as the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 reached the final stage in the Senate (Seanad), three mink farms remained in operation in the counties of Kerry, Donegal and Laois. The Act came into force on 4 April 2022 when it was signed into law by the President.

The 2022 Act inserts Part 12A before Part 13 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, with the title: Prohibition on Fur or Skin Farming. The inserted Part 12A, section 71B of the amended 2013 Act provides that there is a prohibition on the breeding, rearing, or keeping of specified animals solely or primarily for the value of, or the manufacture of products from, their fur or skin. Section 71D provides for a system of compensation to persons who held licenses under the Musk Rats Act 1933. Sections 1 to 8 of the 2022 Act, which includes the prohibition on fur farming, came into force by way of a commencement order on 9 December 2022. Section 7 inserts a new Part 12A into the 2013 Act, containing thirteen separate sections that collectively provide for matters such as the prohibition on fur and skin farming, compensation for existing fur farmers and related ancillary matters.

The Animal Health and Welfare (Fur Farming Compensation Scheme) Regulations 2022 came into force on 9 December 2022. The Regulations provide for a scheme of compensation for those who held licenses under the Musk Rats Act of 1933 affected by the prohibition on fur farming. On 15 October 2025, the Minister confirmed that €3.4 million had been paid thus far under the compensation scheme [33] (p.226).

8. Impact of the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022

The Act creates a new legal offense under Irish law as it prohibits the breeding, rearing, or keeping of animals for their fur or skin. It also paved the way for subsequent animal welfare legislation in Ireland, for example, stricter regulations on ear cropping of dogs were introduced under the Ear-Cropping of Dogs Regulations 2023, which came into force on 1 September 2025. The 2022 Act also amended the 2013 Animal Health and Welfare Act and has strengthened certain provisions, including sections related to licensing and penalties for offenses. Section 4 of 2022 Act amends section 39 of the 2013 Act and grants the police the power of arrest without warrant for certain animal health and welfare offences. Section 52 of the 2013 Act as amended by section 5 of the 2022 Act provides for the penalties that apply to animal health and welfare offences. The offence will be prosecuted on indictment only, indicating the serious nature of the offence and the person convicted will be liable to a fine not exceeding €250,000 and/or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

9. Developments at European Union Level

In 2022, 1.5 million citizens called on the European Commission, through the ‘Fur Free Europe’ European Citizens’ Initiative, to ban fur farming [34]. In response, the European Commission requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluate welfare conditions on fur farms, which in turn led to the publication of a report in 2025 [7]. An accompanying report on the Welfare of American mink, red and Arctic foxes, raccoon dog and chinchilla kept for fur production from the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) ‘concluded that neither prevention nor substantial mitigation of the identified WCs [welfare considerations] is possible in the current system’ [35] (1).

On 17 July 2025, a European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) was introduced for the purpose of updating the list of invasive alien species to include the American mink [36]. Article 2 provides for an EU-wide ban on the breeding, sale, transport, keeping and release of American mink from 7 August 2027. Like the Irish approach, Member States will be required to provide compensation schemes. An EU-ban on mink farming may be undermined by mink fur producing Member States requesting exemptions [37] (p.7) [38]. Denmark voted against the amendment and has applied for a special exemption for existing mink farms [39]. Animal welfare groups wrote to the European Commission requesting that it reject Denmark’s application for a special exemption on the grounds that it pertains to only eleven fur farms and the views of the Danish people do not align with that of the Danish government as evidenced by a YouGov survey in which 62% called for the cessation of the use of fur in the fashion industry and 19% supported its continuation [40]. In November 2025, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the Federation of Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA) and the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) advocated for the worldwide elimination of the fur farming industry in the next decade [41]. While primarily voicing its concerns from an animal welfare standpoint, the position statement referred to the interconnectedness between animals and humans as reflected in the one welfare, one health approach. It also pointed to the zoonotic diseases risks that arose from the Covid-19 pandemic, and cautioned that ‘[d]espite biosecurity measures, fur farms remain a persistent potential reservoir of zoonotic risk, requiring disproportionate disease surveillance, culling, and resource investments’ (41) (p.2). Research conducted by Danish academics found that mink could be infected with SARS-CoV-2 easily, but it was unclear how the virus moved between farms beyond direct transmission by humans [42] (p.14). The future of mink fur farming in Denmark and other Member States remains uncertain. However, the inclusion of mink in the list of invasive alien species and the phasing out of mink fur farming throughout the EU is likely to substantially reduce the welfare concerns, environmental and biosecurity risks associated with the species.

10. Conclusions

The ban on mink farming in Ireland reflects a convergence of ethical, scientific, and political considerations. Critical public attitudes toward fur production, prohibitions in other EU Member States, and concerns about animal welfare and public health created an environment in which continuation of the industry became increasingly unsustainable and indefensible. The ban represents an acknowledgment that the welfare costs associated with mink farming could no longer be justified within a modern regulatory framework.