Topic 17: Changing Perceptions - The Animal Advocacy Movement PDF

 Topic 17: Changing Perceptions – The Animal Advocacy Movement impressive technology, we can look forward into When you have completed this topic, you the future to figure out what is likely to happen should:...

 Topic 17: Changing Perceptions – The Animal Advocacy Movement impressive technology, we can look forward into When you have completed this topic, you the future to figure out what is likely to happen should: if we behave in certain ways, and we can make choices about how we want the future to be. know that concern about animals has existed for a long period, but that this concern has escalated in the past half century and is likely to remain a hot social topic for the foreseeable future understand the important distinction between animal welfare groups and animal abolitionist groups be more aware of your own psychological position in relation to animal use by humans As a species, do we just go on as we have been, until our resources run out or our scientists find solutions to our global problems? Or do we In previous topics, we discussed contemporary decide now that we want things to change? And, roles for animals in our society. This is important if so, how do we want them to change with information because you need to be familiar respect to animals? Right now is a really exciting with the many and varied ways in which we and challenging time to be alive, because we will involve animals in our modern lives. In addition, probably see enormous cultural changes in the it is critical that we all consider how current next few years. The aim of the next few topics is roles for animals are at least partially socially to provide you with the knowledge and skills constructed, being relative to time, place, and required for you to make informed decisions context. Humans decide what animals are worth about YOUR future. and whether they are valuable or not, if they are something to be protected or destroyed and In this topic, we will learn more about the animal whether we will learn from them, consume them, advocacy movement. You might be more or take them into our homes as companions. familiar with the term animal welfare movement Hence, current roles for animals are not or animal rights movement. Animal advocacy inevitable, but merely provide a background groups are important for us to consider against which future roles can be defined. because, of all the different groups in our society, they are the ones who most strongly Consider that you are a member of a species so insist that we should radically alter some of the powerful on a global scale that we are a major ways in which we use animals. This makes them determinant of how (and indeed whether or not) a good place to start learning about human ALL animals will exist within future societies. We psychological factors that might determine how are not the only determinant, of course; things animals exist in the future. This topic will not like major disease outbreaks and environmental focus on WHY animal advocacy groups push for disasters might mean that everything humans change in current practices. Instead, it will do comes to nothing. With huge brains and explore WHAT kinds of changes they are Earle White, who founded the Pennsylvania pushing for. We will get to the ‘why’ later on. SPCA in 1867 and the American Anti- Vivisection Society in 1883. By the 1900s, over A short history of the animal advocacy 700 groups combated animal cruelty across the movement USA and the movement continued to grow, In recent years, many societies are becoming especially after World War II. At this time, more sensitive to animal welfare issues, but the exploitation of animals increased due to higher animal advocacy movement actually has quite a military spending, the growth of biomedicine, long history. People in England were protesting consumer product testing, and intensification of against blood sports back in the 1700s. Blood agriculture. This led to a corresponding increase sports are sports that involve violence towards in concern about animals. animals. Some examples of blood sports that are At first, animal advocacy groups focused on still around today are cockfighting, dog fighting preventing overt cruelty to animals, targeting and fox hunting with dogs. You can find out sports like cockfighting and bull-baiting, as well more about these by doing an internet search as activities like whipping horses and dogs to but keep in mind that most of the sites you will make them pull loads that were much too heavy come across are made by animal welfare groups, for them. Later, welfare groups targeted so they tend to be one-sided. You’ll need to scientific work using animals, intensive farming, search harder to find sites that are developed and practices believed to be cruel, like rodeos, by those who engage in the sports, but this is circuses, long-distance livestock transport, and worthwhile if you want to make up your own the killing of birds and animals for their feathers mind. Harold Herzog (2010) has an interesting and fur. They had limited success but did discussion of cockfighting in his book ‘Some We manage to initiate some social changes. There Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat.’ was also a great deal of work done with respect to stray dogs and cats. Back then, animals were not routinely desexed and in most cities, there were thousands of stray, often starving animals. The welfare groups took responsibility for collecting these animals and killing them humanely. This remains a large area of activity for modern advocacy groups but is quite controversial. It may seem unfair that people who care most about animals are forced to spend much of their time killing them, but this is often thought to be unavoidable since it is The first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to impossible for shelters to care adequately for Animals (SPCA) was founded in London in the the thousands of animals they receive. 1820s. The early history of the American animal advocacy movement is well documented in a The animal advocacy movement heated up book called “For the Prevention of Cruelty: The during the 1960s and 1970s. At this time, a History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in number of influential books were published, the United States”, written by Diane Beers including Rachael Carson's Silent Spring (1962), (2006), a history professor at Holyoke Ruth Harrison’s Animal Machines (1964), Peter Community College in Massachusetts. It Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), and Tom describes some of the first people to push the Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983). animal advocacy agenda in the USA; people like Henry Bergh, who in 1866 founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in New York, and Caroline  published. Most people think about animals as creatures that think and feel and have experiences, at least to some degree. Nearly everyone agrees animals should be treated well, even if we do not agree on what that means exactly or always act on our principles. Nonetheless, there are many gruesome examples of how animals are mistreated within our society. If you are interested, you can find some examples by investigating these web sites, but be advised that many people will find this confronting: Cruelty to Australian livestock in Indonesia Cosmetic animal testing ‘Breaking in’ elephants for humans In these books, and others like them, the To give you a sense of how our thinking has authors provided horrific accounts of how changed, Diane Beers provides an example, animals were being mistreated in modern which occurred during making of a film called societies – in zoos, farms, scientific laboratories, Jesse James in 1939. In the original movie and other contexts. The media attention they script, there is a dramatic chase scene that ends attracted shocked many people into taking when a cowboy and his horse plunge from the action to stop animal cruelty. In addition, top of a cliff. To shoot this scene, the filmmakers Australian philosopher Peter Singer and his initially proposed strapping a fake cowboy to a colleagues started to really challenge the way real horse before throwing it from a cliff and that animals were perceived psychologically by filming it from below as it plunged to its death the general public. Many of the writers were (p. 104). philosophers and scientists, and they argued not only that we should be kind to animals when They were prevented from doing this by animal we use them for our own purposes, but also that advocacy groups, who created a huge public moral agents like ourselves may not be able to outcry. In fact, the campaign was so successful justify using animals AT ALL. These were that the American Humane Association has since considered really radical ideas at the time, but been required to monitor conditions for all they gained attention because they were built animal actors and to accredit, prior to release, on the same kinds of arguments that had all films that use animals. This was a huge already been used to convince the population achievement for the welfare advocacy that children should not be exploited AT ALL, movement, but can you imagine that throwing a that women should be allowed to vote, that live horse off a cliff would be seriously proposed slavery was totally unacceptable (no matter how by anyone in today’s world? If your answer to well enslaved people were treated), and that any this question is no, think about why not! Would form of discrimination was immoral. In some you have a problem with film makers throwing ways, people in many cultures were primed to from a cliff all the cabbages they wanted, or a think about animals in a new way by the new truck load of cars, or even horse models made ways in which our perceptions of ‘other’ persons from cardboard and plastic? was already being socially reconstructed. These days, it is quite difficult to even imagine how some people felt about animals before Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation book was  animals, provided we look after the animals appropriately while we use them. One example of this type of group is World Animal Protection or WAP (Previously called World Society for the Protection of Animals or WSPA). This is a complex organization, created in 1981 through the merger of two existing organisations, and is what we might call an umbrella organisation, to which other welfare groups belong. WAP describes itself as the world’s largest network for animal welfare, representing 700 member societies in over 146 countries. WAP is a moderate organisation in terms of what it wants to achieve. WAP does not try to stop people from keeping animals or eating meat, for example, but works hard to make sure that animals under the control of humans are kept in conditions appropriate to the needs of the species, and that, when animals are slaughtered, it is done in a relatively humane way. The method of killing is seen as being critical, rather than the fact that the animal dies. To achieve its aims, WAP puts resources into The fact that nearly all of us would object to large international campaigns and educational throwing a horse off a cliff but would not mind projects to expose cruelty and suffering. They doing the same thing with other objects, makes also work hard to get governments around the it clear that we are quite sensitive to animal world to initiate legislative change, and help issues. Most of us agree that animals are in coordinatate the work of smaller organisations some kind of special moral category where we so that global issues too big for one group can owe them some kind of consideration that we be effectively tackled. WAP, for example, might do not owe plants and inanimate objects. They spend money on television advertisements, may not be equal to humans, but they do count which they then let many other groups use. WAP more than cabbages and cardboard. This is well known for trying to get animal welfare represents a significant psychological change principles operating in regions where they were from what many of our ancestors believed, not previously underdeveloped or non-existent. It is all that long ago, and underlies the concerns represented on numerous international bodies raised by modern advocacy groups. and is the only animal welfare organisation to have consultative status at both the United Thousands of animal advocacy groups are active Nations and the Council of Europe. today. We do not have space to consider more than a few examples, but most fall into two main Another relatively moderate organization is The categories. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is a huge organization with millions of Animal welfare groups members. In dollar terms, HSUS is actually much The first major category contains what are often bigger than WAP, with an annual income in called animal welfare groups. These are groups 2019 of over US$200 million. that hold a welfarist position. Their basic premise is that it is OK for humans to use  million was spent on management in 2019, for example, with another $38 million being spent on fundraising. HSUS counters these criticisms by arguing that their role is a broad one, and that competent executives are necessary to maintain the educational programs and publicity campaigns staged by the organization. They also argue that they are regularly given a four-star charity rating—the highest rating possible—from Charity Navigator, America's premier independent charity evaluator. According to the To promote its aims, HSUS uses legislation and HSUS website, only 7 percent of all charities litigation, investigation, education, advocacy, rated by Charity Navigator have received at least and field work, and it covers all aspects of 4 consecutive four-star evaluations, indicating animal use and care. For many years, HSUS did that HSUS consistently executes its mission in a not fund animal shelters, animal desexing fiscally responsible way. clinics, or affordable veterinary services. This Abolitionist groups changed when they merged with another organization called the Fund for Animals. This Both HSUS and WAP are large, politically was a good move in terms of public relations, minded organisations, which use many different because it meant that the HSUS could claim to strategies to get their message across. Another provide care to more animals than any other large group is PETA, People for the Ethical national animal protection organization, as well Treatment of Animals. PETA is also a charitable as doing all the other things that it does. Check organisation based in the USA but with affiliate out their website and annual report if you get a organisations elsewhere, including in Australia. chance. It makes for interesting reading. Founded in 1980, PETA is not as old as HSUS. It is also not as large financially or in terms of members. It is growing rapidly, however, and is managing to attract quite a bit of attention. Speaking of public relations, it is interesting to consider where animal advocacy groups get their money from and what they do with it. As PETA is far more radical in terms of its aims than you might imagine, both WAP and HSUS largely WAP or HSUS, operating under the principle that get their funds via donations, contributions, and animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment bequests. This gives you some idea of how much money people are prepared to spend on animal on, or use for entertainment. They do not want humans to simply treat animals well while we welfare. The HSUS has been criticised by some use them, but argue that we should not use people for not spending enough of its money on them AT ALL, because animals, like people, have actually looking after animals. More than $10 various rights. This is what we might call the becoming a trendy social cause, a big business rights-based or abolitionist approach. among the rich and famous and in the media. PETA describes itself as the biggest and most Within animal activist communities, PETA is a influential animal rights group in the world. rather polarising organization – some applaud Have you seen or heard of a PETA campaign? them for brining attention to animal rights, Probably you have, because PETA, like most whereas others criticize their ads for relying on large animal advocacy organisations, makes a sexist tropes, body-negativity, and even making point of targeting students, from a very young fun of domestic violence. age through the university years. They also have a website focused on children. This is smart thinking because today’s kids are the people who will be making decisions about animals in the future. The founder of the group, Ingrid Newkirk, is very well connected socially and PETA has managed to harness the incredible power of film stars, politicians, and the media in organising large- scale consumer boycotts and international media coverage without having to spend much money. PETA also use a diverse set of strategies Another abolitionist group which you should to get people to stop using animal products. know is the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, which is even more radical in its aims than is For example, instead of directly targeting PETA. The ALF is a loose, umbrella organisation, farmers who grow animals for fur production, consisting of small autonomous groups of PETA target the rich and famous who wear fur people all over the world who carry out direct and the designers and companies involved in action according to ALF guidelines. Because high fashion. Several movie stars, including some of these actions are against the law, ALF Pamela Anderson, Christy Turlington, and Kim supporters generally work anonymously, either Basinger posed nude under the slogan “I’d as individuals or small groups, and do not have rather go naked than wear fur” and major any centralised organisation. This means that designers were threatened with a boycott of anyone can call themselves part of the ALF. their clothes if they incorporated any fur into Some of these people have used violence to their designs. Of course, they chose not to, make their point. perhaps because this was pretty easy for them to do, but it had devastating effects on those who ran fur farms. In 2020, PETA ran a campaign against wearing Australian wool. You can watch a 2.5-minute video featuring Arianwen Parkes-Lockwood at this link, but be warned that it’s designed to be distressing! PETA has also targeted stores like McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC, convincing them that they would benefit financially, and that PETA would leave them alone politically, if they enforced high animal welfare standards on farms where they obtained their meat. Of course, PETA would prefer that nobody ate meat at all, but their Like PETA, the ALF believes that nonhuman success shows that animal advocacy is animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation. An industry response They do not just say that humans should treat The animal advocacy groups that we have animals well while we exploit them, or before we considered thus far can be divided into welfare kill and eat them, but that animals have the groups (concerned with treating animals well RIGHT to be completely free from cruelty and while we use them) and abolitionist groups exploitation, just as humans possess this right. (saying that we should not use animals at all) Because of this belief, the ALF wants to force but, of course, in the real-world things are much out of business what it calls ‘animal abuse more complicated than that. There are many companies’. To do this they carry out direct groups, for example, that focus on just one action in the form of ‘rescuing’ or stealing issue, often in one location. Some of these are: animals and causing financial loss to businesses Rescuing unwanted greyhounds that exploit animals, usually through the Saving endangered species habitats damage and destruction of property. Many Saving Australian brumbies thousands of attacks have been committed by Sea Shepherd marine life protection people claiming to belong to the ALF. These In addition, new groups spring up all the time in range from attacks on individual butchers and response to campaigns run by existing groups. fur retailers, to death threats and burning down Sometimes the aims of these newer groups can an animal experimentation facility in California, be difficult to identify. For example, have a look valued at $4.6 million dollars, back in 1987. at the website of a group called The Animal Welfare Council. See if you can determine what this group is all about and who it represents. As you should have found out, the AWC is a non- profit organization, which supports the use of animals in recreation, entertainment, industry, and sports. Its membership includes organisations that some of the other advocacy groups we have discussed would be horrified by—e.g., the California Cattlemen’s Association, Barnum and Bailey and Ringling Brothers circuses, Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Perhaps surprisingly, some ALF activities have Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, and actually harmed animals. In Australia, for Carriage Operators of North America. example, an ALF member fed ham to sheep destined for the Middle East, because this meant that the sheep were considered unfit for human consumption. This stunt attracted much publicity and transport of the sheep was held up for several weeks, but in the meantime they were confined to yards only designed for short- term housing. Also, what of the welfare of the pigs used to produce the ham fed to the sheep? Today we are all familiar with terms like ‘collateral damage’ and ‘friendly fire’, but what do you think of harming some animals to help According to the AWC, people who work in others? these industries are the real experts on animal care. Hence, if we are concerned about animals, we should be supporting the industries that use animals, rather than advocacy groups that may or may not know what they are talking long history, and also that it will continue to be about. In fact, much of their website is devoted a hot social topic in the next decade. More and to criticising major animal advocacy groups. more people are getting involved in animal advocacy and this includes those who have the What do you think about this state of affairs? power to change social practices, like The industry groups that belong to the AWC are politicians, film stars, social media influencers, required to submit animal welfare standards and students. before being accepted as a member and must agree to abide by these, but do you trust It should also be clear that animal advocacy animal-based industries to regulate their own groups are very diverse. They do not all agree activities? Most animal welfare groups, and all on where animals stand in relation to humans, abolitionist groups, would not, arguing instead with two basic positions being defended. The that the real purpose of the AWC is to counter first, more moderate position, is the welfarist claims by other advocacy organisations against position. This position is held by groups like the member industries. WAP and HSUS, which have no fundamental objection to the use of animals by humans, as As we have seen, some want us to treat animals long as animals are treated well. In contrast to better than is currently the case and others want these moderate groups are the more radical us to stop using animals completely. Given this ones like PETA and the ALF. Members of these state of affairs, it is probably not so surprising abolitionist groups believe that humans should that even industry groups dependent on animals not use animals for their own purposes at all – are forming animal advocacy groups and have even if they treat these animals very well. Their animal welfare policies in place. This confirms goal is to abolish animal exploitation completely that they now recognise how important by fundamentally altering the values and maintaining appropriate welfare standards is to practices of human society. their long-term viability. Other groups involved with animal use, such as scientific organisations Can you imagine a world in which humans do and meat industries, have also developed not use animals at all? It would certainly be very animal welfare committees and guidelines. They different than the world we are living in now. also pay for much of the welfare research that is Given your knowledge of domestication and currently being conducted. This again adaptation would we be doing animals a favour demonstrates how seriously the community is if we simply let them all go? starting to take animal welfare as a social issue. One of the messages you should take home from this topic is that it is necessary to critically evaluate the claims made by animal advocacy groups, rather than just being sucked in by slick advertising. Because they are all very different, we need to really think hard about what it is that they want to achieve and why, so that we can evaluate their campaigns effectively and decide which ones we want to support and which ones we do not agree with. In the next topic we are going to start thinking about why we should Summary worry about animals. Hopefully, this will help To summarise, it should be clear by now that you clarify where you stand in relation to the concern about the treatment of animals has a treatment of animals in our society.  References and/or supplementary resources Beers, D. (2006). For the prevention of cruelty: The history and legacy of animal rights activism in the United States. Swallow Press/Ohio University Press. Carsons, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin. Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines. Ballantine Books. Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: Why it’s so hard to think straight about animals. Harper Collins. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.