The Welfare of Animals Part 4 doc

developed and led the reform of ideas on evolution, but there were other

scientists proposing the same ideas at the same time.

In recent times the northern European nations have been the most influential

reformers of societal standards. Even to this day, new standards in animal

welfare devised in Europe are often extended to former Anglo-Saxon colonies,

such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada several years

later. The concerns are spreading worldwide, with societies to protect animal

welfare becoming established or strengthened in most areas of the world.

Given that most social movements of the last two centuries have usually

lasted between 25 and 50 years, we can expect that there will continue to be a

major emphasis on animal rights and welfare improvement for several more

decades, and probably it will last until standards have considerably improved.

Given the contentious nature of our moral stance on animal welfare issues, it

was perhaps inevitable that all animal rights activity would become synon￾ymous with extremist views, in just the same way as those directly involved in

the female emancipation movement were branded extremists. In reality, most

members of the public acknowledge that animals should have some rights and

recognize that this will lead to an improvement in welfare. However, they would

not necessarily hold the extremist view that animals cannot be used by humans.

A mutually symbiotic relationship between animals and man is, and will con￾tinue to be, accepted by most people, even after the 40–50 years or so of welfare

reforms that can be anticipated. Such a relationship acknowledges that man

dictates, and to some extent restricts, the basic freedoms of animals, but also

assures a life that is reasonably well provided for, at least in terms of nutrition,

safety and health care.

The animal rights advocacy framework has been not only growing but also

becoming more sophisticated, and is part of the general evolution in social cause

support groups. In the US these are doubling in size every twenty years, partly

due to disillusion with political forces, and in particular the large size of the

electoral unit. Communication with members is greatly facilitated by the inter￾net (Lewis, 2005). The major activist organizations have membership lists of

millions of supporters and very significant budgets. They employ many well￾trained scientists to research campaigns, so that the organisation is well pre￾pared when the campaign starts. Campaigns are focused on achievable targets,

often involving groups in society that are susceptible to pressure. Typical

weaknesses that can be exploited include the belief by young school children

that animals used for fast food production are unhappy, the guilt of house

spouses if they purchase fast food in preference to spending time preparing

quality meals for their family, and the teenagers’ fear that meat would make

them smell unattractive or that milk would cause acne. Campaigns are often run

in militaristic style, with victories heralded on the website. Bequests are still the

major source of funding, but increasingly industry is targeted for support, and a

seal of approval by the activist group may assist sales as well as helping

advertising. By contrast the target animal industries have smaller budgets and

employ fewer researchers to defend their practices.

The Evolution of Standards Supporting Moral Behaviour Towards Animals 57

In addition to the legitimate non-government organisations, there are also

animal activist groups, that support illegal acts, although they usually require

that these should not harm people or animals. These might include arson,

harassment, vandalism, animal release and even bombing. Because the mem￾bers of such societies engage in illegal activity, they do not have leaders but

active spokespeople. Similarly, for legal protection they are not a club or an

organization that people can join, but a concept that is realized only when an

action takes place using the society’s name. They aim to liberate animals from

enclosed situations, such as laboratories, intensive meat animal farms, fur

farms, etc, and place them in homes where they may live out their natural

lives. They also seek to inflict economic damage on those who profit from using

animals, and to make the public aware of the circumstances in which the animals

are kept. The societies increasingly focus on electronic civil disobedience, such as

frequent e-mails or telephone calls to those involved in the animal industries.

They may identify a network of companies associated with a target organization,

and try to persuade them to withdraw their support for the company. Whilst few

people would condone the illegal nature of the activities of some members of these

societies, it must be remembered that in the past activists of this nature have often

illegally protested against activities that seemed acceptable at the time, but

eventually come to be viewed as unacceptable to society at large.

Slow responses, bureaucracy and congestion in the legislative channels

encourage members of the public to support groups engaged in direct action.

Although the activities of some of the larger societies are across all the major

animal use industries, the food sector is an increasingly popular target. This is

partly because of our strong sense of empathy with farm animals that provide us

with food and many other commodities (see Chapter 3), and partly because the

food industry is now dominated by a small number of integrated, multinational

companies (making them easy targets and creating the possibility of a domino

effect within the industry).

The mode of action of the social activist groups is changing. Traditionally

they simply lobbied parliament, which would then regulate industry. However,

nowadays activist groups manufacture an issue (which is given a catchy slogan),

create a public debate around the issue and make someone within the sector

responsible. A viable alternative to the practice in question must be available

and the transition must be achievable. The company is then forced to pursue

this in order not to lose public support.

The most popular targets are practices that are unnatural, cruel, the result of

human greed and displaying a lack of human care. These will attract far more

concern than natural events that challenge the animals’ welfare, such as

drought. Consider the livestock export industry, sending about 6 million

sheep from Australia to the Middle East and about one million cattle each

year in large vessels. Such long distance transport is easy portray to the public as

unnatural, as the animals are kept on large vessels for up to two weeks. Even

before entering the ship, stock are transported to the port in vehicles, in which

there may be bruising to the limbs, or animals may lie down and be unable to get

58 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights