Organized Animal Protection in the United
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTERXIV PRODUCED BY CRUELTY: FUR, FEATHERS, AND THE USE OF ANIMALSIN ENTERTAINMENT The appealto consumer conscience, always an important element in the humane repertoire, took on special urgency in early twentieth centurycampaigns against furand performing animal abuse. These two issues were intimately tied to public demand and approval. Such uses of animals were not based upon primary human needs but rather uponaesthetic or sensory satisfaction, be it for an article of clothing or an evening's entertainment. Becauseboth thesecategories of use mainly involved wild animals (entertainment spectacles exploited domestic species as well), the humane movement's response to them was also a partof the larger evolution of its wildlife agenda. That agenda emerged only gradually as animal protectionists' emphasis shifted from domestic animals to include the inhabitants of fieldand forest. The movement's ideological basis for opposingtrapping and entertainment crueltiesbegan with its concerns about animal pain and human character. In the case of wild animals used in performance spectacle, moreover, it included a growing appreciationfor the biological and behavioral needs of individual animals. It also involved the conviction that confinement, debasing tricks, and other conditions of life in vaudeville, zoos, circuses, film, and other venues frequently violated the basic dignity of animals. Allof these elements would help to shape the longer development of a humane approach to wildlife issues during the twentieth century. 543 544 In their campaigns against these two industries, animal advocates had to make consumers aware of largely hidden abuses. In the end, they secured only limited gains againstthe cruelties of fur and the entertainment industry. Appeals fortheir suppression did not gain the broad social supportthat the campaign against the destruction of birds for plumage garnered. What progress humane groupsmade was modest. Nevertheless, the effortsmade against fur and entertainment crueltiesprovided a foundationupon which the post-World War II movement would build, and signaled the emergence of characteristically humane concernsabout animal pain and the denial of animals' basic needs and nature. During the secondhalf of the twentieth century, these concernswould alter perspectives and practices concerning wildlife in the United States. Trapping Animals and Wearing Fur Although the first substantial bequest to a society forthe prevention of cruelty to animals came from Louis Bonard, a man grownuneasy about his profitsfrom the fur trade, animal protection organizations did not address the suffering of trapped animals until the firstdecade of the twentieth century. At that time, it became a regular concern forhumane advocates, who began to speak out against the terrible torment animals experienced in the steel jaws of the trap. In time, animal protectionists linkedtrapping more directlyto the populardemand for fur, and they shiftedtheir energies toward consumers, especiaJly women, who subsidizedsuch cruelty through their purchases. Discussion of trapping and its crueltiesmounted during the decade prior to World War I. The MassachusettsSociety for the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals (MSPCA) was one of the most consistent sources of criticism, and, by the second decade of the S4S twentieth century, the suffering of animals in traps was a subject of steady commentary in Our DumbAnimals. The MSPCA produced its firstpamphlet on the subject, "The Crueltiesof Trapping," in July 1913, aftersending an agent out with a camera to document conditions along the trap line. For a time, MSPCA agent Edward H. Packard visited trapping and hunting camps in an attempt to evangelize the occupants. 1 Animal protectionists believedthat trapping, like many other cruelties, exerted a reflexive impact upon youthful character. Once the American Humane Association (AHA) began publication of its journal in 1913, references to the steel jaw leghold trap greatly outnumbered references to hunting as a wildlife-related concern that bore on the issue of youthful character. AHA writers condemned trapping as an "inhumane atavism," and alternatively called for its abolition or its reform. Trapping of"obnoxious vermin" was justified, and trapping of fur-bearing animals was perhaps justifiable, if conducted by some other means than the steel trap. But the participation of youth in trapping, which brought prolonged and excruciating suffering to the animals ensnared, and demoralized the perpetrator, was intolerable. 2 1 OurDumb Animals[hereafter ODA! 46 (July 1913), 2S. For additionalreferences, see "The SteelTrap," ODA 41 (Feb.1909), 13S; ErnestHarold Baynes,"One Trapper's Experience," ODA 44 (Aug. 1911), 38; idem, "Beforethe Fur Reachesthe Counter," ODA 44 (Jan. 1912), llS; "TheSteel Toothed Trap," ODA44 (Jan. 1912), 116; "Trappingas Tonure," ODA 48 (Feb. 1916), 133; HarryL. Piper,"A PitifulPicture of Cruelty,"ODA 49 (June 1916), 12; "Crueltiesof Trapping" and "TheGrip of Steel," ODA 49 (Feb.1917), 139; Hany L. Piper,"The Price of a Mink Skin,"ODA 49 (Apr.1917), 162-63;idem, ..A Tragedyoflhe Steel Trap," ODA 49 (May1917), 181; idem,"A TrappingTragedy," ODA SO (Jan. 1918), 118; andidem, "The Muskrat Orphans," ODA SO (Feb.1918), 134. Paclwddescribed his activities in New EnglandEssays: TheChallenge of an Individualist(Boston: The FourSeas Co .• 1929). 2 William 0. Stillnwl,Letter to the Hartford Times, 1S Jan. 1913, repr.in NationalHumane Review [hereafterNHR! I (Jan. 1913), 17; "Cruelty of Trapping,"NHR l (Mar. 1913) 61; William0. Stillman,"The Steel Trap,"NHR 2 (Mar. 1914), 61; "A HumaneTrap," ODA 46 (Mar. 1914), 154; HowardT. Knapp,"Caught in His OwnTrap," ODA 48 (Feb.1916), 142; "InhumaneAtavism," NHRS (Mar. 1917), Sl; andWilliam 0. Stillman."The Sin of Trapping," NHR8 (Aug. 1920), ISO. 546 To a great extent, the campaign against fur drew on the precedentof the anti plumage crusade. Although they did not usually originate bird protection campaigns, humane organizations provided steady and persistent support for them. Some of the earliest humane societyleaders, including Henry Bergh. GeorgeAngell, Emily Appleton, Abraham Firth, Adele Biddle, and Caroline Earle White were honorary vice-presidents of the Audubon Society. In several instances, humane advocates provided practical assistance, letting Audubon societies operatefrom their organizational headquarters, or helping to defraythe costs of a warden's salary.3 From the early 1880s on, Bergh was an active participant in the crusade against the use of birds as decorative adornments for hats. In 1881, the American Society forthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( ASPCA) attempted to prosecute some men who trapped and furnished birds for the fashion markets. Bergh regularly wrote on the subject of cruel and frivolous fashion. Like other humanitarians, he also came out against the trapping of songsters, another serious problem. 4 Animal protectionistsconfronted other cruelties of fashion during this period as well. During the 1890s, humane societies along the East Coast campaigned to suppress the peculiarfad of wearing live chameleons as 3 "Birds and BoMets-AWoman's Appeal" ODA 8 (Dec. 1875), 5 l. Appletonpaid for a seasonalagent at Muskeeget to ensuregull protect.ion. SeeWomen's Branch. PSPCA, Ann. R. 1887,7-8. On humaneadvocates' supportfor lhe earlyAudubon movement. see Robin Doughty,Feather Fashion and Bird Preservation:A Studyin NatureProtection (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1975), 43-48. 4 "BerghIndignant," New York Mercury. 11 Nov. 1883, American Societyfor thePrevention of Crueltyto AnimalsArthive, NewYork, NY [ASPCA-NY], SBK 9: 106;"Fashionable Slaughter," New York Herald. 15 Feb. 1886, ASPCA-NY, SBK 9: 248; "Bergh'sNew Crusade,"New York Times (hereafter N. Y. Timesj. 13 Nov. 1887, ASPCA-NY, SBK 10: 24; "SongBirds," N. Y. Times.26 May 1888, 4; and "Destruction of Songbirds,"Connecticut Humane Society, Ann. R. 1897 (1897), 39-45. S47 ornaments, relying on public education to dissuade citizens frompurchasing such "animate jewelry. "5 FeatherFashion and Bird Preservation, Robin Doughty's history of the campaign against bird plumage fashions, acknowledges the contribution of humane societies to its success. Humanitarians campaigned against all four of the key activities-sport hunting, market killing, boys' mischief, and millinery demands--that Doughtyidentifies as responsible forthe decline in populations that led to bird protection. Humanitarians stayed with the issue of bird preservation right through the historic legislative benchmarks that culminated in the MigratoryBird Treaty Act of 1916.6 Audubon activists and animal protectionists alike treated the plumage issue as a problem of women's consumption. Anti-plumage work was an extraordinarily self reflexive exercise for middle-class supporters of the humane movement, especially women, many of whom wore or had worn feather fashionsthemselves. Mary Lovell made women's culpability for millinery demand that harmed birds a principal focus of her work in the Department of Mercy of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Stage actors George Arliss and Minnie MaddernFiske issued a public call for s "TheChameleon's Friends," Phila.. Incmirer,3 Feb. 1894, "A CrusadeAgainst Liz.ards." Phila. Record, 4 Feb. 1894, "TheChameleon Fad is Now a Matterof the Past."All Day CityItem, 20 Feb.1894, and "Live Animals asOrnaments," 80.Uon Transcript Undated article(1894), Pennsylvania Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to AnimalsArchive, Philadelphia. PA [PSPCA-PAI,