DOCSLIB.ORG

What Do Animal Activists Want? (And How Should Wildlife Managers Respond?)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Do Animal Activists Want? (And How Should Wildlife Managers Respond?) WHAT DO ANIMAL ACTIVISTS WANT? (AND HOW SHOULD WILDLIFE MANAGERS RESPOND?) JON K. HOOPER, PH.D., Professor, Dept. of Recreation and Parks Management, California State University, Chico, Chico, California 95929-0560. ABSTRACT: National animal activist organization leaders were interviewed with the aim of better understanding their ideologies with respect to wildlife issues. Interviewees expressed considerable concern about traditional wildlife management practices and associated consumptive recreation activities. They easily identified a number of needed changes, while had difficulty identifying things they liked about the status quo. The top suggested changes related to using more nonlethal management methods and reducing allegiance with consumptive users. The most common •bottom line• concern expressed by interviewees was the alleviation or elimination of unnecessary pain and suffering in wildlife. Proc. 16th Vcrtcbr. Pest Conf. {W.S. Halverson& A.C. Crabb, Eds.) Published at Univ. of Calif., Davis. 1994. INTRODUCTION in this study were found to be no more urban than the American's views of what constitutes •proper• general population, however, as has been purported by wildlife management are changing. Historically, people other authors (Holden 1987; Animal Rights Network, Inc. gave widespread support to programs that involved the 1990). lethal take of animals. Today, such programs face With respect to wildlife-related issues, Richards and mounting scrutiny. Much of the scrutiny comes from Krannich (1991) reported that animal rightists were more highly vocal wildlife special interest groups. New likely than the general population to be concerned about battlelines seem to be drawn almost daily between these wildlife habitat protection. Furthermore, animal rightists groups and the governmental agencies and organiutions apparently view most human uses of animals as wrong, given the mandate to manage wildlife resources. finding trapping and hunting particularly objectionable. As a result of the conflict mentioned above, When asked about fifteen ways that humans interact with biologically-trained wildlife managers have increasingly animals, they considered the use of Jeghold traps to found themselves immersed in social conflict. Faced with capture wild animals as the most extremely wrong this situation, wildlifers have had little choice but to face treatment of animals. Decker and Brown (1987) reported the reality that traditional biologically-based approaches to that animal rightists are likely to oppose the underlying wildlife management are no longer adequate. They've assumptions and precepts upon which current wildlife increasingly realized that they must also base their policies management practices are based. For example, some and programs on a sound understanding of people's groups feel that ·natural• harvestable surpluses are beliefs, values, and attitudes (Kellert 1986; Edgell and actually "manmade" purely for the purpose of satisfying Nowell 1989). The point is simply this: if people who consumptive users' needs. Kellert and Berry (1980) are polarized on wildlife issues can gain a better reported higher mean animal knowledge scores for understanding of one anothers' stances, common ground humane organiution members than for the general may be found. population. One wildlife special interest group about which Given the need for additional research on the wildlife managers need more information is the expanding characteristics of animal welfarists and rightists, a study constituency known collectively as •animal activists,• that of national leaders of animal activist organiutions was is, people who have aligned themselves with at least some undertaken to better understand their •bottom lines• as animal welfare and/or rights concerns. While the terms related to fish and wildlife management. National leaders •animal welfare• and •animal rights• are often intermixed were selected as interviewees because they play a pivotal in conversations, most of the available literature cites role with respect to setting goals, policies, and agendas differences in the underlying philosophies. Given the for the animal welfare and rights movements. dangers in oversimplifying such differences, animal welfarists seem to be primarily concerned with the METHODS humane treatment of animals while animal rightists are Data were collected using an interview schedule focused on giving non-human animals •equal consisting of 43 questions. It was developed after an consideration, • which equates to eliminating unnecessary in-depth review of consumptive/non-consumptive wildlife human exploitation of animals (Hooper 1992). literature as well as consultations with selected wildlife What is known about animal activists? A recent study managers. The schedule was pre-tested by interviewing by Richards and Krannich ( 1991) showed that animal local animal activist representatives; appropriate changes rights activists differ considerably from the average were made. American citizen. The average activist was likely to be In order to obtain a wide spectrum of views, the a middle-aged, well-educated, very well-to-do, white study's population included leaders of national animal woman holding an executive or managerial position who activist groups, wildlife management agencies, citizen lives on the East or West Coast and is a left-leaning conservation groups, and professional wildlife liberal, an environmentalist, and a pet owner. Activists management societies that were known to be substantially 320 involved in wildlife issues (leaders of organiutions that practice. All 43 questions on the questionnaire were not focused primarily on international issues were not asked of all interviewees due to the inappropriateness of interviewed). Only the interviews conducted with animal some questions for some organizations and interviewee­ activist leaders are analyzed here, however. imposed time limitations (when possible, the most A list of 19 potential animal activist interviewees was pertinent questions that remained unanswered after the compiled based on discussions with key representatives of •1ive" interview were asked later via a phone interview). animal welfare/rights and wildlife management Although the duration of interviews varied, they averaged organizations, a review of animal welfare/rights and about three hours. Responses were content analyzed by wildlife management literature, and researcher knowledge. the researcher. Addresses and phone numbers were obtained from either the •Animal Organizations and Services Directory" RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Reece 1992) or •The Conservation Directory• (National Interviewees' responses to selected questions from the Wildlife Federation 1992). interview schedule are summarized and discussed below. A letter describing the study and requesting participation in it was sent on March 17, 1992 to the "Animal Welfare" Versus •Animal Rights" directors of all animal welfare and rights organizations on When asked if they considered their organization to the list. The letter asked directors to fill out and return be an "animal welfare" or "animal rights" group, or an enclosed form if they or another national representative neither, the majority of interviewees (61.5% or 8/13) of their organiution (if more appropriate) would be expressed initial concern about such "labelling.• They willing to be interviewed. Directors who did not return made comments such as "labels . are misleading,• their forms were contacted by phone to assess their "that's a game of semantics,• and "groups tend to hate willingness to participate in the study. The directors of the animal welfare/rights labelling. • Two animal activist two organiutions, Culture & Animals Foundation and leaders (15.4 %) never did categorii.e their organizations, Delta Society, returned handwritten notes indicating that noting that they either do not agree with the idea of labels they felt their organiution's mission did not match the (AWI) or thought the labels no longer reflect useful focus of the research study. Only one organiution asked distinctions, that is, they are pedantic (FF A). One leader not to participate in the study, namely, the World Society (7. 7 %) felt their organiution embraced both categories for the Protection of Animals (no explanation was given). (FOA). The other interviewees either labelled themselves Interviews were conducted with representatives of 13 or stated that the general public tends to label them as of the remaining 16 organiutions (81.2%) on the list of follows: animal welfare (46.2% including AHPA, AHA, potential interviewees, as follows: American Horse API, ASPCA, HSUS, and WRRC), animal rights (7.7%, Protection Association, Inc., (AHPA); American Humane PETA), animal liberation (7. 7 %, ARM), wildlife ecology Association (AHA); Animal Protection Institute of group (7. 7 %, CASH), and conservation organization America (API); Animal Rights Mobilization (ARM); (7.7%, OW). The term "animal protection" was used American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to interchangeable with "animal welfare" by three of the six Animals (ASPCA); Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) ; "animal welfare" interviewees during their interviews. Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting (CASH); Defenders of Wildlife (DW); Friends of Animals, Inc. (FOA); Fund Attitudes Toward "Managing" Wildlife for Animals, Inc. (FFA); Humane Society of the United When asked if they were more in favor of "managing States (HSUS); People for the Ethical Treatment of wildlife" or "letting nature take
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Animals in Sports
    Existence, Breeding, a,nd Rights: The Use of Animals in Sports Donald Scherer Bowling Green State University Against these lines of argument one frequently encounters a certain objection. It is argued that since the animals for fighting, hunting and racing exist only because they have been bred for such human uses, human beings are justified in so treating them. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this line ofobjection, or to speak more precisely, to evaluate the two distinct objections implicit in this line. For the objection may be either that (l) the present uses of the animals are justified because they are better for the animals than the Standardly, philosophical arguments about the alternative, namely non-existence, or that quality of treatment human beings owe nonhuman animals! rest on two bases. Peter Singer is famous (2) breeding an animal for a purpose gives the for arguing from the capacity of animals to feel pain breeders (transferable) rights over what they to the conclusion that since almost none of the pain have bred. human beings cause animals is necessary, almost none of it is morally justifiable (Singer, 1989, pp. 78-79). I shall pursue these alternatives sequentially. Singer rests his case on the premise that who suffers pain does not affect the badness of the suffering, so The Value of Existence that, without strong justification, the infliction of pain is universally wrong (Ibid., pp. 77-78). Tom Regan is The strength ofthe first form ofthe objection rests on equally famous for his argument that the beliefs and a common intuition comparing the values of existence desires which normal one year-old mammals clearly and non-existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Baby Reindeer Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    BABY REINDEER PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Yu-hsuan Huang | 12 pages | 02 Aug 2016 | CHRONICLE BOOKS | 9781452146614 | English | California, United States Baby Reindeer PDF Book Bureau of Education. Alice in Wonderland. Baby Mickey Halloween Costume M. Mongalla gazelle E. Download as PDF Printable version. According to the Igloolik Oral History Project IOHP , "Caribou antlers provided the Inuit with a myriad of implements, from snow knives and shovels to drying racks and seal-hunting tools. It was first domesticated in Siberia and Scandinavia. Finally, the North American caribou has not been domesticated and is generally a wild animal. Because of the continuing decline and expected changes in long-term weather patterns, this subspecies is at imminent risk of extinction. A complex set of terms describes each part of the antler and relates it to its various uses". Restrictions apply. Retrieved 11 October These cows are healthier than those without antlers. However, Geist and others considered it valid. Allen, [Notes 2] [34] [35]. These can, with some certainty, be dated to the Migration Period , although it is not unlikely that they have been in use since the Stone Age. In the winter, the pads shrink and tighten, exposing the rim of the hoof, which cuts into the ice and crusted snow to keep it from slipping. Scotland on Sunday. Choose options. Retrieved 17 December Morris Costumes. Carl Linnaeus chose the name Rangifer for the reindeer genus, which Albertus Magnus used in his De animalibus , fol. Mickey Mouse. The reindeer is the only deer that has been domesticated. Liber 22, Cap. There are dozens of herds of wild caribou in the state of Alaska and their population there is estimated to be more than one million strong.
    [Show full text]
  • Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina Centro De Ciências Jurídicas Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Direito
    1 UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA CENTRO DE CIÊNCIAS JURÍDICAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO GABRIELA FRANZISKA SCHOCH SANTOS CARVALHO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS IN BRAZIL AND IN SWITZERLAND: Cruelty, Well-Being and Dignity DISSERTAÇÃO DE MESTRADO Florianópolis 2018 1 Gabriela Franziska Schoch Santos Carvalho THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS IN BRAZIL AND IN SWITZERLAND: Cruelty, Well-Being and Dignity Dissertação submetida ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina para a obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Direito. Orientadora: Profª. Drª. Letícia Albuquerque Florianópolis 2018 2 3 5 7 To my parents Für meine Eltern 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported my work on this thesis and have in some way contributed to it. First and foremost, I express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr. Letícia Albuquerque. She has encouraged and accompanied my research from the beginning. Her support, generosity and friendship have been invaluable. Prof. Dr. Fernanda Luiza Fontoura de Medeiros (UNILASSALE), Prof. Dr. Marita Giménez-Candela (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) and Prof. Dr. Paula Cals Brügger Neves (CCB/UFSC) composed the Thesis Committee. I would like to thank them for their valuable comments. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Everton das Neves Gonçalves (PPGD/UFSC) for presiding the Thesis Committee. I am grateful to the dean of the Post-Graduate Program in Law at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (PPGD), Prof. Arno Dal Ri Jr., PhD, as well as the academic and administrative staff for welcoming me at UFSC, and to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals As Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and Property
    \\server05\productn\L\LCA\16-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-JAN-10 12:35 ANIMALS AS VULNERABLE SUBJECTS: BEYOND INTEREST-CONVERGENCE, HIERARCHY, AND PROPERTY By Ani B. Satz* This Article presents a new paradigm, premised on the equal protection principle, for the legal regulation of human interactions with domestic ani- mals: Equal Protection of Animals (EPA). EPA combines the insights of vul- nerability theorists with the equal protection principle and capability theory to create a mechanism for recognizing the equal claims of human and non- human animals to protections against suffering. Under such an approach, domestic animals—like humans—have claims to food, hydration, shelter, bodily integrity (including avoiding pain), companionship, and the ability to exercise and to engage in natural behaviors of movement. Existing animal welfare and anti-cruelty laws, despite their stated pur- poses, fail to protect animals adequately. This Article identifies the ontology of the problem as interest-convergence, famously described by Derrick Bell in the desegregation context. The privileged (humans in this case) protect the disadvantaged (animals) only when their interests align. Because humans profit economically and socially from the exploitation of animals, interests often diverge. When this divergence occurs, all protections for ani- mals are placed in jeopardy. Unlike protections for other disadvantaged groups, there is no constitutional or other legal floor guarding the basic lib- erties of animals. Interest convergence results in what I term “legal gerry- mandering for human interest,” or the redrawing of the natural baseline of * Ani B. Satz 2009. Ani B. Satz is an Associate Professor at Emory University School of Law, Rollins School of Public Health, and the Center for Ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • CRS Report for Congress
    CRS Report for Congress Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues Geoffrey S. Becker Specialist Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division December 6, 1995 h CRS, 1 Congressional Research Se~iceCne Libmy of Congress I Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues SUMMARY Animal protection activists in the United States are seeking modifications (or even curtailment) of many practices long considered acceptable and necessary to animal agriculture. Examples include rearing large numbers of livestock and poultry in close confinement; performing surgery such as tail-docking or beak- trimming; housing layer hens in cages; and isolating veal calves in crates. Currently, no Federal law prescribes standards for on-farm handling and care of animals, although two statutes do address the humane transport and slaughter of livestock. A11 States have anti-cruelty laws, which can--but do not always--cover farm animals, Many States regulate the transport and slaughter of farm animals, but few if any address on-farm activities. Recent surveys suggest that most people (and many animal protection groups) still support agricultural uses of animals -- but many also appear to support at least some Government regulation to insure humane treatment. Producers maintain that they understand their animals' welfare needs and address them. They express concern that efforts by poorly informed critics could lead to the imposition of mandatory regulations harmful to producers and animals alike. Support for science, education, and voluntary guidelines are more effective ways of assuring animal welfare, they believe. But many animal protection groups contend that producer efforts fall short, in part because today's intensive farming systems perpetuate standard practices that are harmful to animals' well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Ethics and Science Fall 2009 – 4:10-5:25 MW – Room 213 Bolton Hall
    PHIL 489/689 – Special Topics: Animal Ethics and Science Fall 2009 – 4:10-5:25 MW – Room 213 Bolton Hall Instructor: Gary Varner Associate Professor of Philosophy Office: 309D Bolton Office hours: 12:00-2:00 MW & by appointment Phone: 845-8499 Email: [email protected] Web page: http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/ General description: This course will introduce students to the main philosophical theories in animal ethics and survey the ways scientific research on animal consciousness and cognition informs (or could someday inform) their application to various animals and various human uses of animals. Philosophical theories covered will include animal welfare (utilitarianism), animal rights (rights as “trump cards” against utilitarian thinking), neo-Cartesianism (the view that non-human animals are not phenomenally conscious), and anthropocentrism (the view that non-human animals don’t “count,” morally speaking, even if they are conscious). Philosophers read will probably include Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Bernard Rollin, Peter Carruthers, and Carl Cohen. Related scientific research discussed will probably include all of the following: pain and nociception, mirror self-recognition, language acquisition, episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness, and “using a ‘theory of mind’.” Designed for students majoring in the life sciences, the course assumes no previous exposure to philosophical theories or methodology. Students must, however, be committed to studying alternative theories via reasoned debate informed by the best relevant empirical research currently available and adhering to such usual standards of classroom etiquette as responding to others’ positions in a respectful way, not dominating the discussion, and so on. Prerequisite: Permission of instructor. Course requirements: Letter grades recorded for the course will be based on a weighted average of the following components.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Property: a New Status for Animals Within the Legal System David Favre
    Marquette Law Review Volume 93 | Issue 3 Article 3 Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System David Favre Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation David Favre, Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System, 93 Marq. L. Rev. 1021 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIVING PROPERTY: A NEW STATUS FOR ANIMALS WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM DAVID FAVRE* This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals. This Article establishes why animals should receive consideration within the legal system, which animals should be focused upon, what some of the legal rights might be, and how the traditional rules of property law will be modified to accommodate the presence of this new category of property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center Contraception in Wildlife Management Symposia October 1993 Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception R. Bruce Gill Michael W. Miller Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccontraception Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Gill, R. Bruce and Miller, Michael W., "Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception" (1993). Contraception in Wildlife Management. 9. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccontraception/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center Symposia at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Contraception in Wildlife Management by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception R. Bruce Gill and Michael W. Miller Abstract: Wildlife contraception is only now emerging as a as when, where, and in which circumstances managers will wildlife policy issue It will emerge into a sociopolitical LISP the contraceptive tool. In this context, wildlife environment that is already polarized from a clash of contraception will be regarded as a "mixed bag." Given the ideologies. The wildlife conservation/hunting community nature and potential polarity of the wildlife contraception strives to preserve the status quo while animal welfare and issue, wildlife agencies will have to behave proactively by animal rights activists struggle to change wildlife oroiectina themselves into their future. Currentlv. wildlife management philosophy and practice to conform to their agencie;respond to many policy challenges reactively and respective beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Becoming a Creaturekind Partner Community: Basic Overview of Changing Food Policies
    Becoming a CreatureKind Partner Community: Basic Overview of Changing Food Policies The use of animals for food massively dominates all other human uses of animals, yet farmed animals—the animals on our plates—are conspicuously absent from the vast majority of Christian conversations about stewardship, creation care, and the environment. CreatureKind Partner Communities distinguish themselves as places where people want to learn more about animals as a faith concern and take action to improve the lives of farmed animals. Worldwide, more than 70 billion fellow land creatures and up to 7 trillion sea animals are killed for food each year. Most animal products—meat, milk, and eggs—are produced on farms where it is impossible for creatures to flourish, and in systems that require both humans and animals pay a high price for the ability to buy cheap meat. Often, animals used for food are subject to painful physical mutilations, miserable living conditions, and traumatic deaths. Overconsumption of animal products has led to widespread environmental damages and uses a disproportionate share of Earth’s resources. Globally, industrial animal farming now uses 78% of the world’s agricultural land, diminishes wild animal populations, and worsens human food and water security throughout the world. Increasing pressures on farmers to produce high quantities at low costs make it harder for farmers to provide improved welfare for farmed animals. Economic pressures also contribute to worker injustice, higher rates of farmer suicide, and a decline in diversified farms. Workers within the industrial farming system endure long hours, frequent injuries, and unjust working conditions. The increased use of antibiotics contributes to the rise of so-called “superbugs,” and overconsumption of animal products is linked to a host of human ailments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Necessity of the Use of Non-Human Primate Models in Research
    THE NECESSITY OF THE USE OF NON-HUMAN PRIMATE MODELS IN RESEARCH Working Group April 18-19, 2017 Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics 1809 Ashland Ave Baltimore, MD 21205 CONTENTS 1. GOALS AND APPROACH 2. MEMBERS 3. AGENDA FOR APRIL 2017 MEETING 4. LOGISTICAL INFORMATION 5. RECOMMENDED READINGS A. REPORTS (EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES) B. ON NECESSITY C. ON THE STATUS OF THE USE OF NHPs IN RESEARCH D. THE USEFULNESS OF NHP MODELS 1. GOALS AND APPROACH GOALS AND APPROACH The use of animals in biomedical research continues to be a topic of intense interest as well as a focus of discussion in the scientific community, among government regulators, and by interested groups and organizations. In particular, the use of non-human primates (NHPs) continues to receive intense attention, with both strong defense of the importance of such research as well as fierce opposition to the use of NHPs as research models. The use of these animals also presents some unique ethical issues, particularly in light of more recent studies of animal behavior and cognition that reveal more information about how animals think, communicate and function in social groups. To help address the issues of the use of NHPs in research, we are convening this working group to examine the science, ethics, and policy aspects of the use of NHPs in biomedical and behavioral research and testing, with the goal of identifying consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The focus of the working group will be to evaluate the current and potential future uses of NHP models, drawing on the approach used in the 2011 IOM Report “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity” (IOM, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecies Sustainability to Ensure Animal Protection: Lessons from the Thoroughbred Racing Industry
    sustainability Article Interspecies Sustainability to Ensure Animal Protection: Lessons from the Thoroughbred Racing Industry Iris M. Bergmann School of Geosciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; [email protected] Received: 20 August 2019; Accepted: 30 September 2019; Published: 8 October 2019 Abstract: There is a disconnect between dominant conceptions of sustainability and the protection of animals arising from the anthropocentric orientation of most conceptualisations of sustainability, including sustainable development. Critiques of this disconnect are primarily based in the context of industrial animal agriculture and a general model of a species-inclusive conception of sustainability has yet to emerge. The original contribution of this article is two-fold: First, it develops a theoretical framework for interspecies sustainability. Second, it applies this to a case study of the thoroughbred racing industry. Interviews were conducted with thoroughbred industry and animal advocacy informants in the US, Australia and Great Britain. While industry informants claim thoroughbred welfare is seminal for industry sustainability, they adopt a market-oriented anthropocentric conception of sustainability and do not consider animal welfare a sustainability domain in its own right. Animal advocacy informants demonstrate a deeper understanding of welfare but some express discomfort about linking sustainability, welfare and racing. Eight analytical layers have been identified in the discourse in the interface of sustainability and animal protection, of which two have transformational potential to advance interspecies sustainability. Interspecies sustainability urgently needs to be advanced to ensure animal protection in the sustainability transition, and to not leave the defining of animal welfare and sustainability to animal industries. Keywords: sustainability; interspecies sustainability; animal welfare; animal agency; anthropocentrism; interspecies justice; relationality; ecocentrism; naturalness; animal advocacy 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare Policy, Emergency Action Plan, and Evacuation Plan for Livestock and Horses
    NEBRASKA STATE FAIR Animal Welfare Policy, Emergency Action Plan, and Evacuation Plan for Livestock and Horses Adopted by Nebraska State Fair Board Livestock Committee STATEMENT OF ANIMAL CARE “Animal Rights” vs. “Animal Welfare”! In today’s predominantly urban society, the public’s contact with animals, especially farm animals, is limited. As a result of this separation, both adults and children may be confused about the needs and roles of domestic animals in society. In addition, the number of animal rights groups has increased drastically. The ultimate goal of these animal rights activists is the elimination of all human uses of animals. Some of them even think that animals have humanhood. The Nebraska State Fair is a showplace for animal agriculture and animal care for the state. The Nebraska State Fair considers ourselves animal welfare advocates and requires the humane treatment of all animals on the grounds. All animals and livestock shown, housed or displayed shall receive care that is humane, healthful, stress free and consistent with public expectations. Cruelty, neglect or indifference to animal comfort and welfare will not be tolerated and will constitute immediate disqualification and grounds for removal from the premises. Ample feed and clean fresh water will be provided to all livestock, horses, poultry and other animals consistent with sound animal husbandry practices and with rules and regulations set by the Nebraska State Fair Board. All animals entering the grounds for display or competition must meet all State of Nebraska and Nebraska State Fair Health Requirements. The environment in which animals are kept must be clean and sanitary at all times.
    [Show full text]