A Social History of Postwar Animal Protection
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2001 A Social History of Postwar Animal Protection Bernard Unti The Humane Society of the United States Andrew N. Rowan The Humane Society of the United States Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2001 Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Unti, B., & Rowan, A.N. (2001). A social history of postwar animal protection. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 21-37). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Social History of Postwar Animal Protection 1CHAPTER Bernard Unti and Andrew N. Rowan Introduction he rise of concern for animals and World War II proved to be an infer- work, undersubsidized by municipal during the post–World War II tile social context for the considera- governments, and it usually overtaxed Tperiod was an unanticipated tion of animal issues, and the Ameri- the staff and financial resources of the result of convergent trends in demo- can humane movement became local SPCAs. The American Humane graphics, animal utilization, science, quiescent and ineffectual. This decline Association (AHA), the movement’s technology, moral philosophy, and in movement strength coincided with umbrella association during that peri- popular culture. Together, these fac- the beginning of an expansion of ani- od, catered mainly to the interests of tors brought certain forms of animal mal use in such major segments of the its constituent local societies, which use under greater scrutiny and creat- twentieth-century economy as agri- were increasingly absorbed with urban ed the structures of opportunity nec- culture, biomedical research, and animal control issues. essary to challenge and transform product testing. Humane advocates After World War II, the animal pro- those uses. These trends also spurred were either unaware of trends in ani- tection movement enjoyed the revival the revitalization and extension of a mal husbandry and animal research or that we discuss in this chapter. Con- movement that, in the nineteenth were unable to effect reforms in prac- temporary scholarship suggests that century, had been robust. Alongside tices that were increasingly hidden social movements are more or less older notions about the humane from view and often exempted from continuous, shifting from periods of treatment of animals, modern animal extant anticruelty statutes and regula- peak activity to those of relative protection introduced new and differ- tions. By 1950 animal protection, decline. The renaissance of animal ent premises that both reflected and once a vibrant reform, stood mired in protection during the past half centu- shaped emerging attitudes about the a phase of insularity, lack of vision, ry involved several distinct phases of relationship between humans and and irrelevance. evolution. Such divisions are discre- nonhuman animals. During the first decades of the cen- tionary, but they can clarify impor- Organized animal protection in tury, the anticruelty societies had tant trends. This analysis relies on a America dates from the 1860s, when shifted their energy and resources three-stage chronology in considering like-minded citizens launched inde- away from the promotion of a coher- the progress of postwar animal pro- pendent, nonprofit societies for the ent humane ideology and a broad- tection, one that emphasizes revival, protection of cruelty to animals based approach to the prevention of mobilization and transformation, and (SPCAs) in one city after another and cruelty. They focused their attention consolidation of gains. pursued their goals of kind treatment on the management of horse, dog, on a range of fronts. After a period of and cat welfare problems and to edu- considerable vitality, however, the cational activities tied to pet keeping. 1950–1975: movement lost ground after World The assumption of urban animal con- War I and its concerns dropped from trol duties by humane societies Revival the public view. Several generations of throughout the country made it diffi- A specific grievance, the issue of leaders failed to match the vision, cult to sustain broader educational “pound seizure,” rooted in existing energy, or executive abilities of the campaigns addressing the cruel treat- animal shelter principles and policies, humane movement’s founding fig- ment of animals in other contexts. precipitated the transformation and ures. The period between World War I Animal control was largely thankless revitalization of organized animal 21 protection in the early 1950s. At the ry animal use, and the abolition of the part of large institutional, govern- time, both the AHA and the wealthier steel-jawed leghold trap. However, mental, or economic interests with local and regional humane societies they also identified and campaigned substantial resources or excellent had narrowed their focus, for the against emerging animal welfare administrative ties that allowed them most part, to companion animal issues that their predecessors had to secure and defend their positions. issues. The postwar boom in expendi- never faced. With the legislative achievements on tures on biomedical research greatly The revitalization of humane work slaughter and animal research, ani- increased the demand for laboratory took place during the peak years of mal protection gained a place on the animals, and in the mid-1940s, scien- the Cold War, a period in which some American political landscape. In 1966 tific institutions began to turn to protest movements faced serious the humane treatment of animals municipal shelters as a cheap source repression, and the boundaries of even inspired a five-cent postal- of research dogs and cats. Animal pro- acceptable protest were generally cir- service stamp. curement laws were developed and cumscribed. While animal issues were Opposition to hunting, and the pro- usually passed without much difficulty. rarely deemed politically partisan in tection of wildlife in general, had not Responding to the situation, lead- nature, they were largely pursued been a high priority for humane orga- ers within the AHA attempted to with tactical moderation and rhetori- nizations in the pre–World War II negotiate with the biomedical cal restraint during this era. Thus, it period. However, wildlife concerns research community. This antago- is no surprise that the new advocates became prominent platforms for sev- nized some supporters, who attacked avoided absolutism, embracing prag- eral of the groups that joined the field the propriety of such negotiations. As matic and gradualist approaches. in the late 1950s and 1960s. The a result the AHA backed away alto- They directed much of their energy most notable were Friends of Animals gether from the issue. This decision toward the objectives of federal legis- (1957), the Catholic Society for Ani- also generated discord, and several lation, regulatory reform, and the mal Welfare (1959, later to become important breakaway factions amelioration of cruel practices the International Society for Animal emerged from the resulting intra- through humane innovation and poli- Rights), and the Fund for Animals organizational dispute within the cy evolution. They developed in-depth (1967). Other groups focusing on AHA. Before long, there were two new critiques and proposals for reform of wildlife issues continued to emerge national organizations in the field the major areas of animal exploita- throughout the 1960s and early (Rowan 1984). tion. Cruelty investigations at both 1970s. During this same era—one of As it turned out, the same people the national and local levels played an exploding human population levels, who parted ways with the AHA over its occasional role in advancing the rapid land and resource development, pound release policy quickly found work, and helped to place different and an unheard-of destruction of other reasons to chart a new course issues onto the public agenda. In the habitat—the somewhat different for the work of animal protection. meantime, the movement slowly question of global species survival Renewal began in earnest with the expanded. joined the goal of better treatment on formation, in 1951, of the Animal During the 1950s humane groups the humane agenda. Rising public Welfare Institute and, in 1954, of The squared off with the meat industry to sympathy for wildlife protection also Humane Society of the United States secure the enactment of the Humane led environmental organizations to (HSUS), both of which were founded Slaughter Act (1958). In the follow- emphasize the protection of animal by individuals formerly associated ing decade, humane groups confront- species, especially endangered ones, with the AHA. The new groups explic- ed widespread opposition from the in their work and fund raising. Ani- itly distinguished themselves from biomedical research community to mals became increasingly iconic in extant organizations and their win passage of the Animal Welfare Act campaigns for the protection of the approaches. Although they were in (AWA) (1966). To a great extent, the natural environment, and their com- sympathy with the problems and chal- earliest federal legislative victories of pelling