Tracking the “State of the Animals”: Challenges and 1CHAPTER Opportunities in Assessing Change Randall Lockwood here is something fascinat- kinds to develop ways of planning hoped, if we are not improving the ing about science. One gets and evaluating their activities state of the animals, then we need Tsuch wholesale returns of con- (Wandersman et al. 2000). There to try to identify the social, psy- jecture out of such a trifling invest- has been an erosion of support for chological, cultural, economic, ment of fact. well-meaning people engaged in political, and other obstacles to —Mark Twain activities that seem to be helpful progress and develop new strate- Life on the Mississippi (1874) to animals or people in need, if this gies and tactics that may be more support is to be given simply effective. We also can benefit from The original concept behind the because the activities seemed to be clarification of the “trajectories of State of the Animals series, as the right thing to do. Advocacy change,” the processes that lead defined by Paul G. Irwin, president groups of all kinds are seeing more people and organizations to devel- emeritus of The Humane Society of demand for accountability from op attitudes and behavior that are the United States (HSUS), in the funders and other sponsors such as consistent with those we wish first edition (2001, 1) was “to eval- United Way (Hatry et al. 1996). them to adopt and the attitudes or uate the position of animals in Some have described the current experiences that serve as “entry society at the dawn of the twenty- situation for nonprofit organiza- points” for concern about the first century.” As we embark on the tions as a “perfect storm,” a colli- issues that are important to us. third volume in this series, and as sion of a declining economy, re- In this chapter we: we view the state of the animals duced government support, and 1. Review some of the measures from a perspective midway through state and local budget crises that have been used in the the first decade of the new century, (Boice 2003). Individual donors, past to attempt to assess the it is helpful to examine some of the government agencies, foundations, state of the animals and the tools we have at our disposal to and other supporters of advocates extent to which we can con- assess the situation and provide for change want to see meaningful tinue to apply these measures some suggestions for measuring assessments of results. They de- to track future changes. our progress, or lack thereof, in mand—and deserve—valid and 2. Review some of the emerging improving the treatment of ani- accurate measures of impact be- tools and developing tech- mals. Careful reflection on what we fore they provide new or continu- nologies that can improve our actually mean by “improving the ing support for a program or or- tracking of the state of the state of the animals” is an impor- ganization. animals and provide some tant part of the process for plan- We, as animal advocates, also quantitative measures of our ning and assessing present and have a basic need to see “how we’re progress. future actions. doing” and why we are being effec- 3. Explore some examples of An increasing demand has been tive or ineffective. If we are not general measures of human placed on advocacy groups of all progressing in the way we had interaction with animals that 1 might prove useful in predict- example, estimates of black bear vey conducted by the National ing and tracking changes in populations may be interpreted by Council on Pet Population Study how they are treated. some to imply that the population and Policy (NCPPSP 2000) is stable, growing, or even a nui- attempted to collect such informa- sance and thus is “harvestable,” tion via survey cards sent to more Tools for while others may interpret the than five thousand shelters. Assessment same data to show that the popula- Although fewer than 20 percent of tion is at best “recovering” or shelters responded, information Tools for tracking changes in the potentially fragile. was gathered on the handling of state of the animals fall into a few Demographic measures have fre- about four million animals for each broad categories: quently been applied to the assess- year of the study. Because the 1. Animal ment of farm animal issues. Fraser, responding shelters could not be Mench, and Millman (2001) and assumed to represent a random Demographic/ Trent et al. (2003) use worldwide sampling of facilities, the Council Geographic Measures inventories of common farm ani- notes that “it is not possible to use One important measure is simply mals as one significant measure as these statistics to estimate the the number of animals of a partic- well as changes in the numbers number of animals entering ani- ular kind, or the number kept being kept under different systems mal shelters in the United States, under certain conditions. The goal or on facilities of different sizes. or the numbers euthanized on an of particular actions on behalf of The same approach has been annual basis.” Other projects animals may be to increase certain applied to tracking the state of ani- undertaken with a smaller number numbers (e.g., the number of indi- mals kept in laboratory settings of shelters have attempted to get a viduals of a given species living in (Rowan and Loew 2001) and the clearer picture of the dynamics of protected habitats) or it may be to growing proportion of horses being the relinquishment of animals to decrease the numbers (e.g., the kept primarily for recreational pur- shelters (Salman et al. 1998, 2000; number of sows being kept in con- poses (Houpt and Waran 2003). New et al. 1999; Scarlett 1999; finement-rearing situations). These Demographic variables have also New 2000; Kass 2001). measures may be somewhat differ- been key to the assessment of ent from measures of animal use, progress on companion animal 2. Organizational, described below, since animals issues (Clancy and Rowan 2003). Individual, and kept under similar conditions Reliable data on the numbers of Institutional Measures (e.g., in the laboratory), may be companion animals sharing the Another approach to assessing the subjected to different treatments lives of people in different demo- state of the animals has been to with differing effects on their over- graphic categories (by region, age, quantify and describe the number all welfare. family composition, ethnicity, etc.) and nature of organizations and The most basic demographic are important for planning pro- individuals involved in or support- measure of the state of the animals grams that seek to enhance those ive of animal protection. Irwin that has been applied for decades relationships. Although several (2003) offered the number of ani- is the assessment of population lev- groups, including the American mal-protection organizations per els of threatened or endangered Veterinary Medical Association one million human population as species. Such measures are also (AVMA 2002) or the American Pet one measure of the relative sup- closely linked to assessments of Products Manufacturers Associa- port for animal-protection causes the extent of appropriate habitat, tion (APPMA 2004), routinely sur- in a cross section of foreign coun- for example, number of acres pro- vey patterns of pet ownership and tries. Such organizations routinely tected in land trusts or measures care, these surveys focus primarily use the number of donors and/or of acreage of rainforest protected on consumer expenditures or the supporters as one of the most sig- or lost to development. Such popu- delivery of veterinary care and do nificant measures of their success, lation estimates of wildlife num- not attempt to specifically track public support, and potential polit- bers are also commonly applied at broader aspects of human-animal ical strength. the national, state, and local levels. interactions. Individual demographics can However, population estimates of Tracking companion animal also be revealing in tracking the hunted species are frequently the issues through demographic analy- changing relationships between subject of debate since the under- sis of the population of companion people and animals. One impor- lying assumptions behind such animals entering and exiting ani- tant demographic that has fre- estimates are always open to criti- mal shelters has been difficult. The quently been tracked to assess the cism from differing groups. For 1994–1997 Shelter Statistics Sur- 2 The State of the Animals III: 2005 state of the animals is the propor- tions, and other monetary meas- theories, tools, and techniques of tion of the population holding a ures offers a precise way of com- marketing science to the social hunting license, which has de- paring different programs over change arena. Green (2004, 1) clined from 7.18 percent of the time. Previous State of the Animals notes: “Marketing research pro- U.S. population in 1980 to 5.35 essays have examined such finan- vides an excellent starting point percent in 2000 (Grandy, Stall- cial measures as U.S. fur sales for identifying effective approaches man, and Macdonald 2003). (Irwin 2001) and funding from the to animal advocacy.” In animal pro- Within any demographic meas- National Institutes of Health for tection, the “commodity” to be ure, changes in the structure of the research involving animal use marketed is compassion and con- demographics can reflect impor- (Rowan and Loew 2001). The cern about animal issues. As in any tant changes in the nature of sup- AVMA uses veterinary expenditures marketing activity, it is essential to port or opposition that should be for a variety of companion animals assess the attitudes of various seg- tracked.