Animal Advocacy

When fellow animal advocates ask me questions about research on animal protection issues, I typically ask them if they have looked at our research primers. In response, I usually hear "Research what? Where?" I am guessing that many advocates, even those of you who follow our work, are not aware of the full wealth of free data we have available. Here I want to highlight HRC's research primers, since they are a free resource that can help all advocates better understand the issues on which they are working. So let me tell you a little about them.

The internet significantly influences the tactics that animal protection organizations use and the ways in which those tactics are implemented. The internet is now a mainstream part of American life, with 71% of U.S. adults accessing it on a daily basis. Social networking sites like Facebook, online petitions that automatically generate letters for campaigns, and speedy access to a large number of people via email lists are all tools unique to the internet. For animal advocates who are typically working on a shoestring budget, the internet helps level the playing field.

Sometimes referred to as "shock advocacy," the tactic of using graphic and shocking images to sway opinion is controversial. Following the principle that "a picture is worth a thousands words," animal advocacy signs and literature often feature images of animals suffering in an attempt to make the general population aware of the cruelty that animals suffer on a daily basis in slaughterhouses, factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills and other locations of animal exploitation. The main objection to these images is that they may be perceived as "too graphic" and so turn people off of the message of animal rights. Nonetheless, this tactic is often used in animal protection campaigns.

Every year, the Humane Research Council conducts the Animal Tracker survey to determine attitudes and beliefs regarding issues of relevance to animal advocates. In Wave 1 of this study, conducted in 2008, we asked over 1,500 people the following question: "Social and political movements use a variety of tactics to create change for their issues. In general, how much do you support or oppose each of the following tactics?" We asked specifically about the following tactics: anti-cruelty investigations, using media to reach the public, speaking in schools, filling lawsuits to protect animals, state ballot initiatives lobbying government officials, calling for product boycotts, and demonstrating or protesting.

[Excerpt from the interview] As a movement, we can engage in self-expression, which is great, but if we want to achieve meaningful, lasting change for animals, we will need to reach out to people who don’t have this top of mind. What I mean is, it's hard when we have our heads in this 24/7 to put ourselves in the position of the person on the receiving end of the message. The only real way to know is to research that.

There is a lack of understanding as to the efficacy of different tactics available to animal advocates, as HRC has noted in the past. In this series, I present the available research in the hopes it can help animal advocates direct their campaigns. In this first post I define and discuss tactics in general. In Part 2 of the series I will examine public attitudes toward different types of tactics. Part 3 will review the efficacy of “shock advocacy” and Part 4 will look at the current use social media to effect change for animals.

For many families, summer is a time for entertainment and family field trips. Many of the most popular theme parks and special events of the summer involve the use of animals for entertainment: county fairs have petting zoos; water parks have dolphin-shows; circuses entertain audiences by having large animals perform tricks; and zoos and aquariums leave animals in enclosures so that they can be observed by human visitors.

Gender is a very important factor when considering people's perceptions toward animal issues, including vegetarianism and veganism (veg*nism). Although estimates vary, it is clear that the majority of people who are sympathetic toward animal issues and identify as veg*n are women. In a 2005 survey of the literature on veg*nism, HRC concluded that about 63% of vegetarians are female.

How should animal advocates react to animal-based scientific experiments if we think the findings can help animals? Should we speak out against the studies and refuse to cite them or should we make use of them with the intent and hope that the animals will not have suffered in vain? It’s a particularly relevant question for HRC because we cover such a breadth of research studies in our HumaneSpot.org database, which includes well over a hundred public opinion and behavior studies that relate to animal testing.