SOA IV 2007 Inside - humanesociety.org · Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations by Jonathan...

StateAnimals IV

OF THE

THE

2 0 0 7

edited by Deborah J. Salemand Andrew N. Rowan

Humane Society Pressan affiliate of

Copyright © 2007 by The Humane Society of the United States. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means,including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from thepublisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

First editionISBN 0-9748400-9-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Salem, Deborah J.The state of the animals, 2001 / edited by Deborah J. Salem and Andrew N. Rowan—1st ed.

(public policy series)Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 0965894231

1. Animal welfare—History. 2. Animal welfare—Societies, etc.3. Animal rights. 4. Human-animal relationships. 5. Animal experimentation.

I. Salem, Deborah J. II. Rowan, Andrew N. III. Humane Society of the United States.IV. Title. V. Public policy series. (Humane Society Press)

HV4708.S16 2001179.3—dc21 2001131096

Printed in the United States of AmericaPrinted on 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper, processed chlorine free and FSC certified, with soy-based ink.

Deborah J. Salem is director and editor in chief of Humane Society Press.

Andrew N. Rowan is executive director, Operations,for The Humane Society of the United States.

Humane Society PressAn affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States2100 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20037www.humanesocietypress.org

ii

iii

Other Books in the Humane Society Press Public Policy Series

The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendationsby Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D.

The State of the Animals: 2001edited by Deborah J. Salem and Andrew N. Rowan

Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local Governmentsby Geoffrey L. Handy(published by the International City/County Management Association)

Community Approaches to Feral Cats: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendationsby Margaret R. Slater

The State of the Animals II: 2003edited by Deborah J. Salem and Andrew N. Rowan

Humane Wildlife Solutions: The Role of Immunocontraceptionedited by Allen T. Rutberg

The State of the Animals III: 2005edited by Deborah J. Salem and Andrew N. Rowan

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

1. Animal Advocacy in the Age of Information Ché Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners’ Insurance Companies Larry Cunningham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3. Free-Roaming Dogs in Developing Countries: The Benefits of Capture, Neuter, and ReturnProgramsJennifer Jackman and Andrew Rowan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4. Teaching Children to be Kind in an Unkind WorldCatherine Ann Fabio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5. Canada’s Commercial Seal Hunt Rebecca Aldworth and Stephen Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6. Their Bugs Are Worse than Their Bite: Emerging Infectious Disease and the Human-Animal InterfaceMichael Greger, M.D.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

7. Farm Animal Welfare: In Legislatures, Corporate Boardrooms, and Private KitchensAndrea Gavinelli and Miyun Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

8. The Steady State Economy, Habitat Stability, and the Humane Treatment of Wild AnimalsBrian Czech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

9. The Role of Economics in Achieving Welfare Gains for AnimalsJennifer Fearing and Gaverick Matheny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

10. The Demographics of the U.S. Equine PopulationEmily R. Kilby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

About the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211

v

Contents

his volume is the fourth in a series reviewingthe status of animals worldwide. The State of theAnimals has been the cornerstone of the Public

Policy Series of Humane Society Press (HSP), foundedin 2000 as an affiliate of The Humane Society of theUnited States (HSUS).

HSP’s Public Policy Series is a source of informationand informed opinion on current and emerging issuesin animal protection. Its audience is policymakers, ani-mal advocates, the academic community, and themedia. The series has as of 2007 grown to includeeight titles, including this one. These titles exploretopics in companion animal and wildlife care, control,and management and in general education.

The State of the Animals IV: 2007 looks at the eco-nomics and demographics of wild and domestic ani-mals in modern society, here and abroad. Its contributorswrite from Toronto, Bristol, Seattle, Washington, D.C.,Baltimore, New York, Cambridge, and Brussels—and

from points in between. These contributors offerunique perspectives strongly supported by data notreadily available from other, general-media sources.

We once again thank Lester Brown and the World-watch Institute for providing an excellent model forthis volume in their State of the World series. We alsothank all of the contributors for their commitment tothis project; HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle,who was perhaps the earliest champion of the State ofthe Animals concept; and the editors and designerswho guided the volume through the productionprocess, particularly HSUS Creative Director PaulaJaworski, HSUS Associate Art Director Beth McNulty,and copyeditor Jean Bernard.

Deborah J. SalemAndrew N. Rowan

vii

Preface

T

Animal Advocacy in the Age of Information

Ché Green

1CHAPTER

It is a very sad thing that nowadaysthere is so little useless information.

—Oscar Wilde

he Humane Society of theUnited States (HSUS) beganits State of the Animals series

in 2001 with the ambitious butnecessary objective of evaluatingthe position of animals in society.Animal advocates no doubt agreeabout the importance of the goal,but accurately and consistentlyevaluating such a complex issuerequires substantial time andeffort. In this chapter I propose totake an important step toward thatvision by evaluating the informa-tion available to animal advocatesabout the position of animals insociety. The goal is to encourageand assist data collection and thedevelopment of information man-agement systems that allow animaladvocates to measure the impactof their efforts on society and,most important, on efforts to im-prove the lives of animals.

Information management involvesthe collection, creation, storage,distribution, and utilization of datafor a specific and defined purpose.It is not simply a database or anintranet and, in fact, does not nec-essarily involve technology at all,

although technology can be instru-mental in helping to facilitate theprocess. Information managementsystems are critically importantboth within individual organizationsand between groups with similarpurposes, such as those working foranimal protection. In general, thescope of this chapter pertains toshared information, with some em-phasis on data that are relevant tothe entire animal protection move-ment rather than proprietary or rel-evant to a single organization.

To assist the information man-agement process, I have proposedan overall framework for categoriz-ing and prioritizing informationand research for animal-advocacypurposes. The framework includes“research categories” based on thedifferent relationships between ani-mals and humans and several “datatypes” for each category. I also pro-vide more than fifty references togood sources of information thatmay be used as starting points forfinding relevant data. I’ll use theseand other sources to provide anoverall assessment of the availabil-ity of information by category anddata type. Finally, this chapter alsoincludes a set of recommendationsfor individual groups and the move-ment overall regarding how to

choose research priorities as well as generate and share importantinformation more effectively.

Why Do AnimalAdvocates NeedResearch?Making a significant difference inthe lives of animals is predicatedon the ability to access and inter-pret reliable information abouthow society sees and uses them.Without access to accurate data todetermine effective campaignmessaging and measure their per-formance, for instance, animaladvocates operate in a virtual vac-uum. Perhaps even more impor-tant, in most cases animal advo-cates do not engage in the be-havior they are trying to change inother people (the target audi-ence). For this reason and due toother inherent biases, advocatessimply cannot rely only on theirown perception of why the targetaudience thinks or behaves theway it does. Similarly, they cannotevaluate their impact on attitudesand behavior using only theirhunches and anecdotal evidence.For many it has just been too longsince they have walked in the

1

Introduction

T

suede shoes of those they hope willswitch to pleather.

Information is the basis of in-formed decision making. Indeed,no animal protection campaign orproject should begin without firstidentifying and analyzing the avail-able data on the topic or issue and,where the information is not avail-able, collecting new data to sup-port critical decisions. Detailed andreliable data, obtained through re-search, have played an importantrole in many successful animal-related projects and campaigns;below are a few examples.

• In New Hampshire P. Marsh, ofSolutions to Overpopulation ofPets, collected and analyzedshelter intake and euthanasiadata to determine the state’sprimary sources of “surplus”animals: low-income residents.Using these data, the groupwas able to create a publiclyfunded and highly targetedspay/neuter program for theselow-income individuals. Ongo-ing research and tracking ofshelter data indicates that theprogram led to a 77 percentdecline in the state’s euthana-sia rate over an eight-yearperiod (Marsh 2005).

• In New York City and Washing-ton, D.C., The Fund for Ani-mals conducted focus groupswith fur garment owners andteenage females to test its anti-fur advertising. The qualitativeresearch clearly showed thattwo of the Fund’s prototypeads—one featuring a rabbitand the other a chinchilla—didnot elicit nearly as much sym-pathy as ads featuring a youngbobcat and a fox cub. The re-sults were used to create amore effective campaign withads in Teen People and Seven-teen magazines (Green 2004).

• Ohio-based Stop Animal Ex-ploitation Now (SAEN) con-ducts detailed audits of theNational Institutes of Health(NIH) database to estimate

taxpayer funding of animalresearch. The group says thatin 2005 the U.S. governmentgave $12 billion in funding foranimal experimentation, anincrease of nearly $7 billionover ten years earlier. SAENuses the research data to helppersuade policy makers thatanimal experiments are waste-ful by combining them withdetails of duplicative researchprotocols from the NIH data-base (Budkie 2005).

These are just a few instanceswhere research-driven data havebeen instrumental in helping ani-mals. Effective information man-agement can also help animal advo-cates level the playing field withanimal-related industries and cor-porations, for which “data mining”(involving a detailed quantitativeanalysis about consumer traits,attitudes, and purchase behaviors)is all the rage. Advocates may nothave resources comparable to cor-porations’ to devote to informationmanagement, but in this area asmall investment can reap signifi-cant rewards. In most cases it isinexpensive (although perhapstime-consuming) to collect andanalyze all of the publicly availabledata on an issue. When animal ad-vocates need to collect primarydata because there is little or noexisting research, a host of inex-pensive and do-it-yourself researchmethods can often be used.

Knowing WhatAnimal AdvocatesNeed to Know The breadth of information that ispotentially useful to animal advo-cates is nearly overwhelming. Itincludes various types of animaldemographic and “usage” data,“public opinion” data, consumerbehavior research, economic data,and so on. Advocates need all ofthese data and more for the fullrange of animal protection issues,

including primarily companionanimals, farmed animals, research,and wild and exotic animals. Anysystem designed to manage theinformation must be comprehen-sive (or nearly so) regarding thetypes of data and animal issues cov-ered and organized in mutuallyexclusive categories.

Prioritization of the most neces-sary and practical information isessential. For some animal protec-tion issues, there are very few data(e.g., the number of actual vegetari-ans and their motives), and it is nec-essary to carefully pick and choosethe most strategic areas for con-ducting new research. For other ani-mal issues, advocates have access tosignificant information (e.g., demo-graphics of companion animal “own-ership”), in which case the prioritymay be to figure out where to beginanalyzing and interpreting the data.Once the initial framework is devel-oped (see the next section), an in-formation management system canhelp animal advocates understandand keep track of which data areknown (and which aren’t). In allcases animal advocates’ knowledgeis much improved by having a con-tinuous historical perspective, sodata collection must also be anongoing effort.

A ProposedFramework for Animal-Related DataInformation is a source of learning.Unless it is organized, processed,and available to the right people ina format for decision making, how-ever, it is a burden, not a benefit(Pollard 2000).

A framework for organizing in-formation of value to animal ad-vocates must be comprehensive,but it must also be as pragmaticand useful as possible. In thischapter, I recommend two generalbases for data classification: (1)

2 The State of the Animals IV: 2007

research categories and (2) datatypes; these are described in detailin the following sections. I alsobriefly discuss the most likelysources of information for eachdata type. The framework I sug-gest in this chapter is intention-ally oversimplified to meet thegoals of practicality and compre-hensiveness, but it has the poten-tial for significantly more detail.In the future the framework canbe defined in much more granularterms, including multiple subcate-gories for each research categoryand subtypes for each data type.See the next section for selectedhighlights by research categoryand data type (Table l).

Primary ResearchCategories Because the eventual goal is to beable to evaluate the position of(non-human) animals in (human)society, my primary basis for organ-izing information is the type ofrelationship between animal andhuman. Non-human animals are“used” by humans in countlessways, but most of these interac-tions fall within a few defined cate-gories: animals as companions, ani-mals as food and fiber (“farmedanimals”), animals used for re-search, and wild and exotic animalsused for entertainment and exhibi-tion purposes. Animals who do notclearly fit into one of these topicalareas can be classified as “otheranimals” for the sake of simplicity(examples are given below). Finally,a research category of significanceto all animal advocates is, ofcourse, information about them-selves and the impact that animaladvocacy is having on society’s atti-tudes and behavior toward animals.

Companion Animals For the purposes of this discussion,the term “companion animals” in-cludes any animal whose primary“purpose” for humans is deemed

to be companionship. In theUnited States, this research cat-egory primarily includes dogs andcats kept as pets simply becausethey represent the majority of suchindividuals in this country. How-ever, the category also includesother companion animals, such asbirds, horses, rabbits, turtles,snakes, etc. The basis for this cate-gory is companionship betweenanimal and human rather thanspecies, but, of course, this doesnot necessarily mean the relation-ship is a positive one for the ani-mal. Animals typically consideredcompanions who are abused, neg-lected, or otherwise not truly con-sidered “companions” by theirowners are still treated as such forcategorization purposes. However,some issues bridge this categoryand others, such as pets collectedby “Class B” dealers (so catego-rized by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, or USDA, in the fed-eral Animal Welfare Act as individ-uals who negotiate or arrange forthe purchase, sale, or transport ofanimals in commerce), who thensell them to research laboratories.

Farmed Animals The term “farmed animals” in-cludes any animal raised and/orkilled to produce food or fiber (e.g.,clothing) for humans. Animalsslaughtered for food in both indus-trial and small establishments com-prise the majority of animals in this

category, with chickens, in turn,making up the vast majority of ani-mals slaughtered. Fish (and crus-taceans), historically composed ofpredominantly wild animals caughtin oceans, lakes, and streams, arenow increasingly being farmed forfood as ocean fish are dwindling innumber. I also include fish caughtin the wild in this category becausethe purpose is food production, in-cluding wild fish who are used pri-marily to feed farmed fish. Wild fishare increasingly being caught andkilled using industrial fishing tech-niques (e.g., gillnets and driftnets).Farmed animals also include thosewho are kept in various degrees ofconfinement to produce items forhuman consumption, includinghens’ eggs and cows’ milk. Finally,this category also includes animalsfarmed for “fiber” or textile pur-poses, such as ranch-raised foxesand mink who are killed for theirfur coats, farmed sheep sheared fortheir wool, and cows used to pro-duce leather.

Research Animals The term “research animals” isused for brevity and is not meant todiminish the intrinsic value of ani-mals kept in laboratories and sub-jected to experiments. This cate-gory includes any animal used forexperimentation, involving medicalproducts or procedures, householdproducts, cosmetics, toxins andpoisons, for behavior response re-

3Animal Advocacy in the Age of Information

Table 1Primary Research Categories and Data Types

Research Categories Data Types

Companion animals Animal demographics and usage data

Farmed animals Attitudes/behavior about issues/advocates

Research animals Economic and financial support data

Wild and exotic animals Other data not classified elsewhere

Other animals and issues

Animal advocacy

search, and in the classroom for dis-section purposes. The majority ofresearch animals in the UnitedStates are mice, rats, birds, or pri-mates, but this category includes agreat diversity of species used forexperiments. Research animals,such as the beagle puppies used astest subjects (still fairly common)may sometimes overlap with othercategories. Beagles in the UnitedStates are common pets, but for ourpurposes they are cons ideredresearch animals. Similarly, ani-mals experimented on for spe-cific purposes, such as university-managed groups of farmed pigs,are also considered research ani-mals because that is primarily howthey are being used in this instance.

Wild and Exotic Animals “Wild and exotic animals” includethose who are used in circuses,rodeos, zoos, marine mammalparks, etc., as well as those who arehunted, trapped, or killed for“recreation” or as part of “resourcemanagement” policies. This cat-egory is unique in that some wildanimals, including many endan-gered and threatened species, donot interact directly with humansand, therefore, do not have a rela-tionship with them. However, theseanimals are clearly affected ad-versely by human activities throughhabitat loss and other circum-stances, and they continue to be ofsignificant concern to animal andenvironmental advocates. One ofthe more difficult classificationsusing this s imple frameworkinvolves exotic animals kept ascompanions. This chapter consid-ers these animals to be companionanimals despite the fact that inmost cases they are not domesti-cated. However, this classifica-tion—like all others presented inthis chapter—is open to debateamong those who are interestedin further developing the infor-mation framework.

Other Animals andAnimals in General“Other animals” i s s imply acatchall research category for ani-mal-human relationships that donot clearly fit into the more spe-cific research categories describedabove. For instance, horses used incircuses may be included in thiscategory because they wouldlikely not be considered “wild”or “exotic,” and they are typicallynot used for companionship as wellas performances. Opinion datareferring to all animals in general,such as “How important to you isthe humane treatment of ani-mals,” where the species or type ofrelationship is not mentioned,would be included here. Althoughthe vast majority of animal interac-tions with human beings can bedescribed by the previous cate-gories, an “other” category is nec-essary for the information frame-work to be comprehensive.

Animal Advocacy Often overlooked or deprioritizedamong animal advocates is re-search about the animal-advocacymovement, organizations, and indi-vidual advocates. This researchcategory includes any individualor group working for the protec-tion of animals, including thosefocused on single species of ani-mals or the most egregious formsof cruelty, as well as those elevatingthe status of all animals. It alsoincludes local companion animalshelters and rescue groups as wellas a growing number of animalsanctuaries for farmed animals andother species. Advocates oftendescribe themselves as the “voice”of animals in human society. Re-search data about the animal-advo-cacy movement help to understandhow strong that voice really is andhow well various target audienceshear it. If information about animaladvocacy is produced, shared, andused collaboratively among animaladvocates, it will create a strongfooting on which to build move-

ment-wide strategies that allow ad-vocates to leverage their collectiveimpact and measure their effective-ness.

Primary Data Types Organizing data according to the ani-mal-issue categories just described is an obvious starting point for ani-mal advocates, but they should alsoseek out and track different types ofdata. The informational framework Iprovide groups data into three broadcategories: (1) animal usage anddemographics; (2) attitudes andbehavior regarding issues and advo-cates; and (3) economic and finan-cial support data. Additionally, a trulycomprehensive understanding of theimpact of animal protection effortson the status of animals in humansociety requires pulling together datafrom very diverse sources, such asindustries, governments, academicinstitutions, and fellow advocates. Ingeneral, animal advocates need tobase their knowledge managementon the most reliable data currentlyavailable and develop new sources ofinformation whenever possible.

Animal Usage andDemographics Data Perhaps the most important nu-merical measure of the position ofanimals in society is the number ofanimals who suffer and are killedfor human purposes, what we call“usage data.” Usage data covers abroad range of different typesof information relating to the var-ious animal protection issues or re-search categories described previ-ously. For instance, companionanimal “usage” includes the num-bers of animals in homes as well asdogs born in puppy mills. Farmedanimal usage data include thenumber of cows slaughtered to pro-duce beef as well the number ofhens kept in constant confinementto produce eggs. Consistently col-lecting, tracking, and analyzinganimal usage data—for all animals


and over the long term—is anessential component of measuringthe animal protection movement’ssuccess. More examples of usagedata are provided later.

It is useful to have a moredetailed breakdown of which ani-mals are used, what methods areused to house and “process” them,and other data. For example,among companion animals it isimportant to know how many arefemales and how many have beenspayed or neutered. With thesenumbers one can better under-stand the breeding potential of ani-mals in homes (and shelters) andtheir contribution to companionanimal overpopulation. For farmedanimals it is important to knowhow many animals are housedusing different types of confine-ment systems, such as hens keptin “battery” cages, those in openbarns, and those housed outdoors.Ideally, it is also helpful to havedata organized by animal demo-graphic groupings, including spe-cies, age, gender, etc.

In general, animal usage data aremost accurately tracked by the ani-mal use industries, as well as na-tional and local governments, butthe data are often imperfect for ani-mal protection purposes. For in-stance, the most complete data cov-ering farmed animals slaughteredin the United States are provided byUSDA. USDA quantifies the num-ber of animals living on farms andslaughtered in department in-spected facilities, but the data areless than optimal for animal advo-cates. The quantity of farmed fishkilled annually is reported in totalpounds rather than in individuallives, to give just one example. Gov-ernment data such as those pro-vided by USDA may offer an excel-lent starting point because they arecomprehensive and consistent, butextra effort is often needed to pro-duce meaningful data for advocacypurposes. Some animal-advocacygroups do track and analyze thesedata (e.g., the Farm Animal Reform

Movement for farmed animalslaughter data), but currently thereis no comprehensive approach toinformation gathering across thebreadth of animal protection issues.Although precise data are not al-ways attainable, related or periph-eral information usually exists thatcan still be helpful in establishingbaselines and identifying overalltrends.

Consumer Behaviorsand Attitudes aboutIssues and AdvocatesThe primary objective for most ani-mal-advocacy campaigns and pro-grams is to effect some sort of be-havior change in the target audi-ence, such as encouraging peopleto neuter companion animals orbecome vegetarians. “Consumerbehaviors” include the full range ofactions, inactions, and reactions ofa target group or individual, but forcurrent purposes the term must bedefined broadly. In the UnitedStates, the vast majority of people“consume” animals in some way—either directly by owning, eating, orwearing them, or indirectly by pur-chasing products derived from ani-mals, tested on animals, etc. Othertypes of behaviors relevant to ani-mal advocacy may be less “consum-er” oriented, such as the votingpatterns of citizens and policymak-ers, the decisions of corporate ex-ecutives, and the tactics of fellowanimal advocates.

Because nearly all elements ofU.S. society “consume” animals insome way, it may be tempting foranimal advocates to think of theirtarget audience as the “generalpublic.” Data measuring the behav-ior of the public as a whole areimportant for long-term tracking ofthe animal protection movement’simpact on consumer choices. Froman advocacy standpoint, however,the ill-defined and amorphous“public” is not an actionable targetaudience (Bishop 2004). Behaviorresearch in support of effective ani-mal advocacy is therefore most

valuable when it relates to a spe-cific target audience, such as highschool students or state legislators.Only by narrowing or “segmenting”their target audience will animaladvocates be able to significantlyaffect and measure changes in con-sumer behavior. Despite the ubiq-uity of animal consumption in theUnited States and elsewhere, ani-mal advocacy will not be effectiveusing “mass marketing” tech-niques (those that involve trying tosell the same concept to all or mostof the population, typically throughmass media.)

It is also critically important foranimal advocates to accuratelymeasure and completely under-stand the attitudes and opinions ofthose whom they are trying tochange. Conducting attitudinalresearch is vital, because animaladvocates simply cannot trusttheir own attitudes or opinions asproxies of how the target audiencethinks and feels. Except in rare cir-cumstances, they are not the peo-ple they are trying to persuade toadopt new attitudes or behavior.Animal advocates can certainlylearn from their own experiencesand changes in attitudes towardanimals, but in general they repre-sent a very small group of “innova-tors” of these opinions. Innovators,according to the “diffusions of in-novation theory,” are the first 2.5percent of a population to adopta new concept or idea (Rogers1962). However, the interests andmotivations that persuade the restof the population to be more com-passionate toward animals may bevery different from those that per-suaded animal advocates as innova-tors. For this reason an increasingnumber of animal protectiongroups are conducting outsideopinion research to support theircampaigns and programs.

Reliable consumer behavior andopinion data are generally fairlysparse for most of the research cat-egories or issues described previ-ously, making this is an essential


area of research for animal advo-cates in the future. In the shortterm, some opinion and behaviordata are available for certain ani-mal issues from industry, academic,and some animal-advocacy sources.For instance, the American PetProducts Manufacturers Associa-tion (APPMA) produces the annualNational Pet Owners Survey, whichdetails the behavior of dog and cat“owners” (e.g., if they have spayedor neutered their animals) as wellas owners of other companion ani-mals. Academic journals with afocus on social science often pro-vide behavioral research that maybe directly applicable or analogousto social marketing challenges inanimal advocacy. However, there isgenerally very little attitude or be-havior research relative to the over-all importance of consumer behav-ior and its impact on animals.

Economic and FinancialSupport Data Similar to industry- and govern-ment-based animal usage data, thefinancial success and impact of var-ious companies and industries canbe an important measure for ani-mal advocates. In the UnitedStates, all publicly held companiesare required to file quarterly andannual financial reports with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Com-mission (SEC) that show theirfinancial health in a sometimesambiguous, but relatively consis-tent manner. This information maybe particularly useful when com-bined with a long-term corporatecampaign, for instance, to measurethe financial impact of boycottsand similar efforts, learn about parent-subsidiary corporate rela-tionships, and/or identify whichspecific units of a company are per-forming well or doing poorly. Thedata may also be combined withgovernment financial data (e.g.,the Agricultural Marketing Serviceagency of USDA) to consistentlytrack the overall financial health ofindustries that use animals.

It should be noted that, althoughone can learn much from industryand government economic data, sig-nificant expertise is typically re-quired to analyze and make sense ofthe data. With such expertise, how-ever, economic data can be put tovery effective use. Financial data canbe used proactively or reactively,such as to dismantle the economicarguments that industries use tooppose legislative or other limita-tions on their practices to improveanimal welfare. For example, somefarm industry trade groups allegethat millions of dollars would be lost if legislation were to be passedrequiring animal husbandry im-provements, but such claims areoften based on specious data. Eco-nomic data can be used to assess andcorrect these claims and to makeindependent claims about the poten-tial financial benefits of improvingconditions for animals. More exam-ples appear later in this chapter.

Equally important as measuringthe opposition’s financial healthand economic claims is trackingand analyzing public and privatefinancial support for the animalprotection movement. Knowing ifthese sources of funding are risingor falling over time is an importantindicator of support from the pub-lic and other areas. It is also neces-sary to understand the level of“working capital” available to theanimal protection movement, thegrowth of which is essential to ani-mal advocates’ success. In theUnited States, where capitalism isdominant and influence is oftenbought and sold at both the federaland state levels, animal advocatesare small fish, indeed. Knowingwhere financial support for animalprotection is coming from and howto increase that support requiresaccess to reliable data, somethingthat many larger organizationsalready do with their direct mailprograms. Sharing non-sensitivefinancial data among organizationscan also help animal advocates

begin to understand the move-ment’s economics at a macro level.

Other Data Types Animal advocates must acknowl-edge that the framework justdescribed is not exhaustive—al-though it strives to be as compre-hensive as possible—and that judg-ments are necessary for sometypes of information. For instance,academic research about the emo-tions and cognitive abilities of ani-mals can help make the case toconsumers, legislators, and othersthat animals are worthy of consid-eration. Such research does not fitcleanly into this framework,although it could be considered acomponent of or extension to ani-mal demographic and usage data.There are other exceptions as well.If this general framework is to beused to develop a common infor-mation management system forthe animal protection movement,the research categories and datatypes should be defined in signifi-cantly more detail. Any such sys-tem should be flexible enough toallow for new categories and datatypes to be added and modified asthe information evolves.

State of the Data:What We KnowOur knowledge is the amassedthought and experience of innu-merable minds.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

It would be impossible to cover allof the existing data that are rele-vant to animal advocates or that fitinto the informational frameworkdescribed previously. We cannot becertain that we are aware of allexisting research kept by individualorganizations, corporations, etc.Indeed, it is very likely that signifi-cantly more relevant researchexists, but the information may beinaccessible to the broader move-ment for any number of reasons.


That said, however, the assessmentof available data and examples pro-vided in this chapter stem from fiveyears of work, including data col-lection, organization, and analysisacross all of the research cate-gories and data types presented.The overall assessment of availableinformation by research categoryand many of the sources are basedin part on a review of approxi-mately three hundred references,including primarily consumer be-havior and opinion data (HumaneResearch Council [HRC] n.d.).

This experience and access toresearch data suggest that theinformation currently available toanimal advocates is at the sametime overwhelming and inade-quate. The data are overwhelmingin the sense that the amount ofraw or unanalyzed information isplentiful for many research topics.However, the information is oftenunreliable or outdated, and muchof it is impractical for animal-advocacy purposes. The availabilityof reliable and useful informationis therefore generally inadequatefor most research areas of interestto animal advocates. Of course, theamount of available data varies sig-nificantly by research category.There is a large amount of data for some research categories de-

scribed previously, while informa-tion is sparse or nonexistent forothers. Table 2 provides a roughassessment of the currently avail-able information organized accord-ing to the framework from the previous section.

Relative Availabilityand Quality of Databy Topic and TypeI’ll now take a closer look at evalu-ating the information available toanimal advocates for each of theresearch categories and data typesshown in Table 2. I cover a handfulof sources for each, and I shall tryto include those that I considerexemplary of the type of researchthat is most needed for effectiveanimal advocacy. My purpose is notto provide a “data dump,” butrather to demonstrate how some ofthe more reliable data currentlyavailable fit into the researchframework I have described. Thesources listed may serve as a usefulstarting point to locate furtherinformation by topic, and I providereferences and Internet links when-ever they are available.

Companion Animals Companion animals, as a topic ofresearch, have received more atten-tion than any of the other researchcategories included in this analysis.The historical focus of the animalprotection movement, particularlyat the local level, has been the careand well-being of companion ani-mals. On a national level, numer-ous organizations focus on com-panion animal issues such as petoverpopulation. At least one U.S.-based institution—the NationalCouncil on Pet Population Studyand Policy—focuses exclusively ondata collection for companion ani-mals. The council’s primary goal is“to serve as a national collectionpoint for gathering and evaluatingavailable pet population data andrelevant materials” (http://www.petpopulation.org, n.p.). These andother sources of information can beextremely valuable when develop-ing campaigns to protect compan-ion animals. However, althoughthere is more research on this issuethan for some other research cate-gories, crucial gaps remain in theavailable information. I examinemore closely these gaps and thetypes of data that are most neededfor more effective animal advocacy.

Demographic and Usage DataBasic demographic information forcompanion animals in households(e.g., number of pets in the UnitedStates, species or breed, etc.) isgenerally available from a variety ofsources. However, many of the bestsources of data are industry-based,and the research is motivated atleast in part by the desire to sellpet-related products. The datafrom these studies are typicallyrestricted (or available only at asignificant cost), and in manycases they are too general for advo-cacy purposes. More specific usagedata, such as the population anddemographics of shelter animals,are less available. Nonetheless, ani-mal advocates should make every


Table 2Relative Availability and Quality of Data by Topic and Type

Animal Attitude and Financial Demographics Consumer and Economic

and Usage Data Behavior Data Data

Companion animals § | §

Farmed animals § ¢ §

Research animals ¢ § §

Wild and exotic animals ¢ § ¢

Animal advocacy ¢ ¢ §

Symbols: | = Significant data available

§ = Moderate data available

¢ = Little or no data available

effort to analyze all available re-search and to generate newresearch where necessary in sup-port of campaign and programdevelopment. Below are threegood examples of companion ani-mal demographic and usage re-search currently available.

• U.S. Pet Ownership and Demo-graphics Sourcebook (Ameri-can Veterinary Medical Associa-tion [AVMA] 2002). This studyfocused on veterinary issues,based on a survey of fifty-fourthousand U.S. households, isdescribed by the AVMA as “thelargest, most statistically accu-rate and complete survey of thepet owning public and pet pop-ulation demographics.”

• “Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquished Animals andTheir Owners Compared withAnimals and Their Owners inU.S. Pet-Owning Households,”by John C. New, Jr. (2000). Thisin-depth study included inter-views with people who relin-quished animals at twelve shel-ters in four U.S. regions and anational survey; it found thatpeople relinquishing animals toshelters were more likely to bemen and under age thirty-five.

• The Shelter Statistics Survey1994–1997 (National Councilon Pet Population Study and Pol-icy 2004–2006). This survey ofabout a thousand shelters andsheltering organizations pro-vides detailed “usage” dataregarding the sources and typesof “surplus” companion animalsin U.S. shelters, although thedata may be too outdated toreflect current informationabout companion animal usage.

Attitudes and ConsumerBehavior DataAttitudinal and consumer behaviordata relating to companion ani-mals are more complex and multi-faceted than are basic demo-graphic and usage data. Althougha reasonable amount of research is

available, the findings are often toogeneral (i.e., “public opinion”) orotherwise insufficient for compan-ion animal advocates. Similar todemographic data, many of thebest sources of companion animalattitudinal and behavior researchare industry-based. However, anincreasing number of animal pro-tection groups are exploring theseissues through surveys, interviews,focus groups, etc., and some third-party researchers occasionally re-lease useful data into the publicdomain. Below are a few examples.

• State of the American Pet(Purina Corporation 2001).Survey of U.S. dog and catowners “to determine theirknowledge, attitudes and be-haviors regarding pet healthissues.” Strong emphasis onspecific health matters, butthe results also include somedemographic data on compan-ion animals and their owners.

• Cat Owner Study (The Hu-mane Society of the UnitedStates 2001a). Explores behav-ioral differences between own-ers who keep cats indoors andthose who keep them out-doors, including motivationsfor and barriers to persuadingowners to keep cats indoors.

• The Gallup Poll (Gallup Organi-zation 1990). Available from theRoper Center’s iPoll database.Comprehensive (but outdated)study that identifies owners’ rea-sons for having companion ani-mals, the sources from whichthey obtained them, including“a pet shop, a professionalbreeder, an animal shelter, (and)was he/she a stray that justappeared,” and also covering awide range of related behavior.

Financial and Economic DataCompanion animal advocates ingeneral may be less interested inthe financial and economic driversof pet “usage,” but for some pro-grams and campaigns, the data are

essential. For instance, trend dataregarding the sales and profits of“puppy mills” can help advocatesunderstand the impact of theirefforts against such operations andin favor of adopting rescued ani-mals. Other industry-based finan-cial data are also potentially helpfulto advocates, such as the sales (inunits or dollars or both) of chokecollars for dogs. Perhaps moreimportant to advocates is researchabout trends and sources of finan-cial support for companion animalprograms, including donations tononprofit groups for that purpose.Although this information existswithin many individual organiza-tions for their own programs anddonor bases, there are very fewsources of research covering theeconomics of companion animaladvocacy in general. Here are a fewexamples of financial research forcompanion animal issues.

• National Pet Owners Survey(American Pet Products Manu-facturers Association 2005–2006). This biannual surveyfrom the pet products industrydetails the purchase habits,sources of ownership, and“lifestyle and media habits” ofpet owners. Although finan-cially focused, the study is alsoa fairly reliable source for com-panion animal and owner dem-ographic data.

• Publ ic Funding for Spay/Neuter (St. Arnaud n.d.).Although not a data-drivenstudy, this document describespublic funding for spay/neuterprograms and includes finan-cial details of several modelprograms located throughoutthe United States. It also pro-vides one specific example ofan analysis of companion ani-mal-related information froma financial perspective.

• “An Interactive Model of Hu-man and Companion AnimalDynamics: The Ecology andEconomics of Dog Overpopula-tion and the Human Cost of


Addressing the Problem.” Thistechnical paper provides amodel to understand the dy-namics of dog overpopulationand various efforts to reduceeuthanasia of dogs in shelters.The economic analysis foundthat “a ‘no-kill’ society is anachievable goal at an accept-able human cost” (Frank2004, n.p.).

Farmed Animals The data available for farmed ani-mals are relatively limited com-pared to those available for com-panion animals, in part becausefarmed animals are a more recentfocus for the animal protectionmovement. The availability of datadiffers by specific topic, however,such as animals who are raised fortheir fur versus those who areraised for food. In the UnitedStates, animals farmed for foodaccount for roughly 98 percent ofthe animals “consumed” eachyear; the availability of reliabledata, however, is inadequate rela-tive to the importance of the issue.This is particularly true for attitu-dinal and consumer behavior re-search about farmed animals (andrelated issues like vegetarianismand veganism), although a signifi-cant number of farmed animal“usage” data are available from theU.S. government. Some research isalso available from farming-relatedindustries and their trade associa-tions, but these groups, like manyothers that use animals for profit,appear to be increasingly protect-ing information for fear that it maybe used against them by animaladvocates, the media, etc.

Demographic and Usage DataUSDA and its various researchagencies are the primary source offarmed animal usage data becausethey require information fromcompanies under their purview,which includes most animal farm-ing and related businesses in the

United States. However, becauseUSDA is primarily charged withconducting food safety inspectionsand helping farmers market theirproducts, the data may be less use-ful to animal advocates. Forinstance, although USDA accu-rately and consistently tracksfarmed animal usage and slaughterdata, details about the demograph-ics, living conditions, and welfareof farmed animals are much lesscommon. In other cases govern-ment reports euphemize the treat-ment and killing of animals, usingterms like “disposition” that maybe confusing for advocates. Someusage data for farmed animals areavailable from the farming indus-tries themselves, but typically theinformation is less detailed thanare government data. Below are afew examples of available usagedata covering farmed animals.

• NASS Publications and Data-bases, USDA/National Agricul-tural Statistics Service (NASS).NASS is the USDA agency pri-marily responsible for collectingand publishing farmed animaldata and statistics. Usage andslaughter data are typicallyavailable by month, year, etc.,and for most U.S. states. Insome cases the data are raw orpresented in a less useful formatfor animal advocates, such asslaughter data for farmed fish,which are provided in pounds.http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/index.asp.

• FAOSTAT and ProdSTAT Data-bases, United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization(FAO). The FAO provides acomprehensive database simi-lar to NASS, but for all coun-tries in the world; however, notall countries report all farmedanimal data every year or in aconsistent manner. The FAOdatabases are still an excellentresource for internationalfarmed animal campaigns.http://faostat.fao.org/site/568/default.aspx.

• Animal Death Statistics Re-port (FARM 2004). The U.S.-based farmed animal advocacygroup FARM periodically ana-lyzes and publishes data fromNASS. The 2004 report ,which covers data for all “land-based” animals, is one of themost comprehensive resourcesavailable from an animal advo-cacy source.

• Commercial Slaughter Statis-tics (Compassion over Killing[COK] 2005). Similar to theFARM report described above,COK regularly summarizes the“commercial slaughter” of allland-based farmed animals inthe United States, most recentlyin 2005. COK also providesdirect links to USDA source doc-uments for “livestock” and poul-try slaughter statistics.

Attitudes and ConsumerBehavior DataUnlike usage data, informationabout people’s attitudes towardfarmed animals and related con-sumer behaviors, such as vegetari-anism and meat reduction, is actu-ally quite sparse. However, agrowing focus among animal advo-cates on farmed animals andincreasing concern about farmedanimal welfare among consumers iscreating more interest in such re-search. Attitudinal and behavioraldata are typically not available fromanimal use industries, given thepotentially sensitive nature of suchresearch regarding their practicesand image in general. However,good sources of such informationmay include academic researchstudies, third-party research organi-zations, and, occasionally, data fromgovernment agencies. Anothergood source of attitude and behav-ior data may be other animal advo-cates who have conducted their ownresearch on farmed animals and arewilling to share the information.Here are a few examples of gooddata and other resources covering


attitudes and behaviors relating tofarmed animals.

• Farm Animal Welfare Con-cerns: Consumers, Retailersand Producers, Welfare QualityProject (European Union [EU]2005). The Welfare Qualityresearch does not include theUnited States, but it does rep-resent one of the most com-prehensive analyses of atti-tudes toward farmed animalsever conducted. The researchcovers detailed opinions fromconsumers, retailers, and pro-ducers about each species offarmed animal, for each EUcountry and in aggregate.

• “Pennsylvanian Voters SupportEffort to Outlaw ‘Foie Gras,’”Farm Sanctuary (2006). Thismedia release includes resultsfrom a survey of likely voters inPennsylvania gauging attitudestoward a possible ban on thesale of foie gras (the livers offorce-fed ducks and geese),that found that 80 percentof the state’s voters agreedwith such a ban. http://www.farmsanctuary.org/media/pr_Pa_FG.htm.

• Vegetarianism in the UnitedStates (HRC 2005). This reportprovides a meta-analysis of pub-licly available quantitative dataestimating the number of adultmeat reducers, semivegetarians,vegetarians, and vegans in theUnited States; it also includesnew findings from a nationalHRC study conducted in 2005.The report is available to ani-mal and vegetarian advocates by request.

• Knowledge of and Attitudes to-ward Factory Farmed Animals(The Humane Society of theUnited States 1999). This qual-itative study explored aware-ness of and attitudes towardfactory farms, the humanetreatment of farmed animals,and related issues among U.S.residents ages 25–55. Althoughthe report is somewhat out-

dated, the qualitative informa-tion may still be useful for fac-tory farming campaigns.

Financial and Economic DataThe primary sources of financial andeconomic data regarding farmedanimals are essentially the same asthe sources of usage data—govern-ment agencies and, occasionally,advocates or animal-farming indus-tries. Economic information cover-ing overall farmed animal industriesis typically unavailable (or veryexpensive), although financial datafor publicly owned companies areavailable through the SEC. Beloware several examples of research cov-ering farmed animal economic andfinancial data.

• ERS Publications and Databases(USDA/Economic Research Ser-vice [ERS] n.d.). ERS is theUSDA agency primarily responsi-ble for collecting and publishingeconomic and trade researchabout farmed animals. The datainclude industry- and “commod-ity-” level economic informationfor domestic U.S. markets andinternational farmed animaltrade partners.

• 2006 Annual Financial Report(Tyson Foods, Inc. 2006).Tyson Foods, a publicly held(New York Stock Exchange sym-bol: TSN) U.S. company, is thelargest farmed animal slaugh-terer in the world; detailedannual and quarterly financialreports are available from theSEC.

• Feeding the Factory Farm:Implicit Subsidies to the Broil-er Chicken Industry (GlobalDevelopment and EnvironmentInstitute, Tufts University2006). This research paper pro-vides an in-depth analysis ofgovernment financial data re-lating to farmed animal opera-tions, in this case implicit sub-sidies paid to companies thatbreed and slaughter “broiler”chickens.

• AMS Publications (USDA/Agri-cultural Marketing Service[AMS] n.d.). AMS is the USDAagency primarily responsiblefor carrying out domestic andinternational research and pro-motional efforts for U.S. agri-cultural producers, includinganimal farmers. AMS providesdata by “commodity,” includ-ing separate categories fordairy, poultry, and “livestock.”

Research Animals For several reasons there is signifi-cantly less information availableabout animals used for research andexperimentation than there is formost other research categories.Using animals for medical, cosmet-ics, and household product researchis a primarily institutional activityconducted by governments, univer-sities, and company laboratories.However, because U.S. laws regulat-ing animal research do not covermice, rats, and birds (the vastmajority of research subjects),detailed usage data are typically notavailable for most of the animalswho fall within this category.Because animal research is notdirectly a consumer issue (althoughit is indirectly; for instance, buyingbehaviors relating to “cruelty-free”products), the industry that drivesit is generally less interested in theattitudes of consumers or in sharingits opinion research publicly. Someexceptions include data from ani-mal protection and/or biomedicaltrade groups and, occasionally,third-party research organizations.

Demographic and Usage DataBecause the U.S. government regu-lates the use of research animalsand is a primary source of fundingfor animal research, it is also theprimary source of related informa-tion. However, government sourcesdo not represent all animal re-search occurring in the UnitedStates, and they are often limitedin the amount of detail they pro-


vide. As a result reliable data re-garding the number of animalsused for experimentation in theUnited States are very limited, andbasic information, such as age,gender, and species of researchanimals, is generally unavailable.Detailed information about thenumber of animals currently keptin laboratories, how long they havebeen there, and the specific proto-cols to which they are subjected isalso quite rare except when gov-ernment reporting requires disclo-sure. Below are a few examples ofthe available research.

• Computer Retrieval of Infor-mation on Scientific Projects(CRISP), National Institutes ofHealth (NIH). http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/. Updated weekly,CRISP is a “searchable databaseof federally funded biomedicalresearch projects conducted at universities, hospitals, andother research institutions.” Itincludes research animal usagedata and government grantinformation for all researchprojects funded by CRISP.

• Research Animal Publications,USDA/Animal Welfare Infor-mation Center (AWIC). (http://awic .na l .usda . gov/na l _d i s p l a y / i n d e x . p h p ? i n f ocenter=3&tax_level=1&tax_subject=169). AWIC is theUSDA agency pr imari lyr e sponsible for publishingwelfare-related information foranimals who are covered underthe Animal Welfare Act. The dataavailable are very limited, how-ever, and most animals used forresearch (including rats, mice,and birds) are not covered.

• 2002 Animals Used in Research(Stop Animal Exploitation Now2002). This collection of statis-tics includes data from USDAfor all major species of researchanimals covered under the Ani-mal Welfare Act (excluding themajority of research animals:mice, rats, and birds).

Attitudes and ConsumerBehavior DataUnlike basic usage and demo-graphic information, researchabout public attitudes toward theuse of animals in research is avail-able, although much of it is gen-eral and/or outdated. In theUnited States, animal research wasa subject of significant controversy,hence the greater media and pub-lic attention in the 1980s and intothe 1990s. The result is a fairly sig-nificant number of attitudinal dataavailable from mostly academicand other relatively neutral third-party sources. However, the dataare often too general (e.g., “pub-lic” attitudes) to be of much prac-tical value for animal advocates.Below are just a few examples ofthe publicly available attitudinaldata for this research category.

• Public Attitudes toward AnimalResearch: Some InternationalComparisons (Chicago Acad-emy of Sciences 1994) coversbasic attitudes toward animalresearch from residents in fif-teen countries and includesdifferences by nationality, gen-der, and general scientificknowledge or literacy.

• Identifying Attitudes Related toAnimal Testing in the UnitedStates (Coalition for Con-sumer Information on Cosmet-ics 1996). This somewhat out-d a t e d s t u d y o f a b o u t athousand U.S. adults com-pares attitudes and likely pur-chase behavior for cosmeticand household products testedon or sourced from animalswith products not tested onanimals. http://www.leapingbunny.org/pollresults.htm.

• Personality Differences betweenPro- and Anti-Vivisectionists(Broida et al. 1993). This olderstudy examined attitudinal dif-ferences between pro- andanti-vivisectionists using stan-dard personality tests and aseparate survey of opinionsabout animal research. Broida

et al. were able to describe sev-eral correlations, includingthat supporters of animalresearch are “more likely to bemale, masculine, conservative,and less empathic than thoseopposed to it” (Broida et al.1993, 129–144).

• General Social Survey (GSS),National Opinion ResearchCouncil (NORC), multiple sur-vey waves since 1972. The GSSis described as being secondonly to the U.S. census regard-ing social and attitudinal infor-mation about U.S. residents. Twopast waves of the survey (1993and 1994) asked about attitudestoward animal research, but atti-tudes toward other issues arenot addressed, and the infor-mation may be less valuablewith the passage of time.http://www.norc.org/projects/gensoc1.asp.

Financial and Economic DataAs with farmed animal data, thesources of financial and economicinformation for research animalsare primarily government agenciesand advocates as well as academicgroups. In general, however, eco-nomic data about the use ofresearch animals are very limitedexcept for disclosures of the use ofpublic funds, such as through theNIH CRISP system mentioned ear-lier. Financial data are available forpublicly owned companies involvedin animal research, but rarely issuch research the company’s solebusiness, so relevant data may bedifficult to sort out. Below are ex-amples of research covering eco-nomic and financial data relatingto animal research.

• Extramural Data and AwardTrends, National Institutes ofHealth (updated regularly).This resource provides detailedfederal grant award data, in-cluding current and long-termtrends for average grant size,sources of funding, and type of


grant. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/.

• An Audit of the 2005 NationalInstitutes of Health Funding ofAnimal Experimentation (Bud-kie 2005). This report providesa detailed assessment of datafrom the NIH CRISP data-base to estimate taxpayerfunding of animal researchand demonstrate that signifi-cant money goes to fundingduplicative research. http://www.allcreatures.org/saen/articles-rep-anex2006.html.

• 2006 Annual Financial Report(Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. 2006).Charles River, a publicly held(New York Stock Exchangesymbol: CRL) U.S. companybased in Boston, is one of thelargest breeders of laboratoryanimals in the world. http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&ipage=4029521.

Wild and Exotic Animals This category includes animalswho are hunted, trapped, used incircuses and rodeos, exhibited inzoos, etc., as well as animals in thewild who may not interact directlywith people but are affected byhuman activities. The research cov-ering wild and exotic animals comefrom a range of diverse sources,but the information available isfairly limited. There is a sizablebody of academic research cover-ing wildlife science, but the kind ofusage, attitudinal, and economicdata discussed here are relativelyhard to find for wild animals andthose exhibited for “entertain-ment” purposes.

Demographic and Usage DataReliable demographic and usagedata for wildlife in general are essen-tially nonexistent except in caseswhere species are threatened or areapproaching extinction or where spe-cific issues have been researched.

Although there is currently no singlesource of accurate estimates of ani-mals living in the wild, or on the dis-appearance of wildlife due to humanactivities, there are some govern-ment and academic sources coveringendangered species. For wild orexotic animals kept captive in zoos,aquariums, circuses, rodeos, andsimilar facilities or exhibits, few dataare generally available. USDA is theregulatory entity charged with en-forcing laws to protect animals incaptivity and on exhibit, along withself-regulation by those involved inspecialized trade associations. How-ever, none of these sources providesdetailed or comprehensive informa-tion about the number of animalskept in zoos, circuses, etc. Below area few of the available sources of wildand exotic animal “usage” research.

• U.S. Trapping Statistics, Ani-mal Protection Institute (API)(data are from 1986–2003).API contacted U.S. statewildlife agencies and collecteddata about the numberso f w i l d an ima l s who a retrapped in each state, thencombined those findings toestimate the overall numberof animals trapped in theUnited States, by species.http://www.bancrueltraps.com/b3_stats.php.

• Threatened and EndangeredAnimals Species System(TESS), U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) (updated annu-ally). The TESS database tracksthe number of animal speciescurrently listed by the U.S. gov-ernment as threatened orendangered, but it does notinclude specific estimates forany wild animal populations.http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Boxscore.do.

• Number of Specimens in AZAAccredited Institutions (Ameri-can Zoo and Aquarium Associa-tion 2005). The primary indus-try trade organization for majorU.S.-based zoos and aquariumsconducts an annual member-

ship survey to estimate thenumber of animals who areheld captive in AZA-accreditedfacilities. However, this andmost other sources do notcover the many nonaccredited“roadside zoos” and similar ani-mal exhibits in the UnitedStates. http://www.aza.org/Newsroom/CurrentStatistics/.

• International Species Informa-tion System (ISIS) (2006).ISIS is an international non-profit project whose primarygoal is creating software totrack and share demographicdata for animals kept in zoosand aquariums worldwide.According to its website, “TheISIS central database containsinformation on 2 million ani-mals held in zoological institu-tions, and some animals in thewild.” https://app.isis.org/abstracts/abs.asp.

Attitudes and ConsumerBehavior DataThe availability of attitudinal andbehavioral research about wild andexotic animals is highly dependenton the specific topic of interest.There is a moderate amount of re-search conducted about attitudestoward wildlife in general and inspecific situations (e.g., “manage-ment” of Alaskan wolf populations),mostly from academic sources. Pub-lic opinion polls commissioned byanimal protection groups or third-party research organizations occa-sionally address attitudes about theuse of animals in zoos and circuses,but these studies are rare. Behav-ioral data such as details about thenumber and types of people attend-ing zoos and circuses, and howthose behaviors have changed overtime are not generally available.Below are examples of publicly avail-able attitudinal data on wild andexotic animals.

• Natural Resources and OutdoorRecreation Research, ResponsiveManagement, Inc. (RMI). RMI isa U.S. company that works


mostly with federal agencies,state departments, trade groups,and corporations involved inactivities such as hunting, fish-ing, and trapping, as well as out-door recreational activities. RMIprovides a wealth of researchdata on its website; however, onlysome of the data are released,often painting a picture of publicopinion or behavior that is ofinterest to RMI’s clients. http://responsivemanagement.com/.

• Roadside Wildlife Study (TheHumane Society of the UnitedStates 2001b). This study eval-uates the perceived impor-tance of highway-relatedwildl i fe mortal ity amonglicensed drivers, including pos-sible ways to influence drivers’behaviors to protect wildlifefrom vehicle collisions.

• Attitudes and Values of WildlifeUser Groups (Cornell Univer-sity, Human Dimensions Re-search Unit, Department ofNatural Resources). The Cor-nell University’s Departmentof Natural Resources currentlymakes available more thanfifty mostly academic studieson wildlife-related issues dat-ing back to 1978; most areavailable for free or for thecost of printing. http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/pubs/wildattp.htm.

• Attitudes, Knowledge, and Be-haviors toward Wildlife asAffected by Gender (Kellertand Berry 1978). This veryoutdated study covers the dif-ferences between female andmale attitudes about, knowl-edge of, and behavior towardwildlife, including activitiessuch as hunting and fishing.http://www.wildl i fe.org/publications/index.cfm?tname=bulletin.

Financial and Economic DataGiven the lack of demographic andusage data for wild and exotic ani-

mals described previously, it standsto reason that financial and eco-nomic data for wildlife are similarlylimited. This is attributable in partto the fact that wildlife-relatedindustries are small compared tomost other animal use industries.There is less publicly availableinformation about their activities.The same is true of animals used incircuses, rodeos, and other ex-hibits, in part because these nicheindustries are already under signif-icant scrutiny from animal advo-cates. Zoos and aquariums may bean exception, however, becausethey are often managed by or inpartnership with local municipali-ties, an arrangement that in manycases involves more stringent fi-nancial reporting requirements.Below are a few related examples.

• Evaluating the Economic Im-pact of a Dove Season in Michi-gan (Garlit and Fearing 2006).This report rebuts argumentsthat reinstating the mourningdove hunting season in Michi-gan would be a boon to thelocal economy, concluding in-stead that the new season maynegatively affect state revenuedue to increased managementcosts and decreased incomefrom non-hunting outdooractivities. http://www.stopshootingdoves.org/files/MI_Mourning_Dove_Econ_Paper_062006.pdf.

• “Single-Species versus Multiple-Species Models: The EconomicImplications” (Fleming andAlexander 2003). This fairlytechnical journal article expandson the traditionally used single-species model of conservationaleconomics to consider multiplespecies and, in doing so, showsthat the single-species modelundervalues the economic im-plications of other species for anoverall ecosystem.

• “Ex Post Economic Analysis ofReproduction-Monitoring andPredator-Removal VariablesAssociated with Protection of

the Endangered CaliforniaLeast Tern” (Shwiff et al.2005). This provides a detailedanalysis of the effects ofchanges in public funding forthe protection of the endan-gered California least tern.The article shows that in-creased public funding doeshave a significant impact, withgreater effects from reproduc-tion monitoring than “preda-tor control.” http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/05pubs/shwiff051.pdf.

Animal Advocacy Having a separate research cate-gory for “animal advocacy” under-scores the importance for advo-cates to evaluate data about theirown actions and effectiveness, notjust data about the animals theyare trying to protect. The effective-ness of the animal protectionmovement can be measured incountless ways, and there is nodoubt some disagreement aboutthe relative importance of differentmetrics such as generating aware-ness versus changing behaviors.However, most animal advocatesagree that they generally needmore information to better evalu-ate their efforts and understandthe impact they are having on thestatus of animals in society. Adiversity of data about animaladvocacy is potentially useful tothe advocates themselves, includ-ing “usage” data (e.g., total mem-bership numbers), attitudinal data(e.g., respect for advocates), be-havior data (e.g., total volunteerhours), and financial data (e.g.,total donations over time). Moreexamples follow.

Demographic and Usage DataMy application of “demographic andusage data” throughout this chapterdoes not easily translate to animaladvocacy as a research topic. How-ever, information about civic en-gagement or membership in animal


protection organizations and aboutanimal advocates in general may beconsidered a part of this category.Such information is not generallyavailable, but potentially useful datainclude estimates of the total num-ber of animal advocates in theUnited States and a detailed break-down of advocates’ demographics(e.g., age, gender, education level,income, etc.). It behooves animaladvocates to understand thebreadth and depth of their ownranks and to evaluate their “recruit-ment” efforts over time. Below are afew examples of such research, butthe lack of recent and actionabledata in general indicates just howlittle research has been conductedon this topic.

• “Caring about Blood, Flesh,and Pain: Women’s Standing inthe Animal Protection Move-ment” (Munro 2001). Thisarticle includes a review of pre-vious surveys of animal advo-cates to identify differences bygender and to describe any di-vergence or convergence ofthe relationship between gen-der and likelihood of being ananimal advocate.

• Civic Involvement Survey,American Association of RetiredPersons (AARP) (1996). Thissomewhat outdated AARPstudy included a single ques-tion about respondents’ self-reported membership in “envi-ronmental or animal pro-tection groups,” with 13 per-cent replying “yes.” The sam-ple included fifteen hundredrespondents divided evenlybetween those over age fiftyand those under age fifty.http://www.ropercenter.ucon.edu/ipoll.html.

• Membership of U.S. Adults inAnimal and Environmental Or-ganizations (Kellert and Berry1981) (data are from 1976).This study is outdated but pro-vides an overview of member-ship in animal protection

organizations from severalstudies before 1976.

Attitudes and ConsumerBehavior DataThe attitudes and behavior thatare relevant to animal advocacyinclude the opinions and actionsof advocates themselves as well asthe attitudes and actions of targetaudiences toward such advocates.Research describing the opinionsof animal advocates is fairly un-common, partly because it is diffi-cult to obtain a representativesample of such a small group ofpeople spread throughout theUnited States. However, there isan increasing focus among ani-mal-advocacy groups and otherson the “public opinion” of the ani-mal protection movement, includ-ing feelings about specific tacticsand the overall respect for orcredibility of advocates. Researchcan also provide useful data aboutthe level of general interest in vol-unteering for animal protectionorganizations, or an estimate ofthe actual number of hours volun-teered over a given period. Beloware several examples of relevantsources of attitudinal and behav-ioral data.

• Humanitarian Youth CultureStudy (Label Networks 2006).This recent study of U.S.youths ages 13–24 askedabout their interest in volun-teering for national nonprofitorganizations, including Peo-ple for the Ethical Treatmentof Animals (found to be thenumber one choice amongyouths of all U.S. nonprofitorganizations) and “the hu-mane society” as possibleanswers. http://69.93.14.237/humanitarian-study-2006.cfm.

• The Kindness Index (BestFriends Animal Society 2006).The Best Friends annual surveyis primarily a measure of atti-tudes toward animal-relatedpolicies among U.S. voters butalso includes several direct

questions about attitudestoward the animal protectionmovement and efforts to pre-vent harm and cruelty towardanimals. http://network.bestf r i ends .org/Campaigns/BFDay/KindnessIndex.aspx.

• The Gallup Poll (Gallup Orga-nization 2000). Availablefrom the Roper Center’s iPolldatabase, the Gallup Polloccasionally includes animal-related questions; in this casethe poll asked about respon-dents’ support for the goals ofvarious social justice move-ments, including the “animalrights movement.” Sev-enty-two percent said theyagreed with its goals, and 25percent said they disagreed.

• Attitudes and DispositionalOptimism of Animal RightsDemonstrators (Galvin andHerzog 1998). This small-scaleand slightly outdated studymeasured the attitudes ofactivists attending the 1996march for the animals in Wash-ington, D.C., including theiropinions about the goals of theanimal rights movement and“optimism” about achievingthose goals. http://psyeta.org/sa/sa6.1/GALVIN.html.

Financial and Economic DataFinancial data of relevance to ani-mal advocates include donationsand other monetary gifts to animalprotection groups, which providethe working capital for the animalprotection movement. Such dataare generally available for majorU.S. nonprofit organizations due tothe federal government’s require-ments for financial disclosure.However, in-depth analyses of theexisting data have been relativelyinfrequent, and in general there islittle sense of the long-term trendsin donations and other forms ofcontributions to animal protectionefforts. Other relevant data includethe funding available to organiza-


tions established to oppose animalprotection efforts, such as themany industry trade groups thatwork to discredit animal advo-cates. Below are two examples offinancial data of relevance to ani-mal advocacy.

• Distribution of FoundationGrants by Subject Categories(Foundation Center n.d.). Mul-tiple years available. The Foun-dation Center regularly studiesU.S. giving patterns and offerssummaries of research resultsonline, including a breakout of“animals and wildlife.” Animaladvocates may be most inter-ested in the Foundation GivingTrends report (see the “GainKnowledge/Research Studies”section) or the general grantsstatistic page.

• Giving and Volunteering in theUnited States 2001 (Inde-pendent Sector 2001). Thisreport provides a comprehen-sive review of donations andvolunteerism in the UnitedStates, but the free summaryavailable online includes onlygeneralized data and does notbreak out animal protectionas a separate category.

Research RoadMap: What WeNeed to KnowTo know, is to know that you knownothing. That is the meaning of trueknowledge.

—Confucius

Most of the data available aboutanimal protection issues are pro-duced by nonadvocacy sources,typically industries, governments,and academic institutions. How-ever, a growing number of animal-advocacy groups are collecting andusing their own data through bothprimary research and in-depthanalysis of secondary data. Much ofthe research conducted by animal

advocates is considered sensitiveor proprietary, as one might expectgiven that it typically focuses onthe activities or programs of a sin-gle organization. Although thattrend will likely continue, a hand-ful of collaborative research pro-jects in their early stages may serveas possible models for sharing in-formation. For now, however, thereis no movement-wide researchstrategy, and developing a “roadmap” for all animal-advocacy re-search is essentially a new concept.Developing such a road map forthe entire movement is perhaps anoverly ambitious goal, but here Itake some early steps by makingrecommendations about the typesof information that individualgroups and the movement in gen-eral should prioritize.

The needs of independent ani-mal protection groups are differentfrom those of the overall move-ment, and the research recommen-dations for each are unique as well.Below I offer several general guide-lines that may be helpful to individ-ual animal-advocacy projects whileacknowledging that research prior-ities are unique for each situation.I also provide suggestions formovement-wide research prioritiesand recommendations for increas-ing collaboration among animaladvocates and democratizingaccess to important information.Most important, when choosingresearch (and campaign) priori-ties, animal advocates need tomaintain focus on the bottom line,which is changing behavior andattitudes to benefit animals. In allcases, data collection should be insupport of this goal, includingidentifying where it is possible tocreate such change and how to goabout doing so most effectively.Animal advocates are best servedby recognizing the importance ofaccurate and reliable informationwhen planning and executing theircampaigns. But I do acknowledgethat advocates must also chooseresearch priorities judiciously by

investing in information thatdirectly supports the most impor-tant campaign decisions.

ResearchPriorities forOrganizations The most valuable data for animaladvocates generally involve infor-mation that supports specific deci-sions about particular issues orcampaigns. Similarly, most of theresearch conducted for advocacypurposes will be for specific organ-izations and/or oriented aroundparticular campaigns or programs.The suggested “research roadmap” discussed in this section willbe different for every individualanimal protection organization,because every group has uniquecampaigns and, therefore, uniqueinformational requirements. It isimpossible to define the researchpriorities of individual groups with-out a lengthy and involved process,and I will not attempt to do sohere. However, the following fivegeneral principles may provideguidance to animal advocatesregarding how to use research andinformation management mosteffectively for their individual cam-paigns and programs. 1. Include research early in the

planning process.Whether an organization’s cam-paign planning process is formalor informal, it is important toconsider research priorities asearly as possible. Research isalmost always recommended asthe first stage of any major plan-ning process, including the initialstage, to decide which campaignswarrant major investment. Forinstance, a community-basedspay/neuter program shouldmake every effort to collectintake and adoption data fromlocal shelters before beginningits program so that it can beginto understand the data’s impactversus the baseline. Similarly, a


program designed to increasevegetarianism among college stu-dents should begin by seekingout all available informationabout how many students arecurrently vegetarian, how manyare interested in vegetarianism,etc. Effective campaign planningand evaluation are driven byaccess to reliable information,and animal-advocacy organiza-tions should consider their re-search needs as a first step in theplanning process.

2. Identify and set clear researchneeds and objectives.When incorporating their infor-mational needs into campaignand program planning, animaladvocates must set very clearresearch objectives to help dis-tinguish between needs anddesires. For the curious advo-cate, there is no shortage ofpotentially interesting researchquestions for every animal pro-tection issue and research cate-gory discussed here. But not allof this information is relevant tothe decisions that are critical tothe campaign’s success, and thechallenge is to identify and pri-oritize the most importantresearch needs. One usefulapproach is “backward market-ing research,” which involvesidentifying a project’s desiredoutcomes and impact and thenworking backward to identifythe research that will be neededto achieve and measure thatimpact (Andreasen 2002).Whatever technique is used, ani-mal advocates must identify theinformation that is most criticalto the success of each campaignand then prioritize collectingthat data first and foremost.

3. Begin by examining secondaryresearch.It is important to begin everyresearch project with an exami-nation of all available informa-tion on the topic at hand. Thismay include a quick overview ofthe publicly available data or, in

some cases, purchasing existingresearch reports created bycompanies, third-party researchorganizations, etc. There areseveral excellent sources of pub-licly available opinion data, forinstance, including the RoperCenter for Public OpinionResearch’s iPOLL database.iPOLL contains nearly a half-million questions asked in pub-lic opinion surveys dating backto 1937 and offers free resultson a limited basis to trial users(for more information, seehttp://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll.html). Another sourcespecific to animal issues andincluding mostly attitudinal andbehavioral research is the HRCdatabase, with references andbrief descriptions of about threehundred separate s tud ies(h t tp : //m e m b e r. h u m a n eresearch.org/db.php) . Al-though existing information andresearch data are generally fairlysparse for animal protectionissues, a focused effort to seekout available information almostinvariably yields at least someresults. This secondary researchcan have a marked impact onimproving early campaign plan-ning decisions and increasingoverall effectiveness.

4. Make a proportional invest-ment in primary research.For many situations involving ani-mal-advocacy campaigns, theavailable secondary data are toolimited or outdated to supportthe decisions that need to bemade. When the investment oftime and money in the campaignis substantial, animal advocatesshould consider conducting pri-mary research. Making a “propor-tional” investment in researchsimply means ensuring that thefocus on data collection and eval-uation is commensurate with theimportance of the campaign. Forsmall projects or campaigns, sec-ondary research may be suffi-cient, or advocates can use do-it-

yourself research techniques. Forlarge projects, such as ballot ini-tiatives or advertising campaignsthat may involve thousands ofhours and millions of dollars, pri-mary research is almost alwayswarranted. In these cases the useof an outside research consultantusually makes sense because ofthe expertise he or she brings toa project. Nonprofit organiza-tions are naturally more frugal,but among for-profit corpora-tions it’s not unusual to spend10–20 percent of a total projectbudget on preliminary researchand follow-up evaluations.

5. Conduct regular evaluations ofresearch efforts.Just as animal advocates shouldcontinually evaluate the effective-ness of their campaign and pro-gram activities, they should alsoevaluate the impact of theirresearch efforts. Data collectionand analysis are potentially usefultools for every stage of a project,from planning through executionand including evaluation. Butresearch itself, like time andmoney spent directly on cam-paigns, should be demonstrated tohave a reasonable return on invest-ment. By auditing their researchactivities and regularly updatingtheir research plans, animal advo-cates can achieve a much betterunderstanding of their overallefforts. More generally, animal-advocacy groups should take aholistic approach to informationmanagement within their organi-zations, so that answers to impor-tant research questions are avail-able when needed. For instance,many larger animal protectiongroups use intranets to communi-cate with employees and shareinformation. However, there is sig-nificant room for improvement torealize the full potential of thesetechnical tools to develop researchsystems that are accessible to deci-sion makers, employees, volun-teers, and other stakeholders.


17

Research Prioritiesfor the Movement Suggesting research priorities forthe overall animal protectionmovement is ambitious and re-quires addressing potentially un-comfortable questions about themovement’s campaign priorities.For instance, applying a propor-tional sense of utilitarianism wouldsuggest that animal advocatesfocus almost exclusively on thoseanimals who are dying and suffer-ing in the greatest numbers. In theUnited States (and globally), thiswould clearly mean a focus onfarmed animals, especially chick-ens and other poultry. However,the animal protection movementgenerally is not guided by utilitar-ian principles. And if advocates areto become more utilitarian, as Isuggest, then animal advocatesmust also face other challenges,including how they define andmeasure animal suffering and howthey evaluate the impact of theiradvocacy efforts.

Research priorities for the animalprotection movement must be notonly utilitarian but also focused ondata that support achievable goalswith a reasonably high chance ofsuccess. For example, efforts to banrelatively infrequent types of animalabuse, such as cockfighting or“canned” hunts, have been success-ful in most states and generally havestrong public support. Research inthese areas can help identify waysto continue the existing momen-tum to marginalize the most egre-gious types of animal abuse. In gen-eral, many different campaigns andissues can benefit from more effec-tive research. Information manage-ment for the animal-advocacy move-ment can be used to help improveexisting campaigns and prioritiesand help identify effective advocacystrategies for the future. However,all animal-advocacy efforts, includ-ing research, must be planned andprioritized according to the likelybenefit to animals to ensure that

animal advocates are investing theirtime, energy, and financial re-sources appropriately.

Data collection for the overallmovement is, of course, differentfrom data collection for individualanimal-advocacy organizations.While the overall focus should stillbe on research that is actionable,there is also a need for the move-ment to collect “baseline” infor-mation for all of the categories anddata types discussed previously.Such information may not beimmediately useful for individualgroups, but collecting it is none-theless essential to the success ofthe animal protection movement.Moreover, for each of the varioustypes of baseline data mentionedin this section, it is valuable foradvocates to have as much histori-cal and/or trend data as possible.Achieving widespread considera-tion of animals in public discourseand policy will be a long process.Animal advocates must take a sim-ilarly long-term view by making it apriority to collect and analyze lon-gitudinal data to identify impor-tant changes and trends. In manycases, where advocates are essen-tially starting from scratch, thismeans first identifying the mostimportant measures of long-termsuccess for organizations and theoverall movement.

Once the most important met-rics are identified, advocates mustcommit to initiating new researchthat may involve many decades ofdata collection and analysis to eval-uate long-term changes in animalusage, attitudes, behavior, etc. Ofcourse, this is not an easy under-taking, but by establishing base-line data for the most importantand actionable animal protectionissues, advocates can becomemuch more effective. Furthermore,if organizations also focus on cen-tralizing the creation and mainte-nance of this baseline information,animal advocates can also begin towork from the same “playbook”and create unified, research-driven

strategies to measure and improveanimal advocates effectiveness.Collecting and sharing this base-line data can potentially serve as amodel for collaborative informa-tion management. The following isa short list of recommended prior-ities for the types of baseline datathat should be collected, shared,and regularly updated.

Animal Usage andDemographic Data Baseline data are needed for all ofthe animal protection issues orresearch categories described ear-lier. Whenever the data are avail-able, all baseline usage researchshould be broken down by species,gender, and age of the animal. Themost important baseline data willbe unique for each research cate-gory, but several common areasare recommended as key priorities,including: (1) number of animals“used” (e.g., in shelters, on farms,in laboratories, in zoos, etc.); (2)number of animals killed (e.g.,euthanized, slaughtered, etc.); and(3) the types of conditions inwhich the animals are kept (e.g.,isolated versus group housing; var-ious degrees of confinement, typesof experiments performed, etc.).

Attitude and Behavior DataCollecting baseline attitudinaland, especially, behavioral researchis one of the relatively few timeswhen it makes sense to survey thegeneral public. Although attitudescan be vague and/or defined amor-phously over time, behavior lendsitself to establishing baselinesbecause it can be measured moreconsistently. My key recommenda-tions include: (1) perceived impor-tance of animal protection relativeto other issues (e.g., civil rights,economic conditions, etc.); (2)perceived credibility of and respectfor animal advocates; (3) numberof people engaging in animal-related actions or behavior (e.g.,“owning” animals as pets, eating

Animal Advocacy in the Age of Information


animal products, becoming vege-tarians, volunteering, voting onanimal issues, etc.); and (4) thedemographics, motivations, andother details of people engaging inthose actions.

Economic and Financial Data Baseline financial data that are ofmost value to animal advocates areprobably those that describe finan-cial support for the movement,although the economic perform-ance of animal use industries isalso of interest. Following are myrecommended research prioritiesfor collecting baseline financialdata: (1) total donations to animalprotection groups and causes (cur-rently measured, but only in aggre-gate and by outside sources); (2)where available, a detailed break-down of financial support bysource and by animal issue sup-ported; and (3) financial perform-ance of the primary companies andindustries that use animals (e.g.,income of the largest animalfarms, research laboratories, petstores, etc.).

Collecting baseline data such asthose just described should be atop priority for the overall animalprotection movement, but moretargeted “above-baseline” data areequally as or even more important.Because such above-baseline dataare generally unique for eachresearch category and data typediscussed in this chapter, there aretruly an overwhelming number ofpotential research priorities. Thesolution, as mentioned earlier, isto narrow the focus of one’s re-search (and overall advocacyefforts) to understand a specificissue or target audience and toyield actionable information thathelps produce the greatest impactfor animals. While these things areoften difficult for animal advo-cates to determine in advance, asystematic approach to researchand strategic planning can helpthem decide what information is

most valuable for their campaign.In this section, I take a similar butbroader approach to recommend-ing above-baseline research priori-ties for the overall animal protec-t ion movement, by researchcategory.

The majority of research con-ducted for animal-advocacy pur-poses is and should be on behalf ofspecific organizations or cam-paigns, because such data are typ-ically the most actionable. Thespecific research priorities for in-dividual organizations and theirunique campaigns are probablybest left to the campaign man-agers and issue experts to deter-mine. However, my experience col-lecting and analyzing data for allof the research categories de-scribed previously suggests a listof potential research priorities foreach category and data type.Tables 3,4, and 5 include my over-all recommended research priori-ties using the same framework dis-cussed throughout this chapter.While I feel that these recommen-dations are important by them-selves, I provide them also becausethey serve as examples of the typesof information that should be con-sidered and prioritized by animaladvocates.

Note that I have intentionallykept the recommendations to ahandful for each research categoryand data type due to space limita-tions. However, there are certainlyother data that would be valuablefor animal-advocacy purposes. Alsonote that, although the recom-mended priorities are described ingeneral terms, such information ismost helpful to advocates whenfocused by issue, audience, etc. Mypresumption is that most of therecommendations that follow willbe specific to a target audience,community, issue, or tactic, butdata collected at the national levelmay also be useful to advocates.

CollaborativeInformationManagementThroughout this chapter I haveurged animal advocates to con-sider data collection and informa-tion management to be key pri-orities for their projects, organi-zations, and the movement overall.To achieve this, however, animaladvocates must also find ways toshare results with the broader ani-mal protection community. Simplysharing and organizing the infor-mation currently held by individ-ual groups would dramaticallyincrease access to data that mostorganizations currently do noteven know exist. Sharing researchdata is particularly important fornonprofit organizations and socialmovements, where valuable infor-mation can be leveraged for thebenefit of the movement overall, inaddition to individual campaigns.Similarly, the financial constraintsfaced by animal advocates clearlydictate that they need to avoidduplicating research efforts when-ever possible. Currently there is nomechanism in place to know whatdata have already been collected byother organizations.

In addition to sharing existingsources of information with eachother, animal advocates shouldalso work to collaborate more fre-quently and more effectively ongenerating new research data. Col-laboration makes good financialsense, of course, but it also has theeffect of helping to identify mutual interests and opportunities towork together on campaigns andprograms. By literally buying intosyndicated research projects(where multiple groups join to-gether on a single research studyand share the findings), animal-advocacy groups can save signifi-cant money. But they also oftenachieve a common understandingof the research topic and how tomake effective use of the informa-

tion to improve conditions for ani-mals. In most cases centralizingresearch data and investing in syn-dicated studies will probably bedriven by the larger and better-funded animal protection organi-zations. Those groups should bestrongly encouraged to share theirresearch data with the entire ani-mal-advocacy community andinvest in new research with theintent of making it generally avail-able to fellow advocates.

To facilitate sharing informa-tion and developing collaborativeresearch projects, animal advo-cates should also invest in central-ized information systems that pro-vide access to important data. Asstated earlier, there is no singleroad map or research strategy forthe animal protection movement.Similarly, there are no centralinformation repositories that in-clude data of relevance or value toanimal-advocacy work, although

some groups are making efforts inthis area. Organizations like theHRC and others are purposefullybuilding collections of researchdata and other information, butthese efforts are somewhat limitedcompared to the immense task athand. A centralized informationmanagement system for storingand making accessible data frommultiple groups would need to bewell planned and executed. Techni-cally, however, such a system isfairly easy to achieve.

The bigger question is whetheranimal-advocacy groups (and theirsupporters) understand and ac-knowledge the importance of reli-able information enough to investtime and money to create andmaintain such a system. Followingare a few specific recommenda-tions that animal advocates shouldconsider to more effectively collab-orate on research projects andshare important data.

• Establish research workinggroups. Animal advocatesshould begin by workingtogether to identify the mostimportant informational needsof the overall animal protectionmovement and agree on priori-ties. One idea to facilitate col-laboration is to establish“working groups” for each ani-mal issue to identify mutualresearch priorities and meth-ods of funding and collectingthe most essential information.These research working groupswould need to include researchspecialists, topical experts, anda diverse group of animal advo-cates representing the variouselements of the movement(e.g., both national and local orgrass-roots organizations).

• Conduct syndicated studies.Whenever it makes sense to doso, animal advocates should col-laborate on data collection and


Table 3Usage and Demographics ResearchPriorities, by CategoryResearch Category Recommended Research Priorities

Companion animals • Number of animals currently in shelters, nationally and by community • Number of adoptions by shelter and for target communities • Number of healthy and adoptable animals euthanized • Number of animals spayed/neutered, nationally and by community • Primary sources of unwanted and “surplus” animals

Farmed animals • Number of animals slaughtered and/or kept confined on farms • Number of farms and types of operations, such as family vs. corporate • Number of animal deaths resulting from diseases, transport, etc. • Living conditions, such as type of housing, group or individual, etc. • Slaughter conditions, including handling and stunning processes

Research animals • Number of animals in laboratories, by species (including mice, rats, and birds) • Number of companies and institutions currently testing on animals • Types of experiments or protocols most frequently conducted • Living conditions such as type of housing, group or individual, etc. • Types of purposes or end products driving animal research

Wild and exotic animals • Numbers of animals in zoos, circuses, rodeos, and other exhibits • Conditions for exhibited animals, such as housing, travel schedules, etc. • Numbers and species of animals trapped, hunted, fished, etc. • Specifics regarding types of traps used, forms of hunting, etc.

Animal advocacy • Number of current members of animal protection groups • Number of current animal advocates, actual and self-reported • Analyses of the demographics of members and advocates vs. overall population • Analyses of time allocated to different animal protection issues

analysis. The benefits of form-ing research syndicates (groupsof organizations with similarobjectives) are many, but theyinclude primarily cost savingsand greater unity. Identifyingthe critical research areas andhighest priorities for syndicatedstudies could be the responsibil-ity of the research workinggroups just described. Syndi-cated research ideas could begenerated by the workinggroups and posted for com-ments and/or commitments offunding from other advocates.

• Centralize data storage andsharing. There are opportuni-

ties to improve informationmanagement within every ani-mal-advocacy organization andwithin the overall animal pro-tection movement. Within or-ganizations sharing informa-tion this may be as simple asprinting a list of the data andresearch studies available toemployees or building an in-tranet research database. Forthe overall movement, decidingwhat information is included insuch a database and who re-ceives access to it may be moredifficult to determine. None-theless, greater sharing of in-formation is essential to fully

leverage the impact for the ben-efit of animals. Ideally, thiswould include investing in thetechnology needed to central-ize storage of and access to rel-evant data and a willingnessamong organizations to sharetheir information with like-minded groups.

Summary andConclusionsKnowing a great deal is not thesame as being smart; intelligence isnot information alone but also judg-


Table 4Attitude and Behavior ResearchPriorities, by Category

Research Category Recommended Research Priorities

Companion animals • Number of people adopting vs. purchasing companion animals • Number of people who have spayed/ neutered their animals • Motivations and barriers to adopting vs. purchasing animals • Motivations for and causes of relinquishing animals to shelters • Motivations for and barriers to having animals spayed/neutered

Farmed animals • Awareness of farmed animal treatment, exemption from laws, etc. • Motivations for and barriers to greater concern for farmed animals • Number of people consuming animal-free foods and clothes • Motivations for and barriers to choosing animal-free foods and clothes • Willingness of consumers to pay more for less inhumane food products • Willingness of farmers to implement less inhumane systems

Research animals • Awareness of research animal treatment, exemption from laws, etc. • Motivations for and barriers to greater concern for research animals • Motivations for and barriers to choosing cruelty-free products • Number of people buying cruelty-free cosmetic and household products • Willingness of researchers to use non-animal alternatives • Willingness of policymakers to mandate use of non-animal alternatives

Wild and exotic animals • Awareness of conditions for animals in circuses, zoos, etc. • Number of people who attend zoos, circuses, rodeos, and other exhibits • Number of people who participate in fishing, hunting, trapping, etc. • Motivations for and barriers to engaging in activities that affect wild animals • Willingness of consumers to choose alternatives, such as animal-free circuses

Animal advocacy • Awareness of animal-advocacy organizations and their efforts • Identification of the most/least supportive groups within the population • Perceived credibility of and respect for animal advocates • Motivations for and barriers to giving to or volunteering for animal groups • Motivations and attitudes of animal advocates and their supporters

ment, the manner in which infor-mation is collected and used.

—Carl Sagan

Animal advocates can apply to ani-mal-related information manage-ment the old environmental activistslogan, “think globally, act locally.”By thinking globally, animal advo-cates will learn to develop cam-paigns in the context of more andbetter information and to baseresearch priorities on the needs ofthe entire movement. Thinkingglobally also involves prioritizingthe collection of baseline and long-term data, as discussed earlier inthe chapter. By acting locally, onthe other hand, animal advocates

will also base their research priori-ties and advocacy efforts on the spe-cific issue and/or target audiencethat yields the most benefit for ani-mals. Baseline data are essential forproviding context, but the mostuseful and actionable data are local-ized to the needs of a specific pro-gram or campaign.

For many animal protectioncampaigns and for the movementin general, information is under-used despite its importance forevaluating effectiveness and un-derstanding the influence ofother factors on the status andwell-being of animals. The bottomline is that access to accurateand reliable information is essen-

tial for advocates to produce effec-t ive campaigns that achievereal change for animals. It isnot enough just to know a greatdeal: animal advocates mustalso be smart and use good judg-ment when seeking out and apply-ing that knowledge.

General Resources,Databases, andPublications iPOLL Database. The Roper Cen-

ter for Public Opinion Re-search. University of Connecticut.http://w w w. r o p e r c e n t e r.uconn . edu/ ipoll.html.


Table 5Economic and Financial Research Priorities, by Category

Research Category Recommended Research Priorities

Companion animals • Financial income and health of pet industries, breeders, stores, etc. • Money spent on companion animals, including health expenditures • Donations to companion animal groups and related issues • Analyses of the impact of reducing overpopulation on local economies • Analyses of different economic models for companion animal programs

Farmed animals • Financial income and health of animal-farming industries, companies, etc. • Money spent on vegan, vegetarian, and less inhumane animal products • Money spent on most inhumane products, such as veal or foie gras • Donations to farmed animal and vegetarian groups and related issues • Analyses of the economic consequences of industrialized animal farming • Analyses of government subsidies and international trade data

Research animals • Financial income and health of companies involved in animal research • Money spent on cruelty-free products compared with alternatives • Donations to anti-vivisection groups and related issues • Analyses of public and private funding for animal research • Analyses of financial gains or losses using non-animal alternatives

Wild and exotic animals • Financial health of industries related to hunting, fishing, zoos, circuses, etc. • Money spent on alternatives (e.g., non-animal circuses, wildlife watching) • Donations to wild and exotic animal groups and related issues • Analyses of the economic impact of limiting hunting and other activities

Animal advocacy • Total financial support or “working capital” available to advocates • Funding available to “opposition” groups, such as trade associations • Analyses of public and private funding for animal protection efforts • Analyses of the money allocated to various animal protection issues• Analyses to rebut the economic arguments of animal use industries

Society and Animals: Journal ofHuman-Animal Studies. In publi-cation since 1993. Society andAnimals Forum (formerly Psy-chologists for the Ethical Treat-ment of Animals). http://www.psyeta.org/sa/.

Tufts University Publications Data-base. Center for Animals andPublic Policy, Tufts CummingsSchool of Veterinary Medicine.http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/publications.html.

Literature CitedAmerican Association of Retired

Persons. 1996. Civic involvementsurvey. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll.html.

American Pet Product Manufactur-ers Association. 2005–2006.National pet owners survey.http://www.appma.org/pubs_survey.asp.

American Veterinary Medical Associ-ation (AVMA). 2002. http://www.avma.org/membshp/marketstats/sourcebook.asp.

American Zoo and Aquarium Asso-ciation. 2005. Number of speci-mens in AZA accredited institu-tions. http://www.aza.org/Newsroom/CurrentStatistics/.

Andreasen, A. 2002. Marketingresearch that won’t break thebank: A practical guide to gettingthe information you need, 2d ed.Hoboken, N.J.: Jossey-Bass.http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd - 0 7 8 7 9 6 4 1 9 0 , d e s c C ddescription.html.

Best Friends Animal Society. 2006.The kindness index. http://network.bestfriends.org/Campaigns/BFDay/KindnessIndex.aspx.

Bishop, G. 2004. The illusion ofpublic opinion: Fact and artifactin American public opinion. Lan-ham, Md.: Rowman and Little-field Publishers, Inc. http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742516458.

Broida, J., L. Tingley, R. Kimball,and J. Miele. 1993. Personalitydifferences between pro- andanti-vivisectionists. Society andAnimals 1(2): 129–144.

Budkie, M. 2005. An audit of the2005 National Institutes ofHealth funding of animal experi-mentation. Stop Animal Exploi-tation Now (SAEN). http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articlesrep-anex2006.html.

Charles River Laboratories Inter-national, Inc. 2006. Annualreport. http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&ipage=4029521.

Chicago Academy of Sciences.1994. Public attitudes towardanimal research: Some interna-tional comparisons. Society andAnimals 2(2): 95–113. http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa2.2/pifer.html.

Coalition for Consumer Informa-tion on Cosmetics. 1996. Identi-fying attitudes related to animaltesting in the United States.http://www.leapingbunny.org/pollresults.htm.

Compassion over Killing (COK).2005. Commercial slaughter sta-tistics. http://www.cok.net/lit/statistics2005.php.

European Union. 2005. Farm ani-mal welfare concerns: Con-sumers, retailers, and producers,welfare quality project. http://w w w. w e l f a re q u a l i t y. n e t /everyone/34055.

FARM. 2004. Animal death statis-tics report. http://www.wfad.org/mediacenter/victimsreport.pdf.

Farm Sanctuary. 2006. Pennsylvan-ian voters support effort to out-law “foie gras.” Press release.http://www.farmsanctuary.org/media/pr_Pa_FG.htm.

Fleming, C., and R. Alexander.2003. Single-species versus mul-tiple-species models: The eco-nomic implications. EcologicalModeling 170: 203–211. http://www.wildearthnet.org/research/fleming-alexander.pdf.

Foundation Center. n.d. Distribu-tion of foundation grants by sub-ject categories. http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/gs_subject.html.

Frank, J. 2004. An interactive modelof human and companion ani-mal dynamics: The ecology andeconomics of dog overpopulationand the human cost of addres-sing the problem. FIREPAW.http://www.firepaw.org/interactivemodelhuman.pdf.

Gallup Organization. The GallupPoll. 1990. 2000. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll.html.

Garlit, D., and J. Fearing. 2006.Evaluating the economic impactof a dove season in Michigan.Washington, D.C.: The HumaneSociety of the United States.(HSUS).

Galvin, and H. Herzog. 1998. Atti-tudes and dispositional opti-mism of animal rights demon-strators. Society and Animals6(1): 1–11. http://psyeta.org/sa/sa6.1/GALVIN.html.

Global Development and Environ-ment Institute, Tufts University,2006. Feeding the factory farm:Implicit subsidies to the broilerchicken industry. http://factory-farming.org/Feeding.pdf.

Green, C. 2004. Case study of anti-fur research for The Fund forAnimals. Available from HumaneResearch Council (HRC). http://humaneresearch.org/contact.shtml.

Humane Research Council (HRC).n.d. Secondary research citationdatabase. http://member.humaneresearch.org/db.php (registra-tion required).

———. 2005. Vegetarianism inthe United States. http://www.humaneresearch.org/contact.shtml.

Humane Society of the UnitedStates, The. 1999. Knowledge ofand attitudes toward factoryfarmed animals. Washington,D.C.: The HSUS.

————. 2001a. Cat owner study.Washington, D.C.: The HSUS.

22 The State of the Animals IV: 2007Animal Advocacy in the Age of Information

———–. 2001b. Roadside wildlifestudy. Washington, D.C.: TheHSUS.

Herzog, H., and A. Rowan. 2001.Social attitudes and animals. InThe state of the animals: 2001,ed. D.J. Salem and A.N. Rowan,55–69. Washington, D.C. :Humane Society Press. http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/MARK_State_of_Animals_Ch_03.pdf.

Independent Sector. 2001. Givingand volunteering in the UnitedStates. http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/gv01main.html.

International Species InformationSystem. 2006. https://app.isis.org/abstracts/abs.asp.

Kellert, S., and J. Berry. 1978. Atti-tudes, knowledge, and behaviorstoward wildlife as affected bygender. Wildlife Society Bulletin(15) 363–371.

———. 1981. Knowledge, affec-tion, and basic attitude towardanimals in American society.Document 024-010-00-625-1.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

Label Networks. 2006. Humanitar-ian youth culture study. http://69.93.14.237/humanitarian-study-2006.cfm.

Marsh, P. 2005. Solutions to over-population of pets. The AmericanSociety for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals, ImagineHumane profile. http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ih_pro_stop.

Munro, L. 2001. Caring aboutblood, flesh, and pain: Women’sstanding in the animal protec-tion movement. Society andAnimals 9(1): 43–61. http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa9.1/munro.shtml.

National Council on Pet PopulationStudy and Policy. 2004–2006.The shelter statistics survey,1994–1997. http://www.petpopulation.org/statsurvey.html.

New, J.C., Jr. 2000. Characteristicsof shelter-relinquished animals

and their owners compared withanimals and their owners in U.S.pet-owning households. Journalof Applied Animal Welfare Sci-ence 3(3): 179–201.

Pollard, W. 2000. Soul of the firm.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.

Purina Corporation. 2001. State ofthe American pet. http://www.purina.com/science/research/AmericanPetSurvey.aspx.

Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of inno-vations, 5h ed. New York: FreePress. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Diffusion_of_Innovations.

Shwiff, S.A., R.T. Sterner, J.W. Tur-man, and B.D. Foster. 2005. Ex post economic analysis ofreproduction-monitoring andpredator-removal variables asso-ciated with protection of the en-dangered California Least Tern.Ecological Economics (53)2:277–287.

St. Arnaud. n.d. Public funding forspay/neuter. Best Friends AnimalSociety. http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/pdf/FundingSN.pdf.

Stop Animal Exploitation Now. 2002.2002 animals used in research.http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-usda-anexstats.html.

Tyson Foods, Inc. 2006. 2006annual financial report. http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&ipage=3944371.

USDA/Agricultural Marketing Ser-vice (AMS). n.d. AMS Publica-tions. http://www.ams.usda. gov.

USDA/Economic Research Service(ERS). n.d. ERS publicationsand databases. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/.


Date post:	10-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SOA IV 2007 Inside - humanesociety.org · Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations by Jonathan...

Documents