Animal Cruelty Facts and Statistics

Statistics on the victims and current legislative trends

The shocking number of cruelty cases reported daily on television, on the
Internet and in newspapers is only the tip of the iceberg. Most cases are
never reported, and most animal suffering goes unrecognized and unabated.

Unlike violent crimes against people, information on reported cases of

animal abuse have not been compiled by state and federal agencies, making
it difficult to calculate the prevalence or trends in these crimes.

Changes in federal tracking of cruelty cases

In 2014, the FBI announced that it will add cruelty to animals as a category in
the agency’s Uniform Crime Report, a nationwide crime-reporting system.
While only about a third of U.S. communities currently participate in the
system, the data generated will help create a clearer picture of animal abuse
and guide strategies for intervention and enforcement. Data collection will
begin in January 2016 and will cover four categories: simple/gross neglect,
intentional abuse and torture, organized abuse (such as dogfighting and
cockfighting) and animal sexual abuse.

Who abuses animals?

Cruelty and neglect cross socio-economic boundaries, and media reports
suggest that animal abuse is common in both rural and urban areas.

 Intentional cruelty to animals is strongly correlated with other crimes,

including violence against people.
 Serious animal neglect (such as seen in cases of animal hoarding) is often
an indicator of people in need of social or mental health services
(Lockwood, 2002).
 Surveys suggest that those who intentionally abuse animals are
predominantly male and under 30, while those involved in animal
hoarding are more likely to be female and over 60 (Lockwood, 2008).
Most common victims
The animals whose abuse is most often reported are dogs,
cats, horses and livestock. Based on numbers from pet-abuse.com, of 1,880
cruelty cases reported in the media in 2007:
 64.5 percent (1,212) involved dogs (25 percent of these were identified as
pit-bull-type breeds)
 18 percent (337) involved cats
 25 percent (470) involved other animals
Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in
the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to
livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported,
and few are ever prosecuted.
Organized cruelty
Dogfighting, cockfighting and other forms of organized animal cruelty go
hand in hand with other crimes.
 The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has prosecuted multiple cases where
drug cartels were running narcotics through cockfighting and dogfighting
operations. In 2014, federal agents found that international drug dealers
 had congregated at a Kentucky cockfighting pit and even sent a hit man to
target a local cockfighter.
 Dozens of homicides have occurred at cockfights and dogfights. In one
instance, a man in California was killed at a cockfight over a disagreement
about a $10 bet.
 Public corruption allows cockfighting to continue in certain counties. The
HSUS has worked with the FBI on public corruption cases in Tennessee and
Virginia. In both instances, law enforcement officers were indicted and
convicted. HSUS investigators even documented uniformed police officers
at a cockfighting pit in Kentucky.
Domestic violence, child abuse and animal cruelty
Data on domestic violence and child abuse cases reveal that a staggering
number of animals are victimized by abusive parents or partners each year.

 About 10.2 million women and men are physically assaulted by an

intimate partner in the U.S. every year (U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2011), and 62 percent of U.S. households have at least
one pet.
 In one survey, 71 percent of domestic violence victims reported that their
abuser also targeted their animal (Ascione, 1997).
 In one study of families under investigation for suspected child abuse,
researchers found that pet abuse had occurred in 88 percent of the
families under supervision for physical abuse of their children (DeViney,
1983).
Legislative trends
The HSUS has long led the push for stronger animal cruelty laws and
provides training for law officials to detect and prosecute these crimes.
 50 states currently include felony provisions in their animal cruelty laws.
 Before 1986, only four states had felony animal cruelty laws:
Massachusetts (1804), Oklahoma (1887), Rhode Island (1896) and
Michigan (1931).
 Three states enacted felony laws in the 1980s, 19 in the 1990s and 25
more since 2000 (including the District of Columbia).
First vs. second offense
Some state laws only allow felony charges if the perpetrator has a previous
animal cruelty conviction. Given that only a fraction of animal cruelty acts are
ever reported or successfully prosecuted, The HSUS believes all states should
allow felony charges for egregious cruelty regardless of whether the
perpetrator has a prior conviction.

 43 of the 50 state felony provisions are first-offense provisions.

 Six have second-offense felonies (Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio and Pennsylvania
have felony laws that apply only on the second offense; Texas and Virginia
have second-offense felonies, depending on the situation).
 Idaho has a third-offense felony animal cruelty law.
 Among the 43 states that have first-offense felony cruelty laws, a majority
are limited to cases involving aggravated cruelty, torture, or cruelty to
companion animals.
 States that have strengthened their felony cruelty laws
Since 2002, at least six states have enacted second- or third-offense felony
animal cruelty laws, only to readdress and upgrade them to first-offense laws
within a few years:

 Alaska (third in 2008, first in 2010)

 Indiana (second in 1998, first in 2002)
 Kentucky (second in 2003, first in 2007)
 Nebraska (second 2002, first in 2003)
 Tennessee (second in 2001 and 2002, first in 2004)
 Virginia (second in 1999, in 2002)
 11 facts about animal cruelty

Welcome to DoSomething.org, one of the largest orgs for young people and
social change! After you've browsed the 11 facts (with citations at the
bottom), take action and volunteer with our millions of members. Sign up for
a campaign and make the world suck less.

1. Puppy mills are large-scale commercial dog breeding operations that put
greater priority on profits than the health of the puppies. Many dogs are
plagued with illnesses like kidney or heart disease as a result of the
conditions they’re kept in.
2. Thousands of greyhounds die each year—some in the name of “selective
breeding”—before they ever touch a racetrack. Many dogs do not make it to
the nominal “retirement” age of 4 or 5.
3. Due to genetic manipulation, 90% of broiler chickens (chicken bred
specifically for meat production) have trouble walking. Encourage your
school cafeteria to go meatless on Mondays to protest. Sign up for Meatless
Mondays.
4. Dogfighting became prevalent in the US after the Civil War, with professional
pits proliferating in the 1860s. And was a source of entertainment for police
officers and firemen.
5. Today dogfighting has been reported in urban, suburban, and rural settings
in all regions of the country.
EXPLORE CAMPAIGNS
6. More than 50% the fur in the US comes from China, where millions of dogs
and cats are often bled to death and skinned alive for their fur. Chinese fur is
often mislabeled, so if you wear any fur, there’s no sure way of knowing
whose skin you’re in.
7. It’s been estimated that there are 900 to 2,000 new cases every year of
animal hoarding in the US, with 250,000 animals falling victim.
8. Over 115 million animals – mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, birds,
among others – are killed in laboratory experiments worldwide for chemical,
drug, food, and cosmetics testing every year.
9. Every major circus that uses animals has been cited for violating the minimal
standards of care set by the United States Animal Welfare (AWA).
10.Most rodeo events rely on creating a stressful environment for the
domesticated and often docile animals involved. Participants rely on harsh
handling practices (i.e. twisting calves’ tails or painful electric shocks) to
make animals perform.
11.The exotic pet trade is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US and while
some wild pets are bred in captivity, many are taken from their native
habitats. The stress of being violently removed from their homes causes a
number to die prematurely.
 Facts about animal abuse and domestic violence

Why it Matters
 71% of pet-owning women entering women’s shelters reported that their
batterer had injured, maimed, killed or threatened family pets for revenge or
to psychologically control victims; 32% reported their children had hurt or
killed animals.
 68% of battered women reported violence towards their animals. 87% of
these incidents occurred in the presence of the women, and 75% in the
presence of the children, to psychologically control and coerce them.
 13% of intentional animal abuse cases involve domestic violence.
 Between 25% and 40% of battered women are unable to escape abusive
situations because they worry about what will happen to their pets or
livestock should they leave.
 Pets may suffer unexplained injuries, health problems, permanent disabilities
at the hands of abusers, or disappear from home.
 Abusers kill, harm, or threaten children’s pets to coerce them into sexual
abuse or to force them to remain silent about abuse. Disturbed children kill
or harm animals to emulate their parents’ conduct, to prevent the abuser
from killing the pet, or to take out their aggressions on another victim.
 In one study, 70% of animal abusers also had records for other crimes.
Domestic violence victims whose animals were abused saw the animal
cruelty as one more violent episode in a long history of indiscriminate
violence aimed at them and their vulnerability.
 Investigation of animal abuse is often the first point of social services
intervention for a family in trouble.
 For many battered women, pets are sources of comfort providing strong
emotional support: 98% of Americans consider pets to be companions or
members of the family.
 Animal cruelty problems are people problems. When animals are abused,
people are at risk.
Did You Know?
 More American households have pets than have children. We spend more
money on pet food than on baby food. There are more dogs in the U.S. than
people in most countries in Europe - and more cats than dogs.
 A child growing up in the U.S. is more likely to have a pet than a live-at-home
father.
 Pets live most frequently in homes with children: 64.1% of homes with
children under age 6, and 74.8% of homes with children over age 6, have
pets. The woman is the primary caregiver in 72.8% of pet-owning
households.
 Battered women have been known to live in their cars with their pets for as
long as four months until an opening was available at a pet-friendly safe
house.
State Animal Cruelty Laws
Anti-cruelty laws exist in all U.S. states and territories to prohibit unnecessary
killing, mutilating, torturing, beating, neglecting and abandoning animals, or
depriving them of proper food, water or shelter. Animal cruelty cases may be
investigated by a local humane society, SPCA or animal control agency or, in
areas where these organizations are not present, by police or sheriff’s
 departments. When an investigation uncovers enough evidence to warrant
prosecution, charges may be filed by the local district or state’s attorney.
Often, only the most serious cases generate sufficient sympathy and
evidence to warrant prosecution, and gaining convictions may be very
difficult.
If You Need Help
Contact your local humane society, SPCA, animal control agency, or
veterinarian to see if they have temporary foster care facilities for pets
belonging to battered women.
What You Can Do
 Have your pets vaccinated against rabies, and license your pets with your
town or county: make sure these registrations are in your name to help
prove your ownership.
 Consider and plan for the safety and welfare of your animals. Do not leave
pets with your abuser. Be prepared to take your pets with you: many
women’s shelters have established “safe haven” foster care programs for the
animal victims of domestic violence.
 Alternatively, arrange temporary shelter for your pets with a veterinarian,
family member, trusted friend, or local animal shelter.
What Advocates Can Do For Battered Women With Pets
 Add questions about the presence of pets and their welfare to shelter intake
questionnaires and risk assessments.
 Work with animal shelters, veterinarians, and rescue groups to establish
“safe haven” foster care programs for the animal victims of domestic
violence; some women’s shelters are building kennels at their facilities.
 Include provisions for pets in safety planning strategies.
 Help your clients to prove ownership of their animals.
 Help victims to retrieve animals left behind.
 Include animals in abuse prevention orders.
 Help victims find pet-friendly transitional and permanent housing.
 When victims can no longer care for their pets, make referrals to animal
adoption agencies.
 Establish community coalitions against family violence that include humane
societies, SPCAs, animal control agencies, and veterinarians. Invite
representatives from these agencies to train your staff on how animal abuse
cases are investigated and prosecuted: offer to train their staffs and
volunteers about domestic violence issues.
Animal Cruelty and Domestic Violence
Abusers of animals are five times as likely to harm humans. Nearly half of the
victims who stay in violent households do so because they are afraid for their
animals. Countless more never leave the home for this very reason.
Companion animals like cats and dogs may be threatened or harmed; the
vulnerability of other animals like horses may also make it difficult for victims
to escape in emergencies. The “link” between violence against humans and
animals is clear. But there are resources that can help.
Understanding the Cycle of Violence
After a violent episode, whether physical, emotional, or sexual, tension
builds to a breaking point. The abuser blames the victim and minimizes the
violence, then woos the victim back in a honeymoon phase, and the victim
hopes the cycle is over. But the cycle repeats itself, almost without fail.
Many victims hope the violence will end or believe they can protect animals
in the home. The truth is that a person who harms animals will likely harm
humans–and a person who harms humans will almost certainly harm
animals. Staying with an abuser puts every human and nonhuman in the
home at risk.
Children in violent households, who have likely been abused themselves,
represent one-fifth of domestic animal cruelty cases. When a child harms
animals it can indicate that serious abuse has been inflicted on the child;
consequently, animals are abused in nearly all households in which children
have been abused. Furthermore, children who witness animal abuse are at
greater risk of becoming abusers. Many violent offenders committed
childhood acts of animal abuse.
Silence and Domestic Violence
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), domestic
violence comes in many forms, including physical, sexual, and emotional
violence, and threats. Killing, harming, or threatening to harm animals are
weapons used by abusers to manipulate victims into silence and to destroy
the comfort animals provide. Abuse is not a problem with anger
management, but rather a way to establish and maintain control over
victims.
Protecting victims of domestic violence will help protect animals too. Experts
agree that statistics about abuse, while disturbing, probably downplay the
true magnitude of domestic violence. To fight the silence that hides domestic
violence, the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) helped establish
the National Domestic Violence Hotline and exponentially increased the
reporting of domestic violence. In February, 2013 Congress passed
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Without better laws,
domestic abusers–who have up to an 80% rate of recidivism–will almost
certainly repeat their crimes.
 An Undeniable Link
Animal abuse is often the first visible sign a family is in trouble.

 Many victims entering shelters report that their abuser has hurt, killed, or
threatened family animals. About a third report their children have harmed
animals.
 Victims often admit an animal is being abused before they admit their own
suffering.
 Animal cruelty investigations frequently unravel chronic domestic abuse.
How the Law Can Help
Legal remedies include improving the ability of domestic violence shelters to
coordinate the protection of animals. Laws that put custody of companion
animals directly into legal “protection orders” allow judges to help human
and animal victims. Establishing ownership of animals can be difficult and
often requires legal assistance. Many communities have services that provide
free legal advice in this area.
Felony penalties for animal cruelty allow prosecutors to better prosecute
offenders, because, sadly, most domestic violence cases are only prosecuted
at the misdemeanor level. Redefining the legal definition of domestic
violence to include animal cruelty can make a difference. As a step toward
this, some states have addressed animal abuse committed in the presence of
children. Oregon is one such state; ORS 167.320 makes animal abuse a felony
if committed in the presence of a minor child. Under this statute, prior
domestic violence convictions against a human victim count as prior to
trigger the felony clause.

Cross-reporting Is Key
Cross-reporting requires law enforcement and social agencies to report
abuse and collaborate in investigations – in some states animal protection
agencies must also report suspected child abuse, and child protective
services must also report suspected animal cruelty. States like New York and
New Mexico are considering such laws. California (SB 1264) and Virginia (HB
74 and SB 239) recently enacted laws that impact reporting by animal control
officers and veterinarians who suspect child abuse. There is some debate,
however, about whether mandatory reporting laws can be enforced
properly.
What You Can Do
Have a Plan. If you or someone you love is in a dangerous situation, have an
escape and emergency plan for both human and animal victims. Ask your
domestic violence shelter or national hotline for tips on forming an escape
plan. Organizations like Georgia-based Ahimsa House can offer advice in
preparation and planning, especially for individuals with non-traditional
companion animals like horses, chickens, goats, sheep, that are more difficult
to transport in emergencies. Do NOT leave animals with the abuser.
Seek Shelter. If family and friends aren’t options, contact local shelters and
ask for information about sheltering companion animals. Many shelters have
temporary “safe haven” foster programs.
Seek Legal Advice. One of the smartest things victims can do to empower
themselves is to get educated. Many local shelters and social services offer
free legal advocates who provide crucial resources, assistance filing
protective orders, and support in prosecutions. Contact your local shelter,
the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network hotline, or the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
Advocate. Encourage women’s shelters to add questions about animals to
intake forms, and to build animal kennels at their facilities. Encourage animal
shelters to adopt temporary foster programs. Help victims establish
ownership of companion animals and retrieve animals left behind. Establish
community groups against domestic violence that includes local animal
groups.
Support the Victims. Because the rules of evidence have been so skewed to
favor the defendant (at the expense of victim safety) victims need to be
present in the courtroom at trial. This is often a time of great anxiety and
stress; providing a victim with the support necessary to get to court, testify
truthfully while looking the abuser in the eye, is vital to ensuring offenders
are held accountable. On average, a victim attempts to leave an abusive
situation up to seven times before getting out for good. With support, legal
assistance, and safe shelter, victims can escape violence.
Abolition of Animal Exploitation: The Journey Will Not Begin While We Are
Walking Backwards
by Gary L. Francione

In The Longest Journey Begins with a Single Step: Promoting Animal Rights by
Promoting Reform (http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/singer-
friedrich.html), Peter Singer and PETA's Bruce Friedrich claim that an “odd”
controversy has developed in “recent years” about whether animal
advocates ought to pursue animal welfare as a means to achieve animal
rights. This controversy is neither “odd” nor “recent.” The controversy is not
“odd” because there is a fundamental inconsistency between the regulation
of animal exploitation and its abolition. The controversy is not “recent” in
that the tension between rights and welfare has been a constant in the
animal advocacy movement for the past fifteen years. What is “recent” is
that there is an emerging worldwide grassroots movement that is challenging
the hegemony of corporate animal welfare organizations that have
dominated the movement and that is attempting to formulate an alternative,
abolitionist paradigm. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Singer, who is
the principal formulator of welfarist ideology, and PETA, which implements
that ideology and maintains that any dissent or even discussion is “divisive”
and threatens movement "unity,” are expressing concern.

There are at least five reasons for an abolitionist to reject the welfarist
approach presented in the Singer/Friedrich essay.

1. Animal Welfare: Making Exploitation More Efficient

Singer and Friedrich claim that welfare reforms will recognize that
nonhumans have “rights” and “interests”—that the reforms will
incrementally move animals away from the status of being property or
commodities that have only extrinsic or conditional value. They are wrong.
The reforms they support have nothing to do with recognizing that animals
have morally significant interests that must be protected even when there is
no economic benefit for humans. For the most part, these reforms, like most
animal welfare measures, do nothing but make animal exploitation more
economically profitable for animal exploiters and further enmesh animals in
the property paradigm.

For example, consider the campaign that led to agreement by McDonalds to

require supposedly more “humane” standards for slaughterhouses and
increased space for battery hens. Singer applauds these actions by
McDonalds, which were followed by Wendy's and Burger King, as a “ray of
hope” and “the first hopeful signs for American farm animals since the
modern animal movement began.”
(N.Y. Rev. of Books , May 15, 2003) Friedrich claims that “[t]here's been a real
change in consciousness” concerning the treatment of animals used for food
( L.A. Times , Apr. 29, 2003 ), and PETA's Lisa Lange praises McDonalds as
“‘leading the way' in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the
treatment and killing of its beef and poultry.” ( L.A. Times , Feb. 23, 2005 )
The slaughterhouse standards praised by Singer and PETA were developed by
Temple Grandin , designer of “humane” slaughter and handling systems.
Grandin's guidelines, which involve techniques for moving animals through
the slaughtering process and stunning them, are based explicitly on
economic concerns. According to Grandin, proper handling of animals that
are to be slaughtered “keep[s] the meat industry running safely, efficiently
and profitably.” Proper stunning is important because it “will provide better
meat quality. Improper electric stunning will cause bloodspots in the meat
and bone fractures. . . . An animal that is stunned properly will produce a still
carcass that is safe for plant workers to work on.” She maintains that
“[g]entle handling in well-designed facilities will minimize stress levels,
improve efficiency and maintain good meat quality. Rough handling or poorly
designed equipment is detrimental to both animal welfare and meat quality.”
(www.grandin.com)

In discussing as a general matter the slaughter and battery-cage

improvements to which Singer and Friedrich refer, McDonalds states: “
Animals that are well cared for are less prone to illness, injury, and stress,
which all have the same negative impact on the condition of livestock as they
do on people. Proper animal welfare practices also benefit producers.
Complying with our animal welfare guidelines helps ensure efficient
production and reduces waste and loss. This enables our suppliers to be
highly competitive.” ( www.mcdonalds.com ) Wendy's also emphasizes the
efficiency of its animal welfare program: “Studies have shown that humane
animal handling methods not only prevent needless suffering, but can result
in a safer working environment for workers involved in the farm and
livestock industry.” (www.wendys.com) In a report about voluntary reforms
in the livestock industry, the Los Angeles Times stated that “[i]n part, the
reforms are driven by self-interest. When an animal is bruised, its flesh turns
mushy and must be discarded. Even stress, especially right before slaughter,
can affect the quality of meat.” ( Apr. 29, 2003 )

This example (and there are many others) illustrates how the producers of
animal products—working with prominent animal advocates—are becoming
better at exploiting animals in an economically efficient manner by adopting
measures that improve meat quality and worker safety. But this has
absolutely nothing to do with any recognition that animals have inherent
value or that they have interests that should be respected even when it is not
economically beneficial for humans to do so. Supposed improvements in
animal welfare are, for the most part, limited to and justified by economic
benefits for animal exploiters and consumers. Moreover, large corporate
animal exploiters can now point to the fact that animal advocates such as
Singer and PETA are praising them for their supposedly “humane” treatment
of nonhuman animals. PETA quite remarkably presented its 2005 Visionary of
the Year Award to Grandin, who is a consultant to McDonalds and other fast-
food chains, for her “innovative improvements” in slaughtering processes
and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk praises Grandin as having “done more to reduce
suffering in the world than any other person who has ever lived.” ( New
Yorker, Apr. 14, 2003 )
There is also serious doubt as to whether these changes actually provide any
significant improvement in animal treatment apart from the issue of efficient
exploitation. A slaughterhouse that follows Grandin's guidelines for stunning,
prod use, and other aspects of the killing process is still an unspeakably
horrible place. Battery hens that supply some of the major fast-food chains
may now live in an area that is equivalent to a square of approximately 8 ½
inches rather than the industry standard—a square of approximately 7
inches—but it would be nonsense to claim that the existence of a battery
hen is anything but miserable.

2. Animal Welfare: Making the Public More Comfortable About Animal

Exploitation

Singer and Friedrich claim with no support whatsoever that animal welfare
reforms will lead to greater protection for animals and then to “animal
liberation” (more on that below). We have had animal welfare for about 200
years now, and there is no evidence whatsoever that welfare reforms lead to
significant protection for animal interests, much less abolition. Indeed, we
are using more nonhumans today, and in more horrific ways, than at any
time in human history. To the extent that we have made marginal
improvements in some aspects of animal treatment, those improvements
have, for the most part, been limited to measures that make animal
exploitation more profitable. Although it is possible, in theory, to go beyond
this minimal level of animal protection, the status of nonhumans as property
and the resulting concern to maximize the value of animal property militate
strongly against significant improvement in our treatment of animals and
ensures that animal welfare will do little more than make animal exploitation
more economically efficient and socially acceptable. In any case, the reforms
that Singer and Friedrich propose, and that are presently being promoted by
the corporate welfare organizations in the United States , do not go beyond
the minimal level.

Singer and Friedrich claim that opponents of welfare are saying “that before
these reforms, large numbers of people were refusing to eat meat, but now
they have decided that, because animals are not treated so badly, they can
eat meat again.” Neither I nor any critic of animal welfare of whom I am
aware has ever said any such thing. What I have said is that animal welfare
has quite clearly not resulted in large numbers of non-vegans changing their
behavior and refusing to eat meat or other animal products, and that welfare
reforms are not likely to lead in that direction anytime soon for the very
reason that they make people feel more comfortable about animal
exploitation. That comfort is the explicit message of the welfarist movement.
Animal advocates claim that we can “consume with conscience.” ( N.Y.
Times, Oct. 6, 2004 , statement of Paul Waldau) Indeed, in Singer's most
recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter , he and co-
author Jim Mason claim that we can be “conscientious omnivores” and
exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to eat only animals who
have been well-cared for and then killed without pain or distress.

The message that this approach sends is quite clear, and if Singer and
Friedrich really think that it does not encourage the consumption of animal
products, they are deluded. Moreover, welfare reforms may increase
demand and increase net animal suffering. The relationship between
increased demand and “humane” standards is recognized by the welfarists
themselves. For example, literature produced by The Humane Society of the
United States to promote its campaign for more “humane” alternatives to
the gestation crate for pigs states explicitly that adoption of alternative
systems may result in some increased demand or market premium for
producers.

I would like to share with you a story that, while anecdotal, illustrates the
problem. When the Whole Foods store near my house opened, it sold meat
products but did not have a meat department. There is now a large fresh
meat and fish department. There are also signs in the store advertising the
“Animal Compassion Foundation” established by Whole Foods, which
provides funding so that ranchers and farmers can develop ways of raising
their nonhumans more “humanely.” Several weeks ago, I was walking by the
meat counter and I remarked to an employee standing there that I thought it
was a shame that Whole Foods sells corpses. The employee responded: “Did
you know that PETA gave an award to Whole Foods for how well they treat
animals?” Yes, that's right. In addition to giving an award to Temple Grandin ,
PETA has also lauded Whole Foods for “requiring that its producers adhere to
strict standards.” (www.peta.org ). The Way We Eat features Whole Foods
and has pages and pages of adoring praise of the company as an ethically
responsible seller of animal products.

Putting aside that there is some serious question as to whether the “strict
standards” that PETA and others praise have any meaningful effect on the
lives and deaths of the animals whose corpses are sold at Whole Foods (a
forthcoming article from Professor Darian Ibrahim at the University of
Arizona maintains that the standards are lacking), this sort of approach can
only encourage confusion where there should be clarity and encourages
people to believe that we can “consume with conscience,” which serves to
perpetuate—and legitimate—the consumption of animal products. In the
words of a reviewer of The Way We Eat on Amazon.com: “You don't have to
become a vegetarian or even a vegan, although becoming one could be a
good way to live, both healthwise and morally, but the book sure makes you
want to shop at Whole Foods and to buy free range chickens and to do
whatever you can to make your food supply come from a decent source.”

3. The Goal? What Goal?

Singer and Friedrich talk about how welfare promotes “animal rights” and
claim that opposition to animal welfare is “counterproductive to the goal of
animal liberation that we all share.” Exactly what goal is it that we all share?

Singer is a utilitarian who has consistently rejected moral rights for both
nonhumans and humans although he confusingly uses rights language when
it is convenient. So from the outset, those who maintain that humans have
certain moral rights, such as a right not to be enslaved or used as a
commodity by others, do not share Singer's goal as far as humans are
concerned. As for nonhumans, Singer is not opposed to use per se of most
animals; he is concerned only about treatment. To the extent that he
discusses use, it is only in the context of a concern that we may not be able
to assure adequate treatment. But his goal is not the abolition of all animal
exploitation; given Singer's general moral theory, abolition cannot be his
goal. Singer has maintained consistently that most nonhumans do not have
an interest in continuing to live because they are not self-aware in the same
sense that normal humans are and, as a result, they do not care whether we
use them; they only care about how we use them. This reflects the views of
Jeremy Bentham, the 19th century utilitarian on whom Singer bases his
theory. Bentham argued that although animals could suffer and, therefore,
mattered morally, animals do not care whether, for instance, we eat them.
They care only about how we treat them until we eat them.

This view—that it is not use per se but only treatment—is the foundation of
animal welfare ideology and differs from the animal rights position as I have
articulated it. I maintain that if animals have an interest in continued
existence—and I argue that any sentient being does—then our use of them
as human resources—however “humanely” we treat them—cannot be
defended morally and that we should seek to abolish and not regulate animal
exploitation. I also argue that Singer is wrong to maintain that it is possible to
accord equal consideration to any interests that he acknowledges animals do
have as long as they are human property. The interests of property will
almost always be regarded as weighing less than the interests of property
owners.

You do not have to get deeply into philosophy, however, to assess the nature
of Singer's “animal liberation.” Singer's most recent book not only maintains
that we can ethically eat animals and animal products, but it also has a
disclosure that should inform our views about Singer and his views about
violence toward nonhumans. In The Way We Eat , Singer and Mason tell us
that they learned that a turkey factory needed workers to assist in artificial
insemination. “Our curiosity piqued, we decided to see for ourselves what
this work really involved.” Singer and Mason spent a day “collecting the
semen and getting it into the hen” They caught and restrained the male
turkeys while another worker “squeezed the tom's vent until it opened up
and the white semen oozed forth. Using a vacuum pump, he sucked it into a
syringe.” Singer and Mason then had to “‘break'” the hens, which involved
restraining the hen “so that her rear is straight up and her vent open.” (28)
The inseminator then inserted a tube into the hen and used a blast of
compressed air to insert the semen into the hen's oviduct.

And it wasn't just the turkeys who had an unpleasant time. Singer and Mason
complain that their day at the turkey factory was “the hardest, fastest,
dirtiest, most disgusting, worst-paid work we have ever done. For ten hours
we grabbed and wrestled birds, jerking them upside down, facing their
pushed-open assholes, dodging their spurting shit, while breathing air filled
with dust and feathers stirred up by panicked birds.” All that, and they
“received a torrent of verbal abuse from the foreman. We lasted one day.”
(29) One wonders whether Singer and Mason would have returned for a
second day if the working conditions had been better.
It is deeply disturbing that Singer and Mason regard it as morally acceptable
to engage in violence against nonhumans for any purpose, particularly to
satisfy their curiosity about what “this work really involved.” I suggest that
there is no non-speciesist way to justify what Singer and Mason claim to have
done without also justifying the rape of a woman, or the molestation of a
child, in order to see what those acts of violence “really involved.” Perhaps
Singer's perverse actions with the turkeys can be explained by his claim in
2001 on Nerve.com that “ sex with animals does not always involve cruelty”
and that we can have “mutually satisfying” sexual contact with animals. In
any event, if violence against nonhumans is permitted under Singer's theory,
we do not need to know much more before concluding that the theory has
some very serious flaws and his goals are probably not ones that, as Singer
thinks, we share.

As for the goals of Friedrich and PETA, one thing that has become clear over
the years is that PETA'a understanding of “animal rights” is, to say the least,
idiosyncratic. To cite one example of many, no theory of animal rights of
which I am aware would sanction the mass killing of healthy nonhumans, as
occurred at PETA's Aspen Hill “sanctuary” in 1991, or, more recently at PETA
corporate headquarters and by PETA employees who allegedly used
deception to obtain healthy animals who were subsequently killed and
dumped. I suppose that if you agree with Singer—that the animals that PETA
killed did not have an interest in their lives, but only wanted a “kind” or
“compassionate” death—this makes sense to you. I, however, would
disagree.

When animal advocates question the corporate welfarists, the stock reply is
to say that we all have the same goal, we are all working for the animals, and
that dissent or discussion will threaten the unity of the movement. Like
“compassionate consumption,” the notion of “movement unity” is a fiction
that is used to maintain control of discourse and strategy. There is no
movement “unity” because there is an irreconcilable difference between the
abolitionist/rights position and the regulation/welfare position, between
those who maintain that we should be as “fanatical” (to use Singer's
disparaging description) about speciesism as we are about human
exploitation, and those, like Singer, who do not. Proclamations about
movement “unity” are simply another way of telling advocates not to
question the control of the movement by corporate welfarists.

4. Animal Welfare or Nothing: The False Dichotomy

Singer and Friedrich maintain that those who are concerned about
nonhumans have two choices: pursue animal welfare or do nothing to help
animals. The implication here is that the abolitionist position is too idealistic
and cannot provide a strategy to pursue for the short term. This is a standard
ploy of welfarists and it is not clear to me whether they really believe this, or
if it is just a slogan. In any event, Singer and Friedrich present us with a false
dichotomy.

We are inflicting pain, suffering, and death on billions of nonhumans every

year. No one—including the most convinced abolitionist—maintains that we
can stop that overnight or, indeed, anytime soon. The issue that confronts
the advocate is what to do now . Moreover, we live in a world of limited time
and limited resources. We cannot do everything. So the issue—at least for
those whose goal is abolition—becomes: what do we choose to do now that
will reduce suffering most in the short-term, that is consistent with the
abolitionist approach, and that will build a political movement for further
change in the abolitionst direction?

I would suggest that welfarism is not the rational choice for the abolitionist.
It is a bit late in the game to promote animal welfare as the “single step” that
will start on us on our long journey. We have spent billions of dollars and
what do we have to show for it? I submit that the answer is: nothing and
certainly nothing that could be described as an effective use of our limited
resources. Singer and Friedrich cite the Animal Welfare Act (a federal law in
the United States that purports to regulate the use of nonhumans in
experiments and exhibition) and the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act as examples
of welfarist laws that would leave animals worse-off if we did not have them.
I disagree.

The Animal Welfare Act, which does not even apply to 90% of the
nonhumans used in experiments, imposes no real substantive limits on what
vivisectors can do with animals in the laboratory. The Act does, however,
provide a resource for the research community and for people like Singer
and Friedrich to point to in order to assure the public that there is regulation
of vivisection. The Humane Slaughter Act, which also does not even apply to
most animals who we eat, is, in any event, focused on reducing carcass
damage and ensuring worker safety. Again, the primary purpose of the Act is
to make consumers feel more comfortable. The Act does not require much
more protection than a rational property owner would provide in the first
place, and there have been countless instances in which the U.S. government
does not enforce the Act.

Singer and Friedrich also cite as an example of the progress of animal welfare
that “the stocking density changes for hens, although meager, mean that
conditions have gone from 20% percent annual death rates to two or three
percent annual death rates.” This is particularly bizarre in that 100% of the
chickens will ultimately be killed. Any reduction in deaths before the
slaughterhouse keeps the birds alive longer in horrible conditions and
increase profit for exploiters. So welfarists have succeeded in educating
exploiters about how to, in McDonalds's words “ ensure efficient production
and reduce[] waste and loss.” Singer and Friedrich may find this exciting. I do
not.

So what can an abolitionist do now that will reduce suffering more effectively
in the short term and is consistent with the abolitionist end? The abolitionist
approach provides practical guidance in a number of respects. The most
important form of incremental change is the decision by the individual to
become vegan. Veganism, or the eschewing of all animal products, is more
than a matter of diet or lifestyle; it is a political and moral statement in which
the individual accepts the principle of abolition in her own life. Veganism is
the one truly abolitionist goal that we can all achieve—and we can achieve it
immediately, starting with our next meal. If we are ever going to effect any
significant change in our treatment of animals and to one day end that use, it
is imperative that there be a social and political movement that actively
seeks abolition and regards veganism as part of the moral baseline. There is,
of course, no rational distinction between meat and other animal products,
such as eggs or dairy, or between fur and leather, silk, or wool.

Most national animal advocacy organizations in the U.S. focus on animal

welfare even if they pay lip service to veganism. An excellent example of this
is PETA. On one hand, PETA purports to encourage veganism. On the other
hand, PETA's campaigns are, for the most part, focused on traditional welfare
regulation and PETA actively and confusingly promotes the concept of
“humanely” produced animal products.

There is, however, no sense in which veganism is promoted as a moral

baseline of the movement. Rather, veganism is presented merely as an
optional lifestyle choice and is often portrayed as being difficult and only for
the committed few rather than as an easy way to eliminate exploitation. That
is, the corporate movement, many of the “leaders” of which are not
themselves vegan, itself sets up the vegan/abolition position as the “fringe”
or “radical” position, making the “normal” or “mainstream” position the one
where we try to “consume with compassion.” Indeed, Singer claims that we
“don't have to be fanatical” about food issues, and “[a] little self-indulgence,
if you can keep it under firm control,” is acceptable. ( The Way We Eat , 281,
283) We would, of course, never say that “a little self-indulgence” is
acceptable where rape, murder, child molestation, or other forms of human
exploitation, are involved, but the so-called “father of the animal rights
movement” assures us that “a little self-indulgence” in participating as
consumers in the brutal killing of nonhumans is nothing to worry over. It is
acceptable—indeed, expected—to be “fanatical” about not molesting
children or other serious forms of human exploitation, but Singer tells us that
it is acceptable to be flexible when it comes to nonhuman exploitation.

A movement that seeks abolition must have veganism as a baseline principle

and should not have as its “mainstream” position that we can be
“conscientious omnivores” who can “consume with compassion.” We must
be clear. “Compassionate” consumption is an insidious myth. All animal
products, including those insidiously stamped “Certified Humane Raised and
Handled” by various corporate animal welfarist organizations, involve
unspeakable brutality.

Veganism and abolitionist education, including boycotts, peaceful

demonstrations, school programs, and other non-violent acts aimed at
informing the public about the moral, environmental, and health dimensions
of veganism and abolition provide practical and incremental strategies both
in terms of reducing animal suffering now and in terms of building a
movement in the future that will be able to obtain more meaningful
legislation in the form of prohibitions rather than mere “humane” regulation.
If, in the late-1980s—when the animal advocacy community in the United
States decided very deliberately to pursue a welfarist agenda—a substantial
portion of movement resources had been invested in vegan education and
advocacy, there would likely be hundreds of thousands more vegans than
there are today. That is a very conservative estimate given the hundreds of
millions of dollars that have been expended by animal advocacy groups to
promote welfarist legislation and initiatives. The increased number of vegans
would reduce suffering more by decreasing demand for animal products than
all of the welfarist “successes” put together and multiplied ten-fold.
Increasing the number of vegans would also help to build a political and
economic base necessary for more pervasive social change as a necessary
predicate for legal change. Given that there is limited time and there are
limited financial resources available, expansion of traditional animal welfare
is not a rational and efficient choice if we seek abolition in the long term or
even if we only seek reduction of animal suffering in the shorter term.

Singer claims that the reality is that “going vegan is still too big a step for
most.”
(The Way We Eat , 279) Putting aside the fact that more people might be
inclined to go vegan if Singer and the corporate welfare movement were not
telling them that they can consume animal products "with compassion," the
solution is incremental veganism, not "humane" animal products. For
example, a campaign to get people to eat one vegan meal a day, and then
two, and then three, is much better than encouraging them to eat “free
range” meat, eggs, or dairy at all three meals. But the message should be
clear: veganism, and not “compassionate consumption,” is the baseline
principle of a movement that promotes abolition.

At this point in time, it is unlikely that most legislative or regulatory

campaigns that seek to go beyond traditional welfare reform are going to be
successful; there is no political base to support such reforms because the
corporate movement has not sought to build one. If, however, advocates
wish to pursue such campaigns, they should at the very least involve
prohibitions and not regulations. These prohibitions should recognize that
animals have interests that go beyond those that must be protected in order
to exploit the animals and cannot be compromised for economic reasons. At
no point should animal advocates propose alternative, supposedly more
“humane” substitutes. For example, a prohibition on the use of all animals in
a particular sort of experiment is to be preferred over the substitution in the
experiment of one species for another. But I want to be clear that I do not
favor investing any resources in legislative or regulatory campaigns at this
time. The political compromise required usually results in evisceration of the
benefit sought. Rather, the abolitionist movement should focus on veganism,
which is a much more practical and effective way to reduce animal
exploitation.

I stress that the abolitionist movement should embrace a non-violent

approach, both on the level of individual interactions and as a matter of
movement ideology. As I have long argued, the animal rights movement
should see itself as the next step in the progress of the peace movement; as
a movement that takes the rejection of injustice to the next step. The
problem of animal exploitation is complicated and involves roots that go
deep into our patriarchal culture and our disturbing tolerance for violence
against the vulnerable. Not only is violence problematic as a moral matter, it
is unsound as a practical strategy. We will never address the problem
successfully by using violence to try to create a social movement in favor of
abolition. As Mohandas Gandhi maintained, the most powerful force with
which to oppose injustice is not violence but non-cooperation. There is no
better way to refuse to cooperate with the exploitation of nonhumans than
to eliminate it from your own life through veganism and work to educate
others to do the same. It is disturbing that PETA spends much more time
criticizing those who oppose the welfarist approach than it does those who
will only marginalize the animal issue further by associating it with violence.

It is also disturbing to see the extent to which PETA uses sexism in its
campaigns, literature, and events. Speciesism is closely tied to sexism and
other forms of discrimination against humans. As long as we continue
treating women like meat, we are going to continue treating nonhumans as
meat. It is high time that serious animal advocates make clear to PETA that
its sexism is destructive and counterproductive.

5. "Whose Side Are You On?" Good Question.

Singer and Friedrich end their essay by asking: “Whose Side Are You On?”
They tell us that the animal exploiters all oppose animal welfare and ask
whether we want to be on the side of the animal exploiters who oppose
animal welfare or on the side of Singer and Friedrich, who support animal
welfare. This question by Singer and Friedrich is problematic in at least two
respects respects.

First, it assumes that if animal exploiters oppose animal welfare, it must be

because animal welfare is really harmful to animal exploiters. That is
nonsense and indicates either naivety or disingenuousness. An industry may
oppose regulation even when it does not really oppose it and even when the
regulation may benefit it. A case in point involves the federal Animal Welfare
Act amendment of 1985, which created “animal care committees” to
monitor animal experiments. These committees have not only failed to
provide any meaningful limitation of animal experiments, they have
effectively insulated vivisection from public scrutiny more than it was before
1985. Vivisectors publicly opposed the 1985 amendment although I had
many vivisectors tell me privately that the amendment was, on balance, not
harmful for the practice of animal use. They opposed it because they oppose
the principle of any governmental regulation of animal use. It would be
difficult to find a vivisector who would say, with a straight face, that the 1985
amendment has done anything to restrict vivisection, and many are
delighted that they can now assure the public that there is a committee that
reviews all animal experiments.

Second, Singer and Friedrich are wrong factually in that a number of large
animal exploiters openly and publicly embrace the welfare reforms that
Singer and Friedrich applaud. McDonalds and others have done so because
they understand that they got a bargain. They made minimal changes that
were more than offset by the great publicity that they got from prominent
animal welfarists. A shareholder of these companies would be justified in
complaining if they did not take the “deal” that PETA and others offered as it
can only maximize shareholder wealth.

Although I generally do not think that questions such as “whose side are you
on” are helpful, I am going to make an exception in this case and ask the
same question. Here goes:

Singer maintains that animal use per se does not raise a moral issue because
most nonhumans do not have an interest in continuing to live;

Singer maintains that we can consume animals in an ethical manner;

Singer regards inflicting violence on nonhumans as an acceptable way of

learning about animal exploitation;

PETA kills (“euthanizes” is the wrong word because it implies a death that is
in the interest of the animal) thousands of healthy animals because PETA
apparently accepts Singer's view that animals do not have a fundamental and
morally important interest in continuing to live. “Animal rights” means
“humane” executions.

PETA promotes campaigns that are embraced by corporate animal exploiters,

and gives awards to animal exploiters.

PETA has thoroughly trivialized the animal rights movement by turning the
issue of animal exploitation into one large, self-promoting media stunt, and
has made sexism a constant theme of its animal campaigns.

So whose side are you on?

 Animal Exploitation Fact Sheet
Non-human animals are exploited and abused in many ways, including:
 raising them for food and clothing;
 in entertainments such as rodeos and circuses;
 the killing of native and introduced animals;
 testing medicines, cosmetics and household products and in scientific
experiments of many kinds;
 When companion animals are abused or neglected.
Animals are often regarded as commodities, and their well-being is
considered important only insofar as it affects productivity and profit. But
they are sentient beings, and they require greater consideration.
Not all issues can be addressed in this Fact Sheet

Farm Animals
Animals kept in intensive farming systems endure restrictions in their
movement, space allowance and social contact. Such intensive animal
housing systems cause suffering and stress to animals by preventing the
animals' natural behaviour, increasing the likelihood of disease and by
causing physical injury and deformities.
Animals suffer from serious stress during transportation by road or train, as
well as exposing them to a high possibility of dehydration, hunger, cold, heat,
bruising, broken limbs, lacerations and suffocation. Particular problems occur
with large animals in multi-deck or inadequately sized crates and with the
transport of pregnant animals.

Chicken Production
IIn intensive production units, thousands of broiler chickens (chickens reared
for meat) are kept in darkened sheds with a stocking density of up to 20 per
square metre. They are bred to grow as fast as possible and killed when they
are 6-7 weeks old. It is estimated that around 4% die before reaching
slaughter weight. Causes of death and suffering include:
Crippling
Meat chickens have been selected for their very high growth rate, which,
combined with the lack of exercise, results in leg bones unable to support the
bird's weight, resulting in bent or twisted legs and toes, slipped tendons,
deformed vertebrae and arthritis, all of which inflict extreme pain.
Disease
As with all intensive animal housing, the housing of chickens in a crowded
and contaminated environment greatly increases the likelihood of spread of
infectious diseases, such as salmonellosis and various respiratory diseases.
The recent outbreaks of bird flu in Asia and elsewhere indicate the risks, both
to humans and chickens, of keeping chickens in intensive conditions.
Egg Production
In the intensive egg production system (battery system), hens are kept in
small wire cages, 3 or 4 to a cage. Battery cages are stacked tier upon tier on
long rows, in large sheds which can hold up to 50,000 birds.
Battery cages fail to provide for the physical and behavioral well-being of
hens. The hens suffer poor bone development from lack of exercise, pecking
from other hens, overcrowding, as well as foot, feather and skin damage
caused by abrasion from the wire floor and walls.
They are also denied natural behaviors such as nesting, dust bathing and
foraging, and are subjected to unnaturally long light cycles in order to
increase their laying rates.
These conditions lead to frustration, aggressiveness, and cannibalism. To
prevent cannibalism, hens are debeaked by having up to half of the upper
beak and one third of the lower beak cut off. Such a cut through nerves
causes immediate and often, permanent pain in the beak stump.
Because they have no use in the intensive egg production system, millions of
male chicks are killed every year.
At the end of their 'productive' life (12-18 months) layer hens (then also
called 'spent' hens, 'end of lay' hens or 'cull' hens) are taken from their cages
and transported to slaughtering establishments.
Up to 55% of hens sustain at least one broken bone by the time they reach
the stage of pre-slaughter stunning. Brittle and weak bones result from
osteoporosis and inadequate exercise in battery cages increase the incidence
of bone breakage and suffering caused by callous handling.

Intensive Pig Farming

Intensive piggeries fail to provide for the physical and behavioral well-being
of pigs. Intensively housed pigs suffer from stress, increased susceptibility to
disease, leg deformities and behavioral deprivation.
Female pigs for breeding are denied access to nesting material and are kept
in single crates with insufficient room to move or turn around. When piglets
are born, the design of the crate denies the sow’s appropriate and full
physical contact with their mother. Piglets have their teeth clipped, ears
notched and tails docked, all without anesthetic.
Given the widespread suffering inherent in intensive pig farming, there is an
urgent need to develop and implement more humane housing systems such
as outdoor straw yards which include rooting areas, kennels, and enough
space to meet the pigs' behavioral requirements.

Extensive Sheep Industry

Reared for wool and possibly also meat production, millions of sheep suffer
and die annually in Australia as a result of inadequate management
practices.
In southern climates, newly shorn sheep, new born lambs and pregnant and
mothering ewes frequently die from exposure. In hot conditions, particularly
in the arid and semi-arid areas, sheep often die of starvation, thirst or heat
stroke.
Sheep are also routinely subjected to painful mutilations such as mulesing,
tail docking and castration, all without anaesthetic. Mulesing, intended to
prevent fly-strike in some sheep strains such as merinos, involves the cutting
off of skin folds around the tail area , without anaesthetic. Scientific
observations have shown it is an intensely painful procedure.

Dairy Farming
In intensive dairy farms, cows are usually artificially inseminated to increase
their breeding rates. Unnaturally frequent pregnancies, along with
insemination with semen from large breeds (for the veal industry) cause
difficult and painful calving and may cause internal organ damage. As a
result, a dairy cow's life expectancy is significantly shortened.
Calves are generally separated from their mothers shortly after birth and
killed for 'baby veal', or raised artificially for the veal industry or herd
replacement. Separation causes both mother and offspring to suffer
emotionally and physically.

Live Exports
Many millions of animals, mostly sheep and cattle, are exported live by sea
to countries in the Middle East and South East Asia.
Live export is generally justified by claiming that importing countries require
animals to be slaughtered according to religious requirements, principally
Halal. There is little basis for this claimed justification, as a number of
Australian abattoirs perform slaughter of animals in a manner acceptable to
Moslem consumers.
In the live sheep export industry, in an average year about fifty thousand
sheep die during the sea journey. Those that survive have a high chance of
suffering injuries, illnesses such as salmonellosis and pneumonia, constant
stress, climatic extremes, inability to eat pellet feed and poor and crowded
housing conditions. Other welfare concerns include unloading at multiple
ports; inadequate feedlot facilities in the importing countries; and lack of
control by Australian authorities over the treatment of the sheep in the
country of destination.

Companion Animals
Animals kept commonly as companion animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits,
horses and guinea pigs are often kept in inadequate conditions. Tens of
thousands of unwanted animals are surrendered to animal shelters each
year, and many of these are killed when new homes cannot be found for
them. Many more are abandoned in areas where their likely fate is death by
accident, starvation, disease or predators.
Companion animals should be identified (permanently and painlessly) to
ensure their safe return if lost or stolen, and to encourage owners to take
responsibility towards the animals in their care.

Native Wildlife
Increasing numbers of native Australian animals are being exploited because
they are seen to have some commercial value. Often, the exploitation is
justified by the relevant industry when the species is considered a 'pest'.
Methods of killing wild animals are often inhumane while capture, farming,
as well as trade practices, frequently put the welfare of the animals at risk.
Transportation of live native animals for trade often results in high mortality.
Confinement of wild animals, whether captive bred or not, causes suffering
due to stress, behavioural deprivation and increased susceptibility to disease
and the possibility of physical injury. Native animals kept as companion
animals need specialised attention but often suffer from poor care and
inadequate housing.

Wildlife Population Control

Control of native animal populations is commonly undertaken in Australia
when the animals are regarded as 'pests' because they are perceived to
destroy crops or to compete with, or predate on, farm animals.
Traditional control methods, including shooting, poisoning and trapping, are
generally ineffective in the long-term, indiscriminate, and are responsible for
causing pain and suffering to both target and non-target animals.
Despite being banned in many countries, the steel-jaw trap, one of the most
brutal and indiscriminate population control methods, is still being used,
particularly in Australia for the control of dingoes.
Once trapped, an animal will often gnaw at its trapped limb in an effort to
release it. As well as experiencing severe pain from the injury sustained from
the trap, trapped animals also suffer from fear, dehydration, weather
conditions or predation or attacks from other animals.

Duck Shooting
Each year, during the open shooting season, countless native ducks are killed
or injured for recreation.
Shooting causes pain, suffering, fear, stress and death to the ducks, but also
to non-game birds, and other animals. The frequent killing and wounding of
protected or endangered birds is of particular concern.
It is established thatduck shooters wound at least as many birds as they kill
outright, simply because of the inaccuracy of shotguns, which are used in
duck shooting.
In addition, duck shooting contributes to environmental contamination by
lead from shotgun pellets, tonnes of which remain in the environment. Birds
and other species can suffer lead poisoning as a result of ingesting these
pellets.

Hunting
It is a curious thing that hunting and killing animals for fun is tolerated in
Australian society. Hunters often seek to justify this by claiming that hunting
is necessary to control the populations of animals. However, it is surely more
accurate to say that they are just satisfying their bloodlust.
Hunted animals are likely to suffer stress, pain and injury before being killed
in a hunt. Young animals whose mothers have been killed will usually starve
to death.
The most common hunting weapons are guns, but knives and bows and
arrows are also used by hunters. Inexperienced hunters and those who are
not very skilled are likely to injure a large proportion of their prey.
In duck, fox, pig and deer hunting, dogs are used to track, attack and/or
retrieve the prey. Dogs may cause, and in some cases (pig hunting), suffer,
extensive injuries.

Kangaroos, Euros & Wallabies

Commercial and non-commercial shooting and poisoning are cruel and
wasteful methods of solving the alleged 'pest' problem caused by some
kangaroos, euros and wallabies.
Although macropods are 'protected' wildlife in all Australian States and
Territories, the kangaroo industry is responsible for the world's largest land-
based commercial slaughter. The primary motivation in commercial kangaroo
shooting is maximum profit, not pest control, animal welfare or wildlife
conservation.
As the shooting is highly dispersed and done at night, it is almost impossible
to supervise for the detection of cruel and illegal practices. An RSPCA
Australia study in 1985 showed that 15% of kangaroos shot by commercial
shooters died inhumanely. The proportion is even higher for non-commercial
shooting.
Joeys whose mothers have been killed may be left to starve.

Fishing
Fishing in all forms means pain and stress for millions of fish every year.
Unfortunately, due to widespread public misinformation and ignorance, fish
are generally not effectively protected by animal welfare legislation and are
therefore subject to inhumane fishing practices.
In line fishing, suffering occurs when the hook pierces the fish's flesh; when
the animal is being pulled out of the water whereupon it slowly suffocates;
and when the hook is removed while the fish is still alive. Pain is further
increased for large fish when gaff hooks are used to pull them out of the
water.
In drag-netting, fish are subject to drastic changes in ambient pressures
resulting in damage to internal organs and gills. They also suffer from
compression under the weight of other fish in nets, and from suffocation.
Live baiting involves additionally the suffering of the bait, a small live fish
threaded onto a hook, often through both eye sockets. Live baits may be
dragged in the water for long periods of time, until a predator attacks them.
In big game fishing, 'playing on the line', sometimes for hours, causes intense
suffering and panic to the fish. In fish farms, fish can suffer from stress and
diseases when they are kept in overstocked and unnatural conditions.

Circuses
Circus living conditions almost inevitably do not meet the welfare and
behavioural needs of performing circus animals.
Animals in circuses endure suffering due to caging , inadequate social and
environmental stimulation, the rigours of transportation and training and
performing regimes.
Keeping animals to perform in circuses is particularly problematical where it
involves wild exotic animal species as it denies their most basic behavioural
needs. Animals such as elephants and camels are usually tethered, chained
or kept in small enclosures. Tigers, lions bears or monkeys spend most of
 their lives in small bare cages, with little exercise. Often they only leave their
cages when they are performing in the ring.
Animals such as elephants and primates, who in their native habitat live
within rich and complex social structures, are mostly alone or in the company
of only a few members of their species.
Instead of covering large distances to catch prey, circus lions and tigers can
only pace up and down their small cages. Instead of foraging for food in
family groups, lonely circus elephants are often seen rocking from side to
side - a stereotyped behaviour acknowledged by animal scientists as a sign of
chronic stress.

Whaling
There is no humane way to kill whales. Their death is slow and inhumane,
brought about by explosive devices and harpoons.
There are cruelty-free alternatives for all products derived from whales, and
even indigenous peoples are no longer dependent on whaling for their
survival.

Horse Racing
Commercial horse racing, by its nature, often places financial considerations
ahead of the welfare of the animals involved.
During racing and training horses endure high physical and psychological
stress.
Racing is particularly dangerous for young horses whose physical
development is not complete. When ill health or age prevents them from
winning races and providing a financial advantage to their owners, racing
horses are often sold and transported for hundreds of kilometres to
knackeries.
The most dangerous form of racing is jump racing, including hurdling and
steeplechasing, whereby the combination of fatigue, pre-existing injury,
speed, stress and potential errors of judgement by both horse and rider,
contribute to a high risk of injury and death.

Animals in Research
The majority of animals used in research are subjected to some degree of
pain or stress during the experimental procedure or as a result of the
environment in which they are kept prior to or after the procedures.
The public perception that animal-based research primarily takes place in the
field of medicine is false. Animal-based research is widely used in agriculture
and basic scientific research.
The use of animals in teaching at all levels of secondary and tertiary
education is still widespread. The majority of such teaching is not directed
towards veterinary practice nor training in clinical procedures in humans.
Change is overdue. Animals should not be viewed as mere tools for
research and education. Meaningful reform measures are needed
immediately to:
 Place the onus on the researcher to prove that no non-animal alternatives
exist and that the experiment has not already been conducted.
 Eliminate pain and suffering caused by the research process;
 Effect a significant annual reduction in the number of animals used in
research and teaching; and
 Develop, validate and adopt non-animal techniques in research and teaching.
Alternatives to Animal Testing
There are already many alternatives to animals which have been developed,
particularly in the areas of toxicity testing and teaching.
Cell culture is a particular example of a rapidly-developing technique which
has the potential to replace many tests which currently involve the use of
animals.
The failure to use alternatives is too often caused by inertia, lack of funding,
and reluctance to change from established methods.