James Ensor, Animal Activist

The global pet care market is booming, with pet owners increasingly seeking ways to understand and improve the well-being of their animal companions. This demand extends beyond domestic pets to working animals, such as those in law enforcement and the military, and even to livestock in the agriculture industry. Accurate and timely diagnosis of health issues is crucial in all these sectors, but traditional methods often rely on subjective observations and infrequent veterinary visits. This paper introduces a novel Internet of Things (IoT) platform designed to bridge this gap by providing continuous, objective monitoring of animal behavior and activity.Our platform employs a non-invasive, wearable device equipped with an array of sensors that capture physiological and movement data. This data is then processed using advanced machine learning algorithms to classify the animal's activity into predefined categories, such as resting, playing, eating, or exploring. By analyzing patterns and deviations in these activities, we construct a comprehensive "Activity Level Indicator" (ALI). This index provides a clear and quantifiable measure of the animal's overall well-being, categorizing them as normal, hyperactive, or lethargic.Furthermore, the collected data is visualized through an intuitive dashboard accessible to pet owners, trainers, and veterinarians. This dashboard provides valuable insights into the animal's daily routines, activity levels, and potential anomalies. For pet owners, this translates to a deeper understanding of their pet's needs and early detection of potential health concerns. For trainers, the platform offers data-driven feedback to optimize training programs and monitor progress. Veterinarians can leverage the platform to access objective data, aiding in diagnosis and treatment planning, and enabling remote monitoring of patients.This paper details the development and validation of the IoT platform, including the sensor technology, machine learning models, and dashboard design. We present results from a pilot study demonstrating the platform's effectiveness in accurately classifying animal activities and identifying deviations from normal behavior patterns. The potential applications and implications of this technology are discussed, highlighting its contribution to improving animal welfare across various domains, from enhancing the bond between pets and owners to revolutionizing animal healthcare in veterinary practice and the agriculture industry.

Through the early twentieth century, people in rural areas of North America either dealt with problems caused by wildlife by killing the problem species, eliminating its habitat, changing crops or husbandry practices, tolerating the damage, or moving to a new area devoid of such problem animals. However, many of these solutions are impractical today with the increase in human populations, the increased expansion of development into previously rural landscapes, the increased fragmentation of land ownership, and the increasing movement of people into metropolitan areas. Because of current local, state, and federal ordinances and regulations, along with the impacts of animal rights and activist groups on public sensitivities, there are more rigid constraints on the tools, techniques, and capabilities that an individual or community in urban or rural areas can utilize to address a wildlife damage problem. The great majority of individuals today care about the humane treatment of animals and are sensitive to some of the claims, whether correct or not, made by animal activists, but they are much more likely to expect someone else to handle their problems as a community service or for a fee. This paper provides highlights of a historical perspective on the evolution of wildlife damage management in the United States, insight about the development of the Berryman Institute, and some future challenges for the profession.

Home Range Use by Abert Squirrels: A Comparative Analysis

Animals Australia and the Challenges of Vegan Stereotyping

The ideological differences between animal activists and primary producers are long-standing, existing long before the advent of social media with its widespread communicative capabilities. Primary producers have continued to rely on traditional media channels to promote their products. In contrast, animal activists have increasingly adopted livestreaming on social media platforms and ‘direct action’ protest tactics to garner widespread public and media attention while promoting vegetarianism/veganism, highlighting issues in animal agriculture and disrupting the notion of the ‘happy farm animal’. This paper uses a case study approach to discuss the events that unfolded when direct action animal activists came into conflict with Western Australian farmers and businesses in 2019. The conflict resulted in increased news reporting, front-page coverage from mainstream press, arrests and parliamentary law changes. This case study explores how the activists’ strategic communication activities, which included livestreaming their direct actions and other social media tactics, were portrayed by one major Australian media outlet and the farmers’ interest groups’ reactions to them.

Why do some people and not others become involved in social movements? We examined the relationships between a moral emotion—disgust—and animal activism, attitudes toward animal welfare, and consumption of meat. Participants were recruited through two social networking websites and included animal activists, promoters of animal use, and participants not involved in animal‐related causes. They took an online survey which included measures of sensitivity to visceral disgust, attitudes toward animal welfare, and frequency of meat eating. Animal activists were more sensitive to visceral disgust than were promoters of animal use or nonaligned participants. Disgust sensitivity was positively correlated with attitudes toward animal welfare but not with meat consumption. The relationship between animal activism and vegetarianism was complex; nearly half of animal activists ate meat, and half of the vegetarians did not consider themselves to be animal activists. We argue that conflicts over the moral status of animals reflect fundamental differences in moral intuitions.

The animal activist as a ‘social watchdog’: you can bark, but you can’t bite? A study on the relationship between criminal prosecution of animal activists and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR Animal welfare has increasingly become part of public debate. Animal activists provide information about abuses in the livestock industry, but often violate criminal law in doing so. By reflecting on legislation and in case law from the ECHR, an answer has been sought to the question of how criminal prosecution relates to the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. It is concluded that animal activists investigating and publishing information about abuses enjoy the same protection as the press. Whether criminal prosecution constitutes a breach of this right is case-specific and primarily depends on whether the public interest in the publication outweighs the interest protected by the relevant criminal provision(s).

This guide accompanies the following article : The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature, Compass 6/2 (2012): pp. 166–181, 10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2011.00440.x Author’s introduction The animal rights movement has been described as one of the most neglected and misunderstood social movements of our era. However, social movement scholars are beginning to realise the political and moral significance of the world wide animal protection movement at a time when nature itself has been included in the specialist field of environmental sociology. Just as people are beginning to see that nature matters and is not separate from society, nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) too are increasingly perceived as worthy of our respect and consideration. The long‐running animal protection movement which began in England in the 18th century is today better known as the animal rights movement. It is the men and women of this movement who, atypically for a social movement, are campaigning for a species that is not their own. The movement’s theories and practices are important for what they do for animals and also because of what the animal rights controversy reveals about human beings. Author recommends Garner, Robert. 1998. Political Animals: Animal Protection Policies in Britain and the United States. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. The book describes the progress made by the animal protection movement in the two countries where animal rights protests have been most prominent. The author presents a comprehensive examination of animal welfare policies in Britain and the US thus providing an informative comparative study of the movement’s relationship with the state in these two countries. Garner’s focus on policy networks corresponds to the sociologist’s concept of social movement organizations. More than fifty such organizations balanced evenly between animal protectionists and animal‐user industries are discussed in the book. Political Animals provides an excellent introduction to the politics of animal rights, although missing in the accounts are the voices of the animal activists and their opponents. In the final analysis, it is the meaning activists attribute to their cause that drives the movement, a fact which Garner tacitly acknowledges. Imhoff, Daniel (ed) 2010. The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology with Watershed Media, Berkeley, LA: University of California Press. The Reader’s subject – concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) – covers most of the topics relevant to factory farmed animals and is divided into seven parts: (1) The pathological mindset of the CAFO; (2) Myths of the CAFO; (3) Inside the CAFO; (4) The loss of diversity; (5) Hidden costs of CAFO; (6) Technological takeover; (7) Putting the CAFO out to pasture. The acronym CAFO suggests a bland, mundane practice and is therefore a name which the editor believes should be replaced by the more accurate label “animal concentration camps”. The chapter titles indicate what is in store for the reader but the content is perhaps less confronting than the book’s companion photo‐format volume of the same name. The reader is a very comprehensive survey of how living creatures are subjected to inhumane practices for their body parts by “corporate food purveyors” and is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future survival of all of the earth’s species. Kean, Hilda. 1998. Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. In this attractive book, the historian Hilda Kean provides one of the most comprehensive and interesting surveys of the early animal protection movement in England, the birthplace of animal rights. Kean tells a compelling story of how and why people’s attitudes and practices involving animals changed over the past two centuries. She attributes these changes largely to the seemingly simple idea of “sight”, or how people were influenced by seeing for themselves how animals such as horses and dogs were ill treated in public spaces such as in streets and markets. Animals “out of sight” in vivisection laboratories and in abattoirs also came to the attention of the early animal protectionists, most of whom were women. The sight and spectacle of animal abuse turned hearts and stomachs once a light was shone on these everyday cruelties by the pioneers of animal rights in England. Kean’s book is nicely illustrated in keeping with the theme of seeing animals in their various relationships with humans. Munro, Lyle. 2005. Confronting Cruelty: Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Leiden & Boston: Brill. For most people animal cruelty is understood as unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds and sometimes horses. The animal rights movement seeks to broaden the issue of animal cruelty to include the vast numbers of animals that suffer and die in “the animal industrial complex” of intensive farming, recreational hunting and animal research and experimentation. The book draws on social movement theory to explain how and why an increasing number of people in the UK, US and Australia have taken up the cause of animals in campaigning against the exploitative practices of the animal‐user industries. Essentially, the thesis is that animal abuse is constructed by the animal rights movement as a social problem (speciesism) on a par with sexism and racism. This is the first book in the Human and Animal Studies Series which currently lists about a dozen monographs published by Brill under the editorship of Kenneth Shapiro of the Society & Animals Institute in the US. Noske, Barbara. 1989. Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. As an anthropologist, Noske brings a different perspective to our relationship with nature, especially in the long process of animal domestication. Her chapter on “the animal industrial complex” shows how both human and nonhuman animals suffer within this structure of domination; for example, slaughterhouse work takes a heavy toll on the meat workers while the animals experience atrocious pain and misery on the assembly line of mass execution. Noske’s book is valuable for its broad treatment of animal‐human relations in which she describes cultural, historical, structural and sociological aspects of these relations particularly in America and Australia. Wilkie, Rhoda and Inglis David (eds.) 2007. The Social Scientific Study of Nonhuman Animals: A Five‐volume Collection – Animals and Society: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. (Vols 1–5), London: Routledge. This is a collection of 90 previously published articles and book chapters in approximately 2,000 pages on the social‐scientific study of animals. The papers range from the earliest in 1928 on “the culture of canines” to the latest in 2006 on “religion and animals.” Three quarters of the papers were published in the last two decades and are derived from anthropology, sociology, psychology, geography, philosophy and feminist studies. Because Animals and Society is based mostly on work derived from more than 12 different specialist journals, it has a claim to comprehensiveness; however, the editors mention topics that are not covered in the collection:

This article examines the nature of the controversy between animal activists and the scientific community over the need for and desirability of additional regulation of animal experimentation. We critically review the existing federal and state regulatory environment and discuss a number of proposals for new federal legislation for regulating the use of animals in scientific experimentation. We identify and discuss three factors that encompass the issues that are at the core of the controversy and use these to suggest a conceptual framework in which to analyze schemes for regulating animal experimentation. Finally, we discuss the implications that such regulation will have for animal experimentation and conclude that it is neither necessary nor desirable.

Traditionally, acts of civil disobedience are understood as a mechanism by which citizens may express dissatisfaction with a law of their country. That expression will typically be morally motivated, non-violent and aimed at changing their government’s policy, practice or law. Building on existing work, in this paper we explore the limits of one well-received definition of civil disobedience by considering the challenging case of the actions of animal activists at sea. Drawing on original interviews with advocates associated with Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace and Humane Society International we find that even if animal activists are morally motivated and civil, the transnational nature of their activity makes it difficult to assess their intention to bring about a change in law or public policy. This means that a civil disobedience defence may not be available to activists operating across international borders. This raises important questions about the usefulness of the civil disobedience concept within the context of a globalised world. We conclude that while the actions of some anti-whaling activists may not meet definitions of civil disobedience as conventionally understood, this says more about the narrow way in which that concept has been traditionally defined, than it does about the type of activity some anti-whaling activists have undertaken in the Southern Ocean. Finally, we argue that activists wishing to make a stand against whaling may have no choice but to act as global citizens because policy change within a single nation-state is unlikely to lead to the cessation of this inherently transnational activity.

Britain clamps down on animal activists' tactics

ABSTRACTPeter Singer's argument against ‘speciesism’ has served as the theoretical foundation for the modern animal rights movement. His argument is that the wrongs we do to animals are analogous to those committed against marginalized humans; that if we are opposed to one, then we should also be opposed to the other. Despite the argument's popularity, those historically oppressed groups to whom animals are compared have been critical of it, perceiving the analogy as dehumanizing. Animal activists have struggled to understand this criticism, arguing that the analogy is only dehumanizing if one believes animals to be inferior in the first place – which is exactly what they dispute. What they fail to realize, I argue, is that the disagreement cannot be reduced to a difference in what one chooses to value. It is, instead, fundamentally conceptual. To be likened to an ‘Animal’ is something different for they who have never been regarded as ‘fully human’ in the first place. It is only after animal activists appreciate this – the singular character of human oppression, how it differs conceptually from the injustice that animals can be subject to – that the building of alliances and the work of collaboration can begin in earnest.

There were excellent reasons to reform intensive animal agriculture prior to COVID-19. Unfortunately, though, intensive animal agriculture has grown rapidly over the last century. All signs indicate that it will continue to grow in the future. This is bad news for billions of animals. It’s also bad news for those who want an animal-friendly food system. Because the public isn’t very concerned about the plight of animals—or is concerned, but has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance—animal activists regularly engage in indirect activism. Indirect activism involves arguing that some cause that’s indirectly related to the activist’s primary agenda provides reasons to act in ways that are congruent with that agenda. In this paper, we consider the two indirect arguments that animal activists advanced in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic: first, some used COVID-19 to criticize intensive animal agriculture—many of these had US-based audiences as their target; second, and more modestly, some activists used COVID-19 to condemn wet markets specifically. We contend that both arguments had the risk of backfiring: they risked promoting the very systems that are worst for animals. We then assess the moral significance of this risk, concluding that while it may have been permissible to advance these arguments, there were some serious moral considerations against doing so—ones that weren’t addressed by flagging animal activists’ concern for animals or any other stakeholder in the discussion. In both cases, we think there are plausible precautionary arguments against the strategies that these activists pursued. Additionally, in the case of arguments against wet markets specifically, we contend that the precautionary argument can be supplemented with a side constraint condition that, arguably, activists violated insofar as they were acting in ways that maintain a racist and xenophobic system.

Juxtaposing the continental philosophy of inclusion/exclusion and the cognitive and affective neuroscience of dehumanization, infrahumanization, and rehumanization may inform animal activists’ strategies. Both fields focus upon how we decide who counts and who doesn’t. Decisions over who’s human (or like us) and who isn’t (i.e., who’s an animal, or not like us) are not simply about species membership but involve biopolitical value judgments over who we wish to include or exclude. Posthumanists seek to disrupt the biopolitics of inclusion/exclusion, partly to heal ethical and political relations between human and nonhuman animals. Calarco calls this jamming Agamben’s anthropological machine. Bestia Sacer are those designated as included or excluded, moving among zones of humans, nonhuman animals, and things. Cognitive and affective neuroscience describes how mechanisms of inclusion/exclusion function in dehumanization, infrahumanization, and rehumanization. Humans assign varying degrees of humanity to others according to in-group/out-group status in judgments open to manipulation. Investigating how these mechanisms operate in human perceptions of nonhuman animals may inform activist strategies, transforming ethical and political relations between humans and nonhuman animals and end the exclusion of Bestia Sacer.

Agriculture needs to mitigate its impacts and adapt to new environmental conditions. To this end, communicating climate change to farmers is essential but remains a challenge, since many stakeholders (e.g. public administration, sectoral stakeholders, environmentalists) engage with farmers, conveying diverse messages about climate change and the role of agriculture. Here we aim to analyse farmers’ perceptions of climate change and how these relate to their trust in different stakeholders. We conducted a survey with 167 livestock farmers across Spain, gathering data about their perceptions on climate change severity and origin, and to what extent its importance has been exaggerated. We also analysed farmers’ trust in different information sources, including farmers associations (i.e. breed associations, farmer organisations and cooperatives), agricultural organisations, technical publications, veterinarians, agricultural firms, government agencies, scientists, environmentalists, animal activists, and the media. Our results show that farmers believe climate change exists but a high proportion are sceptical about its origin and severity. Farmers’ trust in information sources influences their perception of climate change. Farmers who trust public institutions, environmentalists, animal activists, and the media are more likely to view climate change as human-driven and perceive its impacts as severe, rejecting claims of exaggeration. In contrast, those who trust veterinarians, cooperatives, agricultural firms, and farmer organisations tend to see climate change as a hybrid human-natural process and believe its impacts are overstated. The results highlight the need to improve the science-policy-farmers dialogue to make farmers more aware of the potential consequences of climate change on farming and trigger adaptation.