Animal Protection Movement Research Articles

Ochrona zwierząt i antysemityzm w niemieckim czasopiśmiennictwie specjalistycznym w latach 1919–1939

Animal Protection and Antisemitism in German Professional Press in the Years 1919–1939 The article discusses the entanglement of antisemitism and animal protection movement on the basis of the professional press of German veterinarians, animal protectionists, and meat producers from 1919 until 1939. The focal point is the question of shehitah. The article shows to what extent this question was a part of a general debate on the slaughter reform and the development of new stunning methods. Not surprisingly, most of the articles in the analyzed press were in favor of the introduction of the stunning obligation before the slaughter, which was from the Jewish perspective equal to the ban of shehitah. The article differentiates between the arguments of the majority of proponents of the obligation and those of their radical antisemitic colleagues. It argues that the animal protection movement in its majority cannot be described as racist or as a natural partner of national socialists, for only some representatives of it, such as Max Müller or Rudolf Einhauser from Munich, displayed a clear antisemitic rhetoric.

Genuine Concern for Animals in England's Nineteenth-Century Animal Protection Movement: The Case Against Reductionist Interpretations

Animal–human history is an increasingly popular area of historical research.1 Diana Donald's 2020 book, Women Against Cruelty: Protection of Animals in Nineteenth-Century Britain is a must-read for anyone interested in the history of animal protection and the role women have played in moral reform movements. Starting from the premise that the prevention of cruelty to animals is “a pure product of the nineteenth century” (p. 7), this dazzling book takes its reader through a wide range of important topics such as the early history of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), differences between men and women's attitudes toward animals, and the role women played in humane education.2 This review will particularly highlight the way that Donald consistently attacks reductionist theses that discount the genuine concern women had for animals in the nineteenth-century British animal protection movement, and how her interpretations consistently refocus our attention on historical evidence of that genuine concern.

Nothing More than ‘Anti-Cull Activists’: Accusations of Bias and the Politics of Research that Advocates for Non-Human Animals

This paper explores the ethical quandary faced by researchers whose work advocates for non-human animals and whose results conflict with prevalent anthropocentric societal narratives. To problematise the concept of research bias, we qualitatively analyse contemporary political debates surrounding the treatment of animals to ascertain if, how, when, and by whom research can be conducted with scientific integrity whilst advocating for more ethical treatment of other animals. By taking a holistic approach to the issues of bias presented within the remit of human-animal studies (research concerning human-animal relations), this paper firstly addresses the historic ways in which accusations of bias are interwoven within the animal protection movement. We then explore the ongoing ways in which research concerning animal interests are politically targeted due to the threat such research presents to anthropocentric governing policies and societal practices. Finally, we analyse the legitimate causes of bias represented within the emerging field of human-animal studies. Overall, this paper highlights the pitfalls of research that advocates for animals whilst revealing the actual issues of bias that warrant further attention by the academic community.

“It Even Makes the Animals Laugh"


 
 
 Henry Bergh founded and became president of the first animal protection organi- zation in the United States, the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in New York City in April 1866, the same month in which his ef- forts to secure modern animal welfare legislation at the state level—also a first—were realized. From then until his death in 1888, Bergh steered his organization and the movement through the streets, the slaughterhouses, the courts, and the halls of that city and the nation. As this article shows, his critics were never far behind. Through a combination of media reportage, annual reports, and correspondence, this article weighs the impact of satire and ridicule directed toward Bergh and the animal protec- tion movement alongside his efforts to reposition such coverage and in some cases to benefit from it. In doing so, it positions Bergh and the animal protection movement relative to issues of frame alignment, leadership, and performance in the context of a rapidly changing media landscape, the negotiation of which was central to the move- ment’s success or failure.
 
 

Eesti loomakaitseliikumine sõdadevahelisel perioodil / Animal Protection Movement in Interwar Estonia

Eestis oli 1920.–1930. aastatel aktiivne loomakaitseliikumine. Kui 1918. aastal oli Eestis vaid üks loomakaitseorganisatsioon, siis iseseisvuse ajal kasvas nende hulk 22-ni, liikumisega seotud isikute hulk aga lausa 10 000-ni. Artiklis on kirjeldatud Eesti loomakaitseliikumise kujunemist, edenemist ja hääbumist sõdadevahelisel perioodil, keskendudes liikumise olulisima eestvedaja, Tallinna Loomakaitse Seltsi inspektori Erich Kattenbergi tegevusele.
 Summary
 The article gives an overview of the Estonian animal protection movement during the interwar period (1918–1940). The interbellum era was an especially active period for the Estonian animal protection movement, yet very little has been written about it. Hence, the main purpose of the article is to acknowledge the existence of the movement in general. The main sources used are newspaper articles from the interwar period; additional sources include the animal welfare magazines published in the 1930s. 
 The first animal welfare organisation in the Baltics was the Riga Society against Cruelty to Animals, founded in 1861, while in Estonia the first society of this kind was the Tallinn Animal Protection Association, created in 1869. When Estonia gained independence in 1918, the Tallinn Animal Protection Association was the only animal welfare organisation in the country. It had approximately 600 members, most of whom were Baltic Germans. 
 A significant turn in the Estonian animal protection movement came in 1924, when Erich Kattenberg started working for the Tallinn Association as an animal protection inspector. Kattenberg was a dedicated animal welfare enthusiast who carried out inspections, organised events, wrote articles and gave speeches about the topic, and collaborated with schools, churches and governmental organisations. In particular, he focused on youth work. In 1927 he created a youth group at the Tallinn Animal Protection Association, which had more than 4000 members by 1934. 
 In the autumn of 1926, Kattenberg wrote articles to the Estonian newspapers, inviting all friends of the animals to spread the animal protection movement across the country. As a result of his call, several new animal protection groups were created and by 1932 there were 22 animal protection associations in Estonia. Also the number of activists in Estonia started rising so that by 1933 there were approximately 10,000 people connected with the Estonian animal protection organisations.
 Under the leadership of Kattenberg, the Estonian animal protection organisations founded the Estonian Union of Animal Protection in 1928. It united all animal protection groups in Estonia and became the central and most important organisation of animal protection in Estonia. In the 1930s the activists started publishing journals of animal protection: the first among these was Loomakaitsja (‘The protector of animals’), published by Erich Kattenberg and the Estonian Union of Animal Protection. It first appeared in 1931, and, after a hiatus, resumed publication in 1934. In 1935 the journal changed its name to Eesti Loomasõber (‘The Estonian friend of animals’) and was published under that name until 1939. The second journal, published by the members of the Tartu Estonian Animal Protection Association in 1934–1936, was called Loomakaitse Ajakiri (‘The magazine of animal protection’). Since Eesti Loomasõber and Loomakaitse Ajakiri were published at the same time, there was a strong rivalry between the two, which turned into a conflict between the Estonian Union of Animal Protection and the Tartu Estonian Animal Protection Association. As a result of the conflict, Erich Kattenberg decided to resign from the board of the Union in 1935.
 After Kattenberg’s resignation, the Estonian Union of Animal Protection’s new chairs, who also became the spokespersons of the Estonian animal welfare movement in general, included Elmar Vau (1935–1936), Bernhard Methusalem (1936–1938) and Peeter Päts (1938–1940). 
 The animal protection movement in Estonia ended in 1940, when Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union, and recovered only in the 20th and early 21st century, when Estonia had restored its independence.

Beyond Cages: Animal Law and Criminal Punishment

Beyond Cages: Animal Law and Criminal Punishment

Coping With Human-Cat Interactions Beyond the Limits of Domesticity: Moral Pluralism in the Management of Cats and Wildlife.

Although human interactions with cats are often even typically analyzed in the context of domesticity, with a focus on what sorts of interactions might make both people and cats “happy at home,” a large number of cats in the world live, for one reason or another, beyond the bounds of domesticity. Human interactions with these more or less free-living cats raise deeply controversial questions about how both the cats and the people they interact with should be sensibly managed, and about the moral imperatives that ought to guide the management of their interactions through the laws and public policies regulating both human interactions with pets and with wildlife. We review the geography of human interactions with cats living beyond the bounds of domesticity. We acknowledge the contributions made to ideas about how to manage cats by the animal protection movement. We review the tensions that have emerged over time between advocates for the eradication of free-living cats, because of the impacts they have on native wildlife species, and those who have imagined alternatives to eradication, most notably one or another variant of trap-neuter-return (TNR). The conflict over how best to deal with cats living beyond the bounds of domesticity and their wildlife impacts raises the prospect of stalemate, and we canvass and critique possibilities for moving beyond that stalemate.

Application of in vitro methods to evaluate the safety of baby care products

Draize rabbit eye irritation and skin irritation tests are widely used in the chemical industry as traditional methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetics. However, great differences among laboratories have caused great doubt in the industry. In addition, with vigorous development of the global animal protection movement, developed countries have launched the “3R” campaign, and various kinds of in vitro alternative methods have emerged. Hen's egg test on the chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM), which is similar to the structure of the human cornea and has a clear and complete vascular system, is based on the characteristics of the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) in mid-term SPF egg embryos. The reconstructed human epidermis (EpiSkin®) is composed of normal human keratinocytes that are histologically similar to human epidermises seen in vivo, and it is cultured on a collagen matrix. Similar to EpiSkin®, Human Corneal Epithelium (SkinEthic™) is another reconstructed 3D human-corneal structure that is an alternative to the traditional eye irritation test. Three in vitro methods were conducted to evaluate the safety of 12 baby care products, which included the most common types. In addition, a consumer research study was also carried out for two weeks to evaluate the safety. The results of the reconstructed human epidermis model, human corneal epithelium model and consumer research showed that no irritation was found in any test products; however, HET-CAM tests showed positive results.

“For the Sake of Morality and Civilization”: The Buddhist Animal Protection Movement in Republican China

“For the Sake of Morality and Civilization”: The Buddhist Animal Protection Movement in Republican China

The Strange Case of Henry Bergh’s “Declaration of the Rights of Animals”

Abstract A growing number of texts that address the history of the animal protection movement in the United States point to the importance of a document written in 1866 by ASPCA founder Henry Bergh and signed by dozens of influential supporters entitled the “Declaration of the Rights of Animals.” This article pursues the discussions and the bibliographical matter found in these texts along with other likely sources in which the “Declaration” or discussion of it might appear, and comes to the conclusion that no such document exists. In lieu of the “Declaration,” the article locates its origins in a very different document, traces the trajectory that led to that document being viewed in the terms currently ascribed to it, and emphasizes the impact that the presence or absence of such a groundbreaking document as the “Declaration” has on our understanding of the history and evolution of the animal protection movement.

The role of social media in shaping the animal protection movement in indonesia

In the past decade, the number of community-based animal protection movements has shown a significant increase in Indonesia. These groups are actively fighting for animal rights, protection, and conservation while continuing to expand the influence and attract new members through various channels, especially social media. This article seeks to see the contribution of the social media strategy used by animal rights groups to the three basic elements of a social movement: collective identity, actual mobilisation, and network organisation. How social media, especially Face book and Instagram, are used by animal rights groups to achieve their ultimate goal as a social movement. This analysis also seeks to map the character of the movement for animal protection in Indonesia in the realm of new media based on their ideology, strategies, and objectives they want to achieve.

Friends of Every Friendless Beast Carceral Animal Law and the Funding of Prosecutors

In the mid-nineteenth century, the founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Henry Bergh, saw criminal punishment as the lynchpin of the protection of animals. Bergh lobbied the New York legislature for the adoption of animal cruelty laws, and took it on himself to enforce those laws. Animal law has evolved considerably since then, but Bergh’s tactics have experienced a renaissance. The animal protection movement’s reliance on criminal law and incarceration to prop up animal status is the subject of a book-length critique by Justin Marceau in Beyond Cages: Animal Law and Criminal Punishment. Picking up on the book’s call for greater scholarly attention to the relationship between criminal justice and animal protection, this essay focuses scrutiny on three aspects of the modern animal protection’s fixation with criminal justice: (1) the animal protection movement’s renewed interest in privatizing the prosecutorial function; (2) the view that by framing the animal as a victim, social change will be more readily possible; and (3) more generally, the view that prosecutors will serve as catalysts for the sort of radical social change the animal protection movement is pursuing.

Chattel or Child: The Liminal Status of Companion Animals in Society and Law

Companion animals in the U.S. are increasingly regarded as members of the family with whom one may share a strong emotional bond. However, despite an evolving social construction that has elevated their status in the dominant culture, companion animals lack meaningful legal rights, and “family member” is a provisional status that can be dissolved at will based on the discretion of the sole rights-holder in the relationship: the human owner. Because they are still defined within the U.S. legal system as property, it is a common lament within the animal protection movement that the law has not kept pace with the emergent cultural perception of companion animals as family or best friends who may occupy a significant place in one’s constellation of interpersonal relationships. But how divergent are the laws that govern our treatment of companion animals from prevailing social norms? This article examines current trends in animal law and society to shed light on this question. I find that while a new family member cultural status is emerging for companion animals in the U.S., their legal status as property is a countervailing force, enabling contradictory practices and beliefs that construct animals as expendable. The fact that their cultural status is in flux in turn reinforces their status under the law. I conclude with proposed policy reforms that will facilitate the integration of companion animals into society as true rather than rhetorical family members.

Animals Australia and the Challenges of Vegan Stereotyping

Animals Australia and the Challenges of Vegan Stereotyping

Imagining Animal Rights in Nineteenth‐century New York: Satire and Strategy in the Animal Protection Movement

AbstractIn 1866, America's most widely circulating newspaper the New York Herald published an extended satire directed at Henry Bergh and his newly established American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the first animal protection organization to be established in the United States. This article takes the Herald authors' decision to satirize the animal protection movement by framing it in terms of animal ‘rights’ as an opportunity to consider the challenges associated with that frame. Weighing the ease with which the movement could be ridiculed through the concept of rights and the broader discursive landscape connected to the rights of blacks and of women in the wake of the Civil War, it argues that animal rights was far more useful as a framing strategy to the critics of the animal protection movement than it was to its proponents. In turn, the article suggests that the challenges associated with the concept of animal rights that are revealed in this satire help to explain the dominance for much of the movement's history of the animal welfare frame over that of animal rights.

Corporate Cruelty: Holding Factory Farms Accountable for Animal Cruelty Crimes to Encourage Systemic Reform

Animal cruelty within industrialized animal agriculture, or factory farms, is a major concern of the animal protection movement. Two types of animal cruelty exist in factory farms: systemic and egregious cruelty. Systemic cruelty refers to day-to-day operations of factory farms which expose farm animals to the most constant and prolonged suffering. Egregious cruelty refers to specific acts of violence to animals by farm workers. While systemic cruelty is the top priority of animal advocates, only criminal prosecution of egregious cruelty has gained traction. This Note proposes that animal advocates, through the criminal justice system, should seek to apply the doctrine of corporate criminal liability to egregious anti-cruelty cases. Doing so would address the factory farming system itself, deter the corporation form allowing similar conduct to continue, incentivize the corporation to make systemic reforms to avoid liability, and address controversial prosecutions of factory farm workers. Anti-cruelty violations of workers can satisfy the elements of the legal doctrine for corporate criminal liability. Due to the nature of their day-to-day work, factory farm workers, when they commit acts of egregious cruelty, are employees of the factory farm corporation, working within the scope of their employment, and to the benefit of the corporation. The mens rea element required for criminal corporate liability can be satisfied by imputing the workers’ knowledge or intent to the corporation. Animal advocates can take advantage of the ability to prosecute egregious anti-cruelty cases arising from factory farms through corporate liability to better impact systemic cruelty reform.

Effective animal advocacy: effective altruism, the social economy, and the animal protection movement

Effective altruism is a conceptual approach and emerging social movement that uses data-driven reasoning to channel social economy resources toward philanthropic activities. Priority cause areas for effective altruists include global poverty, existential risks to humanity, and animal welfare. Indeed, a significant subset of the movement argues that animal factory farming, in particular, is a problem of great scope, one that is overly neglected and offers the potential for massive reductions in global suffering. This paper explores the philosophical and methodological tenets of these “effective animal advocates,” offering empirical qualitative insight into their motivations and perspectives. The work also considers the implications of the effective altruists’ entrance into the arena of animal advocacy, taking note of how various factions within both the effective altruist and animal protection movements have received their conceptual and practical interventions. The research highlights several potential contributions of the effective animal advocates, as their commitment to evaluate and amplify pragmatic solutions to the problems of animal suffering has the opportunity to shift institutional and consumer behaviors in ways the animal protection movement has struggled to do in the past. At the same time, key issues related to the community’s research rigor and measurability biases, its lack of demographic diversity, and its tendency to valorize corporate-driven technological solutions open it up to criticism from internal and external detractors alike.

HET DODEN VAN DIEREN IN NEDERLAND, 1860-1940

THE KILLING OF ANIMALS IN THE NETHERLANDS, 1860-1940 A inconvenient part of the human-animal relationship This article explores the rise of the animal protection movement and its propaganda to improve the humane killing of animals in the Netherlands. From 1880 onwards, veterinarians became advisors of animal protection societies because they were considered objective judges with scientific knowledge of animal physiology. Between 1880 and 1922 cruelty to animals decreased significantly by the development and introduction of asphyxiation cages for pets and stunning equipment for slaughter animals. Although criticized, ritual slaughter remained legal. The debate on killing methods for animals with the tensions between scientific knowledge and emotions has been with us for one and a half centuries and continues today.

Veterinary Medicine and Animal Welfare Discourses in the Third Reich

After the National Socialists assumed power in 1933, their ideas on animal welfare gained a foothold in veterinary organizations. Moreover, veterinary authorities as well as practitioners themselves influenced and shaped this particular form of animal welfare, which departed from frameworks such as those offered by the animal protection movement. Not only did leading figures of the profession commit themselves to work in animal welfare organizations, they were also complicit in helping with the ideological purges that followed the “Gleichschaltung,” which forced the more radical elements of the animal protection movement into line with Nazi ideology. Drawing on a discourse analysis of the leading weeklies of the veterinary profession and the major animal welfare journals of the time, this paper analyses overlapping discourses on the meaning of animal welfare and how these discourses were integrated in the National Socialist leitmotivs of national wealth and the nationalist concept of a folk community. It also considers how the veterinary profession’s to be the sole “advocate and helper of animals” affected the relationship between the animal protection movement and veterinary institutions.

‘Retaining their bestial character’: Fashion, fear of degeneration and animal protection in late imperial Russia

Abstract This article examines the possible roots of the change in cultural attitudes, due to which fashionable objects of animal origin started to be viewed negatively in Russian fashion periodicals and advice manuals of the early twentieth century. Among these influences, we may count the development of the animal protection movement, with the Russian Society for the Protection of Animals established in 1865. Although initially this association was not concerned with fashion, it shaped the notion of the cruel treatment of animals, drawing public attention to this issue. An analysis of non-fiction writing by Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vikentii Veresaev will show that, while the Society’s agenda was ambiguous and met with a mixed response, the new sensibilities this group promoted were increasingly internalized by the educated public. On the other hand, fashion criticism during the era argued that fashion distorts and deforms human shape by giving it animal features – that is, it assists degeneration. A reversal of evolution, in this case triggered by brutality, was similarly evoked by the proponents of animal protection. The newly perceived inappropriateness of certain fashionable objects was thus due to the double ‘animality’ they were believed to impart to the wearer: that of following the ‘fashion instinct’ and that of being complicit in violence.