tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/animal-law-1776/articlesAnimal law – The Conversation2022-10-21T12:37:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1924832022-10-21T12:37:30Z2022-10-21T12:37:30ZPit bulls went from America’s best friend to public enemy – now they’re slowly coming full circle<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490470/original/file-20221018-7176-3an2np.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C4288%2C2837&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A pit bull is not an official breed – it's an umbrella term for a type of dog.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/black-and-white-pit-bull-dog-with-black-patch-over-royalty-free-image/1167023930">Barbara Rich via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As recently as 50 years ago, the pit bull was America’s favorite dog. Pit bulls were everywhere. They were popular in advertising and used to promote the joys of pet-and-human friendship. <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/high-fidelity-nipper-the-rca-dog/">Nipper on the RCA Victor label</a>, <a href="https://www.kennel.com/our-gang-the-little-rascals-and-petey-the-pit-bull/">Pete the Pup</a> in the “Our Gang” comedy short films, and the flag-wrapped dog on a <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WW1_poster_featuring_a_pit_bull.jpg">classic World War I poster</a> all were pit bulls.</p>
<p>With <a href="https://www.metlifepetinsurance.com/blog/breed-spotlights/national-pitbull-awareness-day/">National Pit Bull Awareness Day</a> being celebrated on Oct. 28, 2023, it’s a fitting time to ask how these dogs came to be seen as a dangerous threat. </p>
<p>Starting around 1990, multiple features of American life converged to inspire widespread bans that made pit bulls outlaws, called “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-13-mn-62013-story.html">four-legged guns</a>” or “<a href="https://www.deseret.com/1995/12/26/19211866/pit-bulls-are-lethal-ban-them">lethal weapons</a>.” The drivers included some dog attacks, excessive parental caution, fearful insurance companies and a tie to the sport of dog fighting.</p>
<p>As a professor of <a href="http://colindayan.com/">humanities and law</a>, I have studied the legal history of slaves, vagrants, criminals, terror suspects and others deemed threats to civilized society. For my books “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691157870/the-law-is-a-white-dog">The Law is a White Dog</a>” and “<a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/with-dogs-at-the-edge-of-life/9780231167123">With Dogs at the Edge of Life</a>,” I explored human-dog relationships and how laws and regulations can deny equal protection to entire classes of beings. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white dog runs with a tennis ball in its mouth" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490883/original/file-20221020-22-a797ev.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stella, a pit bull owned by author Colin Dayan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Colin Dayan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In my experience with these dogs – including nearly 12 years living with Stella, the daughter of champion fighting dogs – I have learned that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Like other dogs, they can become dangerous in certain situations, and at the hands of certain owners. But in my view, there is no defensible rationale for condemning not only all pit bulls, but any dog with a single pit bull gene, as <a href="https://www.forallanimals.org/pit-bull-terriers-breed-discriminatory-legislation-faqs/">some laws do</a>. </p>
<p>I see such action as canine profiling, which recalls another legal fiction: the <a href="https://www.amacad.org/publication/one-drop-one-hate">taint or stain of blood</a> that ordained human degradation and race hatred in the United States. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Painting of a black and white dog looking into the horn of a Victorian record player" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490476/original/file-20221018-18-7jvufh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">English artist Francis Barraud (1856-1924) painted his brother’s dog Nipper listening to the horn of an early phonograph in 1898. Victor Talking Machine Co. began using the symbol in its trademark, His Master’s Voice, in 1900.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice#/media/File:His_Master's_Voice.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bred to fight</h2>
<p>The pit bull is strong. Its jaw grip is almost impossible to break. Bred over centuries to <a href="https://www.tuftsyourdog.com/dogtrainingandbehavior/dear-doctor-pit-bulls-and-locking-jaws/">bite and hold large animals</a> like bears and bulls around the face and head, it’s known as a “game dog.” Its bravery and strength <a href="https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/pit-bulls-safety">won’t allow it to give up</a>, no matter how long the struggle. It loves with the same strength; its loyalty remains <a href="https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls">the stuff of legend</a>. </p>
<p>For decades pit bulls’ tenacity encouraged the sport of dogfighting, with the dogs “pitted” against each other. Fights often went to the death, and winning animals earned huge sums for those who bet on them. </p>
<p>But betting on dogs is not a high-class sport. Dogs are not horses; they cost little to acquire and maintain. Pit bulls easily and quickly became associated with the poor, and <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf">especially with Black men</a>, in a narrative that connected pit bulls with gang violence and crime.</p>
<p>That’s how prejudice works: The one-on-one <a href="https://drexel.edu/%7E/media/Files/law/law%20review/v10-3/Saucier%2010%20Drexel%20L%20Rev%20673.ashx">lamination of the pit bull onto the African American male</a> reduced people to their accessories. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A dog confined in an animal crate, with police in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1224&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1224&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490479/original/file-20221018-8262-llmipj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1224&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A pit bull-type dog seized during a 2007 raid on an illegal dogfighting operation in East Cleveland, Ohio.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pit-bull-type-dog-seized-this-morning-during-a-series-of-co-news-photo/832821312">Owen Humphreys – PA Images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Dogfighting was <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-dog-fighting">outlawed in all 50 states by 1976</a>, although illegal businesses persisted. Coverage of the practice spawned <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/pit-bull-ban-aggressive-dog-breed-bronwen-dickey">broad assertions</a> about the dogs that did the fighting. As breed bans proliferated, legal rulings proclaimed these dogs “dangerous to the safety or health of the community” and judged that “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/166/698/">public interests demand that the worthless shall be exterminated</a>.”</p>
<p>In 1987 Sports Illustrated put a pit bull, teeth bared, on its cover, with the headline “Beware of this Dog,” which it characterized as <a href="https://vault.si.com/vault/1987/07/27/the-pit-bull-friend-and-killer-is-the-pit-bull-a-fine-animal-as-its-admirers-claim-or-is-it-a-vicious-dog-unfit-for-society">born with “a will to kill</a>.” Time magazine published “Time Bombs on Legs” featuring this “vicious hound of the Baskervilles” that “seized small children like rag dolls and mauled them to death in <a href="https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,965065,00.html">a frenzy of bloodletting</a>.” </p>
<h2>Presumed vicious</h2>
<p>If a dog has “vicious propensities,” the owner is assumed to share in this projected violence, both legally and generally in public perception. And once deemed “contraband,” both property and people are at risk. </p>
<p>This was evident in the much-publicized 2007 <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306009/the-lost-dogs-by-jim-gorant/">indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick</a> for running a dogfighting business called Bad Newz Kennels in Virginia. Even the <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/">Humane Society of the United States</a> and <a href="https://www.peta.org/">People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals</a> – two of the nation’s leading animal welfare advocacy groups – argued that the 47 pit bulls recovered from the facility should be killed because they <a href="https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-95941sy0aug03-story.html">posed a threat to people and other animals</a>.</p>
<p>If not for the intervention of <a href="https://bestfriends.org/">Best Friends Animal Society</a>, Vick’s dogs would have been euthanized. As the film “<a href="http://www.championsdocumentary.com/the-dogs">Champions</a>” recounts, a <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/lessons-learned-acting-guardianspecial-master-bad-newz-kennels-case">court-appointed special master</a> determined each dog’s fate. Ultimately, nearly all of the dogs were successfully placed in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/12/21/michael-vick-dog-survivor-frodo-dies/">sanctuaries or adoptive homes</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5GmJNTRhafI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This 2010 report describes the successful rehabilitation of dogs rescued from Michael Vick’s Bad Newz dogfighting operation.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Debating breed bans</h2>
<p>Pit bulls still suffer more than any other dogs from the fact that they are a type of dog, not a distinct breed. Once recognized by the American Kennel Club as an <a href="https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/american-staffordshire-terrier/">American Staffordshire terrier</a>, popularly known as an Amstaff, and registered with the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association as an <a href="https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-pit-bull-terrier">American pit bull terrier</a>, now any dog characterized as a “pit bull type” can be <a href="https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/dayan-dead-dogs/">considered an outlaw</a> in many communities. </p>
<p>For example, in its 2012 <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1599539.html">Tracey v. Solesky ruling</a>, the Maryland Court of Appeals modified the state’s common law in cases involving dog injuries. Any dog containing pit bull genes was “inherently dangerous” as a matter of law. </p>
<p>This subjected owners and landlords to what the courts call “<a href="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strict+liability">strict liability</a>.” As the court declared: “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.” </p>
<p>Dissenting from the ruling, Judge Clayton Greene recognized the absurdity of the majority opinion’s “unworkable rule”: “How much ‘pit bull,’” he asked, “must there be in a dog to bring it within the strict liability edict?”</p>
<p>It’s equally unanswerable how to tell when a dog is a pit bull mix. From the shape of its head? Its stance? The way it looks at you?</p>
<p>Conundrums like these call into question statistics that show pit bulls to be <a href="https://www.coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/">more dangerous than other breeds</a>. These figures vary a great deal depending on their sources. </p>
<p>Any statistics about pit bull attacks depend on the definition of a pit bull – yet it’s really hard to get good dog bite data that <a href="https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-11-15/dangerous-dog-debate">accurately IDs the breed</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4uEpEAD23Dc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Prince George’s County, Md., is negotiating with advocates suing to revoke the county’s pit bull ban.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the past decade, awareness has grown that breed-specific legislation <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer">does not make the public safer</a> but does <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/01/pitbull-ban-lawsuit-prince-georges/">penalize responsible owners and their dogs</a>. Currently 21 states prohibit local government from enforcing breed-specific legislation or <a href="https://wagwalking.com/daily/what-states-allow-pit-bulls">naming specific breeds in dangerous dog laws</a>. Maryland passed a law reversing the Tracey ruling in 2014. Yet 15 states still <a href="https://dogsandclogs.com/states-with-pitbull-bans/#15_states_with_Pit_Bull_bans">allow local communities to enact breed-specific bans</a>. </p>
<p>Pit bulls demand a great deal more from humans than some dogs, but alongside their bracing way of being in the world, we humans learn another way of thinking and loving. Compared with many other breeds, they offer a more demanding but always affecting communion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192483/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Dayan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar of law and humanities compares bans on dogs with any pit bull genes to “one drop” laws that once classified people with even a single Black ancestor as Black.Colin Dayan, Professor of English, Robert Penn Warren Professor in the Humanities, and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1676652021-09-13T15:07:04Z2021-09-13T15:07:04ZPet theft: criminalisation isn’t the animal welfare boon the government promises<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420324/original/file-20210909-8898-mql6k8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=40%2C53%2C2944%2C1933&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/loving-candid-portrait-happy-woman-hugging-186981344">Christin Lola/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From local parks to celebrity neighbourhoods, “pet theft” is <a href="https://theconversation.com/dog-theft-on-the-rise-how-in-danger-is-your-pet-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-125010">on the rise</a>. The <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/five-arrested-over-violent-theft-of-lady-gagas-dogs-including-woman-who-returned-them-12290858">violent abduction</a> of Lady Gaga’s French bulldogs, Koji and Gustav, brought this problem further into the spotlight.</p>
<p>The UK government announced plans to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pet-abduction-to-be-made-new-criminal-offence-in-crackdown-on-pet-theft">criminalise</a> pet theft, which has grown during the pandemic as more people <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56362987">bring companion animals into their homes</a>.</p>
<p>This law will undoubtedly offer greater protection to pet theft victims. It will ensure that they have additional rights to compensate for the emotional distress of losing a companion animal that may have been considered a member of their family. But while animal lovers will celebrate this as a step in the right direction, it may not be the victory that they would hope for.</p>
<p>By criminalising pet theft, the government wants to recognise that it is a serious crime, that animals are more than mere property, and that the law should protect their welfare.</p>
<p>The government claims this law prioritises animal welfare. Yet some animal law and ethics research suggests that it does not go far enough. In fact, the approach to animal welfare taken by the UK government may actually harm animals in the long run, for a few reasons.</p>
<p>First, the law will continue to treat animals <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/animals-property">as property</a>, as most legal systems do. Animals will still be owned, bought and sold, as they always have been. We might have a growing cultural awareness that animals are unique individuals with rich inner lives. But stealing a dog is viewed in law much like the theft of a laptop or backpack. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CLxVZAkMqxC","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>This is true even though the UK government has agreed to formally recognise the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/animals-to-be-formally-recognised-as-sentient-beings-in-domestic-law">sentience of animals in law</a>. So our legal system tells us we should protect animal welfare, but also that they continue to be subject to the laws of property. <a href="https://www.nonhumanrights.org/">Many animal law experts</a> argue that these two positions are incompatible and that truly recognising animal sentience in law requires giving animals <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvdu_xKeDzU">legal rights</a> or similarly strong protections that go further than just protecting animal welfare.</p>
<p>A second issue is that companion animals are usually given different legal treatment compared to farmed animals. For example, in the US, the majority of animal cruelty offences <a href="https://aldf.org/article/laws-that-protect-animals/">do not apply to farmed animals</a>. </p>
<p>In the UK, the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9">Animal Welfare Act</a> imposes a duty to ensure an animal’s welfare needs are met. The act specifically states that this duty does not prevent the “destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner”. What this looks like for farmed animals and companion animals is very different in practice. </p>
<p>It is common to think of appropriate and humane killing of a companion animal occurring when their health is failing significantly or when they are experiencing immense suffering. However, this is not the case for farmed animals, which are routinely killed when young and healthy.</p>
<p>This is reflected in western culture more generally. Most people care more about some animals than others. The majority of people in the UK would be <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-outraged-about-eating-dog-but-not-bacon-43796">horrified</a> at the idea of eating a cat or a dog, but not at the idea of eating a chicken. This is despite the fact that these species have comparable <a href="https://www.animal-ethics.org/ethics-animals-section/animal-interests-section/">interests</a> in thriving, living freely and not being eaten. </p>
<p>So, while we make progress in offering further protections in the case of companion animals, improving animal welfare for farmed animals is much more difficult to achieve. This is due to the different interests at stake, not least those of the farmers whose livelihoods depend upon raising animals for slaughter.</p>
<p>A final issue is that criminalisation may not be the best route to achieve animal protection. Animal law researcher <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/beyond-cages/2E51A85DFB23514524D2ECDD21F44357">Justin Marceau has written</a> about the harms caused by the problem of mass criminalisation and incarceration. Marceau believes that using this model to protect animal welfare will only contribute to the problem of overfull prisons and underuse of community-based responses to crime.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.alaw.org.uk/blog/2019/09/25/september-book-of-the-month-beyond-cages-animal-law-and-criminal-punishment-by-justin-marceau/">Marceau proposes</a> that we think about animal protection in terms of systemic solutions rather than reactive ones. Our current legal and sociopolitical systems mean that some animal harms are criminalised while others are facilitated and even encouraged by our legal and sociopolitical systems. To fix this, we must improve the treatment of all animals in law, rather than reacting to individual issues (like pet theft) in a way that results in disparate levels of protection for animals depending on how humans use them.</p>
<p>An “animal thief” may be imprisoned for stealing a dog, causing an isolated episode of suffering. At the same time, the law would not punish that same person for ending the lives of animals as a slaughterhouse worker. We could address this through more work to improve the welfare of animals used in various industries.</p>
<h2>Who is the law for?</h2>
<p>You need not align with the values of <a href="https://veganuary.com/veganuary-2021-biggest-year-yet-growing-every-3-seconds">veganism</a>, nor believe that animals should have rights, in order to recognise the inconsistencies in the law here. Declaring animal sentience but maintaining animals’ property status is a contradiction in terms. </p>
<p>Offering more protections to companion animals than farmed animals, despite the fact that they have similar interests, betrays the fact that these laws are based on human-centric social and cultural biases. So, they may not be focused on protecting animals in the way the government claims. </p>
<p>So, before celebrating this new law as a win for animals, we must ask who is being served by new laws like this. Arguably, this law focuses too heavily on the interests of victims like Lady Gaga, when it ought to be more focused on improving the lives of dogs like Koji and Gustav. And perhaps the law should start to incorporate more large-scale, proactive changes to protect the billions of farmed, laboratory and other animals that remain nameless.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iyan Offor is a member of the Scottish Steering Committee of the UK Centre for Animal Law. Iyan works with an academic network of animal and environmental law scholars as well as animal and environmental NGOs. Because of these partnerships, Iyan has previously completed research projects part-funded by animal welfare NGOs.</span></em></p>The plan to criminalise pet theft is more about pet owners’ wellbeing than for the animals themselves.Iyan Offor, Birmingham City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1264222019-11-14T12:59:42Z2019-11-14T12:59:42ZIs it ethical to keep pets and other animals? It depends on where you keep them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301601/original/file-20191113-77295-1bq237u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C24%2C4052%2C2673&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cats can be happy in apartments, but the space needs features that enable their natural desire to climb, jump, hide and scratch.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kitten-sits-on-tree-branch-forest-119757583">Kuznetcov_Konstantin/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>New York City’s <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/pets/nyc-council-passes-animal-welfare-bills/vp-AAJBUwR">comprehensive code for animal welfare</a> restricts when horse-drawn carriages can operate and bans the sale of the fatty liver of a force-fed duck, foie gras. </p>
<p>Washington state adopted a new law that will enhance the <a href="https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/2049-S.PL.pdf#page=1">life of egg-laying chickens</a>, requiring that they live in an environment with “enrichments” like scratch areas, perches, nest boxes and areas to take the dust baths chickens so enjoy.</p>
<p>These rules are part of an ongoing effort to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=578570">codify the rights of animals</a>, an area of the law I have <a href="http://www.law.msu.edu/faculty_staff/profile.php?prof=12">studied</a> and <a href="https://www.wklegaledu.com/favre-animallaw3">written about</a> for 30 years. My next book develops a group of seven legal rights that I believe an ethical society should adopt to protect animals. </p>
<p>Freedom from cruelty of course makes the list. U.S. law has required this since <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/development-anti-cruelty-laws-during-1800s">New York first passed an anti-animal cruelty law in 1867</a>. Today, all U.S. states have laws that <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/content/state-animal-anti-cruelty-laws">prohibit the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering</a>. Modern law also protects the physical well-being of animals in human care by requiring they receive <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/statute/mi-cruelty-neglect-chapter-750-michigan-penal-code-michigan-penal-code">food, water and often veterinary care</a>. </p>
<p>But a full life requires more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-more-democratic-animal-welfare-policy-12440">basic survival</a>, so I propose some new rights for animals in my book. Perhaps most importantly, I argue that animals need a “right of place” – that is, access to sufficient physical space to live a natural life.</p>
<p>To be comfortable, content and to <a href="https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781786390202/">find their place in a social hierarchy</a>, animals require space. Conversely, if an animal has too little space, then its home becomes a jail, a stressor, a frustrating moment that continues indefinitely.</p>
<h2>On the right of place</h2>
<p>Living on a farm with five different species, including chickens and dogs, has convinced me of an animal’s right to place, too. </p>
<p>This space has two components. First, there’s its size – is it big enough to suit an animal’s needs? Second, there’s the content of that space – what’s inside that space that the animal can make use of?</p>
<p>Different animals have different space needs. Consider, for example, a Great Pyrenees dog – a breed <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/9-facts-great-pyrenees/">genetically predisposed to guarding</a>. For over a decade, my family’s farm has been watched over by five of these large, amazing dogs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301600/original/file-20191113-77315-1239gdd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Great Pyrenees dog is bred to guard territory and flocks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/135651401?src=56a71cbc-cb8d-4098-a047-9138e1525eda-1-60&size=huge_jpg">www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When on guard, the Great Pyrenees have the regal look of white lion. On a given day on our farm, they will independently wander over 30 fenced acres. Without fences, I am sure these dogs could patrol an even greater range, but letting the Great Pyrenees wander her maximum range is usually not desirable. Natural and human-made hazards pose a risk to the uncontained dog, and the dog might pose a risk to others. </p>
<p>An optimum option for the Great Pyrenees is several acres of fenced-in land, which allows the dog to investigate its natural features while guarding against intruders. </p>
<p>If that same amount of land were paved in concrete and surrounded by a brick wall, it wouldn’t suffice. To exercise her natural capabilities, the Great Pyrenees needs trees that provide shade, plants to sniff, perhaps a place to dig and things to watch.</p>
<p>Nor would confinement in a city apartment give this animal the room or features she needs to exercise her instincts. </p>
<h2>A place for farm animals</h2>
<p>Pigs are <a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c">at least as complex an animal as dogs</a>, studies show. </p>
<p>Ideally they would live in open fields of <a href="https://www.grit.com/animals/putting-the-pigs-out-to-pasture">many acres with other pigs</a>. Instead, many are kept in the cement and iron confinement of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/01/death-rates-surge-female-pigs-us">industrial agriculture</a>, in <a href="https://komonews.com/news/offbeat/man-accused-of-stealing-around-150-pigs-from-confinement">stalls the size of their physical body</a>. </p>
<p>The vast majority of commercial chickens, too, <a href="https://theconversation.com/cage-free-sounds-good-but-does-it-mean-a-better-life-for-chickens-62083">lack the space in which to live natural lives</a>. For their entire useful life, egg-laying chickens are often kept in <a href="https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/11/19/are-caged-chickens-miserable">battery cages</a> that holds six hens in a four-square-foot space. </p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/is-the-free-range-egg-trend-really-just-a-shell-game/article29797385/">free-range movement</a> has brought to light, it is possible to give egg-laying chickens a better life without significantly increasing cost. Chickens don’t actually require much space. Some of the chickens on my farm have total free range and yet seldom wander more than 100 yards from the barn where they are fed and go to roost at night. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C132%2C4137%2C2709&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C132%2C4137%2C2709&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301598/original/file-20191113-77315-ipfaeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Washington state passed a law requiring commercial egg-laying chickens to be removed from cages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Bird-Flu-South-Dakota/520259b3d5f642dab7ac29eb2bffc9e1/37/0">AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But, as Washington state lawmakers recently acknowledged, chickens do <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/5/10/18564455/washington-jay-inslee-hens-animal-cruelty">need a space that meets their needs</a>. Washington’s quietly created bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee in May, effectively guarantees a chicken’s right of place. </p>
<h2>Companion animals</h2>
<p>So what about your pet, you ask? Are you respecting its right of place? </p>
<p>It all depends on the pet. </p>
<p>Our family has had a number of poodles, and we’ve found that young standard poodles, being a smart and high-energy dog, will want the opportunity to <a href="https://www.petcarerx.com/article/anxious-poodle-behavior/739">run like the wind and be challenged mentally</a>. An elderly miniature poodle, however, may be content in an apartment with daily walks. </p>
<p>House cats, meanwhile, are often thought to be satisfied with apartment life, as long as they have <a href="https://indoorpet.osu.edu/cats/basic-indoor-cat-needs">places to climb, hide, perch and scratch</a>. But a confined habitat may actually cripple some felines’ <a href="https://www.npr.org/2013/09/05/219254626/whats-mittens-thinking-make-sense-of-your-cats-behavior">instinct to hunt</a>. Behavioral scientists <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/cats-rival-dogs-many-tests-social-smarts-anyone-brave-enough-study-them">haven’t studied cats enough</a> to fully understand their needs.</p>
<p>Frankly, people don’t yet know how yet to satisfy every individual animal’s right of place. We <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are-and-the-genius-of-birds.html?_r=0">need more information from science</a>. </p>
<p>Nor is it clear, beyond the most egregious cases, when the law should intervene to ensure that pet owners are meeting their animals’ needs. This, I contend, is the next frontier of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-dogs-and-cats-can-get-their-day-in-court-80790">animal rights law</a>. </p>
<p>People bring these animals into existence. So I believe people owe them a dignified life, a right of place on this Earth.</p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Favre is the author of the forthcoming book, "Rethinking the Future of Animal Law" (Edward Elgar Publications, 2020).
He has no funding or affiliation conflicts relevant to the topic of this article.</span></em></p>Animals don’t just need enough space to live – they need the right kind of space, too. An animal welfare lawyer defends our pets’ ‘right of place.’David Favre, Professor of Law at Michigan State University College of Law, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1154232019-05-01T10:43:27Z2019-05-01T10:43:27ZWhy abusive husbands kick dogs but angry neighbors poison them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269335/original/file-20190415-147525-1y09jsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Breaking down the numbers on animal neglect.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/abandoned-dog-caged-animal-abuse-neglect-356986559?src=l8ra8vuHkODvB4yJOlQQSg-1-4">Sergio Foto/shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Volunteering with animal rescue and shelter organizations in Detroit brought me face to face with many manifestations of animal cruelty: dogs left outside and frozen in their yards; dogs with chain link collars embedded in their necks; cats that had gaping wounds full of maggots as the result of being doused with acid; and dogs used for dog fighting.</p>
<p>I never forgot these sights. They led me, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yTqXdKknw1cC&hl=en">an urban studies researcher</a>, to question the potential causes of animal cruelty and what might be done about it from a public policy standpoint.</p>
<p>To explore this, I examined animal cruelty in the city of Detroit. My research shows that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1550282">animal cruelty is tightly connected to human relationships</a>, but in complex ways. </p>
<p>That suggests that governments need different policies targeted to specific forms of cruelty and the types of human relationships behind them. Counter to the one-size-fits-all laws and punishments that restrict particular breeds of dogs or prohibit animals in domestic violence shelters, efforts to reduce animal cruelty must be flexible and multi-pronged.</p>
<h2>Who abuses animals</h2>
<p>Animal welfare in Detroit is exacerbated by several interconnected factors, including economic distress, home vacancy and a high crime rate.</p>
<p>In 2008, <a href="https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb101.pdf">bite-related emergency room visits</a> in the Detroit area were almost four times the rates for urban areas nationwide. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12114">Estimates of stray and feral dogs</a> in Detroit range from 3,000 to 50,000, putting extreme pressure on animal welfare resources.</p>
<p>I looked at all 302 animal cruelty police reports between 2007 and 2015. Some of the most frequent types of animal cruelty in Detroit were shooting, kicking and blunt force trauma, neglect and dog fighting. </p>
<p>These patterns differ from those in other cities, where neglect – meaning the restriction of movement, lack of food, water and veterinary care – and abandonment are the most <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.05.002">common forms of cruelty</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="btU6W" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/btU6W/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Owners perpetrated one out of five cruelty incidents. Neighbors and domestic or other intimate partners were the next most likely to inflict harm, followed by family members, a person the owner had a conflict with and a stranger.</p>
<p>Owners are significantly more likely to engage in dog fighting as a form of cruelty. There is widespread <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/016059760703100403">dog fighting in Detroit</a>, with the majority of residents, even children, likely to have seen or known about a dog fight. Neglect is also significantly more likely to occur at the hands of owners. </p>
<p><iframe id="Io7WS" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Io7WS/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Meanwhile, unknown individuals are significantly more likely to shoot an animal. Romantic partners are significantly more likely to kick or hit, family members more likely to stab and neighbors more likely to poison an animal.</p>
<p>My statistical analysis suggests that the younger an adult is, the more likely they are to engage in dog fighting. Gender and race are not significantly correlated with any of the types of cruelty.</p>
<p><iframe id="k4em0" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/k4em0/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Tailored solutions</h2>
<p>My findings suggest how policymakers could try to reduce various types of animal cruelty. The specific step that a policymaker might take depends on the type of cruelty. </p>
<p>For example, dog fighting is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1550282">closely tied</a> to other criminal acts, primarily drug use, and involves dogs that are owned by the perpetrator. Interpersonal relationships do not need to be considered in the prevention of such cruelty. Rather, <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/taking-action-stop-dogfighting">animal cruelty experts recommend</a> police crackdowns on fighting and breeding operations, as well as general drug and weapons possession and sales, to combat this type of animal cruelty.</p>
<p>Passive animal cruelty in the form of neglect is most commonly perpetrated by the animals’ owners. Neglect is likely related to lack of knowledge about appropriate animal care and potentially to a lack of resources. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279396787001455">School education programs</a> have been found to increase kids’ and parents’ general knowledge about the needs of animals. There are a variety of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015623377">nonprofit organizations</a> that provide low-cost food, medications and spay and neutering services to the city’s animals. </p>
<p>Increased enforcement of city ordinances regulating barking dogs and dogs off leash could decrease the kinds of animal nuisance behaviors that appear to lead neighbors to poison animals.</p>
<h2>Connection to domestic violence</h2>
<p>But what about other forms of cruelty, such as stabbing, kicking and blunt force injuries? These appear linked to the same aggression that also motivates <a href="https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991864">assault, domestic violence, and intimidation and harassment</a>. </p>
<p>Between 47% and 71% of women in domestic violence shelters report that their partners <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503258028">abused or threatened their pets</a>. This threat also serves to keep women in abusive relationships; 40% of women said that they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181778">delayed leaving an abuser</a> out of concern for the safety of their pets. </p>
<p>There is a prevalence of animal cruelty in domestic violence offenders; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214549641">41% of men arrested for domestic</a> violence admitted to committing animal cruelty as adults. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.011">Just 1.5% of the general population</a> said the same. </p>
<p>To reduce the risks to animal companions, it seems critical for the person who’s being abused to leave their abusive relationship and get their animals to safety at the same time. A variety of animal shelters have begun programs where the pets of abuse victims can stay temporarily. <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/tips/safe_havens_directory.html">Domestic violence shelters</a> are also beginning to include facilities that allow families to bring their pets with them.</p>
<p>These policies show how some groups are starting to recognize the meaningful and complex role that human relationships play in animal cruelty.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115423/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura A. Reese receives funding from The Stanton Foundation </span></em></p>Examining 302 police reports in Detroit, a new study shows that animal cruelty is tightly connected to human relationships.Laura A. Reese, Professor of Political Science and Director of Global Urban Studies Program, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/875432017-11-15T17:31:03Z2017-11-15T17:31:03ZFact Check: was it right to kill Lilith the escaped lynx?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194854/original/file-20171115-19841-1p4u3jn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lynx on the loose.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>The safety of the public was paramount and therefore once the lynx had strayed over to a populated area of the community it was necessary to act decisively.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement from <a href="http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/News/Pages/Update-on-the-Lynx-.aspx">Ceredigion County Council</a> on October 10, 2017.</strong></p>
<p>An escaped lynx was recently destroyed by experts working on behalf of Ceredigion County Council in Wales after attempts to recapture it failed. Some people have <a href="http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=117494&headline=Killing%20of%20escaped%20lynx%20has%20sparked%20outrage&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2017">responded angrily</a>, arguing that officials should have tranquilised the animal rather than killing it. <a href="http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/News/Pages/Update-on-the-escaped-Lynx.aspx">The council claimed</a> it had done all it could and was left with no other option. So was there a way Lilith the lynx could have been saved?</p>
<p>Zoo animals all receive a danger category for their potential to cause serious harm. Animals such as tigers, lions, elephants, and lynx are classed as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69596/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdf">Category 1</a>, the most dangerous animals, due to their natural behaviour and predatory way of life. Animals which may cause slight harm or injury are classified as Category 2, and those which are no threat to the public get classed as Category 3.</p>
<p>Within the UK, zoos are licenced by <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zoo-licensing-act-1981-guide-to-the-act-s-provisions">local authorities</a>, who conduct inspections on a regular basis to ensure the health and safety of the animals, staff and the public that visit them. Safety from the animal enclosure side of things is always viewed to reduce the likelihood of the public getting in, and the animals getting out.</p>
<p>But zoos are home to some incredibly smart animals which are able to notice small gaps in the gates and doorways or when electric fencing may not be working efficiently. More often than not, animals that manage to escape their enclosures have noticed these holes before the keepers. </p>
<p>Zoos practice <a href="https://www.aazk.org/wp-content/uploads/Animal-Escape-Preparedness.pdf">animal escape drills</a> at least twice a year and in the event of an animal escape from its enclosure, these drills are put into practice and ensure the safety of every visitor and member of staff on site.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HSQklvzNNDY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Every effort is usually made to recapture the animal but of course, it very much depends on the species. An animal such as a penguin for example would likely follow a trail of fish back into its enclosure and would not cause too much disruption. Some animals actually get quite scared when they realise that they are outside of their home and in a world that they do not know and make their own way back without much encouragement at all. </p>
<p>In the recent case of the lynx from <a href="https://www.borthzoo.co.uk/">Borth Wild Animal Kingdom</a>, the animal not only managed to escape its enclosure, but the perimeter grounds of the zoo, too, which placed a lot more public at risk and with little control over the situation. The local authorities and police were notified and the zoo made every effort to recapture the lynx, reportedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/07/lillith-the-lynx-blamed-for-seven-sheep-deaths-in-north-wales">including using traps</a> and following it with a drone equipped with a thermal imaging camera.</p>
<p>Animal tranquilisation is always discussed but with any animal, including the lynx, there is no way of telling how the animal may react to this and if it may make the animal more aggressive or react in a way that is not expected. This could cause further harm and situations that are unable to be prepared for. The decision was finally made to humanely destroy the animal, as the potential risk to the public was too great. In this situation, there are not many options, and human life and safety has to be the highest priority.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The council and local police made the right call. Human life has to come first. Every effort had been made to recapture the animal, and there was nothing more that could have been done. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Dr Paul Rees, Senior Lecturer in Wildlife, University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>The author of this fact check is right. The owners of Borth Wild Animal Kingdom had a legal obligation to prevent the escape of the lynx under the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/37">Zoo Licensing Act 1981</a> and the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/zoos/index_en.htm">EU Zoos Directive</a>. They failed to do this and then failed to recapture her. The local authority had no choice but to shoot the animal.</p>
<p>What’s more, releasing or allowing a non-native species into the wild is an offence under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/14">section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981</a>. This law protects our native biodiversity.</p>
<p>Lynx are classified in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secretary-of-state-s-standards-of-modern-zoo-practice">Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice</a> as category 1 (greater risk), that is “likely to cause serious injury or be a serious threat to life”. Although reports of attacks on humans by lynx appear to be rare, a pet lynx was reported to have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/atlanta-woman-hospitalised-siberian-lynx">attacked a woman</a> who was feeding it in Atlanta in 2014.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87543/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ceredigion County Council in Wales claims it had no choice. What do the experts say?Samantha Ward, Lecturer Zoo Animal Biology, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/840002017-09-18T10:55:16Z2017-09-18T10:55:16ZMonkey selfie case finally settled – but there are many similar animal rights battles to come<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185878/original/file-20170913-27628-ade1pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Untitled design</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ondrej Prosicky / Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The furore that erupted when David Slater, a British wildlife photographer, released a “selfie” taken by a macaque monkey in 2015 has only just reached <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/monkey-selfie-warring-parties-reach-settlement-over-court-case">legal resolution</a>. The animal rights group, PETA (“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”), which had filed on behalf of the macaque, allegedly named “Naruto”, withdrew its suit against Slater when he agreed to give 25% of any royalties from the selfie to animal welfare charities.</p>
<p>This case marks a high-profile opening salvo in a struggle that will be increasingly fought among animal rights activists, protectors of human intellectual property and defenders of the free market. The case has been generally reported as being about whether a macaque that took a selfie (and gained worldwide notoriety courtesy of Wikipedia) is entitled to copyright. While this account is fine as far it goes, the case also hints at the profound challenges that digital and animal cultures pose to the law’s recognition of human uniqueness.</p>
<p>The story begins with Wikipedia, whose “open source” and “open access” approach to knowledge production makes it the ultimate free market in cyberspace. Basically <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines">anything is fair game</a> for inclusion on its pages if it is not prohibited either by its own editors, who are largely crowdsourced, or some explicit legal ruling.</p>
<p>When Wikipedia’s editors decided to feature the macaque selfie, Slater claimed that it was in violation of his copyright. The selfie had been taken while his camera was active but unattended in Indonesia, where he was on assignment photographing the rare monkeys. Wikipedia replied by saying that if anyone owned the copyright, it was the macaque who actually took the selfie. At that point, PETA got involved, suing Slater on behalf of the macaque for copyright infringement.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"907610590125883392"}"></div></p>
<h2>Monkey copyright</h2>
<p>The court had no problem dismissing the case, simply by arguing that copyright law was not designed to include animals as copyright-holders. But it also said that the law may be amended to include them in the future. In doing so, it tiptoed around the issue that PETA was keen on raising, namely, whether the monkey was morally entitled to whatever royalties might otherwise accrue to Slater as the copyright-holder. This helps to explain the out-of-court settlement, which left Slater the formal victor in the case. But that was really all that he was left with. Slater had been earning minuscule royalties from the selfie and even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater">approached bankruptcy</a> as PETA’s case against him dragged on.</p>
<p>The most striking feature of the case is not the very idea that a monkey might hold copyright, but that the internet’s relatively unregulated market environment provided the opportunity to broach the issue. The placement of a photo in virtual as opposed to physical reality radically loosens our intuitions about ownership. This became clear in the recent flurry of cases around the multiple postings of nude celebrity selfies in social media. Defendants claimed loss of control over their image in a world where image control is everything. In a more profound sense, something similar is happening to the image of the human being itself in the monkey selfie case.</p>
<p>The monkey selfie case managed to level the playing field between the human and the animal because the distinction between producer and consumer is largely erased in cyberspace. Unless the law intervenes, an online object can be reframed and reappropriated as the user wishes. And among these reframings and reappropriations are accounts of what makes the object what it is. In the end, only the explicit disqualification of animals from copyright law ended up saving Slater, even though <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Tech-Culture/2014/0822/US-government-Monkey-selfies-ineligible-for-copyright">some legal experts admitted</a> that Naruto may have behaved toward the camera in a way that would make a comparably situated human eligible for copyright.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"907543639554899968"}"></div></p>
<h2>Marx and a macaque</h2>
<p>Faced with Slater’s original claim to copyright infringement, Wikipedia interestingly gave little weight to the core of Slater’s argument, which was that had he not gone to Indonesia, photographed the macaques and even set up the camera so that they might use it, the selfie would never have been taken. (Of course, Slater was also the one who allowed the photos to go online in the first place.) </p>
<p>Instead Wikipedia focused on the particular monkey’s skill in arranging the camera so as to take the striking selfie. To the ears of animal rights activists, Wikipedia made Slater sound like an employer who claims ownership over his employees’ labour because he took the effort to set up the business for which they work. When only humans are involved, it’s called exploitation. Why not extend the same concept to the macaques?</p>
<p>Whatever may have motivated Wikipedia to pursue this framing of the situation, it certainly resonates with the history of extending human rights. Thanks to Karl Marx, we understand exploitation as a form of injustice that comes when workers are denied the full fruits of their labour. Wikipedia opened the door to revisit Marx, and PETA charged through it. The original capitalist rejoinder was that the employer is the one who takes the initial risk, invests the capital and sets up the environment which makes the work possible and so the workers, who might otherwise not be employed, should be satisfied with a steady wage, not a share of the profits. One hears echoes of Slater’s defence here, including his claim that his photography was part of an effort to save the macaques from extinction.</p>
<p>But bound up in this dispute is a disagreement about whether all producers are also creators. Historically, in the human sphere, Marx ultimately won this argument, largely by appealing to a conception of the human that is both universal and exceptional: all (but only) humans are both producers and creators. Like today’s copyright law, Marx recognised a clear species barrier between humans and other animals when it comes to creativity. </p>
<p>Cyberspace’s blurring of the producer/consumer distinction may be opening the door to reimagining “creator” more generally, as the source of whatever makes an object valuable to its user. In that case, the law may need to be adjusted to provide legal protection to “creative” animals in the same spirit as it historically provided protection to “creative” workers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Fuller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Digital and animal cultures pose a profound challenge to the law’s recognition of human uniqueness.Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/797552017-06-27T20:07:39Z2017-06-27T20:07:39ZOur pets strengthen neighbourhood ties<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175749/original/file-20170626-29078-jm23rk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When dog owners meet, it helps build a safe and connected community. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wrote/2918329823/in/photolist-5rTcMr-aqfvMb-4z9P3Y-7aJTaQ-ARKrrp-4z5yTe-SecDAN-4z5wVp-9pXNkj-aK9FXD-xysah-4z9TEf-4z9PtS-bksncp-7aHRG4-4z5uUX-4z5vv8-4z5yqD-4z9SCb-4z9Umj-rr4eqz-9NCE48-4z9KYm-iTKVws-9NKn2C-9NF42G-9fCKV9-7aHSeg-4z5Cs8-7aF5hT-7aHSfP-9ExnKi-aNVes8-SyBwoM-9JtbCE-SyBwAv-wUPpW-7kGhy8-5VeHBg-7kKYe7-9jndZx-iCistS-4yD9nu-snGMQ5-fEXEc1-8tfNUz-5Vj5Xq-9JsSaq-5Vj69b-fEFeQD">Wrote/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Talk to any pet owner and you are bound to invoke stories about the joy and companionship of having a pet. But evidence is mounting that the effect of pets extends beyond their owners and can help strengthen the social fabric of local neighbourhoods. Now a cross-national study involving Perth, Australia, and three US cities has lent weight to the observation that pets help build social capital.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qcsvDLgfjRw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This is not a frivolous notion, given the erosion of sense of community is often lamented. As Hugh Mackay <a href="http://theconversation.com/hugh-mackay-the-state-of-the-nation-starts-in-your-street-72264">recently observed</a>, not knowing our neighbours has become a sad cliché of contemporary urban life. </p>
<p>I stumbled into pet-related research some 15 years ago when undertaking a PhD on neighbourhoods and sense of community. I was curious about the elements of a neighbourhood that might help people connect to one another, so I threw some in some survey questions about pets. </p>
<p>In what has become my most-cited <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953605000535">academic paper</a>, we found that pet owners were more likely to have higher social capital. This is a concept that captures trust between people (including those we don’t know personally), networks of social support, the exchange of favours with neighbours and civic engagement.</p>
<p>Fast-forward a decade to a much <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827317300344">larger study</a> to look at the relationship between pets and social capital. Pet owners and non-owners were randomly surveyed in four cities (Perth, San Diego, Portland and Nashville – four cities reasonably comparable in size, urban density and climate). </p>
<p>In all four cities, we found owning a pet was significantly associated with higher social capital compared with not owning a pet. This held true after adjusting for a raft of demographic factors that might influence people’s connections in their neighbourhood.</p>
<h2>How do pets help build social bonds?</h2>
<p>It is often assumed that the social benefits of pets are confined to social interactions that occur when people are out walking their dogs. Lots of dog owner anecdotes support this. In this large sample study, however, levels of social capital were higher among pet owners across the board. </p>
<p>We did nonetheless find that social capital was higher among dog owners and those who walked their dogs in particular. Dog owners were <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122085">five times more likely</a> to have got to know people in their neighbourhood. This makes sense, as dogs are the most likely to get us outside the home.</p>
<p>Yet our survey data and qualitative responses show that a variety of pets can act as a social lubricant. Pets are a great leveller in society, owned and loved by people across social, age and racial strata. Perhaps it is having something in common with other people that strikes a chord, regardless of the type of pet.</p>
<h2>What does this mean for how we live?</h2>
<p>That pets can help build social capital is not just a social nicety or quirky sociological observation. Hundreds of studies internationally show that social capital is a positive predictor for a raft of important social indicators, including mental health, education, crime deterrence, and community safety.</p>
<p>Given pets are <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-the-rise-of-apartment-living-whats-a-nation-of-pet-owners-to-do-58738?sr=1">entrenched in the lives and homes</a> of many Australians, it makes sense to tap into this as a way to strengthen the social fabric of local communities. </p>
<p>Not everyone can or wants to own a pet. But two-thirds of the population does, so our cities and neighbourhoods need to be “pet friendly”. </p>
<p>Australian suburbs are generally pretty good for <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-there-a-place-for-dogs-in-public-space-or-must-they-make-do-with-dog-parks-56147">walkable parks</a> and streets. In this study, we also found that having dog walkers out and about contributes to <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3659-8">perceptions of community safety</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=712&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175751/original/file-20170627-21898-vaps3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Given the broad social benefits of pet ownership, perhaps we need to rethink ‘no pets’ rules where possible.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rabbit_sharing_apple.jpg">Ed Brey/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, in Australia, pets have traditionally belonged to people living in detached housing with backyards. Many rental properties, apartment complexes, and retirement villages still <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-pet-owners-suffer-rental-insecurity-perhaps-landlords-should-think-again-63275?sr=1">default to a “no pets” policy</a>. </p>
<p>Other countries, where renting and higher-density living is more the norm, seem more accepting of pets across the housing spectrum. </p>
<p>Given ageing populations, housing affordability and the need to curb urban sprawl are critical social trends in many countries (including Australia), maybe we need to <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-better-understanding-of-how-we-manage-dogs-to-help-them-become-better-urban-citizens-64749">recalibrate our notions</a> of who can own a pet and where they can live. This is not to say that pets have to be allowed everywhere, but the default to “no pets allowed” is questionable. </p>
<p>My father-in-law in his 80s, for example, couldn’t downsize to a retirement complex because his extremely docile rescue greyhound exceeded the “10kg pet” rule. He couldn’t bear to part with Moby, a faithful companion through whom he met many local residents daily at the park nearby.</p>
<h2>Constant companions in times of change</h2>
<p>A lot of my current research is around homelessness. Chatting recently with a man who was homeless with his dog on the streets of Melbourne, he told me how his dog gets him up in the morning, keeps him safe at night, and gets them both walking daily. </p>
<p>His dog was one of the few stable things in his life, so he needed a public housing option that would allow pets.</p>
<p>People who are homeless also need crisis accommodation options that accept their pets. Hence it is great to see places such as <a href="https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/Find_Help/WA/Homeless_Mental_Health_Services/Tom_Fisher_House/">Tom Fisher House</a> in Perth, opening its doors to rough sleepers with pets needing a safe place to sleep. </p>
<p>Beyond the practical implications for pet-friendly cities, the potential for pets to enrich the social fabric of communities has strong appeal in an era of global uncertainty, frenetic “busyness” and technology-driven communications. As cultural analyst Sheryl Turkle has said, the ways people interact and forge relationships have undergone massive change and we can end up “<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together">connected, but alone</a>”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MtLVCpZIiNs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sherry Turkle talks about why we expect more from technology and less from each other.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By contrast, humans have been drawn to companion animals since early civilisation. In many people’s lives, they remain a tangible constant that can yield enduring social capital benefits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research had ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at UWA. The study received funding from WALTHAM (Centre for Pet Nutrition) but the funder did not influence the data collection, analysis or study findings and the interpretation of results and content of the published paper remained the final decision of the UWA research team. </span></em></p>A study of Australian and US cities has demonstrated that pet ownership strengthens people’s connections with their neighbours.Lisa Wood, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Impact and School of Population Health, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/447012015-07-27T20:08:15Z2015-07-27T20:08:15ZIt will take a ban on caging pigs to clean up the pork industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89744/original/image-20150727-6844-1unwgzc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A piggery in New South Wales. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/lansdowne">Aussie Farms</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A current <a href="http://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Prevention-of-Cruelty-to-Animals-Amendment-FINAL.pdf">bill</a> before the New South Wales Parliament proposes to end the use of sow-stalls. </p>
<p>Sow-stalls, sometimes referred to as gestation crates, are small metal and concrete cages measuring <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=5698">2.2 by 0.6 metres</a> in which pregnant pigs are kept for up to <a href="http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/animal-welfare/housing/">105 days</a>. </p>
<p>If passed, New South Wales would become the second Australian jurisdiction to do so, after the Australian Capital Territory banned their use in <a href="http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_48501/default.asp">2014</a>. </p>
<p>But in <a href="http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Annual-Report-2010-2011.pdf">2010</a>, Australian Pork Limited (APL), the peak representative body for the pork industry, agreed to a voluntary phase-out of sow-stalls by 2017. </p>
<p>So why do we need a ban anyway?</p>
<h2>The problem with sow-stalls</h2>
<p>It is hard to say for certain the extent of <a href="https://www.voiceless.org.au/our-approach/research-and-publications/science-and-sense">physical and psychological harm</a> caused by keeping pregnant pigs in sow-stalls. Key pieces of <a href="https://australianpork.infoservices.com.au/collections/sg2">scientific research</a> conducted in this area have been <a href="https://www.voiceless.org.au/our-approach/research-and-publications/science-and-sense">funded either in whole or part by APL</a>. Whether or not this funding influences the research outcomes is difficult to say. </p>
<p>In any event, researchers have found that the lack of exercise caused by such confinement reduces <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6958452">bone strength and muscle weight</a> in sows and they report <a href="http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591%2806%2900175-4/abstract">higher incidences of lameness</a>. </p>
<p>We also know that these intelligent animals will bite the bars of their cage to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdf">express boredom or frustration</a> at their confinement. The pregnant sows develop <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/9006001_Comparison_of_injuries_in_sows_housed_in_gestation_stalls_versus_group_pens_with_electronic_sow_feeders">skin abrasions</a> from the metal bars as the stall is not much larger than their body. </p>
<p>Furthermore, such confinement deprives these pigs from exercising <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8909-1_2">natural behaviours</a>, such as foraging for food and nesting. It is these kinds of harms that have seen sow-stalls banned or their use substantially restricted in countries such as the <a href="https://www.voiceless.org.au/our-approach/research-and-publications/science-and-sense">United Kingdom, Sweden, and New Zealand, among others</a>.</p>
<h2>Why is a law to ban sow-stalls necessary?</h2>
<p>The voluntary phase-out can be seen as the industries response to market-forces. Retailers such as Coles and Woolworths have already responded to this demand.</p>
<p>Coles’ own brand pork products have been sow-stall free <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/coles-tackles-factory-farming-20121022-281gt.html">since 2013</a>, while Woolworths is committed to sourcing all its fresh pork products from producers who use sow-stalls for less than 10% of the sows’ <a href="http://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/page/A_Trusted_Company/Responsibile_Sourcing/Animal_Welfare/">gestation period</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the apparent success of market forces, there remain important reasons why governments still <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2611886">need to regulate farm animal welfare</a>.</p>
<p>There are important limitations to the APL’s voluntary phase-out. </p>
<p>First, the phase-out only applies to APL members. Only 38% of pork producers in Australia are APL members (although they account for <a href="http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AnnualReport_11_lowres1.pdf">94% of pig meat products</a>), so there will still be animals not covered under the voluntary scheme.</p>
<p>Second, as the phase-out is voluntary, APL members who choose not to comply cannot be forced to do so - although they may be engaging in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html">misleading and deceptive conduct</a> if they promote their products as sow-stall free. </p>
<p>Third, the voluntary phase-out will be policed through industry self-regulation. This appears to involve auditing by the Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program, <a href="http://www.apiq.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=21">which is owned and managed by APL</a>. </p>
<p>There are limits to the efficacy of industry self-regulation given the tension that can exist between profit maximisation and animal welfare goals. </p>
<p>Fourth, the voluntary phase-out will not mean pigs are free-range or free from confinement. The APL voluntary phase-out provides a qualified definition of “<a href="http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/APL_Criminal-Code-Amendment-Bill_Final.pdf">gestation stall free</a>”, which will allow pigs to be confined to mating stalls and farrowing crates for up to 10% of their pregnancy. </p>
<p>Also, the alternate to sow-stalls proposed by APL is “<a href="http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/animal-welfare/housing/">loose housing</a>”, which will not guarantee any access to the outdoors, opportunities for socialising or access to bedding/nesting materials.</p>
<h2>The need for a ban</h2>
<p>To protect all pregnant pigs from sow-stalls, laws must be passed in each Australian State and Territory. The ACT has already done so and the current NSW bill aims to follow in its footsteps. </p>
<p>Although the ACT never had sow-stalls operating in its territory, the amendment to its <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/awa1992128/s9b.html">Animal Welfare Act</a> will ensure it stays this way.</p>
<p>The NSW bill is closely modelled on the ACT amendment. Both provide for “appropriate accommodation” for all pigs. </p>
<p>Appropriate accommodation means that pigs must be able to turn around, stand up and lie down without difficulty. The floor is to be clean, comfortable and well-drained. The facilities must enable pigs to maintain a comfortable body temperature and have access to an outdoor area. </p>
<p>Unlike the ACT model, the NSW bill does allow pigs to remain wholly indoors provided bedding material and enrichment objects are made available and the pig is able to move about freely. </p>
<p>Another difference is the requirement that pigs be housed in “compatible groups”, being “a group of two or more pigs that can be kept together without undue stress to any of those pigs.” This will help reduce aggression and fighting between pigs.</p>
<p>A final difference between the ACT legislation and the NSW bill is that farrowing crates (<a href="http://www.australianpigfarmers.com.au/sowstalls_and_farrowing_crates">which were designed to reduce the chance of piglets being trampled or crushed by the sow</a>) will also be banned by 2020 if the NSW bill is successful.</p>
<p>Although a voluntary phase-out of sow-stalls may improve the lives of some pregnant sows, a law requiring all pork producers to provide “appropriate accommodation” for the pigs in their care is the better option. This will ensure the rule covers all producers and enables direct governmental oversight.</p>
<p>No doubt the bill will have some limitations. However, as the community’s expectations shift, the decision to end the use of sow-stalls should rest with parliament, not industry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron Timoshanko is a member of the Voiceless Legal Advisory Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanna Kyriakakis is the current recipient of a small grant from Voiceless the Animal Protection Institute, for research into teaching Animal Law at Australian Universities. She is a member of the Voiceless Legal Advisory Council.</span></em></p>A current bill before the New South Wales Parliament proposes to end the use of sow-stalls.Aaron Timoshanko, Sessional Academic and Research Assistant at Flinders University, PhD Candidate, Monash UniversityJoanna Kyriakakis, Lecturer in Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/413692015-05-19T20:05:51Z2015-05-19T20:05:51ZClimbing the tree: the case for chimpanzee ‘personhood’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81634/original/image-20150514-28583-1n7nd25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should primates such as chimpanzees be given rights normally reserved for humans?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/potbic/5425519549/in/photolist-9grcWv-6mSSp3-7UMhkQ-4QnzpV-nopKU9-pX4v1G-7Q8TJs-bL77bc-4EKmMo-4EF6LH-jnmDe3-jnkCNf-jnidjv-kARRhs-p3qrCx-kAQAqq-8eJdgM-kAP6Ka-azspWA-dUZed3-5wQfKZ-ezCmxc-ezCfWF-ezFkuj-ezC66r-ezF8i3-ezBSXi-ezFbVL-94SsNp-dUZDh5-RC7rA-7CFs1y-83QL84-kAPesz-9gukro-9grcUe-e5jJ5q-6M7NUi-qcpo4u-njZREG-62yEZg-rJHv1j-rJRwhH-9jzFAX-jmebcs-na7yPf-iosAQK-8zBpSg-ygmUW-4AetBE">phil/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Hercules and Leo don’t know it, but a decision about their future has made history. In granting an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/21/chimpanzees-granted-legal-persons-status-unlawful-imprisonment">order to show cause</a> on whether Hercules and Leo (who just happen to be chimpanzees) are illegally imprisoned, a Supreme Court judge in Manhattan has kept open the possibility that some nonhuman animals will be granted legal rights under common law. </p>
<p>The plaintiffs are currently used for biomedical research at New York’s Stony Brook University. What the lawyers running the case hope to show is that Hercules and Leo shouldn’t be treated as if they were just things or property, but should instead be given the status of persons. </p>
<p>Showing that any animal has what is needed for legal personhood is a difficult task. But chimpanzees seem promising candidates as there is a wealth of scientific evidence showing they possess complex cognitive abilities, like self-awareness and autonomy. </p>
<p>The order to show cause on the issue of <a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm">habeas corpus</a> is the first step in a process which <a href="http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/steve-wise/">Steven Wise</a> and the Nonhuman Rights Project (<a href="http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/">NhRP</a>) hope will secure Hercules and Leo’s bodily liberty and integrity. </p>
<p>If the court were to find in their favour, the chimpanzees would no longer be kept for research and could be moved to a sanctuary in Florida.</p>
<p>NhRP was founded by Wise in 2007 and after years of research it filed its first cases back in December 2013. To date it has brought three cases on behalf of chimpanzees held in captivity in the state of New York. But NhRP is ambitious, aiming to run as many cases on behalf of animals as it can fund.</p>
<p>If it can find suitable plaintiffs, NhPR hopes to mount cases for the personhood of elephants, whales and dolphins too.</p>
<h2>Different perspectives on personhood for animals</h2>
<p>Reactions to treating nonhuman animals as persons vary widely. Some people think it is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/04/court-denies-legal-personhood-of-chimpanzees">ridiculous</a> to even entertain the idea. Persons have to be human – end of story. </p>
<p>For philosophers, this is not very satisfactory. It tries to answer the question of whether animals can be persons by asserting a definition rather than offering an argument. It gets more interesting when people give reasons to support their view. </p>
<p>One approach to defending the idea that only humans are persons involves saying that persons need to participate in society. Society is founded on reciprocity; you can’t just take rights without also assuming responsibilities. And animals like chimpanzees can’t take on responsibilities, so they can’t have rights. </p>
<p>Another tactic is to suggest that there is a whole heap of criteria that one has to meet to be a person. And although humans meet these criteria, nonhuman animals don’t. These criteria could include things like being rational, self-aware, autonomous, having culture and being able to communicate. </p>
<p>The problem is neither of these kinds of arguments stand up to interrogation. There are lots of humans who get the benefit of rights without living up to reciprocal responsibilities, such as young children and people with certain physical or mental impairments. </p>
<p>There are similar difficulties when using a criteria based approach. Just as there are many humans who don’t meet certain criteria for personhood, there are some nonhuman animals <a href="http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimpanzees-self-awareness-110504.htm">who do</a>. </p>
<p>This is known as the “problem of marginal cases”. Taking a consistent approach would mean treating some animals, but not all humans, as worthy of moral consideration. </p>
<p>There are other people who are sympathetic towards giving greater ethical consideration to animals, but who don’t think using personhood is the best approach. Utilitarians, for example, worry about the capacity to suffer. If a chimpanzee – or for that matter a dog, cat or rat – can experience pleasure and pain, then they matter regardless of whether they meet a test for personhood.</p>
<h2>Implications of nonhuman animals as persons</h2>
<p>If Wise and the NhRP win their case it will be a significant precedent and other cases will surely follow. Chimpanzees in jurisdictions where successful cases are mounted will no longer be permitted to be used in research or kept in zoos and circuses. </p>
<p>However, less charismatic animals – ones that don’t look like us or where it is not in our interests to grant them rights – won’t be so fortunate. Historically, there is a deep inconsistency in how we treat different types of animals that is not easily overturned, even in the face of compelling legal and ethical arguments. </p>
<p>The case of Hercules and Leo also has connections to Australia. Wise was inspired to practice animal law back in the 1980s after reading the work of Australian philosopher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-singer-2863">Peter Singer</a>. The hearing of the case in New York was actually interrupted due to Wise’s long-standing commitment to visit Australia and deliver the 2015 Voiceless Animal Law Lecture Series. </p>
<p>The hearing is now scheduled for 10:30am Wednesday May 27 at the New York County Supreme Court. Those interested in seeking rights for nonhuman animals keenly await the outcome.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The question of furnishing non-human animals with rights normally reserves for humans is more complex than it might seem.Jane Johnson, Research officer, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/52452012-02-09T03:26:44Z2012-02-09T03:26:44ZMore animal abuse revelations – is it fair play?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7483/original/2gz2wcyw-1328675175.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Where does it come from?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Allerina & Glen MacLarty</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We have entered a new, digital, era in animal protection, yet one in which a legislative backlash against video exposes is stirring in parts of the US. Last week brought another revelation of animal cruelty, this time concerning intensively-reared pigs in Oklahoma, organised by the <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/">Humane Society of the United States</a>.</p>
<p>In the video footage viewers see sows confined in small cages with a variety of behaviour and health problems. As with last year’s revelations of Australian animals being slaughtered in Indonesia, video footage of the pigs was quickly shared worldwide with the worlds’ internet users.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IvTlB8L2CDk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Whereas the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJYdCZFaLg">Indonesian footage</a> last year could perhaps be considered an extreme example of slaughter malpractice, this latest footage only reveals what is common across thousands of piggeries around the world. This modern phenomenon of being able to reveal what is happening almost anywhere in the world to almost anyone that is interested, within minutes of it happening, must be making animal producers afraid for the future.</p>
<p>And indeed, the state legislatures of Florida, Iowa, and Minnesota are considering bills making it <a href="http://silha.umn.edu/news/Summer2011/StatesConsiderBanningUndercoverRecordingatAgriculturalOperations.html">illegal to possess or distribute</a> illegally-obtained video or audio records of animal facilities.</p>
<p>Today’s ability of animal welfare supporters to instantly distribute upsetting footage worldwide means that animal producers can no longer do anything that they would not be willing to invite someone off the street to view. The public are becoming the armchair arbiters of society’s animal welfare values.</p>
<p>Today the vanguards of animal protection are less the politicians, philosophers, and writers who have for centuries exhorted the public to treat animals with respect and dignity, and more the young activists who expose suffering to the public through their videos. In an increasingly secular society, who reads the Old Testament of the Bible to get instructions on how to look after animals? By contrast, <a href="http://www.animalsaustralia.org/about/lyn-white.php">Lyn White</a>, who exposed the Indonesian slaughter last year, was recently voted ABC Newsradio’s “newsmaker of the year”, Crikey.com’s “person of the year” and listed in the top 100 Victorians by The Age.</p>
<p>Yet, in the same week that we saw pigs in appalling conditions in America, cattle were drowning in Queensland because of floods. Why was there no public concern at the horrors that must have afflicted those animals? The reliance on public emotional response means that only direct human mistreatment of animals awakens our outrage.</p>
<p>Should we be concerned about the producer that knowingly kept his stock on the floodplains and failed to get them to higher ground, or the one who let his animals die during a drought because he didn’t buy food, or in a heatwave because there was no shade in the feedlot? Animal suffering takes many guises, and it’s not just the deliberate maiming of animals in intensive piggeries or abattoirs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7463/original/hb9y85tk-1328664890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Countless, or perhaps uncounted, animals die on drought or flood affected farms. Does the public care?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/yewenyi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With the public’s new found power to change industry practices - for example, forcing a suspension of live cattle exports from Australia almost overnight - will our responses to what is presented to us on television embody what is in society’s best interests in the long term? Will we decide what is right for our children and their children, or will we selfishly choose what gives us most satisfaction, like eating cheaply-produced meat?</p>
<p>Obviously there is scope for activists to play on our emotions, such as by inducing horror at the sight of animals being slaughtered, but this may not be a bad thing, because our emotions have evolved to help us survive and avoid harmful events. A benign relationship with our animals is a prerequisite for a successful and caring society. However, to have a just and thriving society, we need much more than just our primeval emotions; we need reasoned thought, debate, and argument to organise the complex systems used to produce and manage animals.</p>
<p>In relation to animal welfare at least, our politicians seem answerable to their electorate as never before. Consumers want cheap food and our politicians are only too aware of the economic importance of our animal industries, but at the same time they must fear the power that activists have over public sentiment. Have we seen the end of the conviction politicians that championed better conditions for animals - people such as anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce who almost two hundred years ago founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7464/original/2b4gvjzx-1328665239.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Conviction politician William Wilberforce.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Andy Field (Hubmedia)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Will the activists’ video-exposés force food production underground, behind closed doors? This seems unlikely, but better self-regulation is being advocated by some. The UK government’s <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/">Food Standards Agency</a>, with support from the major supermarket chains, is encouraging meatworks to install CCTV. </p>
<p>As a result of this, depending on species, between 13% and 42% of animals in Britain are now videoed during slaughter, with the sole objective being to detect animal welfare breaches. However, the meatworks themselves have the responsibility to manage offences. Animal protection organisations mostly support mandatory installation of CCTV, with release of the footage to independent agencies for analysis. It is usually government’s responsibility to prosecute.</p>
<p>At the same time there are increasing calls for controls on activists’ videoing animal facilities, including the push in the US to outlaw the possession or distribution of illegally-obtained video or sound recordings. In the UK, undercover footage taken by activists may be admissible in a court case, but only if it was taken “fairly”. Notably the Food Standards Agency have used undercover footage to suspend slaughtermen. </p>
<p>If the filming was illegal it raises the prospect of prosecution of the activist rather than, or as well as, the producer. This is likely to be counterproductive because it creates publicity for them, and the penalties are not a deterrent to those with strong convictions. Their main objective is to influence consumers, which is achieved by release of the video footage on the internet.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7470/original/b4ykr7gh-1328669549.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supermarket special: a vegetarian activist suggests equal treatment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/CreatiVegan.net</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Online journalists’ reporting of animal abuse is sometimes bound by codes of ethics which may include not broadcasting footage that breaches confidence or was obtained by dishonest or unfair means, unless there is an over-riding public interest. However, the extent to which these are adhered to, particulary on the internet, is questionable. </p>
<p>Other related issues include the extent to which those who have been secretly filmed can insist on anonymity; whether distortion or alteration of video footage is permissible; payment for services; the worth of third party reports of events witnessed and, most importantly, the responsibilities of those filmed and how they should respond.</p>
<p>Our relationship to animals is a highly emotive topic with a large divergence of views. It has become a major societal issue, in part because of the recent intensification of livestock production systems. These two facts render the livestock industries highly susceptible to those with strong views about animal protection trying to expose what they believe to be wrong.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips sits on the Live Exports Standards Accreditation Group, a federal government subsidiary. Since 2000 he has received funding from: University Federation for Animal Welfare, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Meat and Livestock Australia Livecorp, the Australian Veterinary Association, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Wombat Recovery Programme, the RSPCA, ARC Linkage, Morris Animal Foundation.</span></em></p>We have entered a new, digital, era in animal protection, yet one in which a legislative backlash against video exposes is stirring in parts of the US. Last week brought another revelation of animal cruelty…Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40932011-10-31T19:38:48Z2011-10-31T19:38:48ZBart Cummings has never won a Melbourne Cup (because he hasn’t run in one)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5028/original/melbourne_cup_AAP.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everyone gets a slice of Melbourne Cup profits, except the winner.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the lead up to the 2011 Melbourne Cup I have heard numerous interviews with Australian racing legend Bart Cummings. Apparently Cummings has “won the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3350203.htm">Melbourne Cup</a> race a record 12 times”. I had no idea Bart Cummings could run so fast!</p>
<p>The way we talk about the Melbourne Cup is indicative of the problematic nature of horse racing. The horses do most of the hard work and the humans get all the rewards.</p>
<p>That is not to suggest that Bart Cummings does not rise early or that he has not worked hard. But it should give us pause to think about the so called “sport of kings” from the horses’ perspective. </p>
<p>Jockeys reading this article might feel that they too are not given their just deserts. The media focuses predominantly on trainers by claiming – contrary to all other sporting etiquette – that the person who trained the winner was in fact the winner. </p>
<p>While jockeys would probably be justified in feeling that way, the situation they occupy also gives us an insight into the disempowered life of a race horse.</p>
<p>In early 2011, jockeys in Queensland were in a <a href="http://www.thoroughbrednews.com.au/australia/archive.aspx?id=52091&page=13&keyword=">pay dispute</a> with the Queensland Racehorse Owners’ Association. As is typical in such cases the jockeys wanted a larger share of the wealth generated by racing. </p>
<p>More recently, the Australian Jockeys’ Association mooted <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/jockeys-sitting-tight-20111029-1mppr.html">industrial action</a>, concerned about low government contributions to the National Jockeys’ Trust. The <a href="http://www.australianjockeys.org/?q=node/33">National Jockeys’ Trust</a> provides financial support to jockeys injured while riding, or to their families, in the case of a fatality.</p>
<p>Jockeys are undervalued, but horses get an even worse deal. What mechanisms are in place to protect horses who succumb while competing? The short answer is “none”. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5027/original/Screen_shot_2011-10-31_at_12.26.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Winning a horse race is hard work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While clearly it makes no sense for race horses to be drawing a salary of their own they could, at the very least, be better remunerated for the hard work they do. For that remuneration to be fair, from an animal welfare perspective, it would have to be applied to <em>all</em> race horses, not just the few who win a prestigious event such as the Melbourne Cup. </p>
<p>When a horse falls on the race track a vet is called. If the prognosis is bad a screen is erected and a shot rings out. </p>
<p>That kind of death raises its own ethical issues. But to my mind, what is more controversial are the countless racing horse deaths that occur each year not to spare the animal pain; not because it is in the animal’s best interest; not because there are no other alternatives; but because the horse was not fast enough, not placid enough, or not likely to ever return a profit to his or her owner.</p>
<p>For every 1000 horses bred by the Australian racing industry only 300 will ever race. In 1991, an estimated 7,500 failed race horses were <a href="http://theconversation.com/jumps-racing-what-a-waste-1252">killed and processed</a> for pet food. </p>
<p>In the racing industry the phenomenon is referred to as “wastage”. It occurs simply because allowing an uncompetitive race horse to live is a cost, and those who make their money through horse racing don’t wish to share their wealth with the very horses upon which the industry depends. Does that seem fair? Not to me. </p>
<p>Clearly Bart Cummings has never won the Melbourne Cup. Yes, he has trained winners. But it is the horses who do the winning. And it is the thousands of animals who are bred and then killed, in order to find that one outstanding racer, who make the biggest sacrifice of all. </p>
<p>The horses who run for our entertainment are individuals whose lives matter to them. It is not at all clear that a horse is lucky to find him or herself being trained by Bart Cummings. But, at least the horses that race successfully will live to see another day. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5029/original/Melbourne_cup_AAP2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trainers who fail go to Centrelink; horses who fail get a bullet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1924 a <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Century-Work-Animals-History-1824-1924/dp/B000861H7Q">history of the UK’s RSPCA</a> was published. Many of the issues that occupied the minds of animal welfare advocates then were the same as they are today. In one of my favourite passages from that book the authors write: </p>
<p><em>When one remembers the cruelties so often inflicted on animal workers, one can only wish that they had the power to strike, as does the human worker who, articulate with real or fancied wrongs, can take the law into his own hands and “down tools” to draw public attention to his just or unjust demands.</em></p>
<p><em>Would to heaven that the animals could pursue a like course! The world would then be a different and better place, for we should have learnt how dependent on the animal kingdom we human beings are … what a glorious change would result!</em></p>
<p>Unlike jockeys, race horses cannot organise or strike. But the humans who benefit from their hard work – especially on Melbourne Cup day when many humans are given a public holiday while the horses run for their lives – could take a moment to reflect on the sacrifice race horses make. </p>
<p>We could spare a thought for all the horses who died in an effort to bring us the Melbourne Cup, and insist on compassion for the next generation of race horses.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4093/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan is a financial member of a number of animal welfare organisations including World League for the Protection of Animals and RSPCA NSW. </span></em></p>In the lead up to the 2011 Melbourne Cup I have heard numerous interviews with Australian racing legend Bart Cummings. Apparently Cummings has “won the Melbourne Cup race a record 12 times”. I had no idea…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.