Values
- Always do what is best for the animals, from their needs and perspective, regardless of our own egos, triumphs, frustrations, and pre-conceived assessments.
- A keen sense of skepticism is to be encouraged. We should not jump to conclusions or assume all situations involve cruelty. Verify the facts. Documents the evidence. It is as possible that what appears to be cruel may not be as is the hidden cruelties that elude us.
- Avoid sensationalism at all times. The truth is horrible enough and self-evident. Do not become hysterical. Creditability is paramount. Cruelty is a people problem so we must work within the constraints of people and their customs.
- Our primary mission is to investigate and educate through television, the mobile exhibit, and the Internet.
- Attack behaviors of people not the people themselves. Document the abuses not the people unless specifically associated with individuals.
- Do not directly solicit funds. Those interested in our work will step forward.
- Find overlapping compatibility with other local and national organizations and build coalition. It is not necessary to have full agreement with the agendas of these organizations.
Defining an Organization by What it is NOT
What an organization is not can be more defining than a sanitized mission statement of what the organization stands for.
Don’t use the phrase Animal Rights
This phrase has evolved into something with very negative connotations that brings unnecessary baggage to the organization.
Don’t alienate the very people that are essential in making significant reforms
Traditional family farmers (grain and livestock) have an immediate and powerful negative reaction to animal groups. This is a shame since many of these people hold the same values and concerns that we do. There are many points of abrasion: vegetarianism, activists who have never been around animals, terrorism, activists not acknowledging some of the ugly realities of dealing with livestock, desensitized farmers, etc. By stepping clear of the philosophy and dealing with clear-cut abuses these people can be extremely powerful and outspoken allies.
Take an outspoken stance against any type of terrorism, coercion, or violence
Specifically there must be a strong condemnation of the ALF. Silence or even a level of sympathy in this area equates to endorsement in the public’s opinion.
Don’t make vegetarianism or veganism part of any campaign
While both of these life choices are admirable, it is a huge distraction from reaching average citizens about animal cruelty. It is far too easy and familiar for people to dismiss issues of abuse when they assume its all about a philosophical position of human/animal relationships. There are literally hundreds of organizations focused on vegetarianism already. Virtually every animal organization that is concerned with farm animals has either an overt or hidden agenda of turning society to vegetarianism. There is a complete void of any organization focused strictly on the animals themselves. The issue of farm animal abuse can stand on its own with co-mingling other social issues.
Don’t make public health concerns part of any campaign
While this is an important part of modern animal agriculture, it is another huge distraction from connecting with average citizens about animal cruelty. There are many organizations already dealing with these issues, and again almost every animal rights organization uses this issue to its advantage. By bringing issues like Mad Cow, E.coli, and sanitation into the campaign we are in a sense diminishing the truths of the abuses. The abuses are with enough merit to stand on their own. This only gives our distracters more fodder to dismiss the entire issue. These issues tend to be used as a scare tactic to coerce people into vegetarianism, which is a disingenuous way of persuading people. We would also be implying that if the health concern were to be remedied then the issue would go away – the issue only goes away when the abuse is stopped.
Don’t have a hidden agenda
Be upfront what we want and don’t keep moving the target as progress is made. Too many organizations say they want reform but then turn around and demand abolition once some reform is achieved. Our theoretical objective should be to work ourselves out of existence, not to keep issues alive by changing the goal.
Be tightly focused on a few issues
As a tiny organization we can’t possibly do justice to the myriad of problems with animal agriculture. We will be more effective if highly focused. The public has been trained to deal with very small nuggets of information so we must make our message extremely simple and repetitive. It is temping to delve into a wide variety of issues and tangents, but that is best left to much larger organizations.
Balance graphically disturbing information with upbeat imagery
Like or not the reality is people don’t want to look at or deal with intense and gross topics. We need to make this palatable to not scare off people and to show the contrast between good and bad. It is not all bad. We are horrified by things we have documented, but using shock or scare tactics with the public will not result in meaningful engagement on their part. Respect people’s choice of not wanting to view graphic material without chastising them.
Take active measures to safeguard children from seeing graphic images
The choice of what is appropriate for a child to view should be left strictly to the parent. This is an absolute slam against us if we are perceived as being too graphic around people’s kids. People will respect us if we have take noticeable measures in keeping children away from graphic pictures and videos.
Don’t cry wolf
Not every animal in agriculture is abused. The more we find things to complain about with animals that are not abused, the less seriously we will be taken. There may be situations where animals are not particularly well cared for, but if we dramatize these situations then we pull the truly barbaric cases into the same fold. People will assume we are being dramatic about all situations and dismiss the whole thing as the ramblings of a bunch of animal rights whacko’s.
Don’t use anthropomorphism
Equating an animal situation to a similar human situation is simply not good science and makes us look like the entire issue is about our feelings and not the animals’ pain. This can be a little tricky since some of this is required to invoke human empathy, but anyone who has worked in agriculture will quickly find fault in dramatic assignment of human emotions to an animal. Clearly most people of these people are quite desensitized, but the fact remains that animals experience the world differently than people. Regardless of the thought process – pain is pain.
Don’t use a deceptive name
Social advocacy groups are notorious for using deceptive names as is the animal rights movement. Don’t use phrases like reform, ethical treatment, or coalition unless we mean them. Typically these really mean abolition, liberation, or militant.
Don’t slam or even take a position on other organizations
Steer clear of this whole area or we will be taking on all their baggage. It’s about the animals not the organizations. It is a fact that there are many corrupt organizations. Do we want to deal with them or with the animals? The public will only take away one message from us. It would be wise to have a handful of ‘sister’ organizations to refer people to on issues related to farm animals that we steer clear of. These would include: vegetarianism, public health, environment, non farm animals, and issues outside of our geographic region. A referral is simply a referral, not an endorsement or an in-depth analysis of their effectiveness and internal workings