Animal Welfare

Animal welfare is a multi-faced issue that points toward vital ethical, political, scientific, and economic dimensions. Therefore, the research of this topic needs an inter-disciplinary approach. Numerous debates that involve the definition of this notion can be observed in modern society. Animal welfare abuses increase because the majority of related concepts cannot be easily scientifically tested; hence, they cannot be applied in the court of law. Animal welfare adopts various ethical positions. Nevertheless, this is majorly a scientific concept. The measures of animal welfare outcomes are used in setting standards and legislation. Legislators use this scientific concept to determine the possible measurable quality of an animal living in a particular location for a specific period.

Background of Study

The science of animal welfare has not reached maturity due to the existence of varied concepts and the definition of the notion. According to Walker, Diez-Leon, and Mason (2014), during the last two decades, scientific publications on animal welfare have increased approximately 10% to 15% annually. Old laws, which considered animal rights, focused on protecting animals used for farming purposes. Conversely, with the contemporary progression in the appropriate field science, new laws support the enhancement of animal welfare worldwide. Different countries participate in international businesses, which makes the issue of protecting animal rights a global one. For instance, the government of Columbia blamed Europe for battery cages for hens (Walker et al., 2014). According to Walker et al. (2014), the World Organization for Animal Health has formulated codes that guarantee the promotion of animal health, thus safeguarding the safety of international trade between the World Trade Organization nations. The recent patterns show that organizations shift their activities to guarantee better animal welfare. History shows that the most affected animal sectors include poultry, livestock, dairy, and laboratory animals, which constitute a total of 228, 222, 162, and 152 counts respectively (Walker et al., 2014). The authors also show that the trend of abusing animal welfare related to the number of publications has shown an increase since 1994 to 2012 (Walker et al., 2014). Therefore, there exists the need for improving animal welfare by increasing the scientific concept coverage of corresponding laws.

Problem Under Discussion

Animal welfare cases show an increasing trend. The affected animals are those that are kept in laboratories, farms as well as wild and companion animals. According to Carenzi and Verga (2009), the main issues affecting animal welfare include animal abuse, need, and five freedoms that become associated with animal management and husbandry. However, obtaining all five freedoms is unrealistic; yet, animal welfare must be considered realistic (Carenzi & Verga, 2009).  Considering that animal welfare lacks a uniform definition due to its multi-disciplinary nature, the way people understand this concept differ. Therefore, they treat animals differently. Having different concepts of welfare has its limitations. For example, Carenzi and Verga (2009) state that an animal may have good health outcome due to their environment and genetic condition that does not necessarily signify its good mental status. Having different concepts of welfare affects the effectiveness of how people adhere to animal rights and laws.

Purpose of the Study

The study focuses on determining a scientific concept that supports the need to promote animal welfare in petitions to the government as well as on providing an extended view at this issue to citizens. According to Policy Department (2017), petitions to the authorities regarding animal welfare make references from scientific publications. The study explores a wider meaning of this concept that acts as an indicator of animal abuse.

Significance of the Study

The concept of animal welfare shows variations due to its multi-faced nature. Thus, according to Carenzi and Verga (2009), this notion lacks a uniform explanation due to the variances in evaluation methodologies and the attitude that people show towards animals. At the same time, Walker et al. (2014) state that there exists a disproportionate representation of the publications that show the level of animal welfare per animal sector. There is a gap in the literature on how to identify how animals feel, which aids in detecting animal abuse. Furthermore, Carenzi and Verga (2009) claim that the subjective phenomenon in animal welfare cannot become easily observed objectively. The history of researching animal sentience plays a significant role in determining the notion in question. Historic ethologists have restricted the use of animal subjective terms and considerations regarding animal behavior (Carenzi & Verga, 2009). However, after the publication of Griffin’s book, ethologist and phycologist have realized that they cannot determine how animals feel, but they can identify how they behave (Carenzi & Verga, 2009).

Research Questions

1. What is the association between the different descriptions of animal welfare and animal abuse?
2. Which animal sector has the highest number of animal welfare issues?
3. Do scientific notions of animal well-being advance the understanding of animal welfare and laws?
4. Which category of animal welfare issue causes the highest number of related problems?
5. What aspects affect the degree of compliance with animal well-being standards?
6. Are animal well-being laws operative?

Objectives

The paper focuses on identifying particular animal needs in the environment where they are kept and outlining how their needs can be mitigated. At the same time, this research addresses the factors affecting compliance with animal welfare standards. Animal well-being needs comprise physiological necessities, such as repertoire, and ecological requirements such as housing (Carenzi, & Verga, 2009). Furthermore, the paper aims at determining the degree of adherence to animal freedoms that humans guarantee to ensure. According to Carenzi and Verga (2009), these include the freedom to discomfort, freedom to express usual behavior, freedom from distress and fear, from diseases and injury as well as the freedom to healthy nutrition. The paper identifies the best approaches that aid in determining the abuse of animal rights. The research identifies the animal sector that shows the highest number of animal welfare issues and those that cause the highest number of related problems.

Thesis

The solution to solving the issue of animal welfare involves determining additional concepts of corresponding science that aid in expanding the coverage of appropriate laws as well as developing a uniform definition or the description of the issue under discussion.

Methodology

The research was conducted by reviewing data in secondary sources. Thus, information was obtained online and from already published journals. The majority of journals were found in scientific databases due to a possible increase in the number of scientific journals’ proliferations (Walker et al., 2014). The analysis of the results was based on comparing the arguments from various sources to determine the association between the factors, affecting the adherence to animal welfare and animal abuse.

Literature Review

Property rights are considered over animal welfare laws. Thus, Blosh (2012) states that the concept of animal rights raises controversial and troubling concerns regarding their legal status because they are classified under the category of humans when animals are owned and their owners have property rights. At the same time, Goodwin and Rhoades (2011) show that citizens believe that animal laws are inaccurate. In return, people think that since creatures are their possessions under property rights, they have boundaries on their ability to protect their interest (Blosh, 2012). Property rights trump animal welfare regularly, which makes individuals easily misinterpreted corresponding laws, viewing them as inaccurate. Further, Blosh (2012) offers an example of two cases in Canada, one between Florida’s SeaWorld and Marineland, over the possession of a whale. The judgment in the court ruling was based on contract law instead of deciding what was best for the whale (Blosh, 2012). At the same time, the case of elephant Lucy showed undermining animal welfare laws because scientifically, it had been determined that it was cruel to hold elephants in captivity. Yet, the Supreme court of Canada ruled in favor of the Edmonton zoo that kept the elephant against the public interest (Blosh, 2012). Science forms the basis of explaining animal welfare law and their development (Policy Department, 2017). However, the court chose to ignore the scientific concept over property rights. From the two cases, one can see that not only citizens show aspects of not understanding the significance of animal welfare but also the courts that implement the laws.

Animals are classified as property, which makes it difficult to liberate them, considering that they are owned by someone at the same time. According to Blosh (2012), the legal perspective of old animal welfare laws liberated them because it focused more on human obligations to them and less on their status. The advancement of corresponding laws poses possible limitations to animal welfare. Thus, Carenzi and Verga (2009) state that these laws treat animals not as a commodity, transforming them to a legal person. According to Bosh (2012), such a transformation brings limitations because personhood would benefit animals only to the point that matches how legal rights place limitations on property rights. The development of animal laws shows a complexity that results in its limitations of the difficulty of interpreting them. At the same time, Blosh (2012) claims that underlying laws place more privileges to property rights, while the history of the development of animal welfare laws lacks supportive underlying legislations. The factors affecting these laws include the superiority of human beings. According to Blosh (2012), the laws affecting animal welfare are formulated as a by-product of various goals, whose objectives focus on serving human needs. Finally, Jones (2012) is of the opinion that 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution advocates the release of animals to a better environment, according to the ruling of Orca case that has acted in favor of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal. Therefore, the 13^th Amendment has been formulated to fit the ethical needs of humans.

Animals are protected in today’s society. Thus, two branches that ensure animal protection include animal welfare and animal rights (Krag, 2008). The outcome of the former depends and reflects on the combination of approaches, used when handling animals. Further, Krag (2008) supports the association between ethics and science in animal welfare because the appropriate scientific approaches make science reach a particular conclusion, thus falling under the influence of culture, ethics, religion, and politics. At the same time, Goodwin and Rhoades (2011) state that legislation that focuses on guaranteeing the improvement of animal welfare form a part of a major political agenda. Similar to Carenzi and Verga’s (2009) view, animal welfare is a multi-faced concept that covers several disciplinary areas. There are some mix-ups in the understanding of the dissimilarities between animal rights and their well-being. Moreover, the description of the concept under discussion covers several dispensaries that act as limitations, which leads to increase in animal welfare issues, as shown by Walker et al. (2014) from 1994 to 2012. At the same time, the result of the research by Goodwin and Rhoades (2011) have showed that citizens, who had filled in questionnaires, lacked a direct understanding of the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Therefore, lack of a proper understanding of the definition of animal rights and welfare pose challenges to their adherence, since people can only comply best with what they understand clearly.

Scientific approaches that broaden the concepts of animal welfare raise concerns for the petitions of animal rights but also redefine this notion. According to BBSRC (2010), these approaches include motivational priorities and welfare indicators. The former assess suffering, and need, while the latter - the five freedoms of animal husbandry (Carenzi & Verga, 2009). Specifically, welfare indicators assess physical appearance and behavioral responses portrayed by animals, while the motivational approach gives an assessment of how an animal has chosen a particular environment where it adapts well (BBSRC, 2010). Policy Department (2017) defines animal welfare as the ability of an animal to cope with its environment. The evaluations are logically made based on the ability of an animal to survive in an environment. Science progresses the ideas of animal welfare. According to Carenzi and Verga (2009), in the past, animal welfare did not capture observable behaviors or subjective terms until the release of Griffin’s book that claimed that people could not identify what animals felt, only how they behaved. As a result, science has incorporated motivational assessment of the degree of animal welfare that aid in determining related behavioral issues, which has been seen in 997 counts in applied animal behavior science journals (Walker et al., 2014, p.83). Therefore, scientific innovations form the key to broadening the definition of animal welfare.

Physical and behavioral animal welfare indicators show the leading causes of problems. According to Walker et al. (2014), welfare issues related to housing, feeding, slaughter, laboratory, injuries, space, and ethics accounted for the highest count in the journals of the last 20 years each, constituting 157, 158, 87, 31, 29, and 21 counts respectively. The farming type with the highest welfare issues include poultry, livestock, and aquaculture, with 228, 222, and 105 counts respectively from the journals, published in the last 20 years (Walker et al, 2014). The category of animals that are most affected by animal welfare issues in the past two decades are farmed birds and mammals, as observed in a total of 2,389 journal counts, followed by laboratory, wild, fish, and companion animals, with the total of 513, 509, 370, 229, and 227 counts respectively (Walker et al., 2014). Companion animals show the lowest number of animal welfare issues. This result arises from the difference in compassion and empathy (Policy Department, 2017). Rodents are laboratory animals whose welfare is abused most of all. According to Walker et al. (2014), in 2005 alone, 127 million rodents were used for scientific studies. Regarding numbers, pets come in second after farmed animals and birds, with dogs alone accounting for a total of 500 million globally (Walker et al., 2014). However, pets show a low number of animal welfare problems as compared to laboratory animals. Finally, Carenzi and Verga (2009) explain the phenomenon by stating that the degree of welfare among animals varies, depending on different attitudes towards various animals. Thus, attitude influences the degree of protection of animals’ well-being.

Adherence to animal well-being standards is governed by the level of public education. According to the research conducted by Goodwin and Rhoades (2011), people claim that animal laws are inaccurate. These views arise from the fact that many people do not comprehend the dissimilarities between animal rights and animal well-being. Goodwin and Rhoades (2011) state that the success of protecting animal welfare relies on educating the public regarding the differences between these two notions. At the same time, media coverage, increase in teaching conferences, the establishment of a better animal welfare legislation, and parliamentary discussions show an increase in the concerns of animal welfare globally (Policy Department, 2017). Legislation codes improve regulations, associated with the transportation of animals. Thus, the benefits of legal transportation codes become more prominent only if people acquire proper education (Policy Department, 2017). The enforcement of such education is promoted through the internet, thus making it accessible globally. For example, Animal Welfare Science Hub provides unbiased information. However, Walker et al. (2014) contradict the public’s lack of related knowledge by stating that despite a considerable increase in educated individuals, animal welfare still increased. Nevertheless, considering that appropriate information exists freely online and it is readily accessible, people’s lack of adherence to animal welfare arises from their ignorance as well.

The Implication of Findings

Obeying animal laws depends on the level, at which the public understands them or seeks related information. However, this level is also affected by their ignorance. Therefore, enforcing animal welfare information to the public requires the measurement of key performance indicators to ensure that the development of corresponding laws benefits animals. The public experiences difficulties in understanding laws, associated with animal welfare, because there is little balance between the underlying laws, supporting property rights, and animal rights or welfare. The findings show that in most cases, courts rule in favor of property rights instead of considering the favorable interests of animals. The problem arises from applying the human status to animals instead of focusing on the laws that define human obligations to animals. Comprehending the dissimilarity between animal civil liberties and their welfare affects the level of adherence to animal well-being practices. However, observing animal rights do not necessarily mean that their welfare has been achieved. They could be in a good physical and behavioral shape, but this does not mean that they are fine mentally. There is quite a complexity in animal welfare laws. The findings show that all five freedoms of animal husbandry cannot be achieved, but the basis of animal welfare laws requires realistic interventions. Attitude plays a significant role in determining the degree, at which people comply with animal welfare standards for different animals.

Conclusion

The study shows that the future of animal welfare still requires more researches because the topic contains varied concepts instead of providing some unified information. Animal well-being is a comprehensive subject due to the necessity of safeguarding safety in transnational trade. The problems regarding animal welfare encompass suffering, need, and the five freedoms of animal husbandry. The purposes of the exploration were met and the study questions received their answers. The study has identified that existence of differences in the description of animal welfare results in the increase of animal abuse cases. The problem stems from lack of education among people due to their ignorance. Animal laws have showed a moderate level of effectiveness. Courts and government demonstrate lack of concerns for animals in their decisions by giving priority to property laws instead of adhering to animal welfare despite science providing relevant theories that favor ruling on animals’ interest. The problem arises from the fact that animal laws have no appropriate underlying legislations that support them as compared to property laws. Moreover, the former focus on status instead of considering animal welfare as human obligations. The research has shown that the most ill-treated creatures are poultry, cattle, and laboratory rodents. Animal behavior and physical issues have reported the highest counts of animal welfare problems.