Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

6 Reasons Why Aquariums Are Just as F*Cked Up as SeaWorld. Peta2, 12 Sept.

2017,
www.peta2.com/news/aquariums-are-cruel/.

This article is just one of the many sources that I had found that contribute to our inquiry
proposal. The title 6 Reasons why Aquariums Are Just as F*Cked Up as Sea World caught
my attention first and my second reason was that it was on the list of popular resources on the
PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] page. PETA is an organization that focuses
on four areas with animals that are abused or harmed the most: clothing trade, food industry,
laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. The main purpose of the article was to provide
six (main) reasons why aquariums are not helping animals in any way that they claim they are.
Carley, a fellow team member of PETA, wrote this article to show her hatred for aquariums. She
advocates why aquariums are bad as Sea World, she acknowledges that some aquariums will
say they exist to educate the public about animals but the contradiction of it is that they are
teaching the acceptance of capturing animals that are meant to be in the wild, as pets for a
show. On the other hand, Monica Atkins, author of Educational Benefits of Aquarium claims that
it enhances vocabulary for infants and toddlers; hands-on learning because the children are
allowed to touch a few of the animals; and family bonding.
- 90 percent of public aquariums house animals who demonstrate stereotypic neurotic
behavior.
- chlorine and copper sulfate used to keep tanks clean has caused dolphins and seals
to go blind.
- Rays have a natural mucous coating on their skin that protects them from dangerous
pathogens, and its easily damaged when humans touch it.

My analysis of this article is that it was pretty straight forward, an easy read. It related a lot to my
inquiry question because an aquarium is a place of entertainment for everyone and from this
article, it proves in ways that aquariums abuse animals. It can help others who are pursuing
similar questions because if that person also hates aquariums or animal abuse, in general, they
can use this article as a source. This source relates to what my other group members have
found because the main topics are also about animal abuse in general but different or similar
scenarios. It fits into ongoing conversations about our inquiry question because overall
aquariums would be doing the same thing as any others.

Carly, the author


Clothing & Ornaments. Clothing & Ornaments | Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Welfare
Institute, awionline.org/content/clothing-ornaments

Animal Welfare Institute is an organization that has many goals like: abolishing factory farms,
protect endangered and threatened species, improve housing and the handling of animals in
research, etc. Clothing & Ornaments is one of the many articles that were included on the
Animal Welfare Institute Website and the author of it is unknown. The main idea of the article
was to talk about all or at least most of the animals that are being used for clothing, accessories,
and ornaments. The intended readers are people who continue to buy alligator or crocodile
skinned bags and wallets and people who also advocate against the usage of animals as
clothing and ornaments. It is written to stop people from skinning any more animals and for
those who buy them to have knowledge of how these animals are taken from their natural
habitat. The author has credibility because it is published on the website as one of the many
articles that contributes to a whole organization that is against animal abuse in many different
ways. I would say the publisher of this particular article does not have much of traditional cred,
but I am using it as another perspective. On the other hand, Animal Skins from Encyclopedia of
Fashion say that animal hides are a traditional clothing material that has been used by many
cultures in Africa and they get the skin from domesticated animals. The article shows that
animal hide is part of cultures and so skinning of animals cannot be helped in that old traditional
style. The writers are telling how the animals are being captured and are advocating for what is
wrong with it. Emotional credibility occurs because they talk about animals that are used in the
clothing trade and what happens to them; animals like sea turtles are loved by lots of people
and knowing they are being used to make jewelry and art objects is saddening. They complain
and explain why it is wrong to skin animals because of how they are being killed and they are
endangered animals, Consumers purchasing goods of unknown origin unwittingly contribute to
the decline of species.
- The fur trade has endangered many species and continues to use the skins of rare cats
and canids for coats, hats, and trim.
- Sea turtlesare also targeted for their shells to make jewelry and art objects.
- Elephants have blundered into neck snares and become entrapped by a leg or even
the trunk and died slowly of infection after weeks of pain.
- Trophy hunting of endangered species by wealthy hunters is a major threat to a growing
number of animals

This article was easy to read because it was straight to the point and gave so many facts
that showed why it is wrong to hunt the animals and skin them, especially since most are
endangered species. It is very applicable to our question because it shows that 15% of
mammals and birds are declining because of trade and that is one of the many ways animals
are being abused. It can help others who are pursuing similar questions because it is yet
another resource about animal abuse and that people should not hunt animals in any case
whatsoever. The stance of the writer is to stop the hunting of animals, especially endangered
animals. It also relates to my other member's source because they also looked up topics that
related to animals being used as clothing.
Bayne, Kathryn and Garnett, Nelson. Development of the Human-Research Animal Bond and
Its Impact on Animal Well-Being | ILAR Journal| Oxford Academic. OUP Academic, Oxford
University Press, 1 Jan. 2002, doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.1.4

I had chosen this article in particular because it is providing reasons as to why using animals for
research studies is very helpful. Kathryn Bayne and Garnett Nelson advocates the use of
animals in research studies because there have been proven benefits of them helping with
medical researches; Bayne and Garnett also says that the relationship between animals and
humans form through, work, sport, companionship, or some combination of these activities.
Then in the research environment, a bond is also formed between researcher and animal but it
does not have the same or no qualities (affection, respect, caring) as the relationship between
the owner and its pet. The intended readers are those who are interested in the development
between humans and animals. This book online goes more into depth about the relationship by
comparing owner-to-pet versus researcher-to-animal of study. What lends Bayne and Garnetts
credibility is that she includes authors of similar topics who have also studied the bonds and her
own personal thought to it. An interesting quote was Segal advocated for using names and
saying who rather than that.
- Communication with animals should not be restricted to the larger laboratory species.
- staff memberscan describe and distinguish the interactions of individual animals
with their enrichments.
- laboratory animals become identifiable, workers develop petlike relationships with
them.

The text is a medium read because it may not have been an article but it gives a lot of
information that others want to know or may happen to be interested in. The stance of the writer
is that animals that are being studied can develop a relationship with the researcher like an
owner and their pet. The difference is that when the researched animal is injured in any way and
may or may not have to be put down the researcher will have difficulty following instructions
because he or she has developed a genuine caring attitude towards it. It fits into conversations
about my inquiry question because we are talking about the ways crimes can correlate to animal
abuse and just other ways animals are abused in general. When thinking about animals being
researched or studied on you would think something harmful will be done to the animal but it
doesnt in some cases according to Bayne.
Kathryn Bayne, the author

Mur, Cindy. Animal Experimentation. Bonnie Szumski. 2004. Print.

This first chapter is about animals having rights and Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at
North Carolina State University, has contributed to this chapter. The main idea of chapter one is
to prove that animals do have rights when it comes to people using them in unethical ways.
They state that by rights, animals have the right to be treated with respect. The book also
contradicts what is being said that animals have less inherent value because when they do
because using animals for experimentation is wrong in so many ways. Regan believes that for
those who have morals they should apply those on animals as well even though they cannot
reciprocate. But on the other hand, researchers think what they do is okay because animal
experimentation has benefited all of us and the advantages for humankind outweigh the harm
done to animals. The credibility of the source is that in the first chapter, Regan and the other
authors provide so many evidence of the wrongs on animal experimentation that it outweighs all
the other positive viewpoints of animal experimentation that possibly exist in the world.
- animals do not respect our rightslack of understanding and its behavioral
consequence do not undermine attributing rights to animalsyoung children must first respect
our rights before we are duty bound to respect theirs. Reciprocity is not required in their case.
- difference between humans and other animals is that we do whereas they do not,
have a soul
- All who have inherent value have it equallywhether they be human animals or not.

The read is a medium to hard read because there will be times where you have to re-read a
passage or even a pageunless it is just me because I tend to get distracted easily. The text is
applicable to my question because it correlates back to animals being abused through
experimentation or other ways. Regans stance is that animals do have rights; they can
reciprocate in ways if they are treated as equals. It relates to the other sources found by my
other members because we all talk about animals. It doesnt correlate as much to my other
group members because this chapter is about how animals do have feelings, soul, rights but the
others are about violence done to other animals and such.Tom Regan is right that recognition of
the rights of animals reveals more evil than what is suspected because there is so much evil in
the world that we sometimes find it in ourselves and so we may or may not take it out on
animals or people or objects.

The cover of the book

Hodges, Cynthia. The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People. Animal Legal &
Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law, 2008,
www.animallaw.info/article/link-cruelty-animals-and-violence-towards-people.
By Laura Yawn

This article, The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People, presents the
argument that those who show abusive behavior towards animals may also have a strong
tendency to be perpetrators of domestic violence. Cynthia Hodges, a writer whose work has
been publicized by the Michigan State University College of Law, separates her argument into
parts; Animal abuse as a predictor of future behavior, and animal abuse as an indicator of
domestic violence or neglect. In the former theory, Hodges notes how cruelty towards animals
has been used by many different professional agencies (i.e; social service agencies, mental
health professionals, etc) as a red flag and indicator of other violent behaviors a person may be
partaking in. Hodges states that there is a serious correlation between animal abuse as a child
and recurring aggressive behavior as an adult; violent criminals are five times more likely to
commit violent crimes against people if they did so against animals as youths. Hodges goes on
to give examples of well-known serial killers and school shooters who notably tortured animals
in their youth, naming the likes of Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold,
and Luke Woodham. The importance of these people and their connection to animal cruelty is
backed with Hodges mention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation notably using past animal
abuse as a way to profile serial killers.
In Hodges latter argument, Animal abuse as an indicator of domestic violence or
neglect, there is a stronger focus on domestic abuse in families. Hodges uses examples of
cases in which domestic abusers mistreat animals whether through poor living conditions or
physical abuse and through that mistreatment, officials find children living in the same or
worse conditions. It is also highlighted how many abusers use the mistreatment of animals to
emotionally manipulate their victims; According to Susan Urban, a certified social worker with
the ASPCAs Counseling Services, [i]n domestic violence, the perpetrator often uses the
animal to hurt a particular person - usually the person who loves and cares for the pet. The
animal is abused in order to intimidate, harass or silence the vulnerable person. Hodges
explains how children who witness animal abuse suffer psychological effects and become more
likely to use animal cruelty as a way to release distress or to imitate the violence they have
seen.
Hodges concludes that by seeing the patterns in relationships between abusers and
animals, we can effectively prevent and stop abuse in most of its forms. Hodges calls for stricter
laws against animal abuse and for those who abuse animals to go through psychological
evaluations. She also urges for officials to look into the families of animal abusers for signs of
other kinds of abuse going on within the family. Hodges very boldly states that Schools,
parents, communities, and courts that dismiss cruelty to animals as a minor crime are ignoring
a time bomb. Hodges ties her article together by stating that abuse towards any entity is a
danger to everyone and must be taken seriously.

Because abusers target the powerless, crimes against animals, spouses, children, and the
elderly often go hand in hand. Researchers have found that a batterers first target is often an
animal living in the home, while the second is a spouse or a child
Researchers say that a childs violence towards animals often represents displaced
hostility and aggression stemming from neglect or abuse of the child or of another family
member.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12 students at Columbine High School,
spoke of mutilating animals to their classmates.
Jeffrey Dahmers first victims were animals: he decapitated dogs and staked cats to trees
in his youth.
70% of all animal abusers have committed at least one other criminal offense and almost
40% have committed violent crimes against people.

I really think that this was a very informative article and definitely broadened my view on the
correlation between animal abuse and domestic abuse. The bullet points and statistics that
Hodges uses are very helpful and, overall, the article is a fairly easy read. The article also
provides lots of other sources within it to check out and further research this topic. Being
conscious of other issues, I personally think that Hodges call for stricter legal punishments
against animal abuse (while warranted) isnt necessarily the perfect solution to the issue. It
appears that there is some psychological aspect to this correlation and maybe true rehabilitation
through various programs could be a better solution than adding to the problem of mass
incarceration. Perhaps a better solution would do what Hodges also suggests in her article; to
use this information to look into families for signs of domestic abuse without giving severe
punishments to those who are one-time animal abusers.
Cynthia Hodges, the author

Patterson Kane, Emily G., and Heather Piper. Animal Abuse as a Sentinel for Human
Violence: A Critique. Journal of Social Issues, Blackwell Publishing Inc, 23 July 2009

A Critique
In the peer-reviewed article by Emily G. Patterson-Kane presents critiques on the idea of Animal
abuse as a sentinel for human violence. Patterson, a psychologist specialized in animal welfare
and the human-animal bond, states the faults in the studies that attempt to prove such a claim.
The authors main challenge with the statement is that harming animals is a morally complex
and culturally ambiguous act, the opinions and studies will vary from different regions and their
idea of what is animal abuse.

Patterson emphasized the importance of animal victims being recognized however, it was
imperative to provide accurate information based on a shared community ethic. Patterson relies
upon the impending problem of not having a clear definition of what is animal cruelty, what
counts as unacceptable treatment of particular animals and of animals in general, varies
between and within societies. The claims of the so-called links are just generalizations in
Pattersons perspective. The generalizations target offenders of human violence to be profiled
and diagnosed because of statistical probability that might be flawed.

37% of normal or nonviolent males had committed at least one act of animal abuse
Studies of men known to be violent suggests that approximately 36% of violent males have
abused animals
the predictive value of a positive or negative test that an individual gets is changed in different
situations, depending on the background rarity of the event that the test is trying to detect. The
rarer the event in your population, the worse the very same test becomes
It was very interesting to read a critique after reading other studies that support the link between
animal abuse and human violence. Nonetheless, it was very informative and allowed me to
understand a different perspective for my inquiry project. Although Patterson did not offer the
same information and perspective as other studies and journals, she did not necessarily refute
the link. The complexity of animal abuse, depending on societies was an especially neat idea
that I could continue researching in my Inquiry project.

Niedrich, Anastasia. Full Title Name: Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing
Them.Animal Law Legal Center, Michigan State University College of Law, 1 Jan. 1970,
www.animallaw.info/article/animals-circuses-and-laws-governing-them.

The article provides a detailed analysis of the laws regarding animals in circuses. Tigers are
leaping through rings of fire and elephants, the largest land mammal, are forced to balance on a
tiny pedestal to perform for a crowd. Circuses have a history in the United States arriving in the
medieval times. Since then there were federal and state laws established for circuses to watch
the rights of animals. Although there are laws set in place they are not regulated and fail to
protect these animals. The author, Anastasia Niedrich, of the Michigan State University College
of Law, wrote this article for other people who are concerned with the well-being of animals in
circuses and other entertainment industries. Circus animals do not naturally jump through rings
of fire, balance on stools or perform the various acts that circuses require them to do. Those
animals must be trained to perform, and circus animal training usually transpires as a result of
negative reinforcement (e.g. physical abuse). Contrary to believe, not all circuses use these
methods to train the animals, positive reinforcement is used like treating the animals with food to
make them perform the tricks. This, although, is not always the case. In one unfortunate
instance, a circus trainer was convicted for twelve counts of animal cruelty to an 18-month-old
chimpanzee who was kicked and whipped and spent fifteen hours a day in a darkened box.
This proves that laws do exist to protect these animals but the laws are not very well-regulated.
Circuses often travel all over the country so animals are forced to be put in tiny cages for long
periods of time. These animals often live in filth and are chained to remain in one position
throughout the day. This is abuse and is not natural for animals like elephants or tigers, for
example. Although circus personnel maintain that circuses take good care of their animals, [ 23
] some experts assert that the way in which circus animals are constantly confined, often for the
entire day except when they are performing, results in an environment that denies animals
essential physical needs such as sunshine and exercise, as well as social and ecological
freedoms. She provides her claim and a counterclaim to prove her point that the situations in
circuses are not ideal and are hurting animals. It is unnatural for animals to be performing in
circuses and is dangerous for everyone. Not only do circuses pose a threat to the animal
performers, but the circus staff members and circus patrons also face danger Proving her point
exactly, Niedrich shows why circus animals do not belong in circuses and why it is abusive to
keep them there even though they are treated well.

This article would be rated at medium. It was written in law school about animals in circuses. It
provided me with a lot of new information and things that are very beneficial that I previously did
not know. Although animals are treated well they are still often confined in tiny cages and are a
great danger to humans performing with them. Niedrich provides a lot of organized information
under categories that makes it pretty easy to read and gather information from.

Dunnuck, Heather. Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing. Save the Animals: Stop Animal
Testing, Lone Star College, www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm.

Heather Dunnuck, of Lone Star College, believes that animal testing violates animals rights,
causes them pain, and is completely unnecessary because alternate methods exist. About 60%
of animal experimentation is used for biomedical research and product-safety testing. Although
humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of
animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in
research or to test the safety of products. Animals should be treated with the same respect
humans are treated with, according to Dunnuck, when humans decide the fate of animals in
research environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-
being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because
it violates the rights of animals. The tests used on animals are very painful, for example, the
Draize test and the LD50 test are notorious for the suffering and intense pain it causes animals.
In the Draize test, chemicals are inserted into the eyes of animals, usually, rabbits which burn,
blinds, and often leads to death of the test subject. The LD50 test is used to test the dosage of a
substance which is the cause of death of 50% of animals in laboratories which can take up to
weeks for them to die. "The American Veterinary Medial Association defines animal pain as an
unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the
body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage". Lastly, Dunnuck provides
examples of alternative methods that now exist to replace animal testing. Researchers can now
use alternative skin to test products like cosmetics safely without the use of animals. Also, in
virto testing, which is done in test tubes, is the most common alternative method used.
However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are
sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with this
reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a
consideration. Animal testing is cruel and must be stopped. This article intended for its readers
to reconsider their views on animal testing and see why it is wrong. "Animals may themselves
be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is
determined by their perceived value to humans"
This text was not very difficult to read and it included a lot of very useful information that I did
not know before that can be beneficial for my question. The writer has a strong bias against
animal testing that she makes very clear with her thesis. She provides counter arguments as
well that help establishes her view on the topic. It relates to my other group members because
few of the annotated bibliographies talk about animals being used to experiment on.

Fitzgerald, Amy J. Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates. Organization & Environment,
2009, journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1086026609338164.
By Laura Yawn

In Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates, we are given detailed research on the
connection between the presence of slaughterhouses in an area and increased crime rates.
Amy Fitzgerald, a criminology professor at the University of Windsor, hypothesizes that there is
a direct link between the existence of slaughterhouse workers and violent crime. It is noted that
this hypothesis is something that has been theorized since Upton Sinclairs 1906 novel The
Jungle in which Sinclair notes that for men who have to crack the heads of animals all day
seem to get into the habit, and to practice on their friends, and even on their families, between
times. For her research, Fitzgerald uses the Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime
Report database to look at areas before and after a slaughterhouse is present and uses those
numbers to determine the effect a slaughterhouse has on an areas criminal activity.
Fitzgerald argues that slaughterhouses have a unique place in society from regular factory work
because of the inherently violent nature of the work that is done. Fitzgerald even finds that non-
slaughterhouse factory work can oftentimes decrease violent crime in an area. Using different
controls to account for other arguments, such as certain communities believing that the
increased presence of immigrants increases crime, Fitzgerald strongly finds that the existence
of a slaughterhouse will increase the number of arrests and reports in a community no matter
the controls. She finds that a slaughterhouse with 175 employees would increase arrests by
2.24 and the number of reports by 4.69 yearly. Fitzgerald notes how the larger the number of
employees a slaughterhouse has, the more it raises a number of arrests and reports. Fitzgerald
attempts to explain this increase in crime with this quote by suggesting that these employees
become desensitized to the killing that they are participating in. She notes, however, that the
correlation between small farms and crime rates is not as firm compared to wide-scale factory
farms. This difference is explained by the amount of killing that goes on in factory farms
compared to small farms; workers in factory farms are killing thousands of animals daily in
comparison to small farm workers. This volume of killing daily could increase the amount of
desensitization to violence that workers experience.
Fitzgerald concludes her research by confirming that slaughterhouses exist on their powerful
enough axis to create an increase in the crime rate of a community. She notes that, while her
research had to purely use the FBIs Uniform Crime Report for information and didnt account
for unreported crime, the correlation between the two was significant enough to show up in what
was reported. Fitzgerald comprehensively accounts for any other possible explanations in her
work and strongly comes to the judgment that the mass slaughtering of animals does cause a
rise in the crime a community may experience.

Slaughterhouses have a unique and insidious effect on the surrounding communities.


A number of recent sociological studies have suggested that many social problems and
phenomena cannot be adequately understood unless we examine the social role of nonhuman
animals.
The slaughterhouse community studies have documented dramatic increases in crime that
have outpaced increases in the population. Increases have been documented for violent crimes
(Broadway, 2000; Grey, 1998b; Stull & Broadway, 2004), property crimes (Grey, 1995), and
drug offenses (Horowitz & Miller, 1999). Most of the increases in violent crime rates have been
attributed to increases in domestic violence and child abuse
[Piers Beirne says,] Whenever human-animal relationships are marked by authority and
power, and thus by institutionalized social distance, there is an aggravated possibility of extra-
institutional violence
The inclusion of comparison industries as well as standard predictors of crime rates in our
analyses support the claim that slaughterhouses have a unique and insidious effect on the
surrounding communities.

I really think that Amy Fitzgerald did a great job on her research and recognizing its limitations
and what further research could be done to improve upon it and understand this connection
better. This was a fairly difficult read (if only for the length & how research can be boring
sometimes) but Fitzgerald really does a good job of tying everything together and making it
coherent. I would also like to know how this kind of work also inevitably attracts people who like
the idea of causing harm to living things or who are already insensitive to these kinds of things.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen