Visitor:

Animal Protection > Activist Index

Efficacy Assessment Model

Kathryn Asher

July 10, 2005

CONTENTS

Quick Overview 3

Framework for Analysis 8

The Abolition/Reform Debate 9

Harm Framework 10

Responsibility Framework 11 #9;

Efficacy Assessment Model 12

Degree 15

Durational Effect 16

Attainability 17

Proximity 18

Tangential Positive Impacts 21

Tangential Negative Impacts. 24

Magnitude 30

Resources 33

Discussion 35

References 36

Questions 39

A Quick Overview

What follows is a very brief summary of the Efficacy Assessment Model (EAM). To get more information, please take a look at the detailed description on the following pages.

I am looking for your help to refine the EAM (which is a decision-making aid) so that it can eventually go from the theoretical level it is at now to a practical stage where it is an activist-friendly model.

Activists can use the EAM to:

1. Clarify the abolition/reform debate by showing that it is more complicated than generally indicated.

2. Help reveal what forms of activism are most effective.

3. Guide future research on how to make activism more effective.

I propose the measure of success for the animal activism movement is reduction, to the point of elimination, of harm to animals. I define harm broadly so it includes all aspects of harm to animals (including those identified by rightists). In this sense, harm includes such things as emotional, physical, and psychological pain, as well as any interference with interests such as loss of freedom and life, violation of interests, being exploited (whether painless or not), and used exclusively as means to ends. The EAM assesses activism based on how effective it is in reducing, to the point of eliminating, harm as defined above.

There are eight components to the EAM:

1. Degree

2. Durational Effect

3. Attainability

4. Proximity

5. Tangential Positive Impacts

6. Tangential Negative Impacts

7. Magnitude

8. Resources

When determining if your activism is effective (next to alternatives) you should rate it under each of the eight components using a scale from zero to ten for each component (with ten being the highest rating) and add up the total score. At this preliminary stage, for simplicity's sake it is assumed that all eight components are of equal value because the assessment becomes more complicated if the components receive varying degrees of value.

Here's an example (using two hypothetical forms of activism) of how the EAM might work in practice:

Activism A

1. Degree (4)

2. Durational Effect (8)

3. Attainability (8)

4. Proximity (4)

5. Tangential Positive Impacts (2)

6. Tangential Negative Impacts (1)

7. Magnitude (9)

8. Resources (6)

The overall score is 42 or 53 percent.

Activism B

1. Degree (10)

2. Durational Effect (10)

3. Attainability (4)

4. Proximity (3)

5. Tangential Positive Impacts (8)

6. Tangential Negative Impacts (9)

7. Magnitude (2)

8. Resources (7)

The overall score is 53 or 66 percent.

As a result of the ratings, Activism B is the most effective and should be pursued over Activism A.

Here's some information on each component:

1. Degree

The more a desired improvement reduces (or eliminates) the degree of harm, the higher the rating should be. Scores should be proportional to the total amount of harm that can be inflicted. As such, the more harm is reduced in proportion to the total amount possible, the higher the score.

Successful (incremental) abolitionism completely eliminates harm (by abolishing exploitation), and thus is given a rating of ten in this component, while successful reformism can only receive a score between zero and nine.

It is clear reforms differ in their ability to decrease the degree of harm to animals. For example, the elimination of battery cages would decrease harm more than a switch to an "enriched" cage model, while a ban on keeping laying hens in factory farmed conditions altogether will reduce harm more than banning battery cages, and thus should be given a higher rating.

2. Durational Effect

The longer an improvement lasts, the higher the rating should be. For most desired improvements, the durational effect is very good; generally once enacted an improvement is not reversed in future. Therefore, it is likely most actions considered under this component will receive relatively high ratings. Points should only be deducted if there is reason to suspect that an improvement may be reversed in future, and the deduction should be proportional to this likelihood; the greater the likelihood of a reversal, the greater the deduction.

3. Attainability

The more attainable a desired improvement, the higher the rating should be. Ratings should be proportional to the standard attainability of activism generally. Historical evidence and balanced speculation (especially concerning the attainability of similar past improvements) should be considered in order to most accurately rate a form of activism in this component.

Not all animal activism objectives have the same level of attainability. Previous activism has shown that campaigns against raising animals for their flesh and byproducts have more opposition than those against raising animals for their fur, and so the former is likely less attainable (whether through reformism or abolitionism).

4. Proximity

The sooner an improvement will be attained, the higher the rating should be. Ratings for proximity must correspond to reality. A poor rating must not be given for a delay that is somewhat standard; only abnormal lag-times should receive poor ratings.

California's foie gras bill SB 1520 has come under fire from activists for, among other things, not taking effect until 2012 and thus allowing 440,000 ducks to be killed in the interim. This delay highlights the importance of anticipating the relative proximity of an approach when determining its effectiveness.

5. Tangential Positive Impacts

A tangential impact happens as a result of the desired improvement, but is not the goal of the activism. The more tangential positive impacts and the more impact they have, the higher the rating should be.

Tangential positive impacts of abolitionism have been said to include such things as:

1. Weakening exploitation overall.

2. Refuting the notion that exploiters treat animals "humanely."

3. Highlighting the illegitimacy of exploitation rather than inhumane treatment.

4. Swelling the ranks of the animal activism movement.

5. Giving negative publicity to exploiters.

6. Making exploiters less profitable and thus less stable through incremental change.

Tangential positive impacts of reformism have been said to include such things as:

1. Increasing compassion overall.

2. Promoting, or laying the groundwork for, abolition.

3. Leading to more sweeping reforms.

4. Drawing a level of attention to exploitation that is beyond that which activists could achieve alone, by getting exploiters to acknowledge that animals have interests.

5. Weakening exploiters by straining their production costs.

6. Swelling the ranks of the animal activism movement.

6. Tangential Negative Impacts

The fewer tangential negative impacts and the less impact they have, the higher the rating should be.

Tangential negative impacts of abolitionism have been said to include such things as:

1. Taking resources away from reformist activism that can reduce harm more.

2. Not being realizable in the near future.

3. Attempting revolutionary change before society will accept it.

4. Repelling potential supporters and as a result frustrating abolition.

5. Not having far reaching effects.

Tangential negative impacts of reformism have been said to include such things as:

1. Not reducing (or perhaps even increasing) the harm to animals by increasing the number of animals used as a result of the fact that exploitation is made more palatable or for other reasons.

2. Giving a false sense of legitimacy and credibility to exploitation and thus protecting exploiters.

3. Giving a false sense that exploiters treat animals "humanely" and that inhumane treatment is the only problem.

4. Not leading to abolition.

5. Thwarting abolition.

6. Not being in a good position to ask for more far-reaching reforms.

7. Not producing the desired effects.

8. Giving positive publicity to exploiters.

9. Making exploiters more profitable, which can make them more powerful and give them more longevity.

10. Taking resources away from abolitionist activism that has a greater promise of success.

11. Encouraging poor conditions in industries that exploit animals so the industries can enact minimal reforms and claim they are concerned about the welfare of animals.

7. Magnitude

The more animals affected by an improvement, the higher the rating should be. Ratings for the magnitude component should be proportional to the total number of animals that are exploited; the larger the affected group is in proportion to this overall number, the high the score.

Animals used for food (both aquatic and land-based) overwhelmingly account for the most exploited group of animals in the U.S. Because of this, activism focused in this area is likely to receive the highest rating for the magnitude component because the number of animals that stand to be helped is very close to the total number exploited.

8. Resources

The fewer resources (human, financial, and other resources) used, in proportion to the expected gains, the higher the rating should be. Although there is no obvious benchmark against which to rate the use of resources, activists can at the very least rate their use of resources based on the total amount available to them. Other components of the EAM aside, as the potential effectiveness of an action increases, it becomes more justifiable to allocate more resources to the action.

Some say activists should encourage any action that aims to help animals, even if it promises to have only a slight reduction in harm. It is often suggested that supporting such actions is better than nothing. However, before supporting an action, there must be a consideration of whether other actions are achievable that could bring about more far-reaching results with the same or fewer resources.

Here's some additional information on assigning ratings:

If a rating of zero is given for some components (degree, durational effect, attainability, proximity, and magnitude) the activism will likely have very poor effectiveness and should not be pursued. This indicates that these five components should likely be given a higher value. In addition, if the tangential negative impacts outweigh the gains in the degree component, the overall improvement will likely be negated and the action should not be pursued. Because tangential positive impacts are only a bonus so to speak, it is likely this component should be given a lesser value. At this early stage there will be several aspects of the EAM that will need adjustment, most notably giving the components differing values based on their importance. I am hoping to have your help with this.

The EAM's use for the Abolition/Reform Debate

The EAM clarifies the abolition/reform debate by, for example, showing that past answers are not as simple as once thought when all components of the EAM are considered. The problem with most arguments is they oversimplify the debate because they do not consider the entirety of the efficacy assessment. For example, it is easy to deride all reformist activism for having the tangential negative impact of sanitizing exploitation. However, an assessment based on only one component of the EAM is not sufficient to discount reformism altogether. Likewise, an assessment based on seven of the eight components is also not sufficient.

The EAM can be used to help activists on either side of the debate make their case in a structured way by rating examples of abolitionism and reformism using all eight components of the EAM. Such an assessment should point more definitively to why one side should be supported over the other.

The EAM can also be used to move beyond the debate to look at the worth of activism in and of itself regardless of its association with either camp.

Framework for Analysis

Title

Thinking Outside the Dichotomy: Revisiting the Abolition/Reform Debate in the Animal Activism Movement with an Efficacy Assessment Model

Thesis Statement

Activists can use the Efficacy Assessment Model to clarify the abolition/reform debate, improve the efficacy of animal activism, and guide future research.

An expanded version of the thesis statement is:

Activists can use the Efficacy Assessment Model (EAM) to: 1. clarify the debate by showing that it is more complicated than generally indicated in the literature and thus requires a more detailed examination, which can be provided by the EAM; 2. help guide judgment on the potential efficacy of their activism by moving beyond the dichotomy of the abolition/reform debate to assess the relative merits of activism in its own accord; and 3. guide research focusing on the relative weightings of the EAM's components and on evidence to be used to assign ratings within its components.

A Note on Terms

Other Animals - Based on David Nibert's view (Nibert, p. xv), I have generally avoided using terms such as animals, nonhuman, people, etc., and alternatively opted for humans and other animals because, as Nibert explains, this choice reflects a commonality rather than a separateness.

Abolitionists - I define those who aim to abolish the exploitation of other animals (also referred to as animal rightists) in two ways:

1. Closed Abolitionists - seek to end the exploitation of other animals by solely advocating the abolition of their exploitation. They are "closed" because they are closed to the idea of reforming exploitation and they are abolitionists because that is their long-term goal.

2. Open Abolitionists - employ a two-track approach to address the exploitation of other animals by simultaneously advocating the reform and abolition of their exploitation. They are "open" because they are open to the idea of reforming exploitation and they are abolitionists because that is their long-term goal.

Reformist Activism (or Reformism) - is a form of activism that seeks to reform, rather than abolish, exploitation. This type of activism is employed, along with abolitionism, by open abolitionists. This type of activism is also pursued by welfarists (as defined below) but for different reasons.

Strategies that are consistent with reformism include such things as banning tail docking or battery cages, ensuring anesthetics are used for painful experiments, boycotting a "meat supplier" until practices such as slaughter are "humane," and promoting free range products.

Abolitionist Activism (or Abolitionism) - is a form of activism that seeks to abolish exploitation. Closed abolitionists employ this form of activism as their sole approach, while open abolitionists employ it in conjunction with reformism.

Strategies that are consistent with abolitionism include such things as banning circuses and the practice of raising chickens for food, boycotting exploitive industries, and promoting veganism.

Abolitionist Animal Activism Movement (or Animal Activism Movement for short) - refers to what is otherwise known as the animal rights movement or the movement that seeks to abolish the exploitation of other animals. I have chosen this name because I have moved away from a rights framework in favour of a responsibility framework, the reasons for which are discussed under the "responsibility framework."

The focus of this paper is those activists who ultimately seek abolition; however, concern for the wellbeing of other animals extends beyond this group. Because there are many differing ideologies, it is not possible to identify all the types of activists here; however, a reference to welfarists and liberationists is required. Welfarists solely employ reformist activism to reduce the "unnecessary" harm to other animals by reforming, rather than abolishing, their exploitation. Liberationists as conceived by Peter Singer rather than the Animal Liberation Front to not ultimately seek to completely abolish the exploitation of other animals; however, they afford greater protection to other animals than welfarists based on the moral principle of equal consideration of interests. (Singer, p. 237) It should be noted that the boundaries between activists are blurry as their work frequently overlaps.

I propose there is one all encompassing movement that is concerned with animal wellbeing: the animal protection movement. Within this movement are non-abolitionists such as welfarists, liberationists, and others, as well as abolitionists (open and closed) which make up the animal activism movement. Thus:

Animal Protection Movement

1. Non-Abolitionists (Welfarists, Liberationists, and others)

2. Abolitionists (Animal Activism Movement)

1. Closed Abolitionists

2. Open Abolitionists

The Abolition/Reform Debate

Even though the debate is commonly referred to as the abolition/reform debate it is easiest to think of it as a distinction between closed abolitionists and open abolitionists. The divide is a result of the fact that the former group of activists are opponents of the use of reformist activism (for theoretical and practical reasons), while the latter are proponents.

The conflict is mainly in regards to efficacy because both sides disagree about what is the most successful way to meet the movement's goal of abolishing the exploitation of other animals. Both closed and open abolitionists employ abolitionism; however, the closed abolitionists hold that reformism is inefficacious in meeting the movement's long-term goal because it does not question the legitimacy of the exploitation. In contrast, open abolitionists see merit in this approach because they believe it can address current suffering that abolitionism cannot. Open abolitionists believe the most efficient path is a hybrid approach of advocating both reformism and abolitionism simultaneously.

The literature has as a rule framed the abolition/reform debate as inherently divisive and as a result most accounts of the debate favour one side or the other. In addition, all forms of activism on either side of the debate are generally conceptualized as identical. However, it is highly unlikely one side can definitively say the other always has a particular result.

In this paper both forms of activism are conceptualized as singular entities, even though it is acknowledged the diversity within each is considerable - neither is monolithic. However, it is unlikely, as closed abolitionists claim, that all reforms frustrate abolition. It is more plausible that some (if any) frustrate abolition. In this sense, the question should be, for example, "What reforms, if any, impede abolition?" rather than, "Does reformism (as a whole) frustrate abolition?"

Some activists have referred to the division between closed and open abolitionists as an artificial divide. However, I am of the opinion that the divide is very real, particularly since activists are bitterly divided because of it. Additionally, there is a big theoretical and practical distinction between abolitionism and reformism. I believe the EAM can help the two sides co-exist.

Harm Framework

I have chosen a framework based on harm and responsibility using the work of Jim Asher. (Asher, 2005) His idea is that harm, as broadly understood, is important because it ought to be the determining factor for assigning protection.

I define harm similarly to take into account all aspects of mistreatment of other animals identified by animal activists (including rightists). Because other animals are sentient the level of harm they can experience is different (and more encompassing) from that which could be inflicted on a non-sentient being. As a result of this ability to experience, harm for other animals encompasses such things as emotional, physical, and psychological pain, as well as any interference with interests such as loss of freedom and life, violation of interests, being exploited (whether painless or not), and being used exclusively as means to ends.

There is considerable disagreement about the abolition/reform debate because the movement neither agrees about its short-term or long-term goals, nor how to achieve them. I am proposing the movement identify their overarching goal as reducing, to the point of eliminating, harm to other animals, which is an incremental way to achieve abolition. In this sense, the animal activism movement can have multiple sub-goals that can be achieved by reducing or incrementally eliminating harm to other animals. However, the sub-goals are not all equal, which is why activists must attempt to decide which are more significant (based on the degree to which harm is reduced or eliminated). The unifying principle of harm reduction/elimination allows abolitionism and reformism to have a common ground on which they can be compared.

What is left to be determined is what forms of activism are most efficacious in meeting these various sub-goals. Closed abolitionists condemn reformism because they say it fails to eliminate exploitation; however, this is only one segment of the movement's sub-goals. With this broader definition of harm, various forms of reduction can meet some sub-goals.

Because the extent of harm reduction is the determinant of efficacy, when something is referred to as having a positive impact or being efficacious, the action is efficacious in its ability to reduce, or eliminate, harm (as broadly understood).

Responsibility Framework

The animal rights movement (as its name suggests) is concerned with extending rights to other animals. However, rights frameworks seem to add confusion to the movement's goals because with rights come responsibilities (being morally accountable for one's actions), and responsibilities are not something the movement seeks to extend to other animals. Further, rights (as conceived by the movement) are only a relevant aspect of human/other animal relationships and thus do not apply to other animals' relationships with one another. The rights framework also prevents abolitionism and reformism from having a common ground on which they can be compared because from a rights perspective only (incremental) abolitionism can be sought because anything else would entail a rights violation.

My paper moves away from a rights framework to a framework based on responsibilities. Thus, there are two types of individuals: moral agents and moral patients, to borrow Regan's terms. (Regan, pp. 150-156) Moral agents are those individuals who have the ability to act in a moral fashion. For these purposes, it is clear most humans have the ability to act in a moral fashion and as such have a responsibility to treat others (humans and others) in a moral fashion. Moral patients are those individuals who are not moral agents but to whom moral agents have a responsibility to treat in a way that does not cause harm. Asher holds that each being has a right of being? metaphysical right to non-interference. This right is only morally significant for moral agents as they are the only individuals capable of acting in a moral fashion and thus have a responsibility to do no intentional harm to other beings, barring an interference with their moral obligations. I use the responsibility framework to extend the same protection to other animals (from moral agents) as they would receive under a rights framework.

Not all humans are moral agents, as some lack the ability to act in a moral fashion. In addition, it is unclear which (if any) other animals are moral agents (or have the ability to act in a moral fashion). However this topic goes beyond the scope of the paper and need not be clarified for the EAM to function.

Under the responsibility framework, I identify three categories of individuals/things to which moral agents owe moral obligation: sentient individuals (such as most, if not all, humans and other animals); living/non-sentient individuals (such as plants); and non-living individuals (such as rocks). The type and extent of responsibility owed differs based on these three categories. For the purposes of this paper, only sentient individuals are considered.

Efficacy Assessment Model

The EAM is a continually improvable measure of efficacy in harm reduction and elimination, which can be used by activists to bypass the abolition/reform debate and help guide judgment on the potential efficacy of their activism. The EAM is not meant to solve the abolition/reform debate, but rather clarify it and guide future research in this area. The EAM can be used to help either side make their case in a structured and all encompassing way as well as move beyond the debate to look at the worth of activism in and of itself regardless of its association with either camp.

The EAM is useful because the health of any social movement (and the organizations within it) requires clarity and consistency in goals and a measure of success in meeting them. This model addresses these issues. The goal is reduction, to the point of elimination, of harm (as broadly understood) and the measure of success (or efficacy) is based on the eight components of the EAM.

The EAM is similar in intent to Jeremy Bentham's Hedonic Calculus, which he proposed to assess the level of pleasure and pain that is likely to result from two alternative actions. Bentham's calculus allows actions to be chosen according to what option will maximize the most aggregate pleasure and minimize the most aggregate pain of all those involved.

The EAM will not infallibly decide which action should be pursued, but it may help guide judgment by activists. Information will perpetually remain insufficient; however, strategic decision-making in the animal activism movement will continue, and absent a deliberated choice, a choice is still made. Further, a structured assessment in eight categories is likely more telling than general isolated speculation.

Empirical and historical evidence can be useful to assess activism using the EAM, yet because the nature of animal activism does not lend itself to a purely quantitative assessment, speculation/judgment will at times be required. The outline of the components is intended to give background on each issue, not provide definitive answers. Due to the ever-evolving nature of the EAM, only its skeleton has been developed in this initial stage.

A Note on the EAM's Limitations

The intention of the EAM is not to discourage emotional responses to animal activism. At times activism must be guided by emotion, which is not formed solely on efficacy. Thus, one of the limitations of the EAM is the absence of an emotional component. As such, activist must address these factors themselves and weigh options based on efficacy as well as their emotional response to the situation.

While the focus of the EAM is how human animals can best help other animals, it should not be overlooked that other animals are able to help themselves they must not be perpetually placed in the victim position or framed as powerless.

The EAM helps clarify the abolition/reform debate by, for example, showing that past answers are not as simple as once thought when all components of the EAM are considered. Either side of the debate should not promote their argument by only referring to some of the components of the EAM when they attempt to negate the efforts of the other side. An efficacy assessment is incomplete and unbalanced without considering all aspects of the EAM.

Following a modified form of Jeremy Bentham's Hedonic Calculus, there are eight components of the EAM:

1. Degree

2. Durational Effect

3. Attainability

4. Proximity

5. Tangential Positive Impacts

6. Tangential Negative Impacts

7. Magnitude

8. Resources

Rating activism in each component is difficult and at this stage and is largely left up to the interpretation of activists, based on historical evidence and balanced speculation.

In this initial stage of its development the EAM does not provide a complete instruction on how to rate activism; although, it does provide some guidance. The intention of the paper is to introduce the EAM and clarify why it is useful, as well as provide some insight into the issues surrounding each component that affect the assignment of ratings. The ratings need not (and likely cannot) be exact measurements; they are only balanced estimations.

At this preliminary stage, for simplicity's sake it is assumed that all eight components are of equal importance (and thus value) because the assessment becomes more complicated if the components receive varying degrees of value. The EAM allows activism to be rated in each component using a scale from zero to ten (with ten being the highest rating). The overall scale is 0 to 80.

If a rating of zero is given for some components (degree, durational effect, attainability, proximity, and magnitude) the activism will likely have very poor efficacy and should not be pursued. This indicates that these five components should likely be given a higher value; however, this goes beyond the scope of this initial research. In addition, if the tangential negative impacts outweigh the gains in the degree component, the overall improvement will likely be negated and the action should not be pursued. Additionally, because tangential positive impacts are only a bonus so to speak, it is likely this component should be given a lesser value. At this early stage there will be several aspects of the EAM that will need adjustment most notably giving the components differing values based on their importance and I am hoping to have your help with this.

The components should be rated as follows:

Degree - the more the improvement reduces (or eliminates) the degree of the harm, the higher the rating.

Durational Effect - the longer the improvement lasts, the higher the rating.

Attainability - the more attainable the improvement, the higher the rating.

Proximity - the sooner the improvement will be attained, the higher the rating.

Tangential Positive Impacts - the more tangential positive impacts and the more impact they have, the higher the rating.

Tangential Negative Impacts - the fewer tangential negative impacts and the less impact they have, the higher the rating.

Magnitude - the more other animals affected, the higher the rating.

Resources - the fewer resources used in proportion to the expected gains the higher the rating.

An example

Consider the following example that compares two hypothetical forms of activism:

Activism A

1. Degree (4)

2. Durational Effect (8)

3. Attainability (8)

4. Proximity (4)

5. Tangential Positive Impacts (2)

6. Tangential Negative Impacts (1)

7. Magnitude (9)

8. Resources (6)

The overall score is 42 or 53 percent.

Activism B

1. Degree (10)

2. Durational Effect (10)

3. Attainability (4)

4. Proximity (3)

5. Tangential Positive Impacts (8)

6. Tangential Negative Impacts (9)

7. Magnitude (2)

8. Resources (7)

The overall score is 53 or 66 percent.

As a result of the ratings, Activism B is the most efficacious and should be pursued over Activism A. However, as mentioned above, there are some instances where assessment becomes more complicated, such as when tangential negative impacts outweigh the anticipated gains.

Degree

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on the extent to which the degree of harm (as broadly understood) is decreased or eliminated. The more a desired improvement reduces (or eliminates) the degree of the harm, the higher the rating should be. Scores should be proportional to the total amount of harm (as broadly understood) that can be inflicted. As such, the more harm is reduced in proportion to the total amount possible, the higher the score.

As mentioned harm entails emotional, physical, and psychological pain, as well as any interference with interests such as loss of freedom and life, violation of interests, being exploited (whether painless or not), and used exclusively as means to ends. Under this framework, in addition to experiencing physical pain, other animals can suffer as a result of, for example, having a shortened lifespan, enduring psychological pain, being kept against their will, or having their life taken. Thus ratings must be based on how much the degree of harm, as explained above, is reduced (or eliminated). At this point it is at activists' discretion to attempt to discern what causes animals more harm. However, it should be noted that the degree of the harm experienced is based on the extent to which the other animals are sentient (or experience). The deeper the ability to experience, the more susceptible an individual is to harm. Studies on how different species experience (and in particular the level of suffering they experience) should be consulted in order to refine the assessment of ratings in this component.

Successful (incremental) abolitionist activism completely eliminates harm (by abolishing exploitation), and thus is given a rating of ten in this component, while reformism can only receive a score between zero and nine. Reformism can receive a high rating in this component by decreasing a significant amount of harm; however, it cannot as a rule eliminate harm such as loss of life or freedom, being used exclusively as means to ends, or having a shortened lifespan.

Open abolitionists advocate reformism because, among other things, they aim to decrease the most intense forms of harm. While they do not remove other animals from exploitation, they aim to decrease harm (generally physical and at times psychological and emotional) to a level that could no longer be considered intense. An open abolitionist would advocate that an other animal undergoing a painful experiment be given anesthesia to decrease the degree of the harm to her or him.

It is a challenge for humans to adequately judge the harm endured by other animals because they differ in their experiences (emotional, mental, and physical). However, judgment is, and must be, possible. It is safe to say some other animals suffer more than others. For example, other animals raised under factory farmed conditions generally suffer more than those killed in the wild by a hunter.

It is clear reforms differ in their ability to decrease the degree of harm to other animals. For example, the elimination of battery cages would decrease harm more than a switch to an "enriched" cage model, while a ban on keeping laying hens in factory farmed conditions altogether will reduce harm more than banning battery cages, and thus should be given a higher rating. However, a decrease in physical harm (which only considers one aspect of harm) must not receive a rating close to ten, as elimination (through abolitionism) is much more significant.

Some reforms are more of a challenge to compare. For example, it is a challenge to determine whether a campaign to implement controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK) for chickens is more efficacious in reducing the degree of harm than another type of reform, such as banning battery cages. While CAK will decrease a considerable amount of harm experienced during slaughter, a ban on battery cages will decrease harm throughout a hen's life.

As will be mentioned in the magnitude component, other animals raised for food account for the most exploited group among other animals. It is possible these other animals also endure the most harm inflicted by exploitation (only possibly rivaled by vivisection or another form of exploitation in which the degree of the harm inflicted is very high). Indeed, some activists believe chickens experience the most intense harm within this group. As a result, activism focused in this area stands to receive a high rating in this component due to the considerable amount of harm that stands to be decreased.

Durational Effect

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on how long the results of a form of activism are likely to last. The longer an improvement lasts, the higher the rating should be. This component is much less complicated than many of the others; however, it is still important.

The durational effect for abolitionist activism, and vegan outreach in particular, is likely very high. Following the adopting of a vegan lifestyle (for ethical reasons), the chance is high an individual will maintain this lifestyle throughout her or his life. The effects of vegan outreach may not however be immediate (the vegan outreach may have a poor proximity rating), which must be considered along with all other components of the EAM.

For most reforms, the durational effect is also very good; generally once enacted a reform is not reversed in future. As such, it is likely most potential improvements considered under the EAM will receive relatively high ratings. Points should only be deducted if there is reason to suspect that an improvement may be reversed in future, and the deduction should be proportional to this likelihood the greater the likelihood of a reversal, the greater the deduction.

Attainability

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on how likely is it a desired improvement will be achieved. Efficacy may drastically decrease overall if it is anticipated a desired improvement may never come to be, as is the case with overly ambitious campaigns. The more attainable an improvement, the higher the rating should be. Ratings should be proportional to the standard attainability of activism generally. Historical evidence and balanced speculation especially concerning the attainability of similar past improvements should be considered in order to most accurately rate a form of activism in this component.

Open abolitionists often say reform is necessary because abolition is not attainable. However, this oversimplifies the issue. Because in the foreseeable future neither the abolition nor complete reform (whatever that may look like) of exploitation will be realized, attainability should be based on the attainment of incremental improvements.

Abolitionism's potential to produce efficacious results, by eliminating harm, must be weighed against, among other things, the likelihood the improvement will be enacted. For the time being success in vegan outreach is only attainable to a certain degree, eventually there will be a cap on its efficacy because universal veganism is not attainable in the foreseeable future. However, an approach's efficacy is only based on the desired improvement (which may not be universal veganism), as identified by the activist. As closed abolitionists suggest, abolitionism can be incremental, and as such vegan outreach should, for now, be regarded as a tool to achieve gradual abolitionist change. If an activist is pursuing vegan outreach and her or his goal is to convert ten individuals, then attainability is based only on this goal.

It is likely the case that the types of exploitation that are perceived as "unnecessary" by society stand the greatest chance for success with abolitionism, including "frivolous" exploitation such as using other animals for fur and entertainment. However, those issues society deems to be the most "necessary" experimentation on other animals and raising them for food remain a cornerstone of reformist activism because open abolitionists believe these areas have a poor attainability using solely abolitionism.

There are some issues that hold a fair amount of promise for abolition, such as greyhound racing, sport hunting, circuses, the veal industry, and classroom dissection.

Not all reforms have the same level of attainability. For example, the certainty of a reform being realized (which also holds true for abolitionist goals) may increase as similar victories are achieved. For example, Steven Best says the reforms to Burger King and Wendy's were more attainable following the McDonald's reforms. (Best, "Animal Welfare Or Animal Rights? Dismantling a False Opposition.")

In some areas where abolition has a poor likelihood of success, reformism can be efficacious.

For example, some experimentation on other animals is required by law for safety reasons. As such, absent of an abolitionist stance by government (which is wholly unlikely), such practices will not be eradicated until, at minimum, alternatives exist. In such a case, reforms can be helpful in decreasing harm while such alternatives are developed, at which time activists may find, for example, it is more efficacious to advocate adopting alternatives rather than further reforms.

Closed abolitionists often argue that if they were in the position of an exploited other animal they would want activists to work towards their emancipation rather than the reformation of their exploitation. This debate is often erroneously oversimplified by a failure to consider all components of the EAM; this argument fails to assess, among other things, the attainability of both options.

Not all animal activism issues have the same level of attainability. Previous activism has shown that campaigns against raising other animals for their flesh and byproducts have more opposition than those against raising other animals for their fur, and so the former is less attainable (whether through reformism or abolitionism).

However, this level of attainability must be balanced against all other components of the EAM, such as magnitude. While "animal agriculture" is more entrenched in society than raising other animals for fur, the number of other animals raised for food far outweighs those used for their fur.

Proximity

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on how soon (if at all) a desired improvement is anticipated to be realized. The sooner an improvement will be attained, the higher the rating should be. Ratings for proximity must correspond to reality. A poor rating must not be given for a delay that is somewhat standard only abnormal lag-times should receive poor ratings.

Open abolitionists often say reform is necessary because abolition is not likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future. However, this oversimplifies the issue. Because in the foreseeable future neither the abolition nor complete reform (whatever that may look like) of exploitation will be realized, proximity should be based on the attainment of incremental improvements.

Open abolitionists fault closed abolitionists for having an all or nothing approach and as a result not advocating an alternative that can be achieved incrementally. However, closed abolitionists correctly counter that abolition can be achieved gradually by, say, vegan outreach as well as advocating the eradication of specific exploitive practices. Saying reform is necessary because abolition is a distant prospect is akin to saying reform should not be pursued because complete reform is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Open abolitionists often say reformist activism is needed because, unlike abolitionism, it addresses harm in the interim until abolition is realized. However, this paints a confused picture of the issue because reforms can have considerable delays in their attainability.

Reformism is advocated because it is believed to be the most efficacious way to address the current realities of the exploitation of other animals. However, reforms can take a considerable amount of time to be accomplished. As an example, some agricultural reforms in Europe were slated to take effect some 10 years after legislation was enacted. However, this considerable lag time can also result from abolitionist activism (such as California's foie gras bill, which is discussed below). In contrast, vegan outreach, for example, can at times have an instant effect by changing individuals' lifestyle immediately.

Both abolitionism and reformism have been cited by activists as being responsible for the slow progress in meeting the movement's goals; however, both have varying proximity depending on the desired improvement sought.

Indeed successes for both forms of activism can come about relatively quickly, while in other instances their proximity can be poor, thus pointing to the necessity of moving beyond the abolition/reform debate when assessing activism. The anticipated proximity of abolitionist activism such as vegan outreach can vary considerably because this form of activism immediately affects some, while others, for which an impression has been made, may experience a considerable delay in their transformation.

Even for the same organization some campaigns have enjoyed relatively quick results such as PETA's 11-month campaign against McDonald's, while others have taken considerably more time, such as PETA's 10-year campaign that succeeded in halting Gillette's use of animals for testing.

PETA's campaign against McDonald's is often belittled by closed abolitionists for being insignificant, and is juxtaposed against what significant benefits could have resulted from a concerted vegan outreach campaign. However, it is important to keep the proximity of the McDonald's campaign in mind. It is unknown if the same amount of resources were dedicated to vegan outreach in an 11-month period whether more meaningful gains (concerning harm reduction/elimination) could have been achieved.

There are two types of delays: a delay in achieving an improvement (or in declaring a success) and a delay in realizing the desired improvements (i.e. there is a phase-in period following the declaration of a victory). The 2003 California foie gras bill SB 1520 is an example of the latter.

SB 1520 the intent of which was to ban the sale and production of foie gras in California was come under fire from activists for, among other things, not taking effect until 2012 and thus allowing 440,000 ducks to be killed in the interim. (Hall, 2005) This delay highlights the importance of anticipating the relative proximity of an approach when determining its efficacy.

SB 1520 is an example of an abolitionist ban on face value the bill is abolitionist because its intent is to abolish an exploitive practice that has had tangential negative impacts because of its delay. Opponents of the resultant bill note that it legalized the practice of force feeding ducks in California until 2012, which may act as an incentive to allow conditions in the interim to get incomparably worse. It has also been faulted for immunizing Sonoma Foie Gras (California's foie gras producer) from criminal and civil lawsuits relating to its force-feeding practices, including the then pending lawsuit filed by activists, which saved the company a considerable amount of money as well as spared then from negative publicity. Critics of the watered-down bill hold that had the compromised bill not been enacted, the then pending lawsuit against Sonoma Foie Gras could have potentially banned the force-feeding of ducks sooner than 2012. As well, critics note the bill gives Sonoma Foie Gras time to have research conducted on their behalf to attempt to create a "humane" way to produce foie gras or prove ducks do not suffer using current methods, which could serve to repeal or modify the bill. Critics say the delay will also give Sonoma Foie Gras an opportunity to heavily promote their product. Opponents of the law feel the likelihood the legislation will take effect in 2012 is very low.

The EAM should be used to help clarify whether this eight-year phase-in period is a reason to oppose the bill in order to do this all components of the EAM must be considered. The phase-in period is fairly long, although perhaps not unusual given the lag time for the European reforms. If this is in fact a standard phase-in period, the proximity rating should reflect this.

Anticipating the proximity beforehand can help refine activism in order to avoid the pursuit of inefficacious actions. Although proximity cannot be anticipated with complete accuracy, the proximity of past actions such as that of SB 1520 and the European reforms can be used as a benchmark against which to rate the proximity of improvements and to predict the proximity of future efforts.

Consider the earlier argument that if one were to imagine herself or himself in the place of an exploited other animal (generally one raised for food) they would ask activists to focus their activism on abolitionism rather than reformism. It is clear that again this statement oversimplifies the issue considerably by overlooking proximity.

At present the other animals currently living under factory farmed conditions will neither benefit from current abolitionist nor current reformist activism. Neither can have a meaningful impact on most other animals currently living under exploitation due to delays in achieving and realizing change. In this sense, the captive must ask themselves, given that I will be killed now, should activists focus their efforts on alleviating the harm of future other animals (while working simultaneously to prevent future exploitation) or solely work to prevent future exploitation, given that, for example, the proximity and likelihood as mentioned above of these efforts is unknown

Both closed abolitionists and open abolitionists fault the other for sacrificing current other animals for future goals. Open abolitionists fault closed abolitionists for sacrificing the current harm of other animals for the sake of hypothetical future goals. Closed abolitionists fault open abolitionists for sacrificing the rights of some other animals now (by pursuing reforms) in anticipation that those in the future will have rights. (Francione, 1996, p. 4)

Tangential Positive Impacts

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on the likelihood a desired improvement will be accompanied, or followed by, other positive impacts (i.e. tangential impacts). A tangential impact happens as a result of the desired improvement, but is not the goal of the activism. The more tangential positive impacts and the more impact they have, the higher the rating should be. In this sense, tangential impacts should be rated based on the number and degree of the impact(s).

In this component and the one to follow, potential tangential impacts are outlined in order to give a sense of what impacts can result from particular actions and the degree to which they are likely to have an impact so activists can rate their activism with these in mind.

Although tangential positive impacts and tangential negative impacts are in two separate components of the EAM, it should be noted that many of the arguments overlap and thus should be compared to ensure the arguments remain fluid. While every attempt has been made to give a balanced interpretation of the tangential impacts on both sides of the debate, some may have been unintentionally overlooked. If you notice anything missing, please let me know.

Tangential Positive Impacts of Abolitionism

Closed abolitionists identify many tangential positive impacts that can result from abolitionism. They include:

1. Weakening exploitation overall by attacking the cause (exploitation) rather than the symptoms.

Closed abolitionists say abolitionism can have tangential positive impacts by increasing opposition to exploitation in general. They say that unlike reformism, abolitionism helps reinforce condemnation of all forms of exploitation because the general premise is other animals should not be exploited in any fashion. While closed abolitionists recognize their efforts will not help all other animals, they suggest on balance they will have a significant impact because their activism advances abolition as a whole.

2. Refuting the notion that exploiters treat other animals "humanely."

3. Highlighting the illegitimacy of exploitation rather than inhumane treatment.

Closed abolitionists say that rather than promoting the idea that gratuitous suffering is the problem, abolitionism highlights the fact that exploitation is the problem.

4. Swelling the ranks of the animal activism movement.

Closed abolitionists say when vegan outreach is pursued and a person adopts a vegan lifestyle for moral reasons this generally in turn has the tangential positive impact of swelling the ranks of the animal activism movement and in turn new vegans will influence countless others to make similar transitions. They say that as more individuals become vegans, it will be easier for others to transform. However, open abolitionists often counter that well thought out reformist activism can also increase the number of movement supporters by increasing concern for other animals.

5. Giving negative publicity to exploiters.

6. Making exploiters less profitable and thus less stable through incremental change.

 

Tangential Positive Impacts of Reformism

Open abolitionists hold that reformism can have tangential positive impacts by:

1. Increasing compassion overall.

Open abolitionists believe they can increase compassion by advocating that other animals' interests be considered, which can in turn reduce harm to other animals.

2. Promoting, or laying the groundwork for, abolition.

A common complaint of closed abolitionists is reformism may actually inhibit abolition by sanitizing and perpetuating exploitation. In response to this, open abolitionists often counter that reformism actually has the opposite effect. They point to the higher incidence of abolitionists in countries with more advanced animal welfare (or reform) laws such as the UK. In addition they note there are fewer abolitionists in countries with poor (or no) welfare laws. (Friedrich, 2003) Open abolitionists say it makes sense that countries with advanced animal welfare have more vegetarians and vegans because once individuals begin to consider other animals' welfare, they are more likely to come to realize products from other animals should not be consumed at all. They feel that historically an increase in abolitionists has occurred simultaneously with improved animal welfare and that the two are inextricably linked because reforms create social change by bringing issues concerning other animals into the focus of mainstream society, which will in turn create fertile ground for abolition. Open abolitionists say reforms are efficacious because they get individuals accustomed to the idea that other animals have interests so it is less of a step for them to adopt a vegan lifestyle in future.

This evidence seems to indicate reformism will not thwart abolition completely and may actually speed it along; however, what remains unanswered is whether countries such as the UK would now enjoy more abolitionist advances had the animal activism movement focused exclusively on abolitionism in the past.

Gary Francione says the U.S. movement has not yet had a sustained abolitionist educational campaign (Francione, 2001) and that the fact that abolition is no closer and the plight of animals is worse now than a hundred years ago highlights the fact that the present (reformist) strategy is inefficacious. (Francione, 1996, p. 5) While this may be true, it is also possible a lack of harm reduction may not be attributed to reformism perhaps the social, economic, cultural, or political climate was not ripe for any kind of animal activism (whether reformist or abolitionist). Or perhaps this result is only attributable to the use of weak forms of reformist activism. In addition, because there has simultaneously been abolitionist activism (although it has not been predominant), abolitionism could be partly to blame as well.

3. Leading to more sweeping reforms.

Open abolitionists believe reformism can have a tangential positive impact by giving animal activism organizations more clout and visibility to advocate for more sweeping reforms. Open abolitionists say reforms work by decreasing current harm as well as aid in decreasing more significant future harm by eventually leading to reforms the exploitive industries would not have initially considered.

Open abolitionists such as PETA often point to their tactic of pressure and praise as helping them achieve more far reaching reforms in the future with companies such as Whole Foods Market and McDonald's. In this way the initial reforms, if not very beneficial, may have value because they represent the first steps in a much larger campaign. In a similar way, reformist legislation can have a tangential positive impact due to its potential for future amendments.

4. Drawing a level of attention to exploitation that is beyond that which activists could achieve alone by getting exploiters to acknowledge that other animals have interests.

Open abolitionists believe when animal welfare issues are recognized by exploitive industries, the issues receive more attention than they would from activists' work alone. As a result, when industries acknowledge that other animals have interests, the argument that they can be exploited is weakened, thus producing tangential positive impacts.

5. Weakening exploiters by straining their production costs.

Open abolitionists believe companies' production costs are strained as result of having to update their production systems to accommodate new reforms. However, Joe Miele recalls that following the McDonald's reforms, fast-food industry journals acknowledged that rather than being harmed, factory farms were merely inconvenienced. (Miele, 2003)

6. Swelling the ranks of the animal activism movement.

Open abolitionists believe that unlike abolitionism, which they say can repel potential supporters because of its uncompromising view, reformism is more appealing to non-activists because those who advocate it encompass varying opinions. They believe individuals are more likely to align their views with reformism than abolition because it is a less-threatening form of change.

Tangential Negative Impacts

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on the likelihood a desired improvement will be accompanied, or followed by, negative impacts (i.e. tangential impacts). The fewer tangential negative impacts and the less impact they have, the higher the rating should be. As mentioned, tangential impacts should be rated based on the number and degree of the impact(s).

The potential for tangential negative impacts does not discount the benefits of an action; activists must undertake a cost-benefit analysis using the EAM to determine whether the action should be pursued regardless of the tangential negative impacts. It is possible this component should receive more weight than the tangential positive impacts component because while positive impacts are a bonus, negative impacts have the potential to negate improvements completely.

Closed abolitionists often stress that animal activists should not misuse their time by attempting to discern what effects reformism will have because they feel this form of activism should be avoided altogether. However, attempting to predict consequences, and refining activism based on those predictions, is necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) to ensure activism is as efficacious as possible.

Tangential Negative Impacts of Abolitionism

Open abolitionists identify tangential negative impacts that can result from (solely pursuing) abolitionist activism. They include:

1. Taking resources away from reformist activism that can reduce harm more.

Because open abolitionists see value in reformism, they believe closed abolitionists decrease efficacy overall by monopolizing resources for abolitionism. Because not all reforms are equal, some reforms may be worth supporting, such as those that, for example, are realizable in the near future and do not require a lot of resources and will reduce harm overall without having this benefit negated by tangential negative impacts (for example, because it is an isolated incident that will not receive publicity and thus not ease consumers' consciences).

2. Not being realizable in the near future.

Open abolitionists feel improvements will not come about in the near future if abolitionist activism is solely pursued because they (mistakenly) believe abolitionism does not provide for incremental change. Given that abolitionism can be gradual, it remains to be seen if reformism is generally more realizable than abolitionism, and vice versa.

3. Attempting revolutionary change before society will accept it.

Open abolitionists believe closed abolitionists promote a threatening form of revolutionary change that society is not ready to accept. Kim Bartlett says that history suggests if revolutionary change is attempted before society can understand the radical changes, there can be repercussions that will negate many of the advances. (Bartlett, 1991)

4. Repelling potential supporters and as a result frustrating abolition.

Open abolitionists say abolitionism can have the tangential negative impact of repelling potential supporters because it only appeals to those who already (or could) subscribe to the idea that exploitation should be abolished. In this sense, they believe abolition can be frustrated as a result of the alienation of the mainstream.

5. Not having far reaching effects.

Open abolitionists suggest the effects of abolitionism are limited because there will eventually be a plateau for abolitionist change in the foreseeable future as the complete eradication of exploitation is not readily achievable.

Tangential Negative Impacts of Reformism

Closed abolitionists identify many tangential negative impacts that can result from reformist activism. They include:

1. Not reducing (or perhaps even increasing) the harm to other animals by increasing the number of other animals used as a result of the fact that exploitation is made more palatable or for other reasons.

Closed abolitionists believe reforms will have the tangential negative impact of increasing harm because consumers will purchase more products of exploitation as a result of their consciences being eased. Closed abolitionists believe reformist activism?uch as the reforms by McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's?o not reduce harm because they erroneously sanitize exploitation and ease consumers' consciences and thereby increase harm in the long-term because if the public believes their products from other animals to be "humane," they will consume more. Opinion polls are needed to support or refute this assertion. Indeed, activists do have access to some polls. A 2003 Gallup Poll found 96 percent of Americans support the idea that other animals are entitled to some protection from cruelty, while 25 percent indicated other animals should be granted equivalent rights to humans in terms of being free from exploitation and harm. (Best, 2004) These polls indicate that Americans' views are more aligned with moderate welfarism and could potentially be swayed by reforms such as those enacted by McDonald's.

However, not everyone will be swayed by reforms. Indeed many enjoy guilt-free consumption regardless and do not give open abolitionists' or closed abolitionists' concerns any thought. Not every individual who consumes products from other animals is concerned about animal welfare. In fact, it is likely most do not (and will not) consider the issue and thus are unlikely to change their behaviour (either way) as a result of "humane" reforms. However, it is also possible someone contemplating vegetarianism would decide against the switch because "humane" meat was being promoted by animal activism organizations. However, more opinions polls are needed to answer this question either way. To closed abolitionists' claim that it is unprincipled and inefficacious to promote "humane" products from other animals because, among other things, it alleviates consumers' guilt, open abolitionists often counter that while there could be tangential negative impacts, this will not negate the positive net effect because they believe few would be swayed by such reforms. In addition, open abolitionists note that what is unprincipled is advocating that the harm of current other animals not be reduced in order to make abolition?hat they see to be an intangible goal?ore realizable.

The theory that reformism can have the tangential negative impact of increasing harm is supported by examining what impacts could result from a forced molting ban. Dunayer notes that such a reform would actually increase the number of chickens exploited because in the absence of a forced molt, fewer eggs could be produced per chicken and thus more chickens would be required to produce the same amount of eggs, thus possibly negating the harm reduced by the ban. In addition, more roosters and hens would be used for breeding and more unwanted male chicks would also die. (Dunayer, p. 66) However, it is also possible harm will decrease because although more birds will be exploited, the aggregate harm could be less.

As another example, reforms on factory farms that decrease the stocking density and thus the death rates (on factory farms) may have the tangential negative impact of increasing harm although incidents of death on these farms, and presumably illness, decrease. In this sense, harm could potentially increase for those other animals who would have otherwise died prematurely, because they will now be kept alive longer and endure transport and slaughter conditions. However it is a challenge to determine which decreases harm more, largely because all that can be relied on is speculation.

It is cleat that (tangential negative impacts aside) most reformist successes will have some benefit for other animals. However, what is unclear is whether tangential negative impacts can negate these benefits.

2. Giving a false sense of legitimacy and credibility to exploitation and thus protecting exploiters.

Closed abolitionists believe reforms lead to tangential negative impacts by reinforcing the legitimacy of exploitation. Closed abolitionists note that legislative reforms have tangential negative impacts because, when challenged, exploiters cite their compliance with welfare laws as their defense, thus easing public concerns about exploitation. In addition, Sean Day notes that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) had the tangential negative impact of negating a criminal conviction against researcher Edward Taub, who experimented on the Silver Spring monkeys. (Day)

3. Giving a false sense that exploiters treat other animals "humanely" and that inhumane treatment is the only problem.

Closed abolitionists say that when an exploiter reforms their exploitation, the public mistakenly believes that as a result other animals receive compassionate treatment and that the issue is not exploitation, but the "unnecessary" harm that occurs as a result.

Given this possibility, open abolitionists may be more efficacious if they make the long-term intentions of their work clear: abolition. To avoid these tangential negative impacts, it is important activists not use terms such as "humane," "compassionate," "respectful," or "kind" to refer to exploitation; they must situate all reformist dialogue within the rubric of abolition. This could reduce the likelihood the public will believe exploitation can be made humane, which it cannot.

In addition, reformists may want to be conscious of the fact that it is possible their activism could be more efficacious if the current ratio of reformism to abolitionism was refined to produce the most efficacious results.

4. Not leading to abolition.

Closed abolitionists refute the idea that reformism can be used as a steppingstone to abolition. They suggest this is clear by, for example, examining the free-range industry which they says is not one step before veganism, because rather than being incrementally abolished, the exploitation is merely transformed. Closed abolitionists say that rather than highlight that other animals have "rights," reforms only support the idea that other animals have interests, because the exploitation itself is not challenged. Additionally, Francione says it is impossible to achieve abolition in the long-term by working within a system (through the use of reform) that reinforces other animals' property status. (Francione, 1996, p. 189)

However, some do believe that reformism can lead to abolition. Bartlett says history suggests that by continually raising the bar of what exploitive practices are considered unacceptable, exploitation will eventually no longer exist. (Bartlett, 1991)

If reformism is shown to be unhelpful in laying the groundwork for abolition, reformist activism should not be discounted completely, because it does have an impact on the movement's goal of reducing harm. As such, reforms can be valuable in and of themselves for the part they play in the movement's struggle, regardless of the likeliness they will help encourage abolition.

5. Thwarting abolition.

Closed abolitionists often say reformist activism can frustrate abolition because industries that exploit other animals become less vulnerable (and thus less susceptible to attacks) as they implement reforms and enjoy another layer of insulation. Closed abolitionists believe that as reforms are enacted, criticism against exploitation itself appears unwarranted because the industries are "humane," and thus abolition appears extreme and the perceived need for abolition is lessened. They also feel that because reformism creates a false sense of "humane" care, this can encourage those who might have otherwise been potential supporters of abolition to be indifferent, or opposed, to the idea of supporting abolition. As such, they feel the push for abolition will be weakened as it becomes more challenging to rouse support for abolition.

Open abolitionists often reject the idea that the public is less likely to adopt a vegan lifestyle (and thus forward abolition) if they come to hear about reforms, such as those by McDonald's, than had the reforms not been achieved and publicized. Their reasoning is that reformism brings awareness to the exploitation of other animals and encourages many to reconsider their ethics. Closed abolitionists often counter that reformism merely encourages individuals to support "humane" exploitation rather than cease their patronage of exploitative industries altogether.

Open abolitionists say one reason to assume reforms such as those at McDonald's may not hinder abolition is that the reforms were minimal and left a lot of exploitive practices untouched, thus leaving many reasons to continue to oppose McDonald's. They say it is conceivable those exposed to the anti-McDonald's campaign consumed fewer, or no, products from other animals, rather than having their consciences eased. However, closed abolitionists counter that, at the very least, it will be considerably more of a challenge for the public to be exposed to issues of exploitation while animal activism organizations are extolling the benefits of these industries.

The idea that reformism frustrates abolition is based on the idea that when exploitation is sanitized, abolition will be less achievable because the public will perceive that exploitation is "humane" and in no need of adjustments. However, under this analysis it would also follow that reforms frustrates future reforms by sanitizing exploitation and thus make the necessity of further reforms seem unwarranted, which, based on PETA's success working on more sweeping reform, is unlikely.

Whether reformism frustrates abolition is likely not an all or nothing question; the answer is probably issue-specific. For the most part, vegan lifestyles are adopted for ethical reasons and those who adopt them likely hold that all forms of exploitation of other animals (including those deemed humane) are unethical. As such, those individuals would be unlikely to be swayed by the sanitizing effects of reforms because it seems unlikely those who could align their views with abolition would be swayed by reformism. In another vein however, it is possible fewer individuals will be persuaded to think about exploitation (and consequently adopt a vegan lifestyle) if industries are sanitized, than the number who would be influenced by the current state of affairs. Again, we are left with many unknowns concerning the tangential impacts of activism. In any event it is more likely reforms will bring attention to the need for animal welfare, rather than the need for abolition. On face value, reformism relays no information about abolition and as such may prevent the public from understanding that other animals require more than "humane" care, unless open abolitionists are careful about their message.

6. Not being in a good position to ask for more far-reaching reforms.

Steven Best has suggested that one of the problems with reformism is once a company has been responsive to demands, animal activists are not in a good position to seek more reforms. (Best, 2004) However, this does not always hold true. Following the initial McDonald's reforms several years ago, PETA now shows they are in a good position to ask for more, and in fact they have done just that by having McDonald's agree to put together a feasibility report to examine the viability of having their suppliers abandon current slaughter methods in favour of the more "humane" controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK). (PETA, "McDonald's Makes Progress, KFC Ignores Critical Animal Welfare Measures.")

7. Not producing the desired effects.

Closed abolitionists often condemn reformism for, among other things, not having a good likelihood that a "victory" will produce the desired results. For example, closed abolitionists often say reforms in the meat industry have a poor likelihood of having the desired effect due to, among other things, the speed with which other animals are "processed" and because the industry is virtually self-regulating and driven by profits.

8. Giving positive publicity to exploiters.

Closed abolitionists say reformism can have tangential negative impacts by giving positive publicity (often given by animal activism organizations) to reformed industries, which serves to ease consumers' consciences and misleadingly draws a parallel between compassion and exploitation. Open abolitionists, such as PETA, often counter that positive publicity is important because their strategy of pressure and praise helps achieve future far-reaching reforms. It should be clarified that positive publicity only follows a reformist campaign?uring the campaign the target is generally publicly shamed into reforming?hus both positive and negative publicity ensues.

9. Making exploiters more profitable, which can make them more powerful and give them more longevity.

Closed abolitionists suggest reforms can serve to make industries that exploit other animals more profitable because following a reform?enerally to industries that raise other animals for food?he price and demand of the resultant products are likely to increase and the production costs are unlikely to be significantly affected by minimal reforms.

For example, Dunayer notes that when Switzerland banned the practice of caging hens, the egg industry's profitability increased because virtually as many hens were housed in the new systems as the number who had been housed using cages and although the price of eggs increased, so did the demand because consumers preferred eggs from hens who were not kept in cages. (Dunayer, p. 68.) In addition, Dunayer notes that a 2000 Zogby poll of Americans indicated that 81 percent of respondents would pay higher prices for eggs from hens raised under improved conditions. (Dunayer, p. 60) In addition, the idea that "humane" reforms can serve to make exploiters more profitable is supported by the fact that the share price of Whole Foods Market enjoyed a record high following their decision to establish the Animal Compassion Foundation, which aims to aide and motivate those who raise other animals for food to adopt more advanced animal welfare practices while preserving their economic livelihood.

Some closed abolitionists have even suggested they do not oppose all reforms. As Joe Miele notes, if reforms were to transform industries to a point where they could no longer operate in an economically profitable fashion (and thus foreshadow their closure) closed abolitionists would likely support such activism. However, he indicates the current state of reformist activism does not have such an impact. (Miele, 2003)

10. Taking resources away from abolitionist activism that has a greater promise of success.

Closed abolitionists often believe reformism monopolizes resources on inefficacious activism because, unlike abolitionism, which condemns exploitation as a whole, reformism requires that countless forms of mistreatment be addressed. They say this is a seemingly endless process not only because there are currently countless forms to oppose, but also because so long as other animals are not removed from the exploitation, there is no limit to the additional forms of exploitation that can be imposed on other animals in future.

11. Encouraging poor conditions in industries that exploit animals so the industries can enact minimal reforms and claim they are concerned about the welfare of other animals.

Francione says reformism could actually encourage industries that exploit other animals to have very poor animal welfare standards so they can create a false sense of concern for other animals when they concede to moderate reforms. (Francione, 2001)

Magnitude

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on the total number of other animals affected by the desired improvement. The more other animals affected by an improvement, the higher the rating should be. Ratings for the magnitude component should be proportional to the total number of other animals that are exploited; the larger the affected group is in proportion to this overall number, the high the score.

It is a challenge to determine whether a significant benefit for a few, or a minimal benefit for many, is more efficacious; however, because this question is often central to efficacy it must be addressed.

PETA says each vegetarian spares the life of 95 other animals annually. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "Your Health, the Environment, and Animals Used for Food") It is likely that this number is the same (or similar) for vegans as "dairy cows" and "spent laying hens" likely make up the count.

Francione has predicted there could now be, at minimum, 10,000 new vegans in the U.S. if, in the past 10 years, the movement had focused its resources on vegan outreach. (Francione, 2004) Francione's estimate may even be too conservative. Paul Shapiro says roughly 21,000 individuals could be exposed to veganism per year if one person distributes 400 leaflets for one hour per week. (Shapiro, 2003) He says if even one person out of 300 adopted a vegan diet there could be 70 new vegans per year, not counting those who would adopt a vegetarian diet or lessen their consumption of products from other animals. Under this estimate if one assumed that in the past 10 years this form of activism was rigorously pursued for 40 hours per week by thousands of activists, then by the end of 10 years there would be roughly 28 million more vegans if only 1,000 activist did this annually. Starting today, if there were this many new vegans, over 2.7 billion other animals would be saved annually. Although, harm is completely eliminated for those other animals spared, the number is still relatively low given that currently 26 billions (17 billion aquatic and 9 billion land-based) other animals are slaughtered for food in the U.S. annually. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "Fun With Numbers")

To adequately judge whether such a campaign would be more efficacious than a comparable campaign that focused aggressively on reforming the practice of raising other animals for food, the other components of the EAM aside, the harm reduction must be assessed next to the number affected. While the harm reduction would be less for the reformist campaign, the numbers affected would likely be larger, particularly because the effects of vegan outreach in the foreseeable future will eventually be capped because universal veganism remains unachievable at present. In this case, activists must assess whether a significant benefit for a few, or a minimal benefit for many, is more efficacious, which is a challenging assessment.

An example of a minimal benefit for a few is PETA's fast-food campaigns. While the decrease in harm to other animals was minimal as far as the individual is concerned, Bruce Friedrich notes that these campaigns decreased the harm for tens of millions of other animals. He predicts this will affect billions of other animals per year as the industries change. (Friedrich, 2003) Similarly, Whole Foods Market predicts millions or even billions of other animals raised for food will have their quality of life improved by the Animal Compassion Foundation. (Friends of Animals, 2005, January 20). Because the number of other animals affected is high in proportion to the total number exploited, these improvement stand to receive a good rating under this component.

The effects of California's foie gras bill is an example of a significant benefit for a few because California's foie gras bill has the potential to completely eliminate the harm experienced by 55,000 ducks per year according to the 2002 figures. However, this is a very small figure in comparison to the 26 billion other animals killed per year in the U.S. for food alone. As such, this improvement would receive a poor rating under this component. Similarly, the campaign against the Hegins pigeon shoot (which is considered to be one of the major victories for the animal rights movement in the 1990s) would also receive a poor rating under this component. Vegan Outreach says roughly 5,000 other animals have been saved each year as a result; however, they add this is the same number of other animals killed every 16 seconds in U.S. slaughterhouses. (Vegan Outreach)

Other animals used for food (which presumably includes aquatic animals) account for upwards of 99 percent of those killed annually in the U.S. (Vegan Outreach) Because of this, activism focused in this areas is likely to receive the highest rating for the magnitude component because the number of other animals that stand to be helped is very close to the total number of other animals exploited (in the U.S.).

While other animals raised for food overwhelmingly account for the most exploited group of other animals, it may be possible there are other species that are exploited in greater numbers, such as other animals besides birds, mammals, or fish, like insects or overlooked sentient other animals for which there is no available data.

While activism on behalf of other animals raised for food requires the most attention (based solely on magnitude), aquatic other animals (followed by chickens raised for their flesh) merit the most activism within this group because these species account overwhelmingly for the majority of other animals killed in the U.S. Thus, activism focused in this area will also receive a very high rating under this component.

According to PETA, of the 26 billion animals killed for food annually in the U.S., 17 billion of those are aquatic. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "Fun With Numbers") According to Gene Bauston, the 1999 statistics highlight that of the almost nine billion "broiler chickens" born, over eight billion were killed at slaughterhouses with many hundreds of millions more dying in production. (Bauston, p. 172) In addition, the number of broiler chickens killed is likely to increase as more individuals opt for chicken as opposed to red meat because chickens provide less meat per individual than cows or pigs.

Karen Davis says that in 2000 in USDA-inspected facilities 268 million turkeys and 165 million "spent commercial laying hens" and those used for breeding were slaughtered along with half a billion male chicks and "defective females." (Davis, pp. 186-187). In addition, 35.5 million cows, 101 million pigs, 24.3 million ducks, and 2.98 million sheep and lambs are killed annually in the U.S., not including those who died on the farm or in transit. (Compassion Over Killing)

The number of other animals exploited varies depending on the industry. For example, while other animals used in the circus and in greyhound racing number in the thousands and those raised for fur, vivisected, killed in shelters and by hunters account for millions, billions are killed for food in the U.S. annually.

Engaging in activism that will affect the most other animals in the long-term (by having a long durational effect) is an important part of making activism as efficacious as possible because the number of exploited other animals now is only a small percent of the number that will be exploited in future (all things remaining equal).

Interestingly, the areas of concern that often see the least amount of reformist activism are also the areas that generally have the fewest number of exploited other animals, while the areas that often see the most abolitionist activism have the largest numbers.

Areas with larger numbers of exploited other animals, such as vivisection and in particular raising other animals for food, are the focus of much reformist activism, because, among other things, open abolitionists believe the sheer magnitude of those exploited prevents efficacious abolitionist activism. In contrast, those raised for their fur or used in entertainment are often the focus of reformism.

Closed abolitionists generally deride open abolitionists for not decreasing the number of other animals exploited; however, open abolitionists counter that they may have more far-reaching effects in terms of the number of other animals affected because abolitionism will eventually reach a plateau in its efficacy, at least in the foreseeable future.

Resources

This component can be used to assess efficacy based on the level of resources (human, financial, and other resources) dedicated to achieving a desired improvement. Although there is no obvious benchmark against which to rate the use of resources, activists can at the very least rate their use of resources based on the total amount available to them. The fewer resources used (in proportion to the expected gains) the higher the rating should be. Other components of the EAM aside, as the potential efficacy of an action increases, it becomes more justifiable to allocate more resources to the action.

The catch 22 of activism is that when a form of activism is pursued, resources are taken away from other (potentially more efficacious) forms of activism. In essence, choosing one form of activism by default entails that activists choose not to pursue others. However, this should not paralyze activism.

It is essential to ensure actions that are not pursued were decided against because they had less potential for efficacy, and not because they were simply overlooked. As such, activists must attempt to determine (with some guidance from the EAM) that there is no other action that would use comparable resources and be more efficacious than the form of activism they are pursuing.

Vegan Outreach has noted that an enormous amount of financial and human resources were required to support the campaign against the Hegins pigeon shoot, which upon its success spares 5,000 other animals annually. (Vegan Outreach) Because this number is a very small percentage of all exploited other animals, other components of the EAM aside, this campaign seems to have been inefficacious in that the resources expended were not proportional to the meaningfulness of the improvement.

Open abolitionists often hold that activists should encourage any action that aims to help other animals, even if it promises to have only a slight reduction in harm. It is often suggested that supporting such actions is better than nothing. However, before supporting an action, there must be a consideration of whether other actions are achievable that could bring about more far-reaching results with the same or fewer resources.

Because resources are scarce in the movement, it would be unwise strategically to support any action that promises to decrease harm. While it is important to note that the EAM does not seek to denigrate certain types of activism (because there is merit in any well-intentioned action that seeks to help other animals), it does not follow that any action should be supported irrespective of its potential efficacy or that all actions have equal merit. Unlike the closed abolitionist ideology, the EAM does value reductions in harm, but only those that prove the most efficacious.

Open abolitionists in particular often counter closed abolitionists' attacks by suggesting their decision to allocate resources is a personal one and should not be undermined by others. However, the EAM points to the necessity of making such choices less personal.

Closed abolitionists often fault open abolitionists for impeding abolition by, among other things, monopolizing resources on reformist activism when the resources would be better used on abolitionist activism.

Closed abolitionists feel the best use of resources is to devote all activism to reducing the number of exploited other animals, thus advancing abolition. They indicate that the most efficacious way to help other animals is to build opposition to exploitation rather than reform it.

Closed abolitionists often point to the inefficacious nature of reformist legislation (such as the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)) as typifying an inefficacious use of resources because many resources from the animal activism movement were used to ensure the enactment and amendment of these laws, which they believe is not proportionate to the gains. They believe these laws are inefficacious because enforcement is virtually nonexistent, they have not served to decrease the number of other animals exploited, and many question whether they have meaningfully decreased harm. However, not all forms of reformist activism are equal, and as such these laws must not be used solely to discount the benefits that can result from reformism.

Bruce Friedrich notes that tens of thousands of grassroots activists supported PETA's fast food campaigns. (Friedrich, 2003) Indeed this is a significant amount of human resources that went into enacting the reforms. As mentioned under the magnitude component, estimates indicate that 70 new vegans could result annually from one activist undertaking one hour per week of vegan outreach. It is likely closed abolitionists would indicate that the time of these grassroots activists would have been more efficaciously used had they undertaken vegan outreach instead. However, the extent to which support can be rallied for a cause is significant as it is possible that not all these activists would have been keen on undertaking abolitionist activism as they may have been attracted to the more moderate nature of these campaigns.

The allocation of resources is an important aspect of the abolition/reform debate because some contend that closed abolitionists do not oppose reforms in and of themselves, but rather the use of resources to enact them.

Open abolitionists often note that closed abolitionists do not oppose reforms on face value because if an exploiter decided to improve the welfare of other animals, closed abolitionists would as a rule not oppose this; what closed abolitionists oppose is the use of activists' resources to enact such a reform. There is a difference between opposing a reform and not promoting it. In this sense a closed abolitionist could pursued abolitionism while being neutral to reformism.

It is however not always the case that activists will refrain from contesting reforms that are initiated by the exploiter. For example, when Whole Foods Market announced they would donate five percent of a day's sales to create an Animal Compassion Foundation some closed abolitionists used resources to publicly scrutinize the company's decision even though activists used few, if any, resources, to achieve this victory. Opponents of Whole Foods Market's decision, Friends of Animals, noted that it would have been far more appropriate to have a day allocated to a 5 percent discount on vegan products rather than a day in support of the Foundation. (Friends of Animals, 2005, January 19)

Because some issues are less attainable than others, it is possible (the other components of the EAM aside) that resources may be more useful in opposing certain areas of exploitation. For example, abolishing factory farming has significantly more opposition than preventing the killing of other animals in shelters. As such, other components of the EAM aside, funds may be better spent expanding the practice of spaying and neutering because a lack of funds, rather than societal opposition, is the main setback for this issue.

Discussion

The problem with most arguments in the abolition/reform debate is that most are oversimplified because they do not consider the entirety of the efficacy assessment.

Both sides are much more able to make their case if they oversimplify the issue by overlooking some components of the EAM. Rather than having a piecemeal argument, activists must evenhandedly consider the whole picture.

For example, it is easy for closed abolitionists to deride all reformist activism for having the tangential negative impact of, for example, sanitizing exploitation. However, an assessment based on only one component of the EAM is not sufficient to discount reformism altogether. Likewise, an assessment based on seven of the eight components is also not sufficient.

Activism can be more efficacious if the abolition/reform debate is transcended and activism is assessed in its own accord.

With the long-term goal of abolition far in the distance, activists must work on whatever forms of incremental change (whether reformist or abolitionist) will be the most efficacious. For example, if a form of activism produces the most efficacious results, this form of activism must be pursued regardless of its association with either camp.

Efficacy is not concerned with ideology. Indeed, some abolitionist activism may not correspond to closed abolitionists' ideology. For example, if someone were to advocate that individuals consume fewer products from other animals this does incrementally abolish exploitation rather than reform it; however, it also simultaneously condones some exploitation.

It seems wholly unlikely that all reformist activism (or abolitionist activism) will have a certain effect, therefore the debate must be transcended in favour of an assessment of activism in its own accord. The efficacy of both forms of activism changes based on the area of exploitation being addressed. For example, while it is possible that reforms to the area of other animals raised for food could increase harm by easing consciences, this tangential impact is not really applicable to the issue of the use of other animals in biomedical research because consumers do not have direct purchasing power in this area.

Research is needed on how to weight the EAM's components and to uncover historical and empirical evidence that can be used to help assign ratings in the components.

The arguments on both sides of the debate require that activists be able to adequately predict the (empirical) consequences of their actions, which is not possible with the current lack of information.

It is recommended that future research of this nature focus on extrapolating such data from the animal activism movement as well as other social change movements such as the anti-slavery movement. To further clarify the potential effects reformism can have, predictors such as the aftermath in Europe post-reforms and the situation in the U.S. following PETA's fast food campaigns need to be analyzed.

The UK government has banned veal crates since 1990. (Animal Rights International) Rather than debate what the results of a similar ban may be in the U.S.?hether it might salve consciences and promote veal consumption or have the opposite effect?t would be helpful to examine what has happened in Europe as a result. It is possible Europe, which is the real life model of a society with more advanced welfare laws, may be able to answer many of the contentious questions surrounding the abolition/reform debate, and in particular those concerning the likelihood of tangential impacts occurring. There is also a U.S. model; Florida has banned the use of sow gestation crates. In order to gain an understanding of the tangential impacts this can have, activists must examine the situation in Florida following this ban.

As well, other social movements (in particular the anti-slavery movement in the U.S.) may be used as possible predictors. However, there is much disagreement about what effects reformism and abolitionism had on this movement. For example, Miele suggests that had closed abolitionists during the Civil War been open abolitionists, it is possible African Americans could still be treated as slaves today. (Miele, 2003) Similarly, Dunayer says abolitionism in support of African American slaves did far more than reformism. (Dunayer, p. 65)

In contrast, Gaverick Matheny and Matt Ball say if the movement against African American slavery had not pursued reforms it would have likely not had enough momentum to survive; they believe each reform elevated the status of African Americans and gave more experience and confidence to activists. They suggest abolitionism can serve to alienate the mainstream and thus thwart abolition. (Matheny & Ball)

References

Animal Rights International. "Outlawed in Europe: Three Decades of Progress." Retrieved July 1, 2005, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ari-online.org/pages/europe_7_vealcrating.html

Asher, J. (2005). "Animal Rights, Human Responsibilities." Unpublished paper, copy with author.

Bartlett, K. (1991, November). "A New Fundamentalism?" The Animals' Agenda, Vol. XI, No.9.

Bauston, G. (2002). "For a Mouthful of Flesh." Stallwood, K., Editor. A Primer on Animal Rights: Leading Experts Write About Animal Cruelty and Exploitation. New York: Lantern Books.

Best, S. "Animal Welfare Or Animal Rights? Dismantling a False Opposition." Retrieved January 26, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/vegenvani/animalwelfare.htm

Best, S. (2004) "The Epiphanies of Dr. Steven Best: Interview with Claudette Vaughn of Vegan Voice, Fall 2004." Retrieved January 23, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/vegenvani/epiphanies_VVinterview.htm

Compassion Over Killing. "U.S. Statistics for 'Food Animals' Slaughtered in 2003." Retrieved July 3, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cok.net/lit/statistics2003.php

Davis, K. (2002) "The Plight of Poultry." Stallwood, K. Editor. A Primer on Animal Rights: Leading Experts Write About Animal Cruelty and Exploitation. New York: Lantern Books.

Day, S. "Beyond Rights vs. Welfare: A Model for Evaluating Efforts in Furtherance of Animal Rights." United Poultry Concerns 3rd Annual Forum: Do Animal Welfare Campaigns & Reforms Hurt or Help Animal Rights & Abolition? Received by personal communication, January 28, 2005.

Dunayer, J. (2004) Speciesism. Maryland: Ryce Publishing.

Francione, G. (2004, November 2). "Gary Francione on the California Foie Gras Ban and his Upcoming Work." Animal Voices. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows.htm#gary_francione2

Francione, G. (2001). "Debating Francione (and loving it)." Animal Liberation NSW. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from the World Wide

Web: http://www.animal-lib.org.au/more_interviews/francione/

Francione, G. (1996) Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Friedrich, B. (2003). Article from No Compromise, Issue #21. Received by personal communication, February 18, 2005.

Friends of Animals. (2005, January 20). "Response to John Mackey In Re the Animal Compassion Foundation." Retrieved January 26, 2005, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/response-to-john-mackey.html

Friends of Animals. (2005, January 19). "Whole Foods Promotes `Responsible' and `Compassionate' Flesh Foods." Retrieved January 20, 2005, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/whole-foods.html

Hall, Lee. (2005). "A Faux `Ban' of Foie Gras: 440,000 Ducks Used as Bargaining Chips," ActionLine. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/winter-2005/faux-ban-of-foie-gras.html

Matheny, G., & Ball, M. "Welfare and Liberation: Mutually Exclusive?" Received by personal communication, January 23, 2005.

Miele, J. (2003). Article from No Compromise, Issue #21. Received by personal communication, January 23, 2005.

Nibert, D. (2002) Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Fun With Numbers." Retrieved July 3, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.peta.org/feat/grrr900/food.html

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "McDonald's Makes Progress, KFC Ignores Critical Animal Welfare Measures." Retrieved February 4, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/macvskfc.asp

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Your Health, the Environment, and Animals Used for Food." Retrieved July 3, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.petakids.com/vegetarian.html

Regan, T. (1985). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shapiro, P. (2003) "Vegan Advocacy: Why and How." No Compromise, No. 21. Received by personal communication, February 18, 2005.

Singer, P. (1990). Animal Liberation, New Revised Edition. New York: Avon Books, Inc.

Vegan Outreach. "Activism and Veganism." Retrieved July 3, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://veganoutreach.org/advocacy/path.html#limitedresources

Questions

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the EAM; your comments are much appreciated. However, here are a few questions you may wish to consider.

1. Can and should the EAM be used by activists to clarify the abolition/reform debate?

2. Can you use the EAM to prove your case for either side of the debate?

3. Does the EAM show that the abolition/reform debate is more complicated than generally indicated in the literature?

4. Can the EAM be used by activists to help guide judgment on the potential efficacy of their activism by moving beyond the dichotomy of the debate to assess the relative merits of activism in its own accord?

5. Are the eight components of the EAM a helpful way to make better strategic decisions concerning activism?

6. Are there any components that should be added, deleted, or modified?

7. Do you think all the components of the EAM are of equal importance? If no, how would you rate them?

8. How would you rate your activism using the EAM? Provide a numerical rating if possible.

9. Are you aware of any historical or empirical evidence that can help in assigning ratings in the components?

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com