As years go by, advances in technology and resources flourish. Over the past decade, resources such as social media, texting and emailing have allowed for news to spread within seconds. All of these new commodities have permitted change to occur faster than ever, one of those changes being the widespread awareness for animal abuse, and the mistreatment of “tamed” animals. These new technologies and resources have aided in the success rate of many projects such as the SeaWorld documentary and the ending of the Ringling Brothers Circus, and the power that was used to make these changes occur is needed once again.
In 2013, “Blackfish,” a SeaWorld documentary, used their resources to easily spread the word and exposed the truth about what was happening behind closed doors. This documentary was filmed because former trainers came out to talk about the falsified information that SeaWorld put forth and the outcome of this film was an instant decrease in SeaWorld ticket sales.
Roughly four years later, people took advantage of their abilities and resources again, which led to the closing of The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus after performing for 146 years. The Ringling’s had been slowly reducing the amount of elephants due to public views and criticism from animal rights groups, which caused for ticket sales to decrease. Our everyday resources act as catalysts for getting the word out about the inhumane treatment that these animals received and allowed for a positive outcome.
Although it’s a great aspect that news is available with just a click of a button, there is a call to caution. Fact checking and knowing if what is being seen or read is actually true is extremely important. An example of false news is the video that was leaked to TMZ regarding a scene in the new movie, “A Dog’s Purpose.” The scene was of a dog being thrown into unsteady waters for a scene in the movie unwillingly. As soon as the video hit the internet, boycotts were set up and angry comments were shared. The video was later investigated and the accusations were claimed falsified. The report by American Humane later stated that the video was actually two different videos put together to create an uproar. The technology that is available today can have a huge impact and can spread awareness for problems like animal abuse, but the verification of the news is extremely important.
The only way that progress can continually be made is if the public takes time to verify the information that comes their way. Once the information is proven to be true, awareness and word of the event can be spread.
On Feb. 3, the USDA legally removed public access to thousands of reports that track the number of animals that are kept in captivity due to new administration. This includes research labs, zoos, circuses and animal transporters. The only way one would now be able to access the information is by filing for a Freedom of Information Act Request.
On Aug. 24, 1966, the Animal Welfare Act was put in place by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The definition given by the USDA National Agricultural Library states that “The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially or exhibited to the public.”
The AWA is the only form of protection for animals in research and exhibition. The documents that consisted of inspections, annual reviews and quantitative data for each facility was placed into the public eye. This act is monitored and enforced by the USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Animal Care.
“Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information,” according to the official statement in the USDA website.
The media voiced different opinions about this new decision. Many said that it was a decision out of the public’s hand, but others begged to differ. Buttons that led to the signing of a petition were found on social media not even three days later. Looking back over the past years, the public was able to make changes by using their resources. Could the public make a big enough fuss to make a change to this new decision? This is a question that can only be answered by the people.