For years, human beings have taken advantage of their superiority to mistreat animals. Several units are set up to regulate their actions. The role of activists is remarkable. They are advocates of protection of animalss
A critical analysis of Johnson’s journal, Elephants are not for riding in New York Times shows a clear picture of the state of animal protection. Despite efforts to safeguard animal rights, activists receive minimal support from the government and people. When Denver zoo banned elephant rides, the surrounding community felt betrayed. The children did not have a chance of posing on the elephant named Mary. To the community, the zoo management was placing rules that ruined their good times. This move was facilitated by officials of surrounding humane societies. Activist Robin Duxbury said that the organization was mistreating the elephants. According to robin, a zoo should serve as a home and not a recreation park. The response of the members of zoo management was vague. Its director said that he was not an expert. He however gave in to the demands of the activists. The zoo however ignored demands of to ban the use of balloons. Several autopsies revealed that balloons were swallowed by the animals. Zoo officials accused the society of magnifying the issue. The managers said that such incidence ruined public relations. Patrons of major zoos are not concerned about animal comfort and safety. (Johnson, May 14, 1990)
The political establishment has little to say about animal welfare. Despite efforts of organizations concerned with animal welfare, only few laws are in place to protect animals. It seems that the political establishment takes advantage of fragmented efforts of welfare groups. The public seems unaware of underlying issues. People are busy. They do not have time. To them, the issue of animal welfare is of low priority. In some cases, the cry of animal activists is heard. On 29th July 1983, activists against shooting of dogs in military experiments in Washington celebrated a rare victory. The issue was first addressed by the press instead of the court. The case shows that people can join hands in stopping inhumane treatment of animals. A legal entity should also be in place in such situations. Opponents of this victory said that the welfare groups keep on exaggerating the matter of animal mistreatment in labs. Scientists are concerned with human welfare. Their actions are not meant to mistreat humans or animals. People continue to mistreat animals by raising them in horrible conditions. Pork and beef producers have animal factories where they confine the animals. The war may last long but the continuous efforts of activists may bear fruits. (Gailey, July 30, 1983)
Animals face abuse in experimental situations. For a long time, scientists have used animals in drug tests. Monkeys are the major culprits because they are of the same genus as humans. Positive results from major trials on monkeys’ shows a possibility of finding cure for humans. The author of Judge Refuses to Prevent Deaths of Monkeys in Federal Laboratory argues that exposure of monkeys to medical experiments may results in deaths. Inoculation with disease causing microorganisms results in deterioration and death of the animals if no cure is discovered. Opening their skulls disrupts their brain activity. Animal welfare activists decided to plea for the freedom of monkeys when they learnt that the animals were living in filthy and dangerous conditions. Deaths were allowed to prevent further suffering of the animals. (Judge Refuses to Prevent Deaths of Monkeys in Federal Laboratory, July 1, 1990, p. 16)
It is evident that violation of animal rights is global. Activists all over the world have made significant progress in curbing the suffering. Their efforts are however not certain because of little or no government involvement. There is need to put more emphasis on making animal life comfortable. Activists may benefit from the press and involvement of the public. The activists should serve as advocates by changing attitudes of people.