In Defense of Humane Trends

In a recent review in ANIMAL PEOPLE, Merritt Clifton responded to the Humane Research Council’s Humane Trends study with questions regarding its validity and usefulness. We appreciate the feedback and are always open to improvement, but we are concerned that some of Mr. Clifton’s critiques were misdirected and that they undervalued the overall usefulness and importance of the Humane Trends study.

---------------------------------

One of Mr. Clifton’s major criticisms was that we chose to normalize our data based on a 100-point scale. The idea that raw data must be numerically adjusted is a basic tenant of research. For example, any survey of “US adults” systematically adjusts survey responses to more accurately represent the nation’s population as a whole. Even the numbers regarding shelter intake and death produced by Mr. Clifton are produced in this manner; we utilize those numbers in the Humane Trends Report because we believe the method is sound; this is a normal part of the research process.

Why a 100-point scale? HRC is committed to making research understandable and accessible to everyone, so we choose to represent the study’s findings in a way that is easy for most people to understand and that allows for comparisons across the 25 unique indicators. Further, the Humane Trends is completely transparent about how the numbers are adjusted to fit this scale and all of the underlying, unadjusted data is available for free and posted on the website for people to access should they wish to evaluate the raw numbers themselves.

Another of Mr. Clifton’s critiques is that to develop these scores we set our historical benchmark as 2006. It is true that we would be seeing different trends if we had used an older benchmark. However, it was important to use a contemporary benchmark given that this study will measure improvements to animal protection moving forward. Our choice to use this benchmark was just that, a choice. For those who are interested in a more historical perspective we have provided links to all of our original data sources, when publicly available, so that users can access that information as it meets their needs.

Finally, some of the indicators we chose were also questioned. HRC could not measure everything due to a lack of reliable data and the vast breadth of issues that animal advocates contend with. However, we consulted a variety of experts in the animal protection community to develop a set of reliable indicators that, taken together, represent the broad range of topics and goals across different segments within the movement.

An important part of this statement is “taken together.” Mr. Clifton makes the astute observation, for example, that protected land does not ensure animal protection as hunting is often allowed on this land. However, when combined with the number of hunting licenses, the indicators provide a more reliable measure. If the amount of protected land increased, then the Humane Trends score for that metric would increase as well. However, if hunting licenses also increased alongside the increase in protected land, then the latter score would decrease; when the scores are averaged, the overall score for “wild and exotic animals” would not reflect an improvement for animal protection.

Finally, we believe that Clifton’s review also fails to see how important the Humane Trends study is for animal advocates. First, it is a one-stop website for the most reliable data available on the state of animal protection in the U.S. Further, this data and these scores can be easily accessed and used to justify grant funding or provide support for advocates pushing for local, state, and national legislative changes. Over time, it will also be an important barometer so that we can measure how the status and welfare of animals is changing.

All animal advocates should care about having an honest assessment of the state of animals. Put simply, HRC’s Humane Trends study provides this information and is a valuable tool to help us gauge whether we are winning or losing the fight for animal protection.