From Refuge to Freedom: The Evolving Meaning of Farm Sanctuaries
The animal sanctuary movement in North America is rapidly expanding. There are many kinds of sanctuaries, such as wildlife rehab centers, exotic animal refuges, animal companion rescues, sanctuaries for animals that were used for farming, and more. In short, there are as many different types of sanctuaries as there are animals that need help. Over recent years, there has been a massive growth in the number of farmed animal sanctuaries (or FASes). In the U.S., the Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, NY, was the first of its kind, and it stands as a model for many others. There are now more than 50 “public” sanctuaries — places that maintain a public profile through volunteer programs, advocacy, public outreach, and other activities.
As the movement to rescue farmed animals expands, there is an increasing need to understand and reevaluate the meaning and politics of FASes. Not every animal advocate agrees with all FAS policies, and there isn’t always agreement about the direction of an FAS or a singular vision of how they should be run. This study looks at these issues and tries to understand the role of FASes as part of animal rights advocacy. The paper is an evaluation of what sanctuaries are, and what they could be in an ideal world. The authors describe how sanctuaries in North America primarily function on a “refuge+advocacy” model, while they identify the possibility of being an “intentional community” model that differs in some important ways.
The “refuge+advocacy” model is based on rescuing animals from previous situations of farming and abuse. Physically, these spaces often look like idealized versions of the traditional “family farm,” and they are usually located in farming communities because the infrastructure needed to run them already exists. These FASes are often founded by a family, have dedicated staff and volunteers, and provide various kinds of outreach and tours for the general public, among other things. Though there are many subtle variations at different FASes, in the “refuge+advocacy” model, rescued animals will be given a fairly wide range of physical space and the necessary things to express their species-specific behaviors.
Though this model has a tremendous amount of support among animal advocates, there are some legitimate critiques of certain policies, which the authors outline. For one, many of the outreach efforts are focused on individual enlightenment and change, through witnessing the rescued animals in their new homes and becoming vegan. Critics point out that this type of exchange is hard to quantify or qualify, and that even when it does happen, there can be slippage. Likewise, because many visitors to FASes have never actually been to a factory farm, they may not realize just how different the experience is, even if they are presented with educational materials. A different angle of criticism is that animal housing tends to be structured in a way that is practical and addresses safety concerns, while also providing animals with as much space as possible. An alternative model might look at what kind of housing the animals want, with allowances made for interspecies mingling if they so desired. One likely controversial angle of criticism that the authors’ have is that FASes tend to impose sex / reproductive restrictions and bans on the animals in their care, even when animals show a strong desire to do so. Though they outline the practical reasons that FASes do this, they also note that allowing for some sexual / reproductive freedom would make for a “richer and more stimulating” environment for the animals.
Based on these and other critiques, the authors propose an alternative idea of an “intentional community” model. The new idea shifts away from a vision of animals as “wards of care” to that of “co-citizens,” where animals are thought of as “ongoing community of members” who wish to be empowered in issues of association, reproduction, environment, and work. The study puts forward various suggestions as to how this can be achieved, such as having an animal advocate whose role “in all contexts, is to represent animals’ interests – to ask hard questions every time justifications of ‘safety’, ‘practicality’, ‘urgency’, ‘efficiency’ or ‘sufficiency’ are invoked to explain limitations on animals’ freedom and opportunities.” Other proposals include creating FAS networks who can share care and veterinary knowledge to best support a “rich conception of animal flourishing,” and bringing in outside opinions from advocates, ethologists, and others who can ensure that the FAS is constantly “renewing and enriching its advocacy.” Through all of this, the authors note that to be effective, institutional reforms must be accompanied by “deeper reforms in our understanding of animal freedom and flourishing.”
For advocates, this paper offers a great deal to think about and consider. Indeed, as many animal advocates have had experiences of visiting, volunteering at, or running an FAS, trying to better understand what sanctuaries mean to animals is a noble endeavor. If anything, what the authors are suggesting here is a push for us to consciously found, construct and run sanctuaries. It is noted emphatically that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and that the two models they outline are not black or white, but rather exist on a continuum. Though many advocates support farm sanctuaries and may balk at some of the critiques put forward, it is worth noting that the ideas presented in the paper are proposed because of the great potential the authors see in FASes to be models for a better society. Though it is perhaps unlikely that FASes all over North America will begin to implement these ideas straight away, many could be considered to extend and expand the sanctuary movement. For farmed animal advocates, there is much to discuss and debate in these pages.