ofcruelty.Oneishistorical.Whenfirstfounded,theRSPCA
and ASPCAwere radical groups, far ahead of the public
opinionoftheirtimes,andopposedtoallformsofcrueltyto
animals,includingcrueltytofarmanimals,whothen,asnow,
were the victims of manyof theworst abuses. Gradually,
however,astheseorganizationsgrewinwealth,membership,
and respectability, theylost their radical commitment and
became part of the “establishment.” They built up close
contacts with members of the government, and with
businessmenandscientists.Theytriedtousethesecontactsto
improve the conditions of animals, and some minor
improvementsresulted; but atthesametime contacts with
thosewhosebasicinterestsareintheuseofanimalsforfood
or research purposes blunted the radical criticism of the
exploitationofanimalsthathadinspiredthefounders.Again
and again the societies compromised their fundamental
principlesforthesakeoftrivialreforms.Bettersomeprogress
now than nothing at all, they said; but often the reforms
provedineffectiveinimprovingtheconditionsoftheanimals,
and functioned rather to reassure the public that nothing
further needed to be done.^6
As their wealth increased, another consideration became
important.Theanimalwelfaresocieties hadbeensetup as
registeredcharities.Thisstatusbroughtthemsubstantialtax
savings;butitisaconditionofbeingregisteredasacharity,
inbothGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates,thatthecharitable
organizationdoesnot engageinpoliticalactivities. Political
action,unfortunately,issometimestheonlywaytoimprove
theconditionsofanimals(especiallyifanorganizationistoo
cautioustocallforpublicboycottsofanimalproducts),but
most of the large groups keptwell clear of anything that
mightendangertheircharitablestatus.Thishasledthemto