WSPA as a non-profit organization

WSPA Non-Profit Organization

https://secure-research-payment.com/beta/writer/writer_order_detail/index/A2024221

The most worthy non-profit organizations are those that commit to the plight of those who are unable to help themselves. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (or WSPA) is one such operation. Animals are a voiceless and unempowered presence in the world and human beings act as both their attackers and their defenders. The World Society for the Protection of Animals has committed their efforts and resources to the suffering of animals, a cause to which most people can relate, provided they have pets, enjoy nature, or just possess basic human compassion.

The WSPA has constructed a comprehensive website which is a wealth of information about the organization, including its history, operations, present and past programs, and goals. In addition, it is a valuable resource for people who simply want to learn more about the abuses occurring worldwide against innocent animals. The organization also maintains a YouTube page which hosts various advertisements and promotional materials. Their web presence is impressive, given that not only does the worldwide organization have a site, but so do many of the satellite offices, including WSPA USA, Canada, Thailand, Australia, and many other countries.

WSPA's work is "promoting animal welfare" (WSPA Home Page). But they are not simply a domestic operation, as "their work is concentrated in regions of the world where few, if any, measures exist to protect animals" (WSPA Home Page). Their simply worded mission is "to build a global animal welfare movement" (WSPA Home Page). Thus it is apparent that their work is not only direct aid to animals in need, but also larger goals of education and awareness raising, human empowerment, and advocacy.

Political cooperation is also an important component of WSPA's mission, given that it has "consultative status at the United Nations and the Council of Europe" (WSPA Home Page). Cooperation with those multi-national entities is helpful for the kind of work WSPA does, which often includes groundwork in nations with unstable governments or can include opposing commonplace cultural practices, as will be discussed later.

The history of the organization spans more than fifty years. WSPA as it operates today was "created in 1981 through the merger of the World Federation for the Protection of Animals (WFPA), founded in 1953, and the International Society for the Protection of Animals (ISPA), founded in 1959" (WSPA Give). The organization expanded in the 1980's, when "new field offices were established in Costa Rica, Brazil, Colombia, and Canada which considerably increased the scope of the society's investigations and projects" (WSPA Give).

The organization's scope is broad, as WSPA is "the world's largest alliance of animal welfare societies" (WSPA Home Page). This fact also points out the structure of the organization, which is that it operates in a web of "more than 1,000 member organizations in over 150 countries" (WSPA Home Page). These member organizations work in concert with the overall mission of the organization, but have individual concerns and focuses. They are supported by the centralized structure of the WSPA, which includes "13 offices and hundreds of thousands of supporters worldwide" (WSPA Home Page). As such, what is ostensibly an organization with a simple mission has been manifested into a wide-reaching, powerful, global non-profit.

A core belief system is at the heart of the WSPA, as outlined on their website. The belief statement published there offers a view into the values that underlie WSPA's work. This is of crucial importance, given that there is a wide variety of interpretation into animal welfare. In addition, there are a multitude of wildlife and animal charities, and they vary widely in terms of radicality of belief, political motivation, amount of support, method of application of support, and other issues. Where these organizations diverge is likely to be found in their foundational beliefs.

Three core beliefs of the WSPA are outlined, each of which is worth further exploration. The first is that "animals have biologically determined instincts, interests and natures, and can experience pain and suffering" (WSPA Home Page). This belief illuminates the idea that the WSPA is interested in alleviating suffering wherever they find it. Accordingly, where they find an animal in physical pain, they will want to change its circumstances. The other aspect of this statement is the recognition that animals are autonomous creatures, whose instincts should not be compromised. This statement could be extended to imply that those interests should not be compromised for human gain or exploitation.

The second belief is "each individual animal has intrinsic value, and…it is the responsibility of humans to ensure that their welfare is respected and protected" (WSPA Home Page). The belief reveals that not only are animals collectively important, but each one deserves to be protected. This attitude is evident in the direct aid work that WSPA accomplishes, as they do not just raise awareness or lobby governments, but also provide on the ground relief work in crisis situations involving animals. In fact, the belief statement goes on to say that "the key difference between animal conservation and animal welfare is that conservation focuses on species, populations and habitats, whereas welfare focuses on the individual animal" (WSPA Home Page). This distinction is obviously important to WSPA and paints a picture of an organization that promotes getting involved with animals on a personal level and not thinking of them in a more global way. Also this second belief statement quite pointedly puts the onus on the human population to care for animals. It advocates an active approach to preserving animal welfare, rather than seeing passive methods as being sufficient.

Lastly, the third belief espoused is that "animals should live their lives free from avoidable suffering at the hands of humans, rather than be used inhumanely as 'raw materials' for the benefit of mankind" (WSPA Home Page). This belief has numerous implications, some of which are potentially controversial. The core idea is that animals, as has been said, are autonomous and worthy of respect as individuals and that human beings are not justified in using them for their own amusement, gain, or other self-interest. It is a notion which runs counter to the traditional concept of man's dominion over the animals. Instead, it advances the worldview that animals and people are partners in the world, rather than adversaries.

One of the more interesting aspects of the WSPA is their variety of projects and the different methods with which they are carried out. They campaign in both grassroots and legislative ways against unethical animal practices instigated by humans, such as bullfighting, bear farming, bear dancing, bear baiting (a brutal sport whereby fighting dogs attack defenseless bears), factory farming, whaling, and the capturing and keeping of dolphins (WSPA Home Page). The WSPA are also involved in supporting bear and orangutan sanctuaries, necessary for abuses caused from loss of habitat or the aforementioned blood sports. Domestically, WSPA is also concerned with the treatment of companion animals (more commonly called "pets"). They promote "responsible pet ownership, humane stray management, and cruelty prevention" (WSPA Home Page). These campaigns are multi-faceted, but all have the goal of stopping existing transgressions against specific animal populations.

Along with the previously discussed sanctuaries, education is provided to the local communities in which they are built, which is important in preventing future attacks. Educational outreach also takes the form of training teachers in Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Kenya and Thailand, to teach their own young students the benefits of animal welfare (WSPA Home Page). Another initiative is Concepts in Animal Welfare vocational training, which is a program that "facilitate[s] teaching animal welfare at veterinary faculties worldwide" (WSPA Home Page). Education and advocacy are aimed at local populations, tourists, government officials, teachers and community leaders, veterinary staff, and young people. In casting such a wide net for its message, the WSPA can hope to both stop existing infringements against animal rights, but also prevent new ones.

Another substantial part of the WSPA's work is in disaster management. They operate as front-line workers in areas where natural disasters, man-made events like wars, and other large-scale catastrophes have occurred and provide direct aid to animals in need. The WSPA is eager to note that this work protects the livelihoods of people in the areas it aids. The protection is manifested most particularly in their assistance with farms in crisis, as many rural families rely on the survival of their animals to make ends meet. Disaster relief is carried out in the following ways: 1) Risk reduction (setting up "national warning systems and show[ing] people how to prepare for disasters"), 2) rapid response (emergency veterinary care, feeding, and reuniting animals with their owners), and 3) rehabilitation (restorative veterinary care and educating stricken areas on future practices) (WSPA Home Page). WSPA staff perform the disaster relief, often with the involvement of member organizations.

A 1998 Boston Globe article recounted the story of hurricane-ravaged Honduras and the ensuing rescue operation conducted by World Society for the Protection of Animals. The article describes the "sole mission" of the organization as being saving as many animals as possible (Rodriguez). But saving animals is not the only concern. The spokeswoman at the time, Laura Satlter, noted that "By helping the animals we're helping the people because livestock is an important part of their lives, as food and as an economic resource" (Rodriguez). More recent disaster efforts have taken place after Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Asian tsunami, and are currently underway in Haiti and Japan.

The most potentially influential and yet least direct work that the WSPA does is in its support of the "Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare," a document currently in draft form which is "a declaration of our duty to respect animals and their welfare needs would have a long-term impact on the welfare of billions of animals and people worldwide" (WSPA Home Page). The goal is to get this document adopted formally by the United Nations in order to "encourage governments to improve and enforce national animal welfare legislation by providing a benchmark," and to "encourage industries which use animals to keep welfare at the forefront," among other possible benefits.

The organizational structure at WSPA is slightly different than that of other non-profits, which stands to reason given their manifold projects and initiatives. Their architecture is of a highly collaborative model, incorporating the efforts of many partner organizations they call the "Member Society Network" (WSPA Home Page). The organization feels that there is strength in the size and span of the network, which they term "an international force that governments and decision makers cannot fail to listen to…helping to create a momentum of positive change for animals worldwide" (WSPA Home Page). These member organizations take many forms, including "large national organizations, covering a range of welfare issues…[and] small specialist groups, working on specific problems" (WSPA Home Page). The network makes WSPA an international organization in the truest sense, given that it reaches into so many different parts of the world, including remote locales where other non-profits may not have a large presence.

Animal welfare organizations are often the focus of controversy and ridicule. The very term "animal welfare" calls to mind a politically progressive agenda, possibly accompanied by a lack of concern for human welfare. The WSPA clearly does not want to be lumped in with these kinds of ideas. They are careful, for instance, to note the ways in which their disaster work benefits the people in local communities and not just the animals. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to find several practices and interests which could create public relations problems even for those inclined to support animal welfare.

One instance of a controversial issue taken on by the WSPA is the treatment of companion animals. The official point-of-view of the organization is that "all animals owned by or under the care of humans should be kept in conditions appropriate to the needs of the species. Where the physiological and behavioral needs of a species cannot be met, the animals should not be captive" (WSPA Home Page). Both in America and abroad, companion animals are widely available and often little prevents their owners from caring for them in whatever fashion they please. While most countries and municipalities have laws protecting against physical abuse against pets, there is often not much said about the quality of conditions in which animals must be housed. The problem here lies in how widely standards vary in different communities, often attributable to the income and culture of the family keeping the animals. For example, for some people keeping a dog outside only is the norm and to invite it in would be considered unsanitary or simply unorthodox. But does this meet, as the WSPA notes, "the needs of the species"? Possibly not. Thus the organization's language could create confusion and engender bad feelings even from the most responsible of pet owners.

Also of concern is the use of the word "captive" in their policy, since many owners are loathe to see their companion animals as prisoners, but rather see them as members of the family who choose to remain with their owners as much as their owners have chosen to provide for them. There could also be hypocrisy found in this statement, given that if the animals are truly captive, is there ever any justification for keeping them, whether they are treated well or not? Other animal rights organizations are often split on this issue, with some condemning the practice of raising and keeping of companion animals altogether.

Another potentially hot button topic, and one that might differ from many other mainstream animal welfare organizations, is the attitude of the WSPA toward animal slaughter. Their official website states that "methods of killing animals are critical as the process can often cause extreme pain and distress before death occurs. WSPA advocates humane slaughter methods" (WSPA Home Page). The statement reads as a tacit approval of the practice of slaughter for human consumption, which runs counter to a vegetarian lifestyle championed by other animal rights organizations. Here, another argument for a hypocritical outlook could be made, given that the WSPA wishes to end pain and suffering for animals and opposes their use as "raw materials" for human beings.

Both of the potential public relations problems mentioned call attention to the fine line that the WSPA must walk as an animal welfare organization. They can not find themselves being too radical in their advocacy of animals to the point where it is at the expense of human beings, or they will lose the confidence of the people in the communities in which they work, often people whose education into animal rights has been limited. They would also risk losing the support of conservative or even middle of the road donors, who might not want to ally themselves with an agenda that opposes activities in which they regularly participate and which are viewed as mainstream in American culture, like meat consumption and pet ownership. On the other hand, the WSPA also must be proactive enough to satisfy their base donation pool, which likely ranges from the average animal lover to the animal rights fanatic. They can endorse the keeping and killing of animals, but must emphasize how to do these things in the fairest ways available. Out of this concern comes initiatives like "the Pet Respect Campaign which seeks to alleviate the plight of millions of unwanted companion animals that are often indiscriminately destroyed through cruel methods" (WSPA Give). Responsible companion animal ownership is then praised and supported.

Several key publics have been mentioned, including employees of the organization and member network organizations, governmental bodies to which the WSPA is tied, and perhaps most prominently their base of donors, including corporate donors and individuals. Communication to these publics takes many forms, comprising official reports, press releases, marketing videos, advertising, lectures and classroom presentations, and direct mailings.

As previously noted, WSPA's well-organized and comprehensive internet presence is represented by their website and YouTube channel. Their internet videos feature multiple languages, befitting the international nature of their missions. They also contain emotional pleas, often with frank and brutal depictions of some of the inhumane practices against which the WSPA is fighting. These ads have the effect of not merely informing the viewer, but shocking and disturbing them into action.

There is also more uplifting content, such as WSPA's annual "Achievements" videos, which act as a kind of thank you note to their donors, and catalogue the previous years' efforts. The 2010 video, for example, updates viewers on a petition to the South Korean government which resulted in "a process that could…end…the country's bear farming industry" and one to the Catalonian Parliament in Spain that demands a bullfighting ban which was passed (WSPAUSA). By using this platform to tout their successes, the WSPA bolsters its reputation while seeking new converts.

The YouTube channel also houses a series of public service announcements entitled "Animals Matter" that features celebrities like actress Tiffani Thiessen and singer Leona Lewis recounting the roles animals play in their lives and touting the good work the WSPA does. For instance, television personality Simon Cowell says that on the worst day of his life, he was comforted by the affection of his pet dog. He goes on to point out that "People [say] that animals don't feel pain, don't suffer. Trust me, it's complete and utter rubbish. If you mistreat an animal, it will be distressed and they feel pain the way we do" (WSPAUSA). The effect of these celebrity endorsements is an increased relatability to the organization, as in, these pop culture staples are in favor of this organization, and so should we be. The celebrity names are also highly searched on sites like YouTube, so fans of these individuals might see a WSPA when they were simply seeking content related to the object of their fandom. This accidental receipt of the WSPA message is useful, particularly in how it might recruit young people to change their way of thinking about animals.