Chapter Three examined how some state governments’ decisions changed legislation to accommodate for the rabbit’s commercial use. For example, an amendment to the Meat Industry Act 1978 (NSW) in 1998818
defined the domestic rabbit as an ‘abattoir animal’, separating them from the wild rabbit defined as a ‘[g]ame animal that is not husbanded in the manner of a farmed animal and is killed in the field: rabbit’.819 As such,
within the context of ‘abattoir animals’, domestic rabbits were now defined as animals purposefully bred for food.820
It is also clear, based on the investigation of rabbit regulation made in Chapter Three, that inconsistencies in the treatment and welfare protection of rabbits are not related to their biology or sentience as a species, but on their economic role, such as food, research or as companion animals. The implication of sentience that comes with some definitions such as companion animals attaches intrinsic value to animals and gives them moral worth, from which would follow that it is wrong for humans to inflict unnecessary suffering on them. However, reducing rabbits to economic units legitimises humans to inflict ‘necessary’ suffering on animals if a substantial benefit to humans is likely to occur, such as in the industries of food and research.821
The effect of categorising sentient animals such as ‘pet’, ‘pest’ or ‘profit’ on perceptions of their intrinsic value and capacity to suffer has been documented by several authors.822 Some of those findings, in
particular those which are applicable to rabbits, are summarised below. Where the term ‘profit animal’ is used, it is in line with the literature presented, and is taken to mean those rabbits used as food resources in the context of this discussion.
In Animals, Equality and Democracy,823 political scientist Siobhan O’Sullivan argues that the internal
inconsistency in the way rabbits are treated is evident in her categorization of them as either ‘free living’ or ‘captive’ groups.824 The rabbit as a free living being is perceived as an undesirable animal or ‘pest’ species
whose life is affected by environmental conservation and ‘pest control’ laws,825 rather than animal welfare
Acts.826 However, as shown in the preceding chapters, the exclusion of rabbits from animal welfare Acts goes
beyond free living rabbits. It extends to captive rabbits, such as rabbits killed for food, as discussed in Section 3.3.2.1. Therefore, unless defined as a companion animal, rabbits do not enjoy protection under Australian animal welfare statutes.
In a study by Wilkins and colleagues on the attribution of emotions to animals categorised as ‘pets, pests and profit’, it was found that animals are stripped of their moral standing when serving as ‘profit’ animals to humans, such as rabbits used for food. This also applied to rabbits viewed as a ‘pest’, causing what the author describes as a ‘disengagement of animals from the moral inner circle’.827 According to Wilkins, this
disengagement disenfranchises animal use for profit and pests from many animal welfare protections.828 For
example, as a companion animal, a rabbit would be protected directly by animal welfare Acts.829 However,
under economic use, rabbits used for food, for example, can be excluded from the welfare Acts either directly or indirectly through mandated codes of practice or standards of slaughter, as discussed in Chapters Three and Four.830
In addition to the above, a study by Taylor and colleagues showed that social attitudes towards animals often differ as a function of species of animal, rather than by an issue concerning the animal such as an act of
818 Meat Industry Amendment Act 1998 (NSW) Schedule 1 819 Ibid S4(1)(A)
820 More recently, in NSW, the definition of domestic rabbits as abattoir animals has moved into the Food Act 2003 (NSW) and its regulation, under Clause 83 and clause 89 of the Food Regulation 2015 (NSW).
821GARNER, R., Animals, Ethics and Public Policy (2010) 81 The Political Quarterly, 126.
822 LOUGHNAN, S. et al, The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals (2010) 55 Appetite 156–159; BASTIAN, B. et al, Don't Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption (2012) 38 Pers Soc Psychol Bull 247.
823 O’SULLIVAN, S., Animals, Equality and Democracy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011). 824 Ibid 29.
825 Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 (NSW); Local Lands Services Act 2013 (NSW); Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Vic); Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (WA); Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT); Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (NT); Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA); Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 (Qld); Vermin Control Act 2000 (Tas).
826 O’SULLIVAN, S., Animals, Equality and Democracy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011) 29.
827 WILKINS, A.M. et al, Factors affecting the Human Attribution of Emotions toward Animals (2015) 28:3 Anthrozoös, 367. 828 Ibid.
829 For example, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2012 (NSW).
830 For example, under section 24(1)(b)(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW), it is not an offence for a person to undertake the act of ‘destroying the animal, or preparing the animal for destruction, for the purpose of producing food for human consumption, in a manner that inflicted no unnecessary pain upon the animal’.
cruelty.831 This is evident in Australia by the lack of attention rabbits have received in the number of media
reports on cruelty in intensive farms, as opposed to caged hens within the egg industry, for example, which could be the result of an ingrained cultural view of the rabbit as a ‘pest’ species.
The prejudice against rabbits as a species was also highlighted in a study by Sevillano and Fiske that examined the status of animals as social beings.832 In their study, farm animals and rabbits were perceived as
lacking physical or cognitive abilities, which made them an appropriate tool for humans to use and consume.833
In addition, the level of tameness and passiveness of caged farmed animals, such as rabbits, in comparison to their wild counterparts834 meant that they were disrespected due to the belief that they possessed low
intelligence and low status.835 These animals invoked feelings of indifference in people.836 This again, as
mentioned above, is reflected in the low attention rabbits have had in the Australian media on their current intensive farmed conditions.
Society’s perception of rabbits as food animals or ‘pests’, compared to domestic companions, was explored in a semiotic analysis by Torosyan et al.837 In this analysis, Torosyan referenced rabbits on a
‘sociozoological scale’ whereby they were classified according to their economic worth and social position.838
A sociozoological scale is not based on biological differences, sentience or suffering, but on ‘how well animals contribute to reinforcing the social order’ which classifies them as either good or bad.839
On the sociozoological scale, at one end there are ‘good’ animals with a high moral status such as ‘pets’. In contrast, ‘bad’ animals have a low moral status because their subordinate place is unclear or because they no longer remain quietly out of sight such as a ‘pest’.840 Torosyan’s sociozoological scale revealed a growing
trend in western society’s perception of rabbits as domestic companions requiring ethical treatment, rescue and care.841 This was closely followed by the perception of rabbits as profit, such as food animals.842 Most of
the articles focusing on rabbits as ‘pests’ peaked around 1995-2002 and were centralised in Australia and New Zealand.843 This was directly related to research on chemicals and viruses to eradicate the rabbit.844
Although the results from the study above involve western society, it is uncertain how far they can be applied to perceptions of the rabbits in Australia. There are very few statistics available in Australia on domestic rabbits as companions or those used for their meat. This is partly due to rabbits being included in statistics as part of ‘other livestock farming’,845 or defined under ‘other animals’ in companion acts and not
required by law to be registered.846 However, the popularity of the domestic rabbit as a companion places
them in fifth position after other companion animals,847 a position which seems to have been stable for over a
decade as indicated in a study conducted in 2007,848 followed by a survey conducted by Animal Medicines
Australia in 2016.849 Intensive Rabbit meat farms are on the decline due to animal welfare and disease issues
according to the Rural Industries Research and Development Centre (RIRDC),850 although the demand for
rabbit meat is increasing.851 All available statistics on rabbits in Australia concern those obtained from wild
831 TAYLOR, N.- SIGNAL, T.T., Pet, Pest, Profit: isolating differences in attitudes towards the treatment of animals (2009) 22 Anthrozoos, 134.
832 SEVILLANO, V.- FISKE, S.T., Animals as Social Objects: Groups, Stereotypes, and Intergroup Threats (2016) European Psychologist, 14.
833 Ibid. 834 Ibid 15. 835 Ibid. 836 Ibid.
837 TOROSYAN, G.F.- LOWE, B., Nobody Wants to Eat Them Alive: Ethical Dilemmas and Dual Media Narratives on Domestic Rabbits as Pets and Commodity (2013) 2012 (9) Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association 7.
838 Ibid 2. 839 Ibid.
840 TOROSYAN, G.F.- LOWE, B., Nobody Wants to Eat Them Alive: Ethical Dilemmas and Dual Media Narratives on Domestic Rabbits as Pets and Commodity (2013) 2012 (9) Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association 2.
841 Ibid 32. 842 Ibid. 843 Ibid 16. 844 Ibid.
845 Australian Bureau of Statistics Counts of Australian Businesses, including Entries and Exits, Jun 2007 to Jun 2009.
846 The rabbit falls under the definition of ‘any other animal that is prescribed by the regulations as a companion animal’ under section 5 of Companion Animal Act 1998 (NSW) s5.
847 Animal Medicines Australia, Pet Ownership in Australia 2016 (2016) <http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/AMA_Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2016-Report_sml.pdf>, 10.
848 FRANKLIN, A., Human-Nonhuman Animal Relationships in Australia: An Overview of Results from the First National Survey and Follow-up Case Studies 2000-2004’ (2007) 15 Society and Animals 9.
849 Animal Medicines Australia, Pet Ownership in Australia 2016 (2016) <http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/AMA_Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2016-Report_sml.pdf>
850 WILLIAMS, S.- PATTINSON, R., Animal Industries Five Year RD&E Plan 2013-2018 (2014) 14/055 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Publication, 5-6.
rabbits,852 reflecting the main interest in rabbits as having been driven by their common status as a “pest” in
all Australian jurisdictions.853
Labels humans attach to animals such as pet, pest, or food animals will deeply influence human behaviour and emotion depending on their interests towards the animals, inspiring their ethical stance by them.854 This in turn drives public opinion and eventually reform towards the animals’ wellbeing. As DeMello
explains, ‘It's the way that people look at them [rabbits] that varies so wildly’.855 For example, the New
Zealand White Rabbit can be used as food, research and as a companion,856 which subsequently includes them
under different animal welfare provisions (see Table 7). The Australian Guidelines for the Housing of Rabbits
in Scientific Institutions and the MCOPIHR compared in Table 7 are based on one breed of rabbit, the New
Zealand White. Yet, taking the space requirements as an example, the animal welfare legislation favours rabbits in research, ultimately giving them enough space for three hops as compared to an area equivalent to an A4 sheet of paper for rabbits in meat farms.
According to Torosyan, the societal transition in attitudes towards the rabbit can be explained by the philosophical concept of ‘constructiveness’ as ‘[s]ocietal understanding of an object, practice, and/or phenomena is subject to change over time if the socially constructed categories are not maintained or are altered by social actors and should not be understood as being permanent’.857 Therefore, opportunities can
exist as part of advocacy for a change in moral attribution of rabbits, based on education on their behaviours and promotion of their suffering endured in caged environments.
It is in this way that the categorisation of rabbits in Australia needs to shift. This of course requires that public perception of rabbits changes. Such a change would be an incremental step towards banning rabbit meat farms. However, banning the cage would require that legislative amendments be grounded in morality, such as the current movement against the hen battery cages.858 There are significant challenges in achieving
this outcome, in particular that at the moment rabbits are demonised and pushed to the margins of our moral attributions as ‘pests’. This is also evidenced by the lack of public awareness of animal welfare issues within rabbit meat farms since their conception in 1987 until the first footage aired publicly in 2016.
Is it possible to shift Australian society’s entrenched attitudes towards the rabbit? There are very few studies into the complex emotional behaviour of rabbits859 and a considerable amount of campaigning against
them, according to their status as ‘pests’ in Australia. Although reform and public education are difficult, there are points of leverage that can be identified. For example, the increasing popularity of the rabbit as a companion could become a door into incremental reform. This is reinforced by the concern raised by the CSIRO division of rabbit management into the increased popularity of rabbits as companion animals:
‘[i]ncreased popularity of pet rabbits may cause the general public to become more favourably disposed towards rabbits. This may make it more difficult to educate the community about the need for rabbit management. When a child’s pet rabbit succumbs to myxomatosis, there is often a strong family reaction against the use of the disease in Australia. Greater community awareness and understanding of the impact of rabbits on natural environments and agriculture in Australia is needed to counteract these attitudes.’860
Following along the lines of incremental change, I will turn to discuss Robert Garner’s perspective on incremental reform861 and Henry Spira’s step-by-step advocacy strategies862 as providing the foundations for
law reform and wellbeing for domestic rabbits.
News (online) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-21/rabbit-meat-disappearing-from-australian-tables/5400586>.
852 Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, Rabbit Biocontrol in Australia <https://www.pestsmart.org.au/rabbit-biocontrol-in- australia-key-facts/>.
853 Centre for Invasive Species Solution, Rabbit Legislation in Australia <https://www.pestsmart.org.au/pestsmart-factsheet-rabbit- legislation-in-australia/>.
854 HERZOG, H., The Moral Status of Mice (1988) 43(6) American Psychologist, 473.
855 DEMELLO, M.- DAVIS, S.E., Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature (Lantern Book, 2003) 263.
856 For breed traits see Cross Road Rabbitry, New Zealand Whites <http://www.crossroadsrabbitry.com/about-new-zealand-white- rabbits/>.
857 TOROSYAN, G.F.- LOWE, B., Nobody Wants to Eat Them Alive: Ethical Dilemmas and Dual Media Narratives on Domestic Rabbits as Pets and Commodity (2013) 2012 (9) Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association 5.
858 ANDERSON, J., Protection for the Powerless: Political Economy History Lessons for the Animal Welfare Movement (2011) 4 Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy 13
859 Email from Marc Bekoff to Author, 16 April 2018; Email from Margo DeMello to Author, 01 June 2018.
860 WILLIAMS, K. et al, Managing Vertebrate Pests: Rabbits, Bureau of Resource Sciences and CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology. Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra (1995) 99
861 GARNER, R., Political Ideology and the legal status of animals (2002) 8 Animal Law 80.