My vibe is that you arenât genuinely interested in exploring the right messaging strategy for animal advocacy; if Iâm wrong feel free to message me.
A separate nitpick of your post: it doesnât seem fair to say that âShrimp Welfare Project focuses onâ ablation, if by that you meant âprimarily works on.â Perhaps thatâs not what you meant, but since other people might interpret it the same way I did, Iâll just share a few points in the interest of spreading an accurate impression of what the shrimp welfare movement is up to:
SWP primarily works on changing how shrimp are killed, not ablation. Their Humane Slaughter Initiative is listed first on their list of interventions.
In fact, they donât list anything related to eyestalk ablation on their interventions list at all; it appears they just write up a profile when a company reports phasing out eyestalk ablation, but it doesnât seem like they are actively campaigning on it.
In support of that theory, SWPâs guesstimate model on their impact doesnât include eyestalk ablation reforms; it only counts their shrimp stunning work.
Recent campaign wins in the UK were for eyestalk ablation and stunning (e.g., item 4 on the Tesco welfare policy), not just ablation, and that the Mercy For Animals announcement on it is clear that ablation only happens to breeding females. As far as I am aware, all shrimp welfare campaigning that includes eyestalk ablation also includes other higher-impact reforms in their ask.
The right messaging strategy long-term is to be transparent, honest and rational. Shortcutting this is risky, through the three mechanisms I mentioned in last comment.
SWP doesnât primarily focus on ablation. Where they do, they should keep in mind and make it clear that theyâre talking about <0.1% of farmed shrimp.
My vibe is that you arenât genuinely interested in exploring the right messaging strategy for animal advocacy; if Iâm wrong feel free to message me.
A separate nitpick of your post: it doesnât seem fair to say that âShrimp Welfare Project focuses onâ ablation, if by that you meant âprimarily works on.â Perhaps thatâs not what you meant, but since other people might interpret it the same way I did, Iâll just share a few points in the interest of spreading an accurate impression of what the shrimp welfare movement is up to:
SWP primarily works on changing how shrimp are killed, not ablation. Their Humane Slaughter Initiative is listed first on their list of interventions.
In fact, they donât list anything related to eyestalk ablation on their interventions list at all; it appears they just write up a profile when a company reports phasing out eyestalk ablation, but it doesnât seem like they are actively campaigning on it.
In support of that theory, SWPâs guesstimate model on their impact doesnât include eyestalk ablation reforms; it only counts their shrimp stunning work.
Recent campaign wins in the UK were for eyestalk ablation and stunning (e.g., item 4 on the Tesco welfare policy), not just ablation, and that the Mercy For Animals announcement on it is clear that ablation only happens to breeding females. As far as I am aware, all shrimp welfare campaigning that includes eyestalk ablation also includes other higher-impact reforms in their ask.
The right messaging strategy long-term is to be transparent, honest and rational. Shortcutting this is risky, through the three mechanisms I mentioned in last comment.
SWP doesnât primarily focus on ablation. Where they do, they should keep in mind and make it clear that theyâre talking about <0.1% of farmed shrimp.