Lego strategic analysis

Lego strategic analysis Introduction: This essay will consider firstly the position of Lego in relation to both the constraints of the internal and external environment in the lead up to 2004. The essay will then go on to consider the position of the Lego group from 2005 onwards paying particular attention to how the company has reacted to adapt its internal resources in order to meet the needs of the external environment. The Lego group up to 2004: In 2004 the Lego group was under the leadership of CEO Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, the company faced a large number of problems including posting a loss for the year of DKK 1,800m despite a group turnover of DKK 6,295m. As a result Kristiansen stepped down from the chiromancy and deposited a further DKK 800,000 of personal funds into the company. Despite these headline figures the problems facing the Lego group in 2004 many be considered has having a longer history than the single year of such great losses and be routed in both problems in the internal and external environment. Five Forces Analysis Porter (2004) outlines five forces which have an impact upon a business coming from the external environment and include the following elements which will now be considered individually: Level of rivalry Power of buyers Power of suppliers Threat of substitutes Threat of entrants Level of rivalry The overall level of rivalry may be seen as relatively intense for the Lego group in the run up until the end of 2004. Whilst Lego occupies a strong position in the market for construction toys with relatively few rivals one must consider that Lego is now competing in boarder market of childrens entertainment which in the lead up to 2004 began in include large incumbents from the electronics sector such as Sega and Nintendo. Power of buys The power of the buyer in the case of Lego may be seen as relatively high with low switching costs between alternative toys and even substitute products such as video games and television. Power of suppliers The power of suppliers may be seen as average, Legos products on the whole may be seen as largely based upon standardised inputs such as plastics and chemicals. There is the consideration that were Lego chooses to move into non-traditional areas such as sets associated with films or games the power of suppliers will increase as a key input becomes that of licences which is a form of intellectual property. Threat of substitutes This may be seen as the largest threat to the Lego group in the run up to the end of 2004. Although it is difficult to define what market a company occupies (Grant 2008, Porter 2004) for the purpose of considering the impact of substitution one must consider Lego to be a provider of childrens entertainment. In this case the threat from substitutes are rather high given that consumers may substitute between alternative traditional toys such as action figures or toy cars through to electronic products such as video games and television. Threat of new entrants The threat of new entrants into both the smaller traditional toys market and the wider childrens entrainments market may be seen as relatively low in the run up until 2004 largely for similar reasons. In order to enter these markets there is the requirement for significantly high levels of investment in both the form of capital investments and research and development costs both of which act as barriers to entry and thus restrict the number of new entrants (Porter 2004). SWOT analysis A key tool in considering the overall strategic fit is that of a SWOT analysis, a SWOT analysis considers both a companys internal elements (Strengths and Weaknesses) and attempts to considers how these factors fit against the external elements of Opportunities and Threats (Lynch 2008). Strengths Legos key strengths may be seen as coming from both its brand recognition and its ability to use innovative technology without moving away from the companys core values. Whilst there are many other competitors in the toy or childrens entertainment market Lego remains the brand of choice in the field of construction toys despite the fall of other long term historical brand such as Meccano (VA 2010) and the rise of alternative substitute products such as video games (BBC News 2004). As the case study indicates despite the traditional nature of the Lego offering the company has a strong association with contemporary IT, design and manufacturing systems which help to make the product both more durable as well as helping to reduce manufacturing costs thus making the field of technology as key strength for the business. Weaknesses Legos key weakness in the run up to 2004 may be seen as two fold. Firstly the company has failed in a key area of the understanding of marketing in regard to understanding the needs of their customers which may be seen as the focal point of the marketing concept (Brassington and Pettitt 2007). This can be clearly seen in the role out of the Explorer range, in this case the company designed a product which failed to appeal to those who were not buying Lego products but subsequently didnt meet the needs of those who were buying the current Lego products. The second weakness of the Lego group in the run up to the changes at the end of 2004 may be seen as the lack of ability to translate key corporate strengths and innovations into implemented strategies. Such considerations are demonstrated by Legos initial development of such innovative actions such as programmable parts for its Technic range as far back as 1986 but a contradictory failure to react to further developments in manufactur ing processes such as CAM and CAD or product developments such as those associated with video games until much later. Opportunities and Threats The opportunities and threats to Lego in the run up until the end of 2004 may be seen as indivisibly linked representing a threat or opportunity based upon Legos reaction to the element hence they will be considered together. The largest threat to Lego may be seen as the changing nature of the market in the run up until 2004. Whilst Lego has remained the market leader in construction toys there must be the consideration that for a large part there has been a decline in the overall market for traditional toys has children have increasingly substituted to alternative forms of entrainments largely in the electronics sector. Despite the threat to Legos core product offering in this trend in the run up to 2004 there was also a significant opportunity for Lego to use such threats as opportunities to generate spine of sales in the form of Lego sets associated with games and films as well as the development of non-traditional Lego products presenting Lego with the opportunity to diversify (Johnson et al 2008). Previous to 2004 Lego had already made some diversifications into the areas of direct retails with its Lego stores and the opening of its Lego Land amusement parks, this however represented at the time a co nsiderable opportunity for further development. The Lego group 2005 and beyond: This section will now consider the position of Lego from 2005 onwards and as such will attempt to consider how Lego has adapted to the issues highlighted as facing the company in the run up to and including 2004. In the first instance one should consider that at the start of 2005 Lego started with a new CEO and by the end of the year posted a profit of DKK 214 a figure which has since risen in 2008 to DKK 1,352. Structure: In the first instance the structure of the Lego group may be seen as changing significantly since 2004. The first change for the companys structure may be seen as beginning with the appointment of a new CEO an action which may be seen as both a large pragmatic change for any organisation but also a significant one from a symbolic perspective (Mullins 2009). Such a change has allowed Lego to re-define its operations allowing the company to move into new diversified markets such as the use of the Lego brand in relation to computer games and the production of traditional sets which are related to television and cinematic spin offs. Other structural changes relate to the companies operations, operations in counties with relatively high labour costs such as Europe and the US have been outsourced to companies in Singapore and Mexico respectively. In addition the companys operations in the Czech Republic whilst remaining under the ownership of the Lego group have been put under the day to day management of the companies joint venture partner Flextronics. These structural changes which have taken place within Legos operational function have allowed the company to make significant savings in labour costs. Despite these advantages there must also be the consideration that there are some draw backs. In outsourcing production there is the consideration that Lego will lose some of the control it had over its operations previously (Slack 2009), this is a key consideration for Lego as the success of the company and its brand has previously relied on a high association with good quality, something which may be damaged if ou tsourcing is not managed correctly. HR: The companys HR policy may be seen as a true test of the organisations wider values against a back drop of changing economic conditions. On the one hand the companys policies may be seen as facilitation an organisation which values organisational learning and development through the medium of its staff. Such considerations can be seen in the specific deployment of such policies of continuous improvement which is a key contributor to the companys high standards for product quality. Despite this following such heavy losses in 2004 Lego made significant reductions of staff from 5,604 in 2004 to a low of 4,199 in 2007 a figure which has since recovered dramatically to 5,388 in 2008. As such the company may be seen as demonstrating that whilst its organisational values are key to its success reductions will be made to adapt to market conditions were necessary. Another contradiction that one may consider is that the company in the case study maintains that it will meet the legal requiremen ts as a minimum in relation to its operations. This raises two concerns in the first case there is the consideration that all companies should in theory meet these minimum standards in any case and so this doesnt really form a policy so much as a statement of the obvious. In the second instance Lego in recent years has outsourced a considerable amount of its operations to areas such as the Far East were HR standards are often much lower (Hutchings 2001). One may consider that in these cases if Lego only aims to meet minimum standards then the policies outlined in earlier paragraphs represent an attempt to present the company in a positive light to consumers rather than attempt to create a genuine learning organisation. Culture/Values: Despite the changes which have been made since 2004 one may consider that such changes have not been at the expense of the companys wider culture and corporate values. In the lead up until 2004 the Lego group may be seen as largely having a corporate cultured built around offering a high quality differentiated product (Jobber 2007) in which the experience of the child as an end user is the key consideration. Despite branching out into alternative products Lego has maintained its commitment to product quality and key concepts such as not promoting war related themes in its product portfolio. From a innovation perspective one may see that Lego previous to 2004 had the technical abilities associated with an innovative culture however in more recent years one may see that the company has been much more successful at moving such innovations from the ideas stage into the implemented strategy stage. IT/Innovation: One of Legos key strategies since the restructuring of the company at the end of 2004 has been the companys attitude towards IT and innovation. In adapting to the new business environment Lego may be seen as adopting two key strategies in relation to innovation and technology. Firstly the company has used new forms of technology for internal manufacturing processes. Such innovations include the use of computer modelling and computer aided design and have allowed the company to speed up the design process as well as well as maintain the companys values in relation to quality and manufacturing tolerances which contribute to the consumer experience. Secondly the company has used IT and innovation in diversifying its product ranges, such innovations have seen adaptations of Legos traditional lines to incorporate more electronic features through to the outright diversification into new product areas such as computer games based upon a Lego theme or using the Lego brand. Such diversifications may be seen as providing a key hedge against the risk which is inherent in operating with a lower level of diversification (De Witt and Meyer 2004). From a strategic perspective this also shows the recognition on the behalf of Lego executives of the need to compete in a wider market than merely that of traditional childrens toys. As such the element of innovation may be seen as one of the most important elements in the turnaround of the companys fortunes since the end of 2004. Conclusions: Having considered the research there are a number of conclusions that may be drawn. Firstly in considering Legos potion previous to 2005 one could argue that the company had a strong set of internal resources but had failed to respond to changing external considerations in the market. The result of such a lack of strategic fit ultimately put the company in a relatively weak financial position generating substantial losses in 2004. Following the appointment of a new chairman in 2005 the company has successfully turned its fortunes around seeing that the key strengths of the company in the form of brand, technological innovation and corporate values have been used to create a strategic fit which matches the challenges of the contemporary business environment. One may take the view that whilst Lego will face significant challenges in the future due to the continuing nature of changes in the market the company has not adapted its structure and processes so as to be able to deal with such challenges successfully in the future.

I Remember When… :: Biology Essays Research Papers

I Remember When†¦ This paper was written by a student in a course at Bryn Mawr College, and reflects that student's research and thoughts at the time the paper was written. Like other things on Serendip, the paper is not intended to be "authoritative" but is instead provided to encourage others to themselves learn about and think through subjects of interest, and, by providing relevant web links, to serve as a "window" to help them do so. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. There's a standing joke in our family, or rather between my sister and I. It usually comes up at family get-togethers, about the time that we're all trying to decide what to do, where to go, or what to eat. Mom will say something like, "let's have that spaghetti casserole with turnip greens that I made at last summer's get-together, we all enjoyed it so much." Jackie and I will exchange a look that says, "gross, we hated that," and invariably Mom, seeing the look pass between us, will say in utter seriousness, "no, no. I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER. We all loved that casserole." What continually amuses both Jackie and I, is the degree of confidence with which Mom remembers the same event we do, but so differently. How can people be so certain and yet so mistaken about events in our own histories? And yet, it happens time and again, and not just in my family. The observation that episodic memory retrieval is vulnerable to distortion has been documented thoroughly. Even the pattern of errors can be predicted with some reliability. (1) In order to situate "episodic memory," it's useful to know several distinctions in memory research. The most basic one is between brief and enduring memories, called short-term memories (STM) (or working memory, WM), and long-term memory (LTM). Within LTM, there are qualitative distinctions, such as between explicit and implicit, and declarative and procedural -- both of these distinctions have to do with consciousness about the memory. Explicit/declarative memory encompasses facts, figures, and all of conscious memory. Its what we commonly refer to as memory. (2) This type of memory is flexible, fast, and specialized for one-time learning. (3) Procedural/implicit memory is thought to be the most durable memory, and encompasses learned habits, skills and things that you "know" but don't consciously think about.

The Kantian View of Animal Ethics

Kant’s Ethics of Metaphysics: A Response To the Charge of Speciesism I. In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists. I will attempt to substantiate Immanuel Kant’s view on animal morality and justify how his philosophy is not in violation of speciesism. Furthermore, I will explain how the Kantian view still grants animals some moral consideration through the designation of â€Å"indirect duties†. Lastly, I will present a difficulty with accepting the Kantian view of â€Å"indirect duties† towards animals.Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy. Contemporary applications of this issue can range from experimentations on animals for developing medicines (or even cosmetics) to whether human beings should avoid eating animal-based foods. There is a vast spectrum of moral issues that arise with respect to animals. However, most of the morally questionable situations are contingent on one fundamental question: do animals even have moral rights?And if so, to what extent? Although animal moral considerability has peaked the interest of many contemporary philosophers, such as James Rachels and Peter Singer, the question is really an age-old question that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Immanuel Kant has probed the question of whether an animal has moral considerability. Kant continuously makes the distinction between humans and animals throughout his best-known contributions to moral philosophy.Therefore, I will address and present the counter-argument to the charge of speciesism, one of critical arguments of the animal rights movement, through a Kantian lens. II. One of the prevailing charges on humanity proposed by champions of animal rights is that humans act in violation of ‘speciesism’. The term, first coined by psycho logist Richard Ryder in 1973, is used to describe an arbitrary bias that humans have towards their own species (Homo sapiens).The argument is as follows: to assign primacy to humans by considering only a human to be within the system of morality is similar to other types of discrimination, such as racism and sexism. Just as in racism and sexism the dominating force arbitrarily assumes itself as the normative ideal, in this case whites or males respectively, so too human beings arbitrarily assume themselves as the ideal and to be the only species deserving of morality. Therefore, because there is no legitimate basis for this distinction, other species of animals should be equally included within the system of morality.Ryder believes that those in violation of speciesism â€Å"overlook and underestimate the similarities between the discriminator (humans) and those discriminated against (animals or any other species). † His argument assumes that most animals are fundamentally th e same. Of course those who charge humanity to be guilty of ‘speciesism’ acknowledge that there are obvious differences between humans and non-humans. They just believe these differences to be irrelevant for delineating the scope of a moral system. Man’s higher intelligence, being the most conspicuous difference, should have no authority on morality.If intelligence were the decisive factor then it would follow that people who are intellectually superior should be treated with superior moral standards. Moreover, some apes could potentially have more intelligence than a human if the human was insane or otherwise intellectually compromised. Thus, although intelligence is the distinguishing factor between most human beings and non-humans, it cannot be the sole criterion for defining a moral system . III. It would appear that aside from intelligence (that has no moral bearing) there is no fundamental quality that separates humans and non-humans.Therefore, animals real ly should be treated with equal moral standards, and those who do not equate moral rights are guilty of speciesism. Philosopher Michael Pollan challenges Kant with being in violation of arbitrary discrimination of animals; â€Å"none of these (Kant’s) argument evade the charge of speciesism† (pg 439 Vice and Virtue). So we are left with the daunting question: is there any validity to Pollan’s claim? At first it would appear that Kant presupposes human beings as the only species worthy of morality without giving any explanatory criterion. Kant evelops one of his foundational doctrines called â€Å"The Categorical Imperative†, which can be summarized in the following sentence: â€Å"Act in such a way that you treat humanity in such a way, whether in ourselves or in others, as an end in itself† (Groundwork II). It seems that Kant believes that human beings bar none deserve what he calls ‘respect’ or what we are calling moral consideration . However, after a closer examination it becomes apparent that Kant is not guilty of speciesism at all. In a remarkably similar excerpt Kant says, â€Å"as rational beings, we must always at the same time be valued as ends (pg 239 4:430).It is almost as if Kant just substituted the phrase humanity with rational beings. When both excerpts are read in conjunction it becomes apparent that Kant includes human beings into his moral system not because of an arbitrary nepotism towards his own kind (homo sapiens) but because of a human being’s attribute of rationality. In other words, Kant’s criterion for moral considerability is rationality and not intelligence. When Kant says to treat humanity in such a way, he is referring to a human’s rational nature, which happens to be the unique quality of human beings and is thus presented as rationality’s synonym.According to Kant, rationality is not the same as intelligence and is what makes human beings worthy of mora l consideration and animals unworthy. Rationality is the ability to be governed autonomously and make advised decisions of what is right and wrong. It is not the ability to display reasoning skills. Therefore, a being, such as a chimpanzee with excellent cognitive abilities, cannot exercise rationality, which is Kant’s basis for morality. Human beings, on the other hand, belong to a ‘Kingdom of Ends’, where moral laws are meticulously chosen by each individual.This capability to discern and choose which laws have absolute moral worth binds all human beings in a cohesive moral community. Each member of this community has the authority to legislate and decide which laws are unconditional and then subsequently act in accordance with those laws. Not even the highest functioning chimpanzee has the capability to decide whether an action can be universally applied. Nor can a chimpanzee mull over the question â€Å"what ought I do? †. Thus it follows that a person only has obligations towards other beings that can obligate themselves, or act rationally.Kant chose rationality as the marker that defines the line of required morality because of its pureness. Rational knowledge is not influenced by history, anthropology or psychology. It is not qualified by emotion. Other potential values, such as intelligence, have the possibility of being used immorally; â€Å"Intelligence and wit are doubtless in many respects good and desirable but they can also become extremely harmful if the will†¦is not good (pg 231). † Consequently, a being’s rationality, the ability to decide whether an action is ‘good’ universally, is the only incorruptible value that could define the scope of morality..Now that it is clear that Kant is not guilty of speciesism, since his moral system is predicated on the standard of rationality, one can still ask how Kantian Ethics views animals. Kantian Ethics prescribes indirect duties towards animals . This means that it is wrong to act maliciously towards animals because it will damage a person’s sympathies. Damaging ones sympathies will inevitability lead to a failure of ones duties to others. On the one hand, animals cannot be granted direct duties, for they lack rationality. Their moral value is categorized in a sort of limbo between inanimate objects and human beings.On a practical level, a Kantian might perform the same actions towards animals as a Utilitarian would. But Kantian Ethics is problematic for many philosophers, at least in theory. Christina Hoff offers an example where a â€Å"kind† man spends his life fulfilling his duties to himself and towards other human beings except he secretly burns stray dogs to death. Despite how disturbing and wrong this seems, Kantian ethics does not consider this man as having committed any wrongful action in and of itself. The suffering of the dogs is only problematic as it affects our duties to rational beings.It is difficult to challenge the Kantian view of animals on philosophical grounds. The Kantian moral system is consistent in that it is rooted in the assumption that rationality alone has absolute moral value. To challenge this assumption would involve dismantling Kant’s entire moral system by showing why rationality is inadequate as the supreme value. When Kant is concerned with damaging our sympathies he is only concerned in so far as sympathies ability to promote rationality and the ability to fulfill ones duties. He does not award sympathy any independent value.Yet, to allow, even if just in theory, the scenario of the man burning dogs seems against common morality. To be indifferent to an animals suffering is intuitively immoral. An animal rights champion would be more likely do adopt a Utilitarian view, which incorporates suffering into the fabric of its moral system. IV. Consequently, Kant can evade attempts to label him guilty of speciesism. Kantian ethics does have a crite rion that differentiates humans and non-humans. With rationality as its hallmark, Kantian Ethics views animals as deserving of only indirect moral considerability.As Christine Korsgaard explains in her essay Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals, â€Å"moral laws may be viewed as the laws legislated by all rational beings in the Kingdom of Ends (pg 5) Animals incidentally do not share this capacity for rationality. But if they did, they would surely be included. Interestingly, when referring to animals he ambiguously labels them as a human being’s analogue. Perhaps Kant was identifying that animals have similar qualities such as intelligence that link us together. But animals are analogues and not exactly similar.As such, Kant grants animals some moral considerabilitiy, through indirect duties, but not equal moral considerability. A being earns moral considerability only through the capacity to implement the Categorical Imperative and exercise an autonomous level of cogni tion, not through reasoning skills or mathematical abilities. Therefore, animals rightfully have moral limitations. Works Cited: 1)Ryder, Richard. â€Å"Richard Ryder: All Beings That Feel Pain Deserve Human Rights | World News | The Guardian. † Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. 2)Kant, Immanuel, and H. J. Paton. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Print. 3)Sommers, Christina, Frederic Tamler Sommers. Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003. Print 4)Korsgaard, Christine M. â€Å"Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals. † Www. Tannerlectures. utah. edu. University of Utah Press Volume 25/26. Web Author’s personal website 5)Sebo, Jeff. â€Å"A Critique of the Kantian Theory of Indirect Moral Duties to Animals. † Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume II Pp. 1-14, 2004. Web.

Saving Pets From Death In Shelters Essay - 862 Words

A Mans Best Friend For many of us, the animals in our lives are our faithful pals who make us laugh, that keep us company and love us no matter what. But a man’s best friend doesn’t necessarily have to be a dog; I believe that any animal can be considered to be a man’s best friend. On the other hand they are many animals who don’t have the same luck as other animals do. For those animals life is hard for them on the streets .Most animals on the streets often suffer from hunger, illness, tumors, skin infections and open sores. They would often fight over the limited amounts of food found on the streets. They seek food and shelter in communities and they are sometimes seen as a nuisance and health hazard by the people who live along them.†¦show more content†¦Therefore there are many associations in Los Angeles fighting to protect animal’s rights and helping homeless animals find a home. The NKLA (No Kill Los Angeles) is an alliance of animal welfare organizations that open their doors on August 1 2013, led by city shelters and passionate individuals, creating a best friends animal society. NKLA is dedicated to ending the killing pets in Los Angeles shelters by providing spay/neuter services where they are needed the most and increasing ado ptions ,so fewer animals go into shelters; so more animals come out of the shelters and go into new homes. According to the June statistics from Los Angeles Animal Services, animal shelter deaths decreased 25 percent in June compared with the same month a year ago. Also for the first six months of 2013, shelter deaths decreased 21 percent compared with the same time frame in 2012 since the No kill Los Angeles was created. â€Å"The life-saving needle for homeless pets in L.A. is really moving forward and our No Kill Los Angeles couldn’t be happier,† says Marc Peralta, executive director of Best Friends Animal Society Los Angeles. â€Å"It’s taken the hard work from many L.A. rescues and shelters to help these animals. These numbers are very encouraging that we are indeed on track to make L.A. a no kill city by 2017†. How you can fix the problem? Well there are many ways for example; Spaying and neutering is the best way to reduce stray animals and it has great benefits forShow MoreRelatedNo-Kill Shelter Essay1748 Words   |  7 PagesNo-Kill Shelters During a crisis of pet overpopulation, it right to kill animals simply because they are not wanted? Or is it ever right thing to do? The United States is faced with the problem of what should be done with the excess of stray animals. This is a complex thing to solve, but that doesn’t mean killing the animals for space is right. Stray dogs and cats have just as much right to a good home as pets that already have owners. No-Kill shelters are beneficial, they provide a safe, pet-friendlyRead MoreA Research Proposal On Rescuing Animals Essay1019 Words   |  5 Pagesrescue pets than to buy them. Thesis Statement: It is better to rescue animals than to buy them for ethical as well as practical reasons such as health and cost. Introduction Every day in the United States, approximately 10,000 people and 70,000 puppies and kittens are born. There will never be enough homes for all of these animals, and as a result millions are killed by animal control or die by themselves every year. If people would adopt their pets from a rescue or shelter, and not buy from pet storesRead MoreFinancial Differences Between Houston And Austin1336 Words   |  6 Pageswill present conclusions drawn from my investigation and research related to the questions presented. The financial differences between Houston and already successful cities The financial differences between Houston and Austin vary greatly. The city of Houston currently has 2,284,887 residents while Austin has 931,830. A bigger city such as Houston would need to allocate more money per shelter if it wanted to follow in Austin’s footsteps of $10 million for its shelters. Houston, being the bigger cityRead More The Horrors of Animal Euthanasia Essay1429 Words   |  6 Pageslack of pet owners acting in a  responsible manner. These responsibilities include the spaying and neutering of   pets. These numbers of homeless animals in communities have caused humane societies to euthanize too many animals. This, I feel is a violation to animal rights and is a cruel way for these animals to have to leave this world. I disagree with the activists who believe that the way to keep animal populations down is to euthanize these poor animals. Nothing good could come from the slaughteringRead MoreWhy Shelter Dogs Should Not Be Put Down979 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Why Shelter Dogs Should not be put down, but used to benefit our society†. Animal Euthanasia, is a process during which an animal is put to death. According to Humane society â€Å"about 2.4 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs - about one every 13 seconds- are put down in U.S shelters each year.† (humane society.) The saying that dogs are a man’s best friend is often thought of when thinking of dogs, but what if I tell you the man is the dog s best friend, or even the only friend, only familyRead MoreEuthanasia And Shelter For Animal Shelters1560 Words   |  7 Pageshave expected was that her beloved perfectly healthy, young pet cat would be euthanized by the Woodbury Humane Society shelter instead of being sent to the home she had detailed in a note posted on her refrigerator. In retrospect, this would not have happened if the Woodbury Humane Society shelter had adopted the new and growing trend of â€Å"no-kill† philosophy for animal shelters, which simply stated, is an operating philosophy for a shelter that is based upon the premise that no healthy adoptable animalRead MoreEssay on Prevention of Animal Overpopulation1722 Words   |  7 Pageshorrific crimes of animal deaths in shelters. It is no secret that this world has become infused with problems that have extended from one side of the globe to the other. Amongst these problems lies a terrible truth: nearly every year, sums of almost eight million cats and dogs have been placed in shelters around the world. Out of these vast numbers, half will be euthanized; that equals to one animal being put down every 8 seconds. Animals that are not adopted are kept in shelters until they find a homeRead MoreAnimal Cloning: How Unethical is it? Essays1171 Words   |  5 PagesDid you know that animals are used for testing purposes, such as cloning? Animals are undergoing cloning methods for scientific purposes and are even being brought back to life in the form of a clone in order to please grieving pet lovers. Cloning animals is very unethical and it is a hig hly controversial topic. Cloning allows for the suffering of animals and it does not create an exact replica of an animal; therefore, it is unethical. In simple terms, cloning an animal is using science to createRead MoreEssay on Taking Care of Animals: Kill Versus No-Kill Shelter1408 Words   |  6 Pagescaretakers of pets, those caretakers have a responsibility to these animals. One of those responsibilities includes making sure all animals are properly taken care of and are placed in a loving home. Many of these poor animals, mostly cats and dogs, are cast unwanted onto the streets to fend for themselves. Once they are cast out, where are they to end up? The ones that survive being discarded by neglectful owners are usually found and taken to a nearby animal shelter. These shelters are set up andRead MoreThe Effects Of Animal Cruelty771 Words   |  4 Pagesmore than half of US households include dogs or cats as pets. Most people see this pet as a family member and treat them as one. Sadly, many of those animals’ experience abuse and trauma that lasts a lifetime. Animal Cruelty may not seem like much however, it can be linked to multiple other social problems. As stated in Understanding Social Problems, â€Å"Domestic violence and animal abuse are linked.† The abuser often assaults the family pet to demonstrate their power and control over their family