By now, you’re probably thinking about the animal networks that are being aired in your household, the ones that you watch, for example, the BBC’s Animals, on which you read and listen to news, and Animal Planet’s World News Tonight, on your way to your daily news.
And if you want to check out the animal rights news, you may want to start with the BBC News website.
In the US, there’s also the Animal Liberation Front, which has a network called Animals International, and the Humane Society of the United States, which broadcasts a weekly hour-long news program.
Animal Liberation has been going for years and has attracted huge international support.
But how are the networks actually funded?
The answer is not that well-funded.
A report by the Pew Charitable Trusts this year looked at the budgets of animal networks, and found that the vast majority of animal groups do not receive the funding they need.
What’s more, the amount of money raised varies greatly from year to year, with the Animal Rights Network raising more than $3.6m in 2014, but less than half that in 2015, and Humane Society raising just $2.7m in 2015.
This is partly because of the funding disparity, with Animal Liberation and the Animal Planet Network receiving more funding per network than Humane Society does.
“This is the real issue,” says the report’s co-author, Andrew Gelman, a political scientist at New York University.
So the networks have a very different revenue model.” “
If you think about it, most of these networks are funded primarily by corporations, not individual people.
So the networks have a very different revenue model.”
But, says Gelman: “What is really going on here is the failure of funding.”
As part of the Pew report, he looked at spending by different types of networks.
“The big animals that get the most funding are also the ones where you might expect the biggest conflict of interest,” he says.
“But there’s no reason to think that’s true for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which does not get a lot of funding from animal rights groups.
The only reason it gets any funding at all is because of an unusual exemption for it, which gives it the ability to lobby for animal welfare.”
For example, a charity called Animal Equality, which fights for better animal welfare in the UK, received £9.3m in its last year of funding, but is not allowed to lobby on animal welfare.
In 2014, the Animal Justice Foundation, which is funded by the US animal rights group, Humane Society, received nearly £10m, but not a single penny of that went towards fighting for animal rights.
The biggest network, The Humane League, gets no funding at this point, but has its own special section on its website, which offers a list of animal charities.
In other words, the biggest animal rights organisations are not necessarily the ones doing the most work.
“It’s very difficult to find a network that does the most research,” says Gelmen.
“And so, in terms of funding per animal, the networks that do the most are not the ones with the biggest conflicts of interest.”
A more likely answer is that the networks are being run for profit.
According to the Pew study, in 2015 the largest network of animal rights organizations received just $1.1m in funding.
“So, it’s very hard to see that as being the case,” says Mark Hurd, an animal rights researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
“That’s a strange answer, because the networks were supposed to be charities that could raise money and get funding from other charities, but they are not.”
It also raises the question of why a network with such a reputation would get so little money.
The answer, according to Hurd: “It could be because they have no experience or are run by people who don’t know much about animal rights, and they’re not in a position to give a good enough answer.”
So the Animal Action Network, which also has a reputation for being a bad network, got almost $10m in funds, which it spent on “research” and “organisation”.
This has not helped it.
In 2016, the group received $2,700 in grants, but only $2 in actual funding.
It was, in Hurd’s words, “not a great network” and that was why it received so little funding.
But the Animal League Network, in particular, is notorious for its lack of research.
The organisation’s website is filled with headlines about its lack-of-research, and on some occasions it seems like the organisation is just using it to generate publicity.
“We’re in a very difficult situation because of our reputation,” says Hurd.
“People are going to see us and think we’re not doing enough.
But that’s not the case. We do lots