The larger, more successful organizations concentrate on softer, less radical issues that are popular with the public. At the same time, more radical groups concentrate on issues that forge new frontiers with the public. For example, the majority of animal rights organizations will support an anti-hunting campaign while the radical organizations generate publicity against fishing to get the public thinking that fishing is wrong as well, and they begin projects to eliminate zoos and animal parks. The groups intend to abolish each of these pastimes, one by one, while they keep the financial backing of interests yet to be targeted. As a classic example of the crusade, animal rights groups intentionally stayed away from fishing issues in England.
Fishing is just too popular and after all, the sponsor of the hunting ban bill is a fisherman.
Emotion vs logic To stop animal rights, we must address issues that have been used by these groups most successfully. Their most effective weapon has been emotion. The countryside movement will never gain majority support by appealing to fact or logic alone. If the public considers practices to be cruel or inhumane or believes stress is wrong for the animals, then we lose. But it is a definition we are dealing with, not a quantifiable term.