A conversation with the author and advocate whose half-century of work continues to shape how we think about animals, justice, and compassion.
Introduction: Kim Stallwood - A Voice That Changed Animal Rights
Few figures in the animal rights movement have shaped its direction and conscience as profoundly as Kim Stallwood. For over four decades, Kim has stood at the intersection of activism, scholarship, and storytelling, challenging society’s assumptions about our relationship with animals and inspiring generations of advocates to think, and act, differently.
From his early days on the front lines of animal welfare campaigns to his later work as an author, curator, and thought leader, Kim’s influence runs through some of the movement’s most pivotal moments. His archives, preserved at The British Library and the Swiss animal law institute Tier im Recht, attest to a career that has shaped both policy debates and grassroots campaigns.
Today, Kim is not only reflecting on his storied past but also breaking new ground. His latest project, a groundbreaking exploration of Topsy the elephant’s life and legacy, exemplifies his commitment to telling the stories that matter, even, and especially, when they are difficult to hear.
In this exclusive Animal Politics interview, we invite you to discover the person behind the pioneering work: his inspirations, his challenges, and his vision for the future of animal rights. Whether you’re a longtime advocate or new to the cause, Kim’s story will challenge, move, and motivate you. As he reflects on five decades of advocacy, Stallwood remains focused less on legacy than on lessons, both learned and still unfolding. Let’s begin.
Interview
Introduction & Personal Background
Animal Politics: Can you share a bit about your early life and what first inspired your interest in animal rights?
Kim: I was born and raised in social housing by working-class parents in Surrey, England. My father adopted a kitten, Tinkerbell, shortly after I was born. My mother always wanted to work with animals, but never had the opportunity. My grandmother inspired my love of cooking, which led me to study French cuisine for three years in London. Before I returned for my final year, I spent the summer working in a chicken slaughterhouse. I became a vegetarian at the beginning of 1974 and a vegan two years later.
Animal Politics: Was there a particular moment or experience that set you on your path as an animal advocate?
Kim: In 1976, I was hired by Compassion In World Farming as their second full-time employee with responsibility for organising their campaigns. I worked with CIWF’s co-founders, Peter and Anna Roberts, for two years. They introduced me to the practice of animal advocacy and showed me that it was a way of life, not only personally but also professionally. I have worked full-time in animal rights ever since, in various capacities and roles as a volunteer and employee.
Animal Politics: Who were your biggest influences—people, books, or events—when you began your career?
Kim: I am forever grateful to Peter and Anna Roberts for the opportunity they gave me with CIWF. Peter took me to the RSPCA-organised symposium on animal rights at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1977. I heard speak and met for the first time such key figures as campaigners John Bryant, Ronnie Lee, and Richard Ryder, and philosophers Andrew Linzey and Tom Regan, and novelist Brigid Brophy. I read animal ethics starting with Peter Singer, Ryder, Linzey, and Regan. I taught myself how to read philosophy, and my views on animal ethics have evolved over the years.
Career Milestones & Philosophy
Animal Politics: Looking back, what do you consider your most significant achievements in animal welfare and rights?
Kim: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I played a prominent role with a dedicated group of activists to democratically win control of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (now Cruelty-Free International). I became BUAV’s campaigns organiser (1982-1986) and part of the team that led the organization’s modernization, which inspired groups around the world.
This led me to become the first executive director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1987-1992), and I worked with the co-founders to rebuild PETA from a local group of national aspirations to a national organisation with international reach. I’m also proud of helping to bridge animal rights advocacy with the fields of animal studies and animal law. I’m pleased my archives are with The British Library in London and Tier im Recht in Zurich, and freely available to those who want to learn about animal rights advocacy.
Animal Politics: Looking back, was there a particular campaign or turning point that most shaped your thinking about PETA’s role in the broader animal rights movement, and how its methods have evolved over time?
Kim: I was greatly impressed with PETA’s strategy of presenting a problem and its solution at the same time. While I continued to admire PETA’s signature undercover investigations and the appealing vegan, cruelty-free living campaign, I became increasingly concerned with some of the organization’s tactics.
I saw my role as Executive Director as one of strengthening and refining this two-part strategy. Over time, I observed how many other organizations around the world were inspired by what had been achieved at BUAV and PETA—particularly this now widely imitated dual approach.
But before I left PETA, I’d grown deeply uneasy about some of our actions, even those I had once supported. We openly called ourselves “media whores,” basing our decisions on what we thought would generate the most coverage. We reasoned that since PETA lacked the media’s reach, it had to become the story itself to bring animal cruelty and exploitation into public view.
Gradually, our actions began to serve publicity rather than principle. We came to believe that all coverage was good coverage—even when it distorted our message or cast animal rights in a negative light. Our ads were sometimes banned for being too controversial, yet we saw that as a mark of success. We fell in love with controversy; outrage became our ally. We were determined to push the boundaries of reason and decency to their limits—always insisting it was, yes, “for the animals.”
Ultimately, I realized that this approach conflicted with my understanding of animal rights as part of a broader, progressive social movement. That realization convinced me it was time to leave PETA.
Animal Politics: What were some of the biggest challenges you faced in your early campaigns or leadership roles?
Kim: The challenges are too numerous to explore here! Briefly, I see challenges internally within animal advocacy and externally more broadly in society. The greatest internal challenge the animal rights movement faces is understanding that society’s treatment of animals is a mainstream political issue. It’s not just a matter of an optional, personal lifestyle choice.
The greatest external challenge in society is that it is reluctant to change. Society is afraid to change, particularly when many of the institutions and practices that govern our lives are blinded from seeing the benefits to people and animals that animal liberation offers. These vested interests include keeping with traditions, benefits from financial gain, and maintaining personal and professional standing in society.
Animal Politics: How has your philosophy on animal rights evolved over the years?
Kim: I have benefited from knowing and working with many of the greatest thinkers in animal advocacy for almost 50 years. I’m grateful for my opportunities to read their books, hear them speak, and discuss their ideas with them. My understanding of animal ethics has evolved and continues to do so, as there is always something new to learn. I began with Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, which taught me to understand the utilitarian argument for animal ethics.
This seemed commonsensical to me until I began to learn about the rights-based argument for animals from Tom Regan. Then, I learnt from such ecofeminists as Carol J. Adams and Marti Kheel, that utilitarianism and the rights view and their relationship to patriarchy. Today, I lean toward ecofeminism in universal thinking and the rights view in political thinking, but never utilitarianism.
Animal Politics: Are there any pivotal moments or turning points that changed your approach or perspective?
Kim: There are far too many to reflect upon here. What’s important is to be open to ideas and experiences and learn from them.
Movement Evolution & Reflections
Animal Politics: How has the animal rights movement changed since you began your work?
Kim: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yes, the animal rights movement has changed, but in many ways it hasn’t. Today’s movement has more capacity, reach, and influence than ever before. But progress for animals is hard fought and infrequently gained. In my book, Growl (Lantern, 2014), I describe five stages of social movements: public education, public policy, legislation, enforcement, and public acceptance. Today’s movement still operates mostly in stage one, with some progress in the next three.
Public education is often fueled by self-righteous indignation, an understandable impulse, but one that isn’t always productive. I’m encouraged by the development in the academy of animal ethics, animal law, and animal studies in the social sciences and humanities. I would like to see more done to bridge advocacy with academia.
Animal Politics: You’ve said that social movements often pass through five stages of acceptance; from ridicule to recognition. Can you share a specific example from the animal rights struggle that best illustrates that progression?
Kim: While there is still much work to be done to achieve legal and moral rights for animals, there has been progress in several areas where issues have successfully moved through those five stages: from public education to public acceptance.
These examples vary from country to country, and I am far from satisfied with the pace of change. There remains much to do before animals are no longer treated as human property.
The decline of the fur industry is a clear example. Public opinion and consumer behavior have shifted dramatically away from killing animals for their skins, even as leather remains an unresolved issue. In England and Wales, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act of 2000 marked a legislative milestone in this regard.
Similarly, some of the most egregious practices in intensive animal agriculture, such as tail docking, debeaking, and extreme confinement, are no longer considered industry standard as regulations evolve. The routine use of farrowing crates for pigs has been banned in countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland.
In the realm of research and product testing, the European Union prohibited the testing of finished cosmetic products and ingredients on animals, along with a ban on marketing any products developed through such testing, another significant advance.
Finally, the use of animals in entertainment has seen growing public disapproval. Circuses, zoos, marine parks, and traveling animal shows are increasingly viewed as ethically indefensible, with tightening legislation making them harder to sustain. In 2016, after 145 years, Ringling Brothers retired its performing elephants, symbolizing a profound cultural shift.
Animal Politics: What progress are you most proud of, and where do you see the greatest need for improvement?
Kim: I’m proud of my life’s work for animal rights; however, there are some things I would do differently.
Animal Politics: How do you balance advocacy, scholarship, and personal well-being in such a demanding field?
Kim: If only I knew how to make this balance. It’s difficult. Animals are never far from my thoughts and emotions. I have interests outside of animal rights. They give me pleasure when there is an opportunity to pursue them.
Legacy & Impact
Animal Politics: What do you hope your legacy will be within the animal rights movement?
Kim: I’m reluctant to think in terms of legacy. Others may have opinions with which to judge.
Animal Politics: Are there projects or campaigns you wish had received more attention or success?
Kim: My work as a curator preserving the history of the animal rights movement with The British Library and Tier im Recht is not understood by the animal rights movement for its importance. Hopefully, this will change with time. I’m very proud of my continued involvement with Tier im Recht, whose library is one of two world-class collections. The other is the Tom Regan Animal Rights Archive at North Carolina State University.
The Topsy Project
Animal Politics: What drew you to Topsy’s story, and why do you believe it remains important today?
Kim: I saw the film of Topsy’s electrocution, ‘Electrocuting an Elephant’, when it was included in two documentaries on animal rights. The first was in 1982, and the second about ten years later. This is how I learnt about Topsy. I never forgot Topsy or the vivid image of her gruesome electrocution since then. It was distressing, infuriating, and a horrific example of how she and thousands of animals like her have been abused for human folly. I vowed that she would always be remembered. That moment set my resolve to tell her story.
Animal Politics: How did you approach researching and writing about Topsy, given the challenges of limited historical records?
Kim: I built a library of books, files, documents, photographs, and ephemera about Topsy and elephants like her in appalling circumstances in circuses and zoos. I read as much as I can. I write notes and timelines, and create files and databases. There are two primary sources of information. First, contemporaneous press reports were published in newspapers. Second, Topsy was with the Forepaugh Circus, and it was customary for circuses to publish their annual Route Books documenting ‘life on the road.’
These sources are not trustworthy for various reasons. So, from all this research, I’m writing her biography in three voices: Topsy’s, an investigative narrator, and my own commentary, using the techniques of narrative nonfiction.
Animal Politics: What are some common misconceptions about Topsy’s life and death that you hope to clarify?
Kim: There are several misconceptions associated with Topsy’s life; however, the most important is Thomas Edison’s alleged involvement with her electrocution on Coney Island, New York, in 1903.
From the late 1880s to the early 1890s, Edison and his business competitor, George Westinghouse, engaged in what was known as the “War of Currents.” This determined the type of electricity the United States, an emerging industrial power, was going to use. Edison advocated Direct Current (DC) and Westinghouse preferred Alternating Current (AC). It is often claimed that Topsy was killed as part of the War of Currents, but this is untrue.
By the time of Topsy’s electrocution in 1903, the War of Currents was over, and AC was the preferred electrical transmission system. It is also falsely claimed that Edison was present at Topsy’s electrocution and played a role in it. The Edison Manufacturing Company filmed Topsy’s electrocution and released it as ‘Electrocuting an Elephant,’ but by then, Edison did not own the company.
Animal Politics: Can you describe the process and intention behind the anniversary book, and how it differs from your forthcoming biography and graphic novel?
Kim: It is correct to call my new book, 2025: The Year of Topsy, an anniversary book, as it recognises her birth 150 years ago somewhere in Southeast Asia in 1875. This book draws from the traditional style of books we read, with pages of text, and combines it with the style of graphic novels, which rely upon images to relate the narrative. The forthcoming biography will be about 90,000 words with several pages of photographs and other visual content. My goal is to also produce a graphic novel about Topsy, as it will reach an entirely different audience of readers from the biography.
Animal Politics: What do you hope readers will take away from Topsy’s story?
Kim: Apart from learning about how elephants and other wild animals are abused in circuses and zoos, I want the reader to experience a connection with Topsy that informs them about all of their interactions with animals. Regardless of their species and the relationship we have with them, every animal is Topsy.
Animal Politics: In researching Topsy, did anything you uncovered about early animal protection efforts or their cultural impact surprise you—or challenge what you previously believed?
Kim: The ASPCA approved Topsy’s electrocution as the method of killing but objected only to it being staged as a “public spectacle.” As a result, around 800 invited guests watched as she was fed carrots laced with 460 grams of potassium cyanide, before 6,600 volts of electricity surged through her body, killing her.
I have yet to find any other animal protection organization that commented publicly on Topsy’s death, or any record of public outrage or sympathy for her. That silence was striking.
Ironically, her last keeper, Frederick “Whitey” Ault, who had abused her, was fired the day before and refused to participate in her killing. Yet no one else stepped forward in her defense.
It is heartbreaking to realize that no one was there for Topsy, no one spoke up, no one protested. She died utterly alone.
Storytelling, Empathy, and Advocacy
Animal Politics: How do you see the role of storytelling and biography in advancing animal rights?
Kim: How I wish I had discovered and understood the power of storytelling and biography much earlier in my animal rights career. I learnt from reading Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human by Elizabeth Hess (Bantam, 2008) how it is possible to write the compelling story of an individual animal. We’re used to the idea of biographies of people, but not animal biographies. Well, the tradition of animal biography runs deep. Take, for example, Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty (1877), which is not only a much-loved novel but also an uncompromising exposé of cruelty to animals.
Animal Politics: What are the risks and rewards of using empathy and anthropomorphism in your work?
Kim: I see only rewards in using empathy and anthropomorphism. As the philosopher Mary Midgley wrote in Beast & Man (Methuen, 1979), “We are not like animals, we are animals.” As an animal rights advocate, I want to break down the distinctions between humans and animals, particularly those that erect barriers between us, thereby licensing our exploitation of them and stopping us from feeling compassion for them.
Animal Politics: Are there other animal stories you believe deserve similar attention?
Kim: Yes. Every animal has a biography, which deserves to be written and shared with the world.
Looking Forward
Animal Politics: What are your current or upcoming projects beyond the Topsy books?
Kim: I continue to work with Tier im Recht in Switzerland. As I approach my fiftieth anniversary of full-time vegan animal rights advocacy next year, I’m beginning to think not of retiring but of slowing down a little. I will finish my projects with Topsy and TIR.
Animal Politics: How can readers and supporters best contribute to your mission and the wider cause?
Kim: The best contribution anyone can make is to go vegan. Read books. Change the world. The best way to follow me is on Kim Stallwood Substack.
The only way to correspond with me is via email at kim@kimstallwood.com.
Animal Politics: What advice would you offer to new advocates or those considering a career in animal welfare?
Kim: The glib answer I normally give is: Don’t! This is because social justice organisations are not always professional in their approach to employing people. But if you must, then become qualified and experienced in a profession that will be of use to organisations to help them improve their effectiveness.
Animal Politics: As you reflect on your body of work, culminating in Topsy, what do you hope will endure as your contribution to how we understand animals and our moral responsibilities toward them?
Kim: I hope every animal will be understood as a sentient being with a biography and individuality of their own. Each has a life story worth recognizing.
Today, the animals we exploit most, chickens and fish in food production, and rats and mice in research, represent billions of sentient beings whose individuality goes unrecognized and whose sovereignty is never considered. But it’s not only these animals; it’s all animals.
I want people to see and understand Topsy as an individual elephant, one with thoughts, feelings, desires, and needs, and to realize that every animal is, in their own way, a Topsy.
Closing
Animal Politics: Is there anything you wish more people understood about animals, advocacy, or the movement?
Kim: I cannot better this quote from the novelist Brigid Brophy, “Whenever people say ‘We mustn’t be sentimental’, you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add ‘We must be realistic’, they mean they are going to make money out of it.”
Animal Politics: What gives you hope for the future of animal rights?
Kim: That every connection we make with animals with our hearts successfully counters all others made through our stomachs.
Editor’s Note
As Kim Stallwood approaches his fiftieth year in animal rights, his work stands as both a chronicle and a challenge: to think more deeply, to feel more fully, and to act more justly toward the animals who share our world. His journey, from a young man in a chicken slaughterhouse to one of the movement’s most respected thinkers, reminds us that compassion, when coupled with conviction, can shape not only policy but history itself.
Additional Reading
Book Review: 2025: The Year of Topsy by Kim Stallwood
Ed Boks is the former executive director of animal care and control agencies in New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County, and a past board member of the National Animal Control Association. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics, a lively community spanning 48 states and 59 countries.
If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to Animal Politics. Your support fuels independent research, reporting, and the discussion shaping the future of animal welfare.
Excellent, thoughtful interview. I’m proud to call Kim my friend and so grateful for his lifetime of work on behalf of animals.
Hey, great read as always. What if his impact was less profound?