Many environmentalists strongly advocate sticking with a platform that focuses exclusively on the large global challenges of biodiversity preservation and natural-resource sustainability, and stays clear of animal welfare. They correctly point out that environmentalism has traditionally concerned itself not with the treatment of individual animals, but with protecting whole populations. At a time when we face mass species extinctions, it is certainly a risky strategy to contemplate the expansion of environmentalism into a realm fraught with both ideological and political difficulties.
But I believe this is what environmentalism should do.
As a for-instance, consider whaling. An environmentalism that only concerns itself with absolute numbers of whales, and not with how they are treated, has little to say about whaling. Most whaling is "sustainable"; the fact that environmentalism has no philosophical ground to oppose sustainable whaling started this discussion weeks ago.
An amoral environmentalism also has little to say, beyond a call for improved regulation, to challenge the concept of factory farms, which many find abhorrent and an affront to a healthy environment. And it has nothing to say about the billions of animals killed in labs every year, most for trivial reasons.
As a committed environmentalist, this troubles me greatly. These are issues of great magnitude and in many ways define our most basic relationship to the non-human animal kingdom. Maintaining a strict ideological boundary between species protection and animal welfare may be politically expedient, but it has become increasingly untenable in our modern industrial world.
The discussion on Gristmill over the past week on this important topic has been great; it is exactly the type of discourse members of all serious social movements should routinely engage in, since movements that do not evolve perish, just as species do.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s views evolved from a singular focus on civil rights to a broader consideration of economic rights toward the end of his life (and he was widely criticized for this at the time). Women's rights groups have moved beyond voting rights and equal pay and are now concerned with issues of education, literacy, and flexibility in the workplace.
Similarly, I believe environmentalism can and should make room for greater concerns about animal welfare. It is a natural extension of our desire to protect whole species to think about the obligations we have to individual creatures. Unlike the more difficult and controversial notion of animal rights, a concern for animal welfare is already reflected in the legal statutes of all advanced nations concerning the treatment of animals. In addition, simple morality rejects that notion that humans can do whatever they want to animals without regard for their well-being.
Before I begin to outline specific areas where I think environmentalism should take a stand on issues of animal welfare, it is important to recognize three key facts:
- Many higher order mammals (e.g., elephants, whales, lions, rhinos, primates, et al.) have highly complex social lives, are at or near the top of the food chain, and in the absence of human intervention would likely live long and even relatively pleasurable lives.
- There are many human activities that inflict significantly more pain and suffering on animals than anything they would experience in the "natural" world.
- Instances of extreme forms of animal cruelty are the norm, not the exception, in most societies (even advanced ones, unfortunately).
None of this is to suggest that nature is not often brutal, or that animals do not suffer from a host of ills, including sickness, starvation, and predation. However, the key issue is not some vague notion of whether humans are part of "the cycle of life" (which every living thing automatically is), but how human activity influences both the quantity and quality of life on this planet.
The fact remains that many animals suffer fates at the hands of humans much worse than what "nature" dishes out. For example, there is no equivalent of the factory-farm in nature, where animals rarely, if ever, see the light of day, or the medical lab where toxic chemicals are poured into animals' eyes. Most whales currently hunted would live long lives in which they would experience many years of pleasurable social interaction with their kin if they were not used to make burgers.
Given the realities of nature and our own practices, determining where environmentalism should overlap with issues of animal welfare requires some form of balancing the costs and benefits of different practices with the intrinsic value of individual animals, especially the advanced species mentioned above.
The following suggestions propose a starting point for further discussion:
-
Environmentalists should oppose factory-farming.
Aside from the huge resource requirements and pollution associated with industrial animal slaughter, the animals in these systems are essentially tortured from birth to death, often experiencing months or even years of excruciating pain and suffering beyond anything "nature" would ever subject them to. Animal agriculture that provides for reasonable space, comfort, and social interaction for the animals and does its best to kill animals in ways that minimize pain should be supported. - Environmentalists should oppose most sport hunting of advanced mammals (again, animals such as whales, elephants, primates, et al.).
Killing animals that are highly sentient and enjoy long and productive lives with their kin in order to satisfy nothing more than a human desire to kill is wrong. In instances where these animals need to be controlled due to overpopulation, exceptions should be made, and hunting is acceptable; in fact, hunting can actually reduce animal suffering in these instances. - Environmentalists should oppose most other types of hunting of advanced mammals.
Societies that are wealthy, and whose survival is not dependent on the killing of advanced mammals, should not kill them. The pleasure of having an added flavor in one's diet does not outweigh the value these animals derive from their own lives. Trapping animals for fur should also be opposed. Exceptions for cultures that subsist on these animals (e.g., native peoples on whale meat) is perfectly reasonable, since it would be immoral to favor the survival of animals over humans. In addition, in areas where populations of wild animals need to be controlled, hunting should be supported (this includes the wild deer population in most of the US). - Environmentalists should oppose most animal testing.
Animal testing for products of no significant consequence to human well-being, such as new lines of cosmetics or laundry detergents, is wrong; inflicting pain on animals for such a purpose does not meet any reasonable standard of decency. Animal testing that can be performed in other ways, without the use of animals, is wrong as well. Only tests on animals that cannot be performed through other means and have a high potential to cure serious human illnesses are even within the realm of what is morally permissible (more on this in a future piece).
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:24 am
12 Sep 2006
The fact is that even within environmentalism, there are thousands of different concerns -- forests, species, energy, climate, cities, public transit, consumer goods, the ozone layer, dams, buildings and houses, on and on -- each of which can be adopted singly or as a group. Different demographics and groups with different motivations and concerns will adopt different ones. I see no pragmatic or philosophical point in saying anyone who adopts any one of them has to adopt all of them. The only upshot of that would be to lose lots and lots of support.
So too with your argument. I have no objection to you working on both environmental and animal-welfare concerns, but what conceivable good can come from saying that this is now a requirement for being an environmentalist?
You won't get more animal welfare supporters out of that; you'll just get fewer environmentalists.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bottleman Posted 5:23 am
12 Sep 2006
Though I don't quite agree with all of Jason's points, I think it's really valuable that we're having such an intelligent discussion on the distance between the animal rights movement and the environmental one. I really felt like that distance was vast (see my earlier comments if you're curious) and just getting this stuff out in the open offers the promise of shortening it a bit. It's like some dirty little secret your parents don't like to talk about. What a relief to shout it out loud. Next topic: teenage sex?
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:05 am
12 Sep 2006
That being said, you've lost me with this summary. If, in your above numbers 1-4, you replaced the word "environmentalists" with the words "animal welfare activists" it would make sense. From a your-opinion moral standpoint point of view, if you replaced "environmentalists" with "people," it would make sense. However, with the exception of #1 (opposition to factory farms, which do pollute) none of the bullet points actually impact the environment. We're not talking about wiping species off the planet, destroying biodiversity, limiting habitat... we're talking about things you don't like. Many of us don't like them either, but that doesn't necessarily make them environmental issues.
As for point #4; well, it would be difficult for me, as an environmentalist or a person, to oppose animal testing as medical research is what I do for a living. FWIW you should be careful about tossing around such hyperbole as "billions" of animals killed for "mostly trivial reasons" as it is patently untrue and isn't even logical. Animals are expensive. Animal care is expensive. Even if there were thousands of heartless scientists out there, gleefully salivating over the prospect of so much pointless animal torture, it would not be profitable. And as I'm sure LegumeSam would point out, if it's not profitable, it won't happen.
So I guess I get kicked out of the environmentalist club? The Sierra Club will be sad to learn that they will no longer receive my money. As will the Nature Conservancy, the AMC, the Mohonk Preserve, the National Parks Conservation Association, American Forests, TerraPass, NativeEnergy, ConEd Green Power, my organic grocer, Ryder Farms where I get my CSA, and countless merchants of organic, sustainable, and recyclable stuff of everyday life.
Kaela
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:54 am
12 Sep 2006
In fact, David, he shows some conciliatory signs here, while you seem to have got crustier.
I mean, in principle, the short answer is, you are right and Jason is wrong. And you are also right that too much bandying of words, and not enough united action for the sake of our common cause, is not good.
Nevertheless, it is not useless to appreciate his powerful message. And it should be observed how restrained he is.
E.g., the first of his "three key facts" proposes that "many higher-order mammals" have "highly complex social lives." That is quite correct. But note that many of us animal-rights ethicists would not be satisfied with the implication -- if indeed it is Jason's intention to imply this -- that only such animals, and no others, deserve consideration. As I wrote on another occasion, it is hard for us to appreciate the sensitivity of animals, especially of non-mammals. And I personally extend consideration to all vertebrates, and even some invertebrates. So we see how small is his request.
Also, his marvelously well-thought-out suggestions should be recognized at once as being much more modest and compromising than any strict veganoid ethic. He leaves numerous allowances for the taking of animal life.
It is always good and appropriate for everyone to ask, "Why am I doing what I am doing? For what purpose? To what good end?" If environmentalists prefer to answer something like, "To help humanity," rather than something like, "To help all sentient beings on this planet," well, fine, that is a reasonable and defensible position. But environmentalists should be made aware of how they arrive at that anthropocentric answer. And Jason is to be thanked for encouraging us to think that out.
Whether he would like to go on, to dissuade people from their anthropocentrism, is up to him.
It is always appropriate to ask such things, and it should not be considered a waste of time. The fear of moral paralysis is much exaggerated. Most of us realize that we are obliged to act, even as we are asking those questions, and do not hesitate to do so, at the right time.
One of our distinguished contributors, Pandu, has said many fascinating things, whether explicitly or not, in connexion with Krishna consciousness. As I read the Bhagavad-Gita, dear Pandu, Arjuna is right to pause, and doubt, and wonder why, and await the enlightenment that his divine charioteer gives him. It would be wrong of him to do anything, to advance or retreat, while still in doubt, before he has heard from Krishna.
And on a totally different matter: Yes, dear Bottleman, teen-age sex is most certainly a lovely and inspiring topic. But please, I beg you, for the sake of our jobs and our criminal records, do not post any links unless you are quite sure that everyone involved has passed his or her eighteenth birthday.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
davidintokyo Posted 10:52 am
12 Sep 2006
I'd suggest that needing to make exceptions where necessary to sport hunting and sustainable wildlife use bans, to avoid imbalances created by humans ceasing traditional uses of wildlife, indicates that there is a fundamental problem with the ability of the proposal to meet our conservation goals. Instead of making exceptions to the proposed idea, starting from scratch is probably more appropriate.
(Also, whaling is not correctly characterized as a sport. The ultimate purpose of whaling is to get food).
I don't disagree with certain aspects of what you say, but like David Roberts I can't see any link between a concern for conserving ecosystems and concerns about individual life forms. The reasons for these concerns are quite separate in my mind as well.
I'm happy to declare myself a "conservationist" if you are that desperate to have the "environmentalist" label.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:58 am
12 Sep 2006
the environment may include
1) War
2) Capitalism
3) Communism
4) Humanity
and so on depending on your point of view.
(I have my own set!).
The danger of such sweeping statements is that they tend to make movement in a specific direction impossible.
For instance, it could be reasonably argued that the automobile industry is responsible for the deaths of as many animals as the meat industry (okay, maybe second).
Yet many animal rights activists drive cars. As do many vegetarians.
So, then what?
We could also replace "animals" with "humans" and try to get people more concerned with how humans treat other humans. Alas, I haven't seen very much interest in that!
The more we attach all of our other issues to "environmentalism", the more we dilute the meaning of the word.
It is not wrong to have other issues, or to argue for them (go for it Jason), but we should try to keep the water as clear as possible.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:46 pm
12 Sep 2006
David and others are correct to say that environmentalism can certainly be defined without any notion of animal welfare and that I haven't "proven" that it should, but it's not like this is some serious stretch that I'm proposing. I'm simply saying that caring for populations of animals but not how we treat them seems kind of incomplete to me. If one wants to make this clean break between environmentalism and any notion of animal welfare than I think people should be prepared to accept David's contention that whaling is perfectly acceptable. But, I thought anti-whaling was a signature element of environmentalism. Hmmm...seems like some confusion here. Are you all who argue against my view really ready to concede that whaling is completely consistent with environmentalism? If so, I'd like to see all of you and the major environmental organizations state so publicly. If not, then why are you opposed to whaling if not due to some notion of animal welfare? My point is that you can't have it both ways.
Many people want to conserve species so they can have the pleasure of killing them and little more. It's sustainable, it's environmentalism I guess, but making a connection between protecting and respecting doesn't seem like something that's too much to ask. But I guess it is.
To David's point about deciding which are higher order mammals, he is correct that it is not a fine objective line but it is actually not so difficult. It is the most sensible criteria for all concepts of animal welfare and why we think it's worse to torture a monkey than kill an ant. It is completely doable and there is nothing artificial about it at all- it just takes a lot of thought, science, and time. I think it is worth the investment and actually much of the work has already been done by scientists (David, with all due respect, I think you are more interested in not having to consider the interest of other animals than really concerned about the practicality of doing so- maybe I'm wrong, but your comments so far suggest otherwise.) Also, David, I am not so concerned with semantics as I am with substance so call yourself whatever you feel comfortable with you. I really don't care all that much.
Kaela- I was careful to say that environmentalists should oppose most animal testing and was specific about which types and why- if you disagree with my claims make the case.
I was careful to shy away from using the term animal rights and have switched to animal welfare, which requires no belief that animals have rights beyond the right not to be abused in whatever ways we please, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
Final question: is someone who really likes conserving animals and then also likes torturing them an environmentalist according to you all? Seems like they would be according to your conservation-only definition.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
epskionline Posted 4:35 pm
12 Sep 2006
I'd like to understand better what makes environmentalists who don't care about the welfare of animals tick. It seems to me that if it's all about conservation -- having some pretty animals and plants for future generations to look at, or to preserve our oxygen and food supply -- then environmentalism would be a morally bankrupt "ism." Talk about a means to an end.
But a truly healthy planet is one in which we care for all its inhabitants. As all of us here know, the environment is one big biosphere. Our fate is intertwined. Compassion for other creatures is compassion for us and our world.
But we have broken the equilibrium. We have exploded our population in the last 100 years, wreaking havoc on the environment with our industrialism and waste. We have wiped out countless important species in order to feed and accommodate our own, though we can feed and house ourselves without destroying those species.
It's simply inhumane to continue expanding and taking everything from every other species -- whether orangutans endangered due to palm oil plantations or unknown Amazonian species succumbing to clearing of the Amazon for soybean plantations to feed Brazilian cattle for export -- when the results include not only harming our non-human animal cousins, but also the pillaging of a planet that is not without limits.
We would be wise -- and compassionate -- to recognize our own limits.
"The choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both." -- Tom Regan
Permalink
eteChSupport Posted 9:05 pm
12 Sep 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:45 am
13 Sep 2006
I am talking about hunters and environmentalists, and please understand that these two are not separate at their core. Of course there's going to be those a-holes that poach or hunt from a car, but there's also the a-holes that will puncture tires and otherwise damage hunters' cars in parking lots. Still, the difference is that hunters are generally rural, deemed hicks by environmentalists who are predominantly urban. However, it seems curious that rural people actually live in and know the environment that urban people are trying to protect (I guess from rural dwellers?).
There is little thought that prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of population of the world lived in rural environs, places where humans were meant to live through thousands of years in evolution. Cities are nice, but when an urban dweller attempts to impose his belief system onto a person from an environment he knows little about, trouble starts and polarization through names such as 'liberals' and 'conservatives' become a huge problem. That and the gullibility of the majority of the population at the hands of media plays into a lack of thought at the voting booth or equivalent thereof.
No one thinks that when you live out in a rural environment, there is much less opportunity to make money, which one can then go and spend at Whole Foods for their organic asparagus from Chile. There is also little money to purchase other foods as well, so that hunting is subsistence-based. Many kids hunt while their parents are working and that helps out the family. I would say that kids are actually responsible for a very sizeable portion of all game taken in.
Let me get back to my subject. Hunting does not equal cruelty. CAFOs are cruel, while killing an animal that enjoyed its life outdoors is another story. Anyone who tortures an animal is a bastard and deserves eye-for-an-eye treatment. Killing for food or even 'sport' (since they will use or donate the meat) is not torture.
Back off the topic. One of the underlying sentiments that I received from some posters was something along the lines of, and correct me if I am wrong: 'we should not hunt and kill because in the 'modern day and age' we have others that would kill animals for us in animal husbandry operations. But anyway, you shouldn't have to eat meat since you can be vegan.' To me, it seems that the first sentence uses opposing views, and the second statement is far too imposing for anyone but a rich urbanite who grew an environmental consciousness to agree on. I am not trying to diminish the fact that rich urbanites with an environmental consciousness are very helpful, just that one should put themselves into other people's shoes.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:07 am
13 Sep 2006
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:41 am
13 Sep 2006
If we just completely shut out the fact that people are willing to pay lots of money to continue killing these animals, then you are forgetting simple economics. With this significant amount of money coming into the coffers of state (nation- or US-) departments of conservation, they would be hard pressed to pay for all the good work that they do or could do.
I personally would not kill a predator, or a very large mammal such as a rhino or an elephant, simply because I do not see the point and do have qualms about killing a k-selected sp. But with the fact that there are people willing to pay... maybe it's not such a bad thing. I'm sure that a lot of people would jump on me for this, but I take a very existentialist, not a Platonic view on life. I think that if there are thousands of people killed every day (most of them men) in conflicts, then I do not see any reason for not killing male members of some populations.
The animals that you mentioned (with the exception of whales, and even many of those) would gladly rip you to shreds if they had the chance. I do not see a reason to feel bad about those INDIVIDUALS.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:56 am
13 Sep 2006
And again, I don't understand the morality that says if being X would do Y to me then I have the right to do Y to being X- that's a bizarre sense of morality in my view. But glad that you're willing to announce that you favor the killing of advanced mammals.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:09 am
13 Sep 2006
I note that a friend who spent several years in international development work in several countries in southern Africa supports this kind of auctioned hunting.
She also showed me a home video that's on the net somewhere of a moose in some Alaskan town stomping the shit out of some poor schlub who happened to stroll by her and her offspring (cub? fawn? what are baby moose called?) while they were eating in town. The poor guy turned a corner and was walking by and didn't even see them--but Mama Moose saw him and decided he was a threat to the kid--knocked him down, stomped him, and when he moved, stomped him again, and killed him.
So I dunno about caring about individual animals. Most aren't any nicer than most people, which isn't saying much.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:17 am
13 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 5:28 am
13 Sep 2006
Animals are not people. They may have human-like behaviors, but they are in no way human, nor do they emulate human thought patterns. A moose that kills a tourist isn't being 'mean' or lacking social niceties. It's responding to a perceived threat, driven by instinct. This is in no way analogous to a used car salesman shooting a sheep doing its sheep business. It's probably closer to a human mother stomping the shit out of a rattlesnake who was innocently cruising around a corner past her fawns (chicks? larvae? (I kid, I kid)).
Ultimately you cannot decide an animal deserves to be killed by human justice standards. An animal a mile away that might kill you (if you were closer) because it's hungry is no more deserving of death than a cow deserves to die because it eats grass. Unlike humans, it cannot choose a course of action based on some subjective moral continuum. This makes all animals utterly blameless for their own behavior. They are fundamentally amoral, existing outside of our notions of morality. This may not seem 'fair', but again, the notion of 'fair' is a human one. The 'tiger started it' because he has big teeth is not an argument.
If it helps grasp the concept, let's consider animals mentally retarded humans for the sake of argument. The picture changes quite a bit, doesn't it?
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 5:45 am
13 Sep 2006
If dousing tigers in kerosene and burning them alive for entertainment were the only think that would save the species I'd be all for that too. But that's not really the point. What JDS is suggesting is an evolution in how we think about certain animals. This is not too much to ask for - if you were to open "BioD's Grande Olde Golden Retriever Shoot And Burlesque House" people would be freaking out, and not because of the bare legs. People (and by people I mean us Westerners) have evolved their thinking about dogs. Why not tigers and lemurs?
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:50 am
13 Sep 2006
I'm a gardener. And I love all those wiggly, squirmy worms that make my soil airy and fertile. In spring when I'm planting and dig in, my spade uncovers thousands of tiny baby worms, some of which I know I kill but I try really hard to avoid it. In fall when I'm harvesting there are fewer worms but those that are there are fat and long and I'm very careful of them. I greet the bees and friendly beetles upon entering the garden and I love when a toad or frog hops around my feet. And snakes are very special creatures indeed, and always welcome.
To me, being an environmentalist is honoring the whole, which includes all creatures. It means being responsible for what I do, whether it's inadvertently squishing a worm, or buying a chicken from a local farmer for my dinner.
My father had what I see as an ethic similar to the way Native people think of animal relationships. There is respect and reciprocity and gratitude. And killing an animal must be done quickly and cleanly and some kind of offering must be made for the life taken. Our culture's whole relationship with nature is out of balance. We dig and cut and mine and kill with little or no thought given to the life, or lives, we take or the harm we do. This lack of consciousness is just as harmful, I believe, as are the actual acts of destruction: there is the act itself and then there are the thoughts and beliefs behind it -- body, mind, spirit as it were. When we kill thoughtlessly or with cruelty or with glee at the killing we are putting that energy into the world and that energy is harmful whether we've killed a deer or a tree or a squirrel. And there are some animals that, IMHO, should never (or rarely) be killed, just as there are some trees that should never be cut, and places that should never be developed. Because of their rarety, their beauty, their special intelligence, just the gift of their existance. So be it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:04 am
13 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:18 am
13 Sep 2006
There are plenty of cases of animals killing humans either for food or not: plenty of male African elephants kill humans, rhinos and other animals during a rut. Lions and tigers usually not hungry? True, but with humans being able to preserve meat it is the same as if they were hunting when they were hungry (at least things like deer).
In my opinion, Pbrazelton's comment:
It's probably closer to a human mother stomping the shit out of a rattlesnake who was innocently cruising around a corner past her fawns (chicks? larvae? (I kid, I kid)).
does not necessarily bring the 'moral' finality as much as bring up more questions: so what if the human mother killed a protected rattlesnake in New York, where they are protected? Does that not mean that she deserves to get a fine? Or how about that case of an alligator in FL who attacked a dog, and the female owner shot the gator seven times in the head. The gator survived, was removed by the pest people, and she got a ticket for hunting without a license. Morally, she was right, but the law says not.
Ultimately, anyone who suggests that morality is not relative is probably not aware that they are wrong, since morality is not an intrinsic quality. It is a superego institution, placed on us through years of development and upbringing, and thus is an extrinsic quality. The morality of Taliban is probably 'stronger' than of any Westerner, but we still perceive them to be wrong, because it contradicts our set of values.
I do not ascribe human qualities to animals, since they have their own qualities of which I am quite well aware. Comparing them to mentally challenged humans is like comparing a human to a 'challenged' dolphin. And we all are mentally and physically challenged dolphins. We, as humans, have to work within the confines of our 'Umwelt' or our subjective universe. Our Umwelt includes the confines of economics and legal hassles, specific to a locality.
Circumventing the actual logic and about a page of reasoning, I would say that the confines of our Umwelt and relativity of morality means that killing individuals to save a species is one thing that we should have in our toolbag of 'saving the Earth'.
Also, it seems curious that JDS will conceed that killing deer might be good sometimes, but other creatures are off the list completely. Is it because you have certain admiration for them? So why not earthworms, or mosquitos or any other admirable creatures?
Where would we get the money to pay for land and species conservation? Taxing the locals? Taxing the tourists? The first would not work, the second might work, but there is only so much that a reasonably well-off person would pay to see an elephant. I would bet that there is hardly a limit on how much a rich asshole would pay for shooting one, if he is really stuck on that idea.
And by the way, personally I am sort of a purist, I prefer the bow and do not own a rifle, but there is nothing wrong with rifle or shotgun hunting either. The problem is when people take shots at animals out of their shot range.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:28 am
13 Sep 2006
But it seems that the only way to prevent people from hunting illegally is by providing legal ways of hunting them. It worked for deer and turkeys.
It's also similar to the War on Drugs: making it illegal only made the drug dealers richer, and the American taxpayer poorer. It appears that the way to do it is to legalize it and heavily regulate it, both with drugs and hunting.
Permalink
karenc Posted 6:58 am
13 Sep 2006
An ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk. -Vivekananda
Permalink
kevcon Posted 11:00 am
13 Sep 2006
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_060421_1p...
see also
Loving Nature with a Gun
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_060417_1....
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 11:10 am
14 Sep 2006
Not only was I born in the midwest, I was raised there. And guess what... I still live here. Northwest Missouri is where I call home. Savannah, MO to be exact.Look it up on Mapquest... you almost can't get a more central-Midwest location that that.
I love to hunt and fish, and not only is this a hobby it is my passion. I love it so much, I decided that I wanted to devote my life and career to it. Its why I chose biology for my degree work.
My biggest motivation is making sure that my kids, and grandkids get to experience nature, and the outdoors the way I did. Hunting allowed me to experience outdoor life, and death. That death is a big part of life. I don't want my kids to go the downtown science center and learn about Nature there, because the nearest "true" natural setting is an hours drive away, and you have to pay the tolls both ways on the turnpike, etc. etc. etc.
I don't hunt because I need the food. However, I don't hunt anything that I'm not going to eat. Through hunting I learned a lot about the woods and streams, and all the things out there in them. My dad would take us scouting, but scouting for deer sign always turned into my brother and I asking questions about that toadstool, or a snake we found, etc. Granted my father was no biologist, but he would do his best to answer questions or encourage us to research it at the library etc.
The point of all this above is, that while Jason keeps talking about whaling..etc.... I'm a hunter/biologist in the midwest and whaling really never crosses my mind. I am more concerned with vanishing prairies, urban sprawl, wildlife habitat loss, soil erosion, groudwater pollution, promoting sustainable agricultural practices.. etc. The list goes on and on. I am not saying that whaling is okay. I really don't know enough about it to form an opinion. I can deduce that is probably not too great, considering that I do know whales and all large mammals have experience population declines in the past 100 years. However, I am relunctant to view ANYTHING you say about, because your narrative is laced with so much emotional rhetoric, its easy to see through all that lace and see the bias in your argument.
I dunno, I guess I just have hard time listening to environmental propaganda from someone that has obviously spent a lot of time in highly urban settings. As suggested above, people from urban areas, are VERY out of touch with the natural world. Therefore, I believe they tend to let emotion control their beliefs towards the environment, instead of facts.
Not that an individual from, say... Southern California ... can't become highly educated on issues that affect the environment and our natural resources. I am absolutely certain judging by the extent of your education Jason that you are very knowledgeable about these topics.
That said, I must second David Roberts comment above. In all reality the discussion should have ended with his comment. Period. so here it is again, word for word.
"So too with your argument. I have no objection to you working on both environmental and animal-welfare concerns, but what conceivable good can come from saying that this is now a requirement for being an environmentalist?
You won't get more animal welfare supporters out of that; you'll just get fewer environmentalists."
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:52 pm
14 Sep 2006
Clearly the majority of American people are capable of sustaining themselves without having to hunt. That was not the point that I was trying to make. I was saying that rural people that hunt get a large part of their meat diet from it. And considering that rural people tend to not make a lot of money up North, this relieves them of some of their bills. Especially if they would hunt anyway.
I suppose that their is a different amount of wealth distribution between rural people in different parts of the country. Many Appalachian rural people are poor, while many of the Southern and Midwestern ruralites are living off their land, which is cheap, yet productive.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:58 pm
14 Sep 2006
Beyond that, I do not know enough to be able to comment on how Sierra Club spends its money. It always struck me that Sierra Club was entirely compartmentalized, including a tourist-agency section, an environmental-education section (the magazine, and related stuff), an environmentalist-lobbying section, an environmentalist-action-directing section, and an environmentalist-legal-action section. But what do I know. Carl Pope always writes well enough in the magazine.
I happen to like Rick Bass, as well as his book "Caribou Rising," which I consider a small gem. It should be clear that that book is principally about the Gwich'in who live on the southern edge of ANWR. The fact that he visited them in order to hunt caribou with them, which worked for him as a kind of letter-of-recommendation, is important but secondary. To be sure, I do not quite understand his commitment to hunting, and I mistrust the way he seems to glorify it. Similarly, I am not pleased by Michael Pollan's account of his pig-hunting experience in "Omnivore's Dilemma." But obviously hunting is a big part of the lives of a lot of people -- real outdoorsmen, such as Rick Bass and his Gwich'in friends, not the lazy rich guys who pay for a whole crew to find and corner the animal and set up the shot -- , and it is useful to have some way of looking into their souls.
That said, dear DWM, with all respect, I think you are overly worked up about something that is not there. Who in the world are all these "urbanites" who are making fun of you as a "rural hick hunter"? Nobody is more "urbanite" than I, living in NYC -- but please know that my mother-in-law lives in Springfield, MO, and loves tromping around the Ozarks, pulling plants out of fresh-water springs with which to make her salad; stay away from her Mexican food, though -- , and yet I say to you, God bless you, do what gives you joy, with or without a gun, and I am sure I would consider myself blessed if I had a twentieth of your ecological outdoors knowledge.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:37 pm
14 Sep 2006
In the recent book "The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter," by Peter Singer and Jim Mason, Singer writes in the Preface:
<<
Although the new animal movement, which some say was triggered by my earlier book, Animal Liberation, was starting to make an impact, in America most activists were still very much focused on animals used in research, for fur, and in circuses. Given the numbers of animals affected by these issues, that was an odd set of priorities. In the United States somewhere between 20 and 40 million birds and mammals are killed for research every year. That may seem like a lot -- and it far exceeds the number of animals killed for their fur, let alone the relatively tiny number used in circuses -- but even the figure of 40 million represents less than two days' toll in America's slaughterhouses, which kill around 10 billion each year.
>>
So on the one hand one of our leading animal-rights ethicists sort of lets the researchers off the hook, but on the other he presents us with this estimate of animal mortalities in the tens of millions.
You should know, Kaela, that I have great respect for you, and I have great respect for the people who dislike animal testing, so I feel rather torn.
I would make these recommendations:
Research on animals can be justified, only if it is for a medical end. Commercial ends, e.g. research into the safety or convenience of a proposed product intended to be merchandised, cannot justify testing on animals.
Experiments must always allow for a totally benign outcome. Prior to experiment, the prevailing attitude must be, "We have no reason to think that such-and-such an intrusion will afflict/injure/kill the animal; but such unfortunate results may occur; so let us see what happens." An attitude, prior to experiment, to the effect of, "This intrusion is painful/harmful/lethal, and we wish to learn to what degree it is painful/harmful, or how quickly it is lethal," is unethical, and must not be allowed.
When experiments involve intrusions in measured dosages, the reactions of the animal subjects must be carefully monitored. As soon as the animal subjects exhibit signs of discomfort due to the intrusions, or signs of injury due to the intrusions, the experiment in question must cease. If the experiment is continued with yet higher dosages, it is clearly unethical.
All animals procured and used for the purposes of research must always be kept in comfortable circumstances. In the case of dogs and cats and rabbits, also smaller rodents, cages may be used; but they must be spacious, and they must be well padded. There must always be adequate fresh food and water. They must all be given frequent exercise; the dogs especially will not want to pee or poop in their cages; they should have a free space most of the day, with lots of stimulation and companionship, and be returned to their cages only at the end of the day. All the cages must kept extremely clean. The cages should not be stacked; they should be arranged along a horizontal plane, so that the animals can see one another.
Regarding primates: I am at a loss, they are so complicated. My feeling is, all that I said about dogs goes for primates, and even more. For all mammals, especially dogs and primates, probably also rabbits and cats, there ought to be dedicated handlers, with the animals daily, always on hand.
5. There must be a competent, independent, disinterested overseer, inspecting the laboratory often, whose mission is to report any violations of these ethical regulations.
OK, that is all I can think of at present. I feel as though I was trying to invent the wheel; I am sure ethical guidelines for research with animals have been composed and established ages ago.
Frankly, I was weeping, thinking of dogs in cages. I think they do not mind being in enclosed spaces, so long as they are comfortable, and so long as they get to go outside for romps, and so long as they have no reason to fear the people on the outside.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 9:07 pm
14 Sep 2006
I was simply trying to illustrate that there are major differences between how those of us in rural America view environmentalism, compared to those is urban America. I still hold firm that I believe there is a major disconnect between urbananites and the natural world.
By the way, Springfield, MO is my favorite town on Earth. Spent my college years there (Go Bears!), and can't wait to return someday.
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:53 am
15 Sep 2006
It may make you feel better, or perhaps not, to know that in your fine message above you have essentially paraphrased the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, called by us in the biz the "Guide" or often the "Bible."
Certain things are a no-brainer; clean, sanitized cages, constant access to fresh food & water (most animal rooms these days are equipped with automatic water dispensers straight from the main building supply, of water that is reverse-osmosis filtered). Non-human primates (macaques, marmosets, baboons) have long been group housed for socialization, but increasingly the labs are moving to group housing of dogs, rats and mice as well. All animal facilities (worth their salt) must achieve accreditation by AAALAC, an independent oversight body for lab animal research. Pain & suffering are not allowed in the vast majority of animal medical research. In fact, to design a study that purposely allows pain and suffering is about as easy as passing meaningful energy legislation through Congress.
All this is not to say that is it not hard. It is, and it should be; it is heart-wrenching for me to see 20 Beagles in a room, and know that I put them there. To look into big, docile happy brown eyes and a wagging tail and try to apologize, somehow, for the fact that I sentenced them to death. Some people ask how I can do it, and I reply, "If not me, who?" Should it not be the person who loves animals dearly, who respects individual animals and nature as a whole, who is the one to make these decisions? Or should we leave the decisions to people who simply don't care that much? Who find it distasteful, so turn a blind eye, never monitor their studies, have no idea how their animals are treated?
It is tough. Every single time. But, when I scratch the rat behind the ears, or let the dog lick my hand and I try to offer up some meager thanks for the sacrifice that I know was not their choice... I also think of my father. I think of his suffering, his pain, as he lay on his cancer death bed at 48 years of age. I think of the once robust, athletic and fit man, 6 ft tall and 170 lbs, shrunken to a jaundiced 83 lbs by the invasive tumors that killed him. I think of the emotional pain and suffering of my Mother, a widow at 46 years old, my brother & sister, my neices who never got to know their grandfather.
In another thread, I mentioned that 50 million Americans live with some form of chronic pain every day. A drug I am currently studying may offer some glimmer of hope for those 50 million suffering bodies. In order to complete the studies necessary to sell the drug, I will probably need to kill approximately 100 dogs. It is sad. It should never not be sad. But, as even the Dalai Lama agrees, sometimes, the sacrifice can be justified if it will serve the greater good.
Kaela
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:57 am
15 Sep 2006
"...According to the nonprofit group Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms..."
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:24 am
15 Sep 2006
=======
Sacrifice would be when the dog agrees to suffer for the greater good. The argument for animal testing or research is that the infliction of suffering on an animal is can be justified.
Permalink