The case for animal welfare

According to an article in sciencemag.org, three lawsuits filed last week that attempted to achieve “legal personhood” for chimpanzees have been struck down. They were the first step in a nationwide campaign to grant legal rights to a variety of animals. The Nonhuman Rights Project (NHRP) Executive Director Natalie Prosin tells ScienceInsider that her group expected this outcome. “We were pleasantly surprised at how respectful the judges were, specifically the two that allowed us to have oral hearings,” she says. “We were thrilled to be able to do that. Now we have something on record that we can take to appeals court.” She says her group is now preparing those appeals, which she hopes will be heard in about a year.

The author of an article in spiked-online.com disagrees, saying that even accepting a certain, limited capacity for cognition and emotion, chimpanzees can never be persons. A chimpanzee will never represent himself in court and demand his autonomy. A chimpanzee will never take on a job, walk into a store and make a purchase. A chimpanzee will never even express disdain at all the rubbish on TV. Chimpanzees will merely go on doing what chimpanzees have always done because they lack the scope for flexibility and engagement in anything beyond their spontaneous desires and immediate environment. Someone, the author says, should let the NHRP know that significant social change requires social and political engagement, not the swift turn of a judge’s gavel.

I have worked with animals all of my adult life and I have come to believe that it is not so much about the rights of animals as it is about our responsibilities as humans and as stewards of the planet. Societies decide what is right and what is wrong, and we create laws to prohibit the wrong. Keeping a chimp in a small cage is just plain wrong and should be prohibited by law.  Does that mean chimps should never be kept in any sort of confinement? Probably not. Does that mean no animals should be kept in confinement? There are many gray areas to be sure, but the sooner we begin to focus on animal welfare and stop arguing animal rights, the sooner we will get to an acceptable answer.

Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, is a proponent of focusing on animal welfare rather than animal rights. “Animals are not persons,” he is quoted as saying in the article in sciencemag.org, “but that does not mean that abusing them is acceptable. Both humans and animals would be best served by placing a strong emphasis on human responsibility for humane treatment of animals rather than creating an artificial construct of animal personhood."

In an article for the Toledo Blade newspaper in 1997, syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell put it this way. “The mush-headedness of our times is nowhere better illustrated than in the ‘animal rights’ movement. Animals have no rights because they have no responsibilities and are not part of our legal system. Being against cruelty to animals is one thing, talking nonsense is another.”

The inescapable cruelty of life

When the Dallas Safari Club recently announced its plans to auction a hunt for a black rhinoceros in Namibia I knew that I, as a conservationist, should be outraged – but I was not. The permit to be auctioned at the Dallas Safari Club’s January convention could bring as much as one million dollars for Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism rhino program. Only an old, post-breeding bull will be targeted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says science supports the idea that limited culls of older males can benefit a local population and calls Namibia’s rhino program outstanding. The World Wildlife Fund also endorses the concept of selectively removing old male rhinos.

The announcement did touch off a firestorm of controversy in some mainstream conservation circles. According to a recent article in the Dallas Morning News, Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States said the idea of auctioning a rhino hunt at a time when the world is mobilizing to save the animals from mercenary poaching is wrong. “Education,” he said, “is the key to saving threatened wildlife.”

Well that may be true, but money is still a powerful influence. Maybe I am less averse to this hunt because I live in an agrarian, hunting society in South Georgia. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who kill deer every year, not just for the sport of it, but also to put meat in the freezer. Hunters pump millions of dollars into the economy of saving wildlife habitat, something the “conservationists” are not able to do.

Kentucky-based poet, novelist, and farmer Wendell Berry was recently interviewed by journalist Bill Moyers for a segment of Moyers & Company. Berry, who is widely respected in conservation circles, spoke about “the inescapable cruelty of life”.

“Whether we like it or not,” he said, “we live at the expense of other creatures. The rule in using other creatures (both plants and animals) is to use them with the minimal amount of violence.”

In his poem For the Hog Killing, Berry’s respect for the process of butchering a hog is eloquently explained:

Let them stand still for the bullet, and stare the shooter in the eye,

Let them die while the sound of the shot is in the air, let them die as they fall,

Let the jugular blood spring hot to the knife, let its freshet be full,

Let this day begin again the change of hogs into people, not the other way around,

For today we celebrate again our lives’ wedding with the world,

For by our hunger, by this provisioning, we renew the bond.

The process of selectively removing an old male rhino from the population is a sound management practice. If that process can be utilized to benefit the general population financially then I might put that down to “the inescapable cruelty of life”.  I must admit, however, that I do find it distasteful that this rhino will end up a trophy, with his head hanging on some rich guy’s wall. I just hope the money is put to good use in Africa and doesn’t end up lining the pockets of some corrupt dictator. That would be the ultimate cruelty.

Bigfoot and the Rewilding of Kentucky

In a recent (9/27/2013) TED Radio Hour Podcast entitled Everything is Connected, I heard an interview with author of the book Feral, George Monbiot. He talks about stumbling across the word “Rewilding” which, according to the website of the Rewilding Institute means “the scientific argument for restoring big wilderness based on the regulatory roles of large predators”. This is what we have seen in the Yellowstone ecosystem with the return of timber wolves. Monbiot claims in the interview that profound changes have occurred to the entire ecosystem as a result of the reintroduction of the wolves. The natural reduction of the deer and elk populations resulted in regeneration of plant life, leading to an increase in populations of birds, beavers, and bears and, most remarkable, the “behavior” of the rivers and streams. More plant life meant less erosion causing channels to change course and become more fixed. The reintroduction of wolves, he claims, changed the physical geography of Yellowstone. Who would have thought?

Monbiot is a huge advocate for rewilding. He lost me when he began talking about reintroducing rhinos, hippos, and lions to Europe and the UK – because fossilized bones indicate that they had once lived there – but then he went on to say something that really caught my attention. In talking about his desire for us to step back and let nature decide, he said rewilding is about the future and the hope of bringing back lost species, while much of our modern conservation work is about the past and trying to lock-in past ecosystems as we know them now. Rewilding, he says, gives us hope where we currently have despair. We need to replace the “Silent Spring” with a “Raucous Summer”.

All of this was rattling around my brain when I saw the news headline about the discovery of Bigfoot in Kentucky. A veterinarian, who leads something called the Sasquatch Genome Project, has been conducting an analysis of DNA samples she has collected and concludes that Sasquatch is a human relative that arose about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, while the Sasquatch Genome Project claimed in a February report to have submitted 113 samples of hair, blood, saliva and other tissues to laboratories, including New York University, NYU officials say they never accepted samples. A professor at the Department of Anthropology at NYU, told ABCNews.com that the research was "just a joke."

So, is it hope I felt when a small voice deep within my emotional self tried to tell my rational self that, with the Sasquatch Genome Project on the case, Bigfoot might be real?

“It’s a JOKE,” says my rational self. “But let’s release some timber wolves into the area and find out once and for all.”

Now there’s a Rewilding project to give us some hope!

A World without Zoos

Imagining a world without zoos seems pretty farfetched. They have been around for so many generations that they are ingrained into our worldwide society. But Costa Rica, it appears, is ready to pull the plug on all public funding of zoos, effectively shutting them down entirely. According to an article at the Guardian.com, Costa Rica announced last month that it will no longer use public funds to keep animals in cages. This means the Simón Bolívar zoo in San José and the Santa Ana conservation centre will close when existing operating contracts run out.

What if other countries follow suit and ban zoos? What if my city of Albany, Georgia decided to stop funding Chehaw Wild Animal Park and we had to close our local zoo? That would mean that next year, in 2014, thousands of children on school field trips from South Georgia would not see a black rhino, a meerkat, or a lemur and learn what extinction means. Nearly two hundred children between the ages of 5 and 12 would not have hands-on animal experience at summer camp; 80 teenage Junior Zookeepers would need to find another way to spend their summer; and college students from Albany State, Georgia Southwestern, and other colleges & universities would not have internship opportunities at Chehaw Park.

People tend to think of zoos as weekend venues where the family can gawk at exotic creatures.  But modern, accredited zoos are much more than that. They are places of science and of education. Zoo programs meet Common Core Curriculum school standards that would hold up to the most rigorous classroom instruction. College credit is issued for some zoo programs and zoo research projects frequently satisfy requirements for university lab classes. University research projects conducted at Chehaw Park include studies on wild populations of bats, gopher tortoises, and frogs. Chehaw Wild Animal Park has even participated in a multi-zoo, nationwide research study on cheetah reproductive hormone cycles.

And the downside of zoos where animals are held as captives? There are some, to be sure. The humane care of elephants, apes, and whales in captivity is challenging at best and, some would say, downright impossible. But in many cases, the animals held in zoos are no worse off than my dogs at home who gaze longingly out from the “cage” of my living room window. Would they like to roam the neighborhood, chasing squirrels and getting into my neighbor’s garbage? I’m sure they would. Would they be better-off? I think not!

Wild places and wild animals are disappearing at an alarming rate and nobody is sounding the alarm louder than zoos, but the Guardian.com notes that environment minister René Castro wants Costa Rica’s end of state-financed captivity to be a turning point, saying "With this move, we are sending a message that the state wishes to show biodiversity in its natural state, under a modern and holistic integration of space, society and natural resources."

In 1989, my wife and I observed “biodiversity in its natural state” as we sat at a waterhole in central Africa watching a female sitatunga antelope cautiously step out into the open and make her way to the water for a drink. It was not a remarkable scene until someone pointed out two female lions lurking at the forest edge nearby. We watched as they split up and were mesmerized as one lion chased the antelope into the waiting jaws of her companion in a remarkable bit of teamwork. The antelope never had a chance. We didn’t know whether to feel sorry for the sitatunga as she was suffocated by the lion’s strangle hold on her throat or cheer for the lions and their remarkable bit of hunting. You could argue that these lions are better off in the wild because they get to hunt antelope for dinner, but I am not so sure about the sitatunga.  

Millions of people are positively influenced by the collective conservation message of zoos and the animals that live in them. Would these animals better-off in the wild? They might be if humans had not evolved to dominate every corner of the planet – but here we are. And how do you define better-off, anyway?

Baseball and Chimpanzees

A couple of headlines caught my eye in the Saturday morning news feed. One of them, in the sports section, noted that Max Scherzer became the first pitcher to start the baseball season with 12 wins and no losses in 27 years. A little further down the column, under Science, was a Los Angeles Times article on why chimps can't throw a baseball at 90 mph.

I love baseball. I don’t have any connection to the Detroit Tigers, but I was interested to see that pitcher Max Scherzer “is the only one who has produced an unblemished record through 12 decisions in 2013, a first for any hurler since Roger Clemens with the Boston Red Sox in 1986”.

I grew up listening to Hall of Fame pitcher Dizzy Dean call games on CBS and watching Yankees pitcher Whitey Ford pitch in Spring Training where I grew up in St. Petersburg, Florida. There are plenty of hard throwers in baseball these days and many of them have reached the hundred-mile-an-hour club, but according to sports writer Red Smith, “Whitey Ford could throw a lamb chop past a hungry wolf”.

Which brings me back to the animal connection. An article in the June 27 edition of Nature with the daunting title, “Elastic Energy Storage in the Shoulder and the Evolution of High-speed Throwing in Homo”, notes that “Some primates, including chimpanzees, throw objects occasionally, but only humans regularly throw projectiles with high speed and accuracy”. According the authors, Darwin noted that the unique throwing abilities of humans, which were made possible when bipedalism emancipated the arms, enabled foragers to hunt effectively using projectiles. The authors used experimental studies of humans throwing projectiles to show that our throwing capabilities largely result from several derived anatomical features that enable elastic energy storage and release at the shoulder. These features first appear together approximately 2 million years ago in the species Homo erectus. Taking into consideration archaeological evidence suggesting that hunting activity intensified around this time, the authors conclude that selection for throwing as a means to hunt probably had an important role in the evolution of the genus Homo.

Of course, that makes perfect sense when you think about it. If early humans could throw a rock or a spear accurately and with force, they were much more likely to be successful food gatherers – a perfectly reasonable adaptation.

When I was a young zookeeper starting my career at Busch Gardens, I had to undergo an initiation of sorts in the chimp house. Our legendary and fearsome male, Bamboo, had once escaped, attacked a keeper, and bitten the man’s calf muscle off. When Bamboo went into a threat display, it was terrifying. And to make matters worse, he liked to throw his poop as a finale to his act. The poop came flying with force and accuracy as he scooped it off the floor and let fly in one smooth motion. But, now that I think about it, he always used an underhand motion. I never saw him pick it up and throw it overhand from a wind up or the stretch. Now, after more than 40 years, I finally know why.