Animal Crackers

Zogby Poll

One should always be careful when one invokes "popularity" or "public opinion" as if it were a gold standard of morality, logical coherence or factual accuracy. But scientifically-conducted polls can be illuminating.

It is with this in mind that I offer this on the attitudes of Americans towards gun owner rights and hunting, which is an excerpt from a recently published and comprehensive Zogby poll. This is excerpted from the excerpt (whew!):

The highly respected research firm Zogby International has conducted the first installment of its 2004 Zogby Values Poll, surveying 1,200 voters nationwide on issues that included firearms and hunting issues. Working with the Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University and the O`Leary Report, Zogby`s questions interestingly examine differences in thinking between people living in the states that voted for George Bush in 2000 (Red states) and Al Gore (Blue states). . . . . .

Voters were also asked about hunting: "Which of the follow statements comes closer to your opinion? Statement A: Killing wild animals for food or sport is an American tradition and an essential part of wildlife management. Statement B: Hunting is a cruel sport and should be outlawed." Statement A was chosesn by of 92% of gun owners and 73% of non-gun owners.

The survey also addressed wildlife overpopulation, asking: "Some states in America are being overrun with growing populations of deer, bear, or wolves. When this happens, which of the following do you feel is the best option to take? 1) The state should lengthen hunting seasons; 2) Non-lethal methods of control should be used; 3) People should learn to live with wildlife."

Lengthening hunting seasons was the overwhelming response, chosen by 61% of the voters, while only 18% said use non-lethal methods, and 16% opted for coexistence.

The excerpt contains additional data on the attitude of our citizenry towards gun ownership and gun laws, if you're interested in that. (I, for one, was surprised at how clear-cut and how bipartisan attitudes seem to be.)

In looking at these numbers, I'm interested that even 72% of non-gun owners (vs 92% of owners) believe that hunting is a useful wildlife management tool, but when it comes to the more specific question, viz, of controlling overpopulation in states plagued with too many deer, bear or wolves - the number of people favoring hunting drops to 61%, with 34% of respondents favoring non-lethal means of population control.

Frankly, I consider 61% to be a remarkably high figure. Others might look at the 34% and argue otherwise.

Why do I think as I do? First, many urbanites have unlimited access to television and its often romanticized portrayal of animals, but limited first hand experience with wild animal overpopulation and its effects on people, their property and wildlife habitat. For these people, I think it's easier to agree to the concept that "killing is necessary to control wildlife populations" than it is to accept the decision to cull animals in a specific instance. Concepts tend to be vague and remote, but the decision to implement a plan to cull animals of specific species is much more immediate and concrete, and this is especially the case when one is not familiar with the full scope of the problems caused by overpopulation.

So - when the question narrows to killing deer, bears or wolves, I'm guessing that many (especially urbanites) think of the animals - subconsciously or not - according to a romantic fantasy: deer as Bambi, wolves as noble and bears as playful, all leaving us humans to our business as long as we leave them to theirs.

Given this, when the decision must be made as to whether or not animals are to be culled, people have to confront consequences and if our view of animals is based on a sentimental fantasy, and it is no wonder that their initial reaction would be to question whether the killing really is necessary now. Under these coneditions, I can understand a certain reluctance.

So - I guess I view the numbers this way: even with large numbers of our population increasingly out of contact with wild animals and their habitat, and given the fantasy ideal of animals fed to us by the popular media, 61% of us would still support increasing the length of hunting seasons to control overpopulation. That's pretty remarkable, in my opinion.

Yet - I don't believe that these numbers (61% for lethal vs 34% for non-lethal population control) are firm. A question of still finer focus could be asked. Suppose (the scientific equivalent of) this question were asked:

If you knew that overpopulation of deer, wolf or bear presented a clear threat to a) decimate a local ecosystem; b) cause widespread malnutrition, disease and death within the animal population itself; and c) human health and well being, would you favor 1) increasing hunting seasons; 2) learning to live with the problem; or 3) trying to control the population through non-lethal means?

I suspect that if this question (or its scientific equivalent) were asked, you'd find that far greater than 61% of those polled would favor increasing hunting, and far fewer than 34% of respondents would favor efforts at non-lethal population control.

Hat tip to Rich Young.

Brian

Argentinian Beaver Overpopulation

Recently (here and here), I blogged on animal overpopulation and habitat destruction, whether due to indigenous or introduced animals. No habitat, however remote, is immune to this problem. In this case, the problem animal is the beaver:

TIERRA DEL FUEGO, Argentina (Reuters) - The Great Beaver Plague, as some furious locals call it, began in 1946 with the same good but misguided intentions that have presaged countless other ecological disasters.

That year, Argentina's former military government imported 25 pairs of beavers from Canada, hoping they would multiply and create a fur industry among the forests on this large island at the very tip of South America.

Multiply they did. But the fur trade never quite caught on, and there were no natural predators. So today there are tens of thousands of beavers wreaking havoc across Tierra del Fuego -- felling trees, damming up rivers and stirring scandal among the humans as they butt heads over how to solve the problem.

"The beavers are an enormous headache, a plague, and the worst part is that nobody can agree on a solution," said Adriana Guillen, head of the local wildlife department.

The debate has pitted ecologists against animal rights activists, and government officials against each other. Stuck in the middle are tourism companies, who are turning the creatures into a side trip for a booming number of foreigners putting in to port on luxury cruises to nearby Antarctica. . . . .

Nobody knows how many "beaver tourists" there have been so far, but the recent interest has rekindled a debate that has raged for years: by what means, and to what extent should the beaver population be controlled. . . . .

"This 'beaver tourism' is a scandal," Guillen said. "The beavers need to be controlled, not idealised. They're ruining the environment."

The local government offers hunters about $1.50 for every beaver they kill, and every week somebody shows up with a truckload of bloody tails as proof of their work. But the bounty is so low that the hunting has little effect. . . . .

Human ingenuity being what it is, there is apparently something of a cottage industry developing to export beaver meat, and to produce wallets, keychains, hats and gloves. But it's hard to imagine that this alone will reduce population numbers.

This is not the first time that Tierra Del Fuego has been ravaged by introduced species. In the early 20th Century, European rabbits were introduced there, and with no natural enemies, reproduced out of control. To control them, foxes were introduced ... which then played havoc with the sheep industry. The best laid plans and all.

Not all introduced species of animal can establish themselves once they release into the wild - but those that do can devastate an ecosystem and must be controlled if the habitat is to renew. And any realistic hope of controlling animal overpopulation - whether by deer, pigs, beavers or other animals - will inevitably include killing them, with humans being the agents of their death - Animal Rights fantasy solutions not withstanding.

Brian

Spay/Neuter and Speciesism

Yesterday, I pointed out - with deliberate hyperbole - how antithetical the AR support for neutering of animals is to their core belief that all animals have the right not to be exploited by humans. And I pointed out that the "greater good" argument is a double edged sword: if it is ethical to neuter animals for one greater good, why is it not ethical to use animals (for example, in research) for another greater good? Why is one greater good ethically acceptable, while another is not?

Today, I want to continue briefly on the spay/neuter theme, and make the case that AR people who favor spaying and neutering violate a second core AR belief.

AR people often invoke the term "speciesism" to justify giving rights to animals. The term was coined in 1974 by Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation, and it refers to members of one species (human beings) believing they are superior to other species. As the argument goes, just as racism is immoral, so is speciesism. And, just as racism was morally acceptable in western cultures 200 years ago but is no longer, so speciesism will, as society becomes more enlightened, likewise come to be regarded as immoral.

So, the repudiation of speciesism is another core belief of the AR community.

Which gets us back to the issue of spaying and neutering. By advocating spaying and neutering of animals, not only are the AR folks willfully depriving animals of their reproductive rights, they are also advocating speciesism: they would solve the problem of animal overpopulation differently, one hopes, than they would solve the problem of human overpopulation - by compelling sterilization.

I suppose there might be some defense for AR people violating two of the central pillars of their ideology, but I really haven't seen one that is any better than "greater good", which I find to be unpersuasive. But what really surprises me is that the AR people who press hard for neutering animals seem totally unconflicted. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of a debate within the AR community about the ethics and morality of an issue that should be the AR equivalent of the heated mainstream debate over the morality of abortion.

Brian

AR Groups Advocate Mutilating Animals

I guess today is national spay and neuter day. Spaying and neutering is supported by many AR groups, including PeTA.

Well - I certainly support spaying and neutering! Don't you?

But isn't it a little curious that AR groups would? I mean, think about this. The core AR belief is that the individual animal is inviolate: it is supremely immoral for humans to exercise power over a single animal regardless of the benefit to humans, other animals or the ecosystem. AR advocates call any such exercise "exploitation" and characterize it as "abuse," "cruelty," or even "torture." It is for this reason that AR luminaries oppose all human control over animals, irrespective of any benefits. (For a disturbing potpourri of quotes by AR luminaries, check here.)

So how do AR folks square their "no-abuse-of-an-individual-animal-for-a-greater-good" philosophy with their enthusiasm for subjecting cats and dogs to an unnecessary surgical procedure that carries with it the risk of infection or death, a procedure specifically performed to deny the animals their reproductive rights?

Not only are the animals deprived of their right to reproduce, but their sexual organs are mutilated, their mental state is altered making them docile (tomcats no longer mark chairs ...) and even more dependent on human beings (a no-no for AR zealots). And, of course, once altered, these animals can no longer enjoy the simple pleasures of the sexual act.

Now, you can't have it both ways - you can't champion animal "rights" by opposing animal based research irrespective of greater good, and then turn around and trample the reproductive rights of animals, justifying this on the grounds of greater good!

In short, by advocating spaying and neutering, AR people are violating the core principle of their ideology: they are placing expediency above principle, exactly what they demonize scientists, for example, for doing when they use animals in research.

It is perfectly consistent for those of us who do not believe animals have rights to advocate spaying and neutering. But people who believe that animals do have rights - as in Animal Rights people - should oppose spaying and neutering just as vigorously as they oppose animal based research.

And where is the Animal Liberation Front in all this? If I were a member of PeTA or another AR group advocating spaying and neutering, I'd be worried!

Brian

Targeting Judges

If you can't win by persuasion, then you win by coercion and intimidation:

Animal rights campaigners have begun to target the mothers and mothers-in-law of judges who have banned them from harassing companies linked to the life-sciences industry.

The news is evidence of a growing escalation in the activists' war on companies involved in animal testing and their suppliers.

The campaigners have set up a website giving the home addresses and telephone numbers of Mrs Justice Hallett and her mother. The site later gives the home address of the 54-year-old judge's mother-in-law.

The site, seen yesterday by The Telegraph, also lists the home addresses and telephone numbers of Mr Justice Owen, 59, and his mother, as well as giving the name and profession of his wife. It also contains home details of the directors of State Street Corporation, which it claims is a large investor in Yamanouchi Pharma, a Huntingdon Life Sciences customer. The site boasts: "They're not immortal. They don't live in fireproof houses." ....

Mark Matfield, research director for the Research Defence Society, said: "I have not seen anything like this before. We have seen animal rights extremists threaten to target police officers. To do this to High Court judges and their families is unprecedented." ....

The AR people, of course, feign innocence - Greg Avery of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) claims it's all an industry plot, presumably to discredit the Animal Rights movement - an assertion that doesn't pass the (dark) laugh test.

I don't really need to say this, but I will anyway. Even in the absence of specifically calling for the torching of houses or other violent acts, publishing such information is a transparent attempt to intimidate. Once this personal information is available and coupled to the incendiary issue that the AR people have constructed (viz. that no animal research is justifiable, and that by definition all animal research is torture), there is always a possibility that some AR fanatic might put 2 + 2 together and act out. For the person whose personal information has been revealed, there can be no peace of mind.

And for the AR people to target judges and their families is clearly an escalation, but one that might well backfire: if the AR fanatics aren't afraid to target people who someday may decide their fate in a court of law, they aren't afraid to target anyone. This kind of boldness is a real attention getter.

The Brits are considering new legislation that would be akin to that which was enacted to deal with the problem of football hooliganism. But whatever happens, keep in mind that the UK doesn't have a First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, so their way of approaching this issue may well be different from the way we in the US would (or would not) approach it.

Brian