beyond-the-red-list

[beyond-the-red-list]

Ethics of captive breeding Animals in a country with a climate that is not similar to their native habitat

As I’ve discussed before, captive breeding animals intending to be released into the wild is complex, especially when the zoo or sanctuary is not in the country where that animal’s natural habitat is located. Many legal considerations must be made, and all parties involved must also handle animal transportation, which is stress-inducing for the animals and the handlers.

However, captive breeding animals in climates that they do not typically experience in their natural habitat is strange since they may learn behaviors that are unnatural. For example, tigers experiencing British weather will probably take longer to get reacclimated to the weather in their native land. Another issue is experiencing extreme weather conditions but having AC or heat because the handlers are trying to ensure the animals are not dying due to weather-related problems, which is an unfortunate reality for their wild counterparts. For example, there is a red-headed vulture at World Bird Sanctuary, and they are currently attempting to find a suitable mate for him. Still, they admitted they might need to import a female from a different country. If they find a mate and get her to Missouri and it ends up being successful, those offspring will have been born in a climate that is not similar to their native climate in parts of India. While it is understandable that the sanctuary wants to be part of the captive breeding program, I think having local programs in their native countries and habitats makes more sense. Having these breeding programs occur worldwide allows for accidental imprinting and learned behaviors that can make it more difficult to release the animals back into the wild.

An additional potential issue is that if the breeding programs are occurring in two countries with plans for an eventual release into the wild, the country where they will be released may have different standards for what requirements must be met for the animal to be considered releasable. Local sanctuaries would have better chances of having successful releases and be less troublesome. However, the main issue is getting funding from westerners. Sanctuaries in the U.S. can receive donations because visitors can directly see the animals, but donations to a foreign sanctuary make fewer people donate. However, local sanctuaries would also be cheaper since they don't have to worry about perfecting a fake climate if they are already located in the animals' native ecosystem.

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgrBVmJeHJI

[beyond-the-red-list]

Rehabilitation vs Rewilding: Ethical Considerations In Conservation Practices

Regarding rehabilitation and rewilding, I think it’s best done together rather than only one part being focused on. Rehabilitation of animals that have been harmed or injured is essential because it keeps those animals from dying and allows them to (usually) be released back into the wild once they have recovered enough. Also, in many states, it’s surprisingly easy to become a wildlife rehabilitator of some level, although different levels have varying permissions. That allows rehabilitation to be a relatively accessible method of conservation for many people while, on the other hand, rewilding is more complicated. By letting wildlife and natural processes reclaim places no longer managed by humans, rewilding attempts to restore ecosystems and reverse losses in biodiversity.

Additionally, when rewilding is not adequately defined and managed, it can be more harmful than positive. An example of this was in the Netherlands, where a project in 1983 introduced Heck cattle, Konik horses, and red deer to reclaimed land. However, due to mismanagement, an overgrazing problem eventually led to many animals dying of starvation in the winter because of overcompensation. The animals did not have enough habitat to roam, but the program was ultimately changed to decrease the number of herbivores and adequately apply the ideas behind rewilding.

Applying both of these concepts together allows animals to regain their habitat and also have a lower chance of needing to be rehabilitated due to human-caused injuries like being hit by cars or poisoned. Focusing on only one concept makes conservation harder since all approaches matter when it comes to making a difference, especially with at-risk animal populations that are not at the level for protections to be put in place but still are not at the population level they once used to be. Focusing on rewilding only leaves animals that have been negatively affected by human interference in their environment leaves them vulnerable. Human-caused problems require human intervention to fix, and that is okay. While “nature healing itself” is an idealized concept, there are many scenarios where it is not feasible in the current or near future.

Sources:

https://www.mossy.earth/rewilding-knowledge/rewilding-vs-conservation

https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/fish-wildlife-plant/special-licenses/wildlife-rehabilitator

https://iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/benefits-and-risks-rewilding

[beyond-the-red-list]

Ethics of taking pictures with hunted animals for sport

This post will be more about my personal ethics since many people have differing opinions, and hunting is a topic I don’t know much about. I won’t sit and claim that hunting is bad, but I think that some aspects, such as taking pictures with a dead animal as if it’s a trophy, are very odd. The most recent example was Aaron Lewis taking a photo with 32 dead coyotes that had the bodies spelling out “Trump 24.” he also posted a similar picture spelling out “FJB.” Obviously, I will not be showing the picture because of how disturbing it is (and social media guidelines).

The interesting part of the reactions was that a large number of people who had the same political views and also hunted animals thought the picture was highly disrespectful to the animals. Part of the reason why people hunt aside from sport is that certain animals are overpopulated in some areas of the U.S. For example, they have spread their range since other larger apex predators have died out due to humans encroaching on their territory and also being hunted to near extinction. Coyotes do not need to be hunted to regulate the population. Furthermore, many coyotes killed are done in rather cruel ways simply because they behave in a way that aligns with their nature, and humans do not like it. Coyotes occasionally kill pet cats and dogs since they are easy meals, which has led to hunters killing them out of some sort of revenge and demonizing their existence.

While trophy hunting is a popular sport, I think it is also strange because depending on the animal, the picture is the only “memento” hunters can keep. Other animals hunters are allowed to keep for taxidermy and show off that they hunted some large or rare animals like a lion or giraffe. But hunting an animal just for fun, instead of out of necessity and using as much of the animal as you can, feels weird to me. Many hunters only hunt to sustain themselves and their families and do so with respect. Taking a picture feels disrespectful, and using their bodies to spell something out is even more disrespectful because it’s also mocking the animal's death, especially since many trophy hunters don’t do anything with the body and unnecessarily kill an animal that is (typically) rare or unique to hunt.

Sources:

(Warning: the second link is to the Facebook post with the dead coyotes)

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/staind-aaron-lewis-slammed-peta-trump-24-dead-coyotes-1235450747/

https://www.facebook.com/AaronLewisMusic/posts/pfbid0zKNrTaCr84osPLrmjYcy5jCqBgx9x979id1nVavoCCxtooMqaNyKXTazQuXK66Fyl

[beyond-the-red-list]

Current legislation on protecting threatened species in the US

The United States has made some progress in the protection of species. With the upcoming change in presidency, the likelihood of progress continuing is unlikely. Hopefully, there will be little to no steps backward, and instead, it will be ignored, which is, unfortunately, the best option. Back in March of this year, the Biden-Harris Administration Finalized “Rules to Strengthen Protection and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats.”  Many of the changes made were revisions to the wording of rules and regulations. This included reclassifying species and designation areas of protected lands, which must be done “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” This is a positive change since no megacorporations can sway how the federal government protects species and favors the interest of the economy over endangered species and their ecosystems. Reclassifications can be done using science-backed facts, and areas that previously could’ve been used for drilling or mining will be allowed to have protections placed to prevent further harm to the ecosystem. 

Another interesting rule was that “FWS also extended to federally recognized Tribes the exceptions to prohibitions that the regulations currently provide to the employees or agents of the FWS and other Federal and State agencies to aid, salvage, or dispose of threatened species and updated the endangered plant regulations.” This change was interesting, and I appreciated that special consideration was given to Native Americans since many reservations are considered sacred land. Allowing Natives to continue practicing their culture without fear of persecution from the government, which has previously done its best to disrespect and erase their culture. Ethically speaking, this indicates that the government understands that Western conservation ideas are not the only option. Natives that may “dispose or salvage” threatened species usually do so for a reason built from generational knowledge of the land. Before, non-native hunters decimated the population of bison, but Native hunters never took more than needed and always hunted with respect. Furthermore, when it comes to endangered plants that natives use, they can potentially discuss with governmental agencies to protect more land that used to be where those plants grew but, due to human influence, have died out.

Also, an interesting rule was that they rescinded the regulation that defined the term “habitat” for critical habitat designations. When language becomes a barrier to progress made for endangered animals, it’s understandable that people being nitpicky may not have the best intentions. Afterward, people know what is not considered a “habitat” are can get around laws that should be protecting those ecosystems.

Sources:

1.https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-rules-strengthen-protection-and-recovery

2. https://www.fws.gov/project/endangered-species-act-regulation-revisions

[beyond-the-red-list]

Consumption of threatened animals in alternative medicine and or/ traditional Chinese medicine

When talking about traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), I will not discuss whether or not it works; I will only discuss the ethical implications. Many of the animals used in TCM are endangered or threatened to some extent. For example, products may include parts of rhinos and tigers, which are illegal to trade and sell, and anything involving those animals. The animal/human dualism of humans constantly seeing animals as products makes it difficult to tell people that they shouldn’t be consuming products from these endangered animals; they believe people deserve to because animals are just viewed as what they are helpful to humans. Humans think they have the right to use animals as they see fit, but this ties to how humans can’t view themselves as something to be used by animals similarly. 

 Another vital thing to note is that just like the close relationship between humans and animals increases the chances of diseases mutating from being only in animals to being able to transmitted to humans, the consumption of animal products also increases the likelihood of zoonosis/zoonotic disease. For some users of TCM, the only way to make them start using only herbal medicines is by talking about how it impacts humans since some people don’t care about animal welfare. If your goal is to decrease the trade and sale of animal products, then sometimes you need to take what you can. Effective altruism is the concept of doing the most good and taking action, doing so impartially. That can involve actions that “barely” have an impact rather than inaction. Humans care about themselves, and the fear of getting a sickness that only animals typically have is terrifying, so educating TCM users to stay away from animal-based products is a method that can work. 

For people who do care about the animals, a better method is bringing up how endangered animals like tigers and rhinos are typically killed in ruthless ways to make a small amount of product. Also, the populations left in the wild are so small and haven’t been helped by the poaching that has occurred for years in the black market of endangered animal parts. Individuals who learn about the methods of how their medicine is acquired and made are no longer distanced from the brutality and are forced to either be complacent or realize they need to stop their consumption. It’s a similar concept to educating the public on factory farming. Once people are aware, they have to deal with the information in a way that they confront it because of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, even farmed tigers in China that are bred to be used in TCM are eventually unethical since the likelihood of poaching in other countries that have wild tigers will increase. When legality is no longer a question, the only choice is to bring up personal morals because there’s less to lose legally.

Sources:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229903000554?via%3Dihub

https://explore.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/traditional-chinese-medicine-and-endangered-animals

[beyond-the-red-list]

Ecotourism and the ethics of traveling to sanctuaries to see threatened animals

The concept of ecotourism is pretty self-explanatory; it’s a type of tourism that aims to be more eco-friendly than regular tourism. It can involve observing nature in national parks and learning about native ecosystems and how to protect them. However, ecological tourism has some issues regarding learning about threatened animals. Some places may try to entice tourists with unique and one-of-a-kind experiences of touching or helping to feed animals, like in zoos and “sanctuaries.” Having photo opportunities with animals like tigers and elephants is pretty common in zoos and sanctuaries in Thailand. However, I would like to note that not all zoos and sanctuaries are equal regarding the treatment and care of their animals. 

Too many tourists will automatically assume that if these zoos and sanctuaries allow these rare and endangered animals in their care, they’ll automatically be ethical. Ecotourism, done without enough research into how animals are acquired and treated, negates all of the benefits of ecotourism in my eyes. I’m not even arguing that you have to do super-intensive research to ensure that the places you visit are ethical; ask yourself a few simple questions, and the answer will be obvious. 

Does this animal have enough space to roam? Is there space to hide from onlookers, or is this animal always forced to be in the public's view?

Does this animal have constant close interaction with non-caretakers? For example, are people allowed to hold young tigers or take pictures that are very close to them?

Do these animals interact with humans in a very strange way compared to their wild counterparts? For example, elephant sanctuaries that allow tourists to bathe and feed the elephants.

If the answer is yes to most of these questions, then the zoo or sanctuary in question may exploit the animals in their care to have more tourists visit. I’m not saying that these sanctuaries cannot teach tourists the importance of protecting the land the wild animals need to live in. However, having endangered animals act in unnatural ways makes their work unethical. The Tiger Rescue Centre at WFFT is an example of a rescue organization that does ethical work by saving tigers from the Phuket Zoo, where the tigers were kept on short chains on concrete flooring as if they were props for tourists to take pictures with. At the rescue center, they live in forested lands where they can run around in the grass and swim in a lake, not being forced to interact with visitors constantly.

Ecotourism can be beneficial when done correctly, and it can make a difference since it can be directly donated to NGOs that are doing work to decrease the number of exploitative attractions. Traveling to the country where the animals are native to and supporting the economy, makes it enticing. Going to an ethical sanctuary for elephants means you can still get experience learning, but you won't get up close and personal with the animals. Ethical elephant sanctuaries may still involve cool experiences like seeing how much food is in one meal for an elephant or how older elephants get bathed by professional caretakers.

Sources:

https://www.aventuradobrasil.com/blog/sustainable-tourism-in-brazil/

https://www.responsiblevacation.com/vacations/elephant-conservation/travel-guide/elephant-sanctuaries-which-we-do-and-dont-support

https://www.wfft.org/projects/tiger-rescue-centre/

[beyond-the-red-list]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Servaldays (@servaldays)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Alveus Sanctuary (@alveussanctuary)

Ethics of Crossbreeding Domestic Animals with their Non-Domestic Counterparts as Part of the Exotic Pet Trade

Crossbreeding domestic animals with their non-domestic counterparts sounds strange, but there are a few more well-known types that people may not realize are examples. For example, wolf dogs can happen accidentally in nature, but most are bred intentionally. Also, the Savvanah is a hybrid between domestic cats and servals, and the Bengal is a cross between Asian leopard cats and domestic cats. These hybrids have different levels, which are determined by the wild to domestic lineage percentage. People intentionally breed them for the exotic pet trade, but the ethical concern is that these animals aren’t natural. Humans' domesticated versions were bred over centuries to fit perfectly as everyday companions and live beside us.

Furthermore, the fact that they have strong instincts means that they are more likely to be dangerous to their owners. The higher percentage of wild animals in them makes them more likely to act in unpredictable ways and view their human owners as prey of another predator that will make them fearful and aggressive. If a person was attacked, that begs people to ask the question of if it’s the animal's “fault” or the human for owning a creature that is instinctually more likely to lash out when near humans. Can you blame an animal for acting aggressively when the “animalistic” behaviors are exactly how they should be? 

Another concern for wolf dogs is that they fall into a weird legal limbo where they aren’t pure wolves, so they aren’t native and, therefore, can’t be released into the wild. Additionally, the legality of owning these animals varies from country to state, and even municipality laws differ. An example is that owning an F5 Savvanh is legal everywhere in New York outside of the city. But they are also too dangerous in most cases to be living in someone’s house as a pet. That leaves them the only option of living in sanctuaries and privately owned zoos, which also have ethical problems in how they are conducted.

A recent example is two wolf-dog hybrids that Alveus Sanctuary, a privately owned sanctuary in Texas, rescued from a facility that had received multiple USDA citations due to violations of the Animal Welfare Act. They also found out that the female wolf had been bred numerous times at that facility, which doesn’t make sense since those pups are still wolf-dogs, which shouldn’t be owned since the likelihood of them behaving erratically and mauling their owner would be high. Breeding them to continue displaying them also makes me uncomfortable since they’re being bred to live in captivity and aren’t naturally reproducing in the wild in large amounts. This concept makes people question if wolf-dogs and other hybrids were no longer produced, would it technically be considered extinction once all the living specimens died?

Sources

alveussanctuary.org/ambassadors/timber

savannahcatassociation.org/states-that-allow-savannah-cats/

hybridlaw.org/newyork/#:~:text=New%20York%20state%20'owns'%20all,all%20hybrid%20cats%20and%20dogs.

[beyond-the-red-list]

Exploitation of Threatened Animals in Roadside Zoos and Private Sanctuaries.

Roadside zoos and private sanctuaries must legally abide by laws to protect animals, but that doesn’t mean they can’t slip between legal loopholes. Examples of infamous private zoos are Big Cat Rescue, Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park, and Cherokee Bear Zoo, just to name a few. Having the general public interact with wild animals and keeping them in captivity instead of working with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) to be accredited and be able to captive breed threatened animals like tigers to be reintroduced to their native habitat. Instead, these tigers are being forced to interact with humans, being held by people when they are cubs for pictures. The appeal of having close interactions with an animal that is rare and not usually in close contact with humans is unique—being able to touch that animal even though it’ll want to have as little interaction with humans as it gets older. However, the other side is that it might be habituated to human presence, which is highly damaging if those zoos and sanctuaries intend to release them back into the wild. They can lie and say that wild animals aren’t interacting constantly with humans and then have a habituated animal be released and not know how to fend for themselves in the wild. Or even worse, harass or attack a human it sees when released since it has associated humans with positive interactions and food. 

The idea that humans need to exploit threatened animals to both make money and increase the likelihood of others caring about conservation is interesting. This can tie back to the philosophy that humans need a tangible experience to empathize with animals. They can’t simply see them in their natural habitat and believe they deserve the right to exist in nature without human intervention, even though human encroachment on their territory is the leading cause of their habitat loss. While not quite anthropocentrism, it is similar because human emotions are more important than the animal's welfare and well-being in these situations.

Sources

www.aza.org/becoming-accredited

www.cbsnews.com/news/life-after-tiger-king-for-joe-exotics-rescued-tigers-60-minutes/

[beyond-the-red-list]

The Complicated Nature of Big Cat Conservation

The conservation of big cats is complicated because those who live in close range have concerns for their safety and livestock safety. For this post, the big cats are members of the genus Panthera: tigers, lions, jaguars, leopards, and snow leopards. In their native habitats, human encroachment of their territory typically causes conflicts. An example is snow leopards and how Snow Leopard Trust is working with local villages to develop a way to have them protect snow leopards while still having the locals able to have an income from raising animals. Some examples are livestock insurance and vaccination, so herders won’t hunt snow leopards that have killed their livestock. To be part of the program, those locals must sign a conservation agreement to protect snow leopards and their wild prey species from poaching. If a community member violates the contract, they can no longer participate in the program. The ethical concern with ensuring locals participate in conservation is that it might focus on a Western view of animals since many conservation organizations are based in the United States or the United Kingdom. The locals who live in areas where these big cats live will sometimes be uncomfortable co-existing with them since humans are used to being predators and are not comfortable being near other predators who may consider them prey or prey on things important to their livelihood. 

Suppose a big cat like a tiger or leopard attacks someone in a country like India. In that case, it makes it harder for conservationists to make locals want to be part of their goal of increasing the population of those animals. The natural reaction would be to be upset since people are being attacked and even killed in some situations due to habitat loss and big cats needing to hunt for food in more human-populated areas. Those locals do not want to hear conservationists say that. Unfortunately, they’re living in the ranges where those big cats used to live before humans expanded their range. However, humans are animals and vulnerable to being prey, just like the rest of animals. If those big cats are starving because they are less of their usual prey and have been frightened by a human that is in their territory, humans shouldn’t want to kill them for acting aggressively. This sentiment is the usual outcry by locals since it is assumed that more attacks will likely occur.

Furthermore, animals don’t understand that they are no longer welcomed in areas that still look like their native habitat, so rural villages are more likely to have unwanted interactions with those big cats. Leopards and jaguars do not understand that those livestock are “off limits” and not prey for them. Animals have the instinct to hunt the most straightforward available food, and those livestock owners end up bearing the financial and personal burden of having their animals eaten. 

Sources

iucn.org/our-union/members/iucn-members/snow-leopard-foundation

snowleopard.org/our-work/conservation-programs/