Chthonic Wildlife Ramblings

Peter Talley stepped itno into a minor storm earlier when he made several controversial points at a High School.

One of his assertions was that animals don't have rights. Despite being a long term vegetarian, I agree. I think it is important to separate issues of animal welfare from issues of animal rights.

Animal welfare is principally a concern about the duration and level of harm or suffering. For welfare reasons, we try to minimise, mitigate or deter anything that leads to prolonged suffering. It does not assign any rights to animals. Somewhat sensibly one might add, as there is no sense in which these rights will be reciprocated or recognised by other animals.

Animal rights is not about reducing animal suffering. Many wildlife management policies advocated by AR activists, increase suffering. They do not, decrease it. The koalas of Kangaroo Island of the mid-late 90s, were not culled under AR-reasons. The alternative- a slow lingering death by starvation- was the only practical outcome of this measure. That many animals were transplanted to the mainland to prevent such deaths, was motivated by animal welfare considerations. The fact that many of these transplanted koalas were then torn apart by dogs, is another consequence of AR type policies.

Story from ABC link

Ian Campbell attributes the decision to ban the NT proposal to allow safari hunting of crocs, partly to the influence of Steve Irwin.

I note that the key elements of the proposal were:
a) that this hunt involved 25 animals per year
b) that the animals would come from a pool that would otherwise be culled; and
c) in deference to animal welfare concerns, each safari hunter would be accompanied by an experienced crocodile hunter (no, not Steve Irwin) to finish any non-fatal shots by the safari hunters.

In a news item in the Independent, it was revealed the David Beckham is abandoning the Adidas-brand, Predator soccer boot. The problem is that the boot (originally made from synthetic material) is now made with Kangaroo leather.

The motivation is the (allegedly) cruel hunting practices used to hunt Kangaroos. Animal rights groups sent Becks a video of a mother and joey kangaroo being killed by hunters.

In Australia, a National Code of Practice exists for commercial hunters. In some states, such as NSW, kangaroos must be head-shot before it can be sold. In all states and territories, licenced hunters are required to adhere to this code. Rangers conduct spot-checks, with instant fines of $300 being applied to any mistakes. Commercial shooters risk losing their licences (and their livelihoods) if they break the code. While the level of compliance with the code is an issue that is debated in Australia, animal rights groups are not arguing for an increase in compliance. Rather, they are trying to get the trade banned.

The argument seems analogous to banning people from owning cars, on account that some drivers don't comply with the road rules, and end up killing and maiming other drivers.

The essential problem problem is that animal rights groups are 'looking the wrong way'. It is the non-commercial 'pest destruction' of kangaroos that is not subject to a code of practice.

So, considering all things, what would a ban (or reduction in demand for kangaroo leather) generate?
* there would certainly be a shift away from commercial hunting towards non-commercial hunting (pest destruction), which as we know, is not governed by a code of practice. So that would be a general increase in the suffering of kangaroos.
* there would be an expansion of regular agriculture, substituting for the wild-caught macropods. As regular agriculture does more damage to native ecosystems, a lot of other native wildlife will lose out.
* more soccer players wear synthetic shoes, rather than those from natural products. Given the much slower breakdown of synthetic materials, I can't see how the environment 'wins' here.

So all-in-all, let me advocate the use of kangaroo-leather for your sporting footwear. It's just better for conservation.

News from this weekend Fur set to fly... from another Animal Rights group. This time they're protesting the use of possum fur in fashion items.

The main issues appear to be that:
a) trapping possums is cruel and also harms native animals; and
b) this could lead to unsustainable demand for possum fur.

One might observe that the first point is dubious or debateable. Possums inflict a lot of damage on native species, browsing some species to death (e.g. rata) and consuming eggs of threatened birds (e.g. kokako). Any reduction in possum numbers is likely to be good from a conservation perspective.

The second, is that if demand for possums was truely unsustainable (a tad tricky to pull off given their prodigious rates of population growth), then many conservationists would be celebrating this particular achievement of the fashion industry.

News story from ABC Elephant Culls Resume?.

One of the more pernicious shifts in conservation policy, has been the increasing influence of animal rights groups. For wildlife managers, increasing abundance is a also a conservation problem. Often the fastest, most expedient and most effective ways to deal with abundance, is culls. The rifle is a conservation-tool.

Such options are increasingly harder to adopt, and while experiments with contraceptives have been tried with some species (koalas, elephants, horses, wolves), these are typically expensive, slow and not as effective as culls.

Elephants alas, are a tricky species to manage. While they are large animals, that damage crops and kill people in Africa, in the West they are one of the big 'charismatic' species. The ability to implement sound wildlife management solutions, is handicapped by the scrutiny the international NGO community.