Today
Sections
More
Features
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Conservation vs. Animal Welfare, part 2
Fascinating. Within a couple of hours of my last post ("Conservation vs Animal Welfare", July 27) I received these two comments (one a comment on the blog, the other an email). The posted comment: "Quit back dooring your real beliefs Ken and come out and say it You think Zoos are fine." And second, the email: "You're not a big fan of zoos, I take it".
I thought my points in that earlier piece were clear. In fact, I am hard pressed to understand what it is that I said that could possibly have been misinterpreted. So let me make it abundantly obvious: While I do understand the appeal, and while I do think that most things in real life are not completely black or white, I am not a big fan of zoos. No, not at all.
On the pro-zoo side first: I have to admit appreciating the opportunity to see animals I am unlikely to ever get the chance see where they belong. Further, I do recognize that successful captive breeding programs in place at zoos have a role to play, arguably a critically important role, in preventing the extinction of many species. And finally, I have seen some few zoos (the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum is the one that comes to mind) which have a narrow focus I can appreciate and even applaud -- at least when I last visited, the Museum focused almost exclusively on animals which naturally occurred in the Sonoran Desert, many of those threatened if not wiped out by development, and as a result of that focus was able to house many of those animals in relatively large, relatively natural enclosures.
On the not-so-pro-zoo side, my last post already addressed one of the key issues which inform my opinion: zoos recognize first the value of the individual as a member of a species, which is just backwards in my mind. (A distinction very important to make here: I am talking about zoos as institutions, which is distinct and can be very different from the feelings and philosophies of the individual keepers who work at zoos. I have met many keepers over the years, and in general have found them to have very deep, profound feelings about the individual animals they care for and work with.) Once the individual animal is reduced to part of a plan for conservation of the species, in my view everything else that follows that reduction is wrong.
Wrong (my word, my opinion, but it is my blog after all) philosophies set the stage for justification of wrong actions. Like housing animals in small concrete spaces, animals who range vast open spaces. Like housing animals in cold climates, animals who come from hot climates. Like sticking a lion in a cage, alone with a log on which he masturbates for hours at a time, some tragic effort to avoid the killing boredom of years in that cage. Like dropping an empty beer keg in a cage and calling it "environmental enrichment." Or like creating a showy natural looking environment to house an animal, a "habitat" which in truth is either a sterile concrete diorama decorated up to appease the zoo visitor, or equally troubling is an enclosure furnished with soil and water and trees and as such eventually becomes a breeding ground for bacteria and disease like every little boy's first 10 gallon fishtank.
When Tatiana the tiger escaped her enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo and was killed, I was one of the people asked to walk the site and try to figure out how she got out. There was so much sad and really disturbing about those days, standing near concrete stained with blood in that large and empty place (the zoo was closed to the public). Among the memories, I vividly recall standing in the tiger grotto, at the bottom of that artificial ditch at the front of the WPA diorama-style cage, state-of-the-art as it was known at the time it was constructed. Those of us there felt the sadness of the moment in many ways, I know, but chief among those for me was the sense of futility, surrounded by concrete walls, and imagining that moment as every day of my life. Worse yet, imagining that fate as an animal with strength and agility and senses well beyond anything I can ever know. No, I am not a big fan of zoos.
| Jul 29 at 08:22 AM
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Conservation vs. Animal Welfare
It's often interesting to hear from someone who has read and thought about one of these posts; at time this blogging feels like a team sport, and at others times I wonder if anyone is out there. (There's a very funny, intentionally over-the-top moment in a William Carlos Williams poem where the poet, as I remember it, imagines himself dancing, naked but for a scarf, staring at himself in a mirror, chanting "Lonely, lonely, I was born to be lonely. It is best so." Sorry for the digression.)
Anyway, the caller wanted to talk about a distinction I made a few weeks back. I may be too lazy to look up the Williams' quote, but here's what I wrote that triggered her contacting me. It's from my June 29 post, and the context was the debate on the nightly news between conservationists and animal welfare workers re: the merits of trying to rescue individual birds caught up in the Gulf oil spill. I wrote "...[the question is] whether or not it is 'worth it' or 'right for wildlife professionals and volunteers to now be focusing so much energy and other resources on attempting to rescue, rehabilitate and then release individual wild animals impacted so horrifically by the spill. This is one of those places where the animal welfare and protection world (the place I live) comes into occasional conflict with the world of conservation. While those in my world of course think in terms of species and habitat, our real focus is on the individual animal; conservationists (as concerned as they may be about the individual animal) are most concerned about ecosystems and species."
The caller was unaware that such a conflict in philosophy existed, was surprised by it, and wondered if it is a problem within the nonprofit communities which focus on such issues. Let me give you the same example I gave her, the most black-and-white example I can think of, and then you can then draw your own conclusions. To some, this may seem a bit like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, but to me (and to others) it is substantive.
The following is only slightly hypothetical: An aging male of an extremely rare, endangered species of a large wild cat is at a west coast zoo, and a female of the same species is at an east coast zoo. The two animals are completely unrelated. Each is the only one of their kind at the two zoos. Neither zoo is a great zoo, and neither is a horrible roadside zoo. Each is an average zoo, which means the two cats are fed, they receive medical attention when needed, each live in something bigger than a barred, rectangular cage but also something far less than the wild space which they deserve.
The conservation community, looking at this story, would focus most (although not necessarily exclusively) on the need to preserve the genetic diversity of this rare species. If breeding were best guaranteed by introducing the two animals rather than artificial insemination, they would argue for the transfer of one animal to the other's zoo. Indeed, such a transfer could and likely would be required if both zoos were members of the governing zoological association (as would be likely) and if the species were part of a breeding program (as would almost be certain). Conservation means preservation of the species with the hope, however likely or completely unlikely it may be, that someday a diverse genetic population may be returned to some protected wilderness within their original ecosystem.
The animal welfare community, on the other hand, would focus on the conditions of these two individual animals. If housing them together was somehow of a benefit to the two of them, if somehow that might benefit their own psychological needs, then a transfer might be of interest, but the goal alone of preserving the species would not be paramount (although not completely unimportant, either). The stress of transfer, the potential of harm or death coming to an animal as a result of moving him or her thousands of miles, would seem like a foolish risk while instead there are likely so many things that can and should be done to improve both of their lives where they now are.
The conservationist would look at stress related to transfer as a challenge to be resolved for the greater good of keeping the species alive. The animal welfare professional would look at stress related to transfer as something to be weighed against any benefit for the two individuals, and very likely would find the potential harm of transfer to be so troubling as to rule it out.
A gross oversimplification, perhaps, but let's try it like this: Conservationists looks at zoos (at least what they see as adequate to good zoos) as the warehouses which preserve the genetics of rare animals. Animal welfare professionals look at zoos (at least at most zoos, with the possible exceptions of those which serve as sanctuaries for particular types of animals) as antiquated entertainment centers which today attempt to justify their existence by high sounding words about preserving life.
There is, of course, overlap and one need not ignore the individual when concerned about the species, and nor can one turn a blind eye to the alarming increasing rate of extinction of species on the planet.
| Jul 27 at 08:28 AM
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Quote of the week
"A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song."
-- Chinese Proverb
| Jul 25 at 10:21 AM
Thursday, July 22, 2010
A bird in the hand
Here's a quiz for you. What do these two people have in common? The first, a retired Apple Computer professional, responsible for the development of materials to help people efficiently and effectively utilize their high-tech equipment. The second, a volunteer committed to the care and feeding of orphaned native wildlife, someone often found struggling to get a thimble-sized baby bird to "open wide for momma." The answer? They have everything in common. Indeed, they are the same person.
Deborah is a long-time volunteer for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA, focusing on wildlife care and rehabilitation for the past ten years. She is one of a wonderfully dedicated volunteer group without whom the sheer magnitude of the challenge would make the work virtually impossible. Just look at the odds: PHS/SPCA's Wildlife Rescue Program cares for thousands of injured and orphaned native wildlife from San Francisco, all of San Mateo County, and the northern half of Santa Clara County out of two facilities (here at the Coyote Point shelter, and an annex in Palo Alto), and is staffed with six employees.
Deborah describes this work as "both thrilling and heart-breaking," and it surely requires a combination of dedication and the ability to focus on the lives that are wonderfully saved, not those that are tragically lost. As I hear her talk about this balancing act, I recall walking out of my office a few years ago to quite literally find myself bare inches below a rescued and rehabilitated turkey vulture taking his flight back to freedom after his stay in our largest flight aviary. I could feel the wind of his wings' beat. "Thrilling" is not an exaggeration.
I tried to probe more deeply for Deborah's motivation and learned that, as a great admirer of Jane Goodall's work on behalf of chimps and their habitat, she had been searching for ways to "think globally, act locally". It is certainly no slight to Dr. Goodall's pioneering work, and one suspects that she would agree, to assert that neither a foreign and exotic location nor a rare and endangered species are required to make this work meaningful. Chimpanzees are not more "important" than Anna’s hummingbirds, at least not on any scale I can think of; their behaviors are neither more or less fascinating than a towhee's; and the satisfaction offered to those who work with all these animals is equally, well, thrilling -- that is, if you're lucky enough to be the kind of person who can appreciate the opportunity. And while I hope one day to be lucky enough to travel to Africa, we are all most fortunate to live in a place that supports an extraordinary diversity of native wildlife. Surely, we share an obligation to help keep the Bay Area wild, to make sure that our first residents can continue to call this home, to selfishly protect ourselves against the bitter loneliness of a future without the birds, raccoons, squirrels, deer, skunk, foxes.
We are, now, in the midst of baby bird season. Deborah recalls feeling a bit overwhelmed and extremely rushed during her first summer in the program, but has now learned the rhythm essential for the surrogate bird-mom: be with the one you're feeding, and then with the next, leaving the hundred or more squawking beaks for the minutes that will follow, for you and your fellow feeders. And now here's the pitch: we are looking for a few more Deborahs. We're talking about a whole new, literal meaning for "a bird in the hand" as we search for some people with a little time and a lot of compassion who will, in fact, be responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of baby birds. Please, think about checking out volunteering for us (go to www.PHS-SPCA.org), or if you're not in our 'hood email me and I'll help you find the organization looking for your help in your own community. And if you come to us who knows, with a little luck maybe Deborah will take you under her wing!
| Jul 22 at 08:30 AM
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Needs a home, and so do thousands more
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, let me add a few anyway. This is Jake.
He is 9 years old. He and his brother Rudy are great friends. They were surrendered to my shelter as a result of the economy's hit on their family. They need a new home.
They are two of the 564 cats currently here at the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA. There are thousands and thousands and thousands more cats at humane societies, animal care and control agencies, and rescue groups in every community.
Get in your car and drive to the shelter nearest you. Adopt a cat (or a dog, guinea pig, rabbit, or....). Volunteer to help that shelter help the animals. And if you can spare a few bucks, donate.
Thank you!
| Jul 20 at 08:29 AM
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Quote of the week
"Ed had a strange and courteous relationship with dogs, although he never owned one or wanted to. Passing a dog on the street he greeted it with dignity and, when driving, often tipped his hat and smiled and waved at dogs on the sidewalk. And damned if they didn't smile back at him."
-- John Steinbeck, "About Ed Ricketts" from the "Log from the 'Sea of Cortez'", and with thanks to Paul Martini of Joshua Tree, California, for sending this to me
| Jul 18 at 09:57 AM
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The no pets in pet stores proposal
The topic is the current proposal afloat in the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission to ban the commercial sale of pets from retail stores [a ban which would, for reasons which are not quite clear to me, cover all animals but with the exception of fish]. I typically do not offer opinions on legislation being proposed in communities other than my own [San Mateo County], since I very much believe that local ordinances should reflect local concerns and local resources, but I am obviously making an exception in this case.
There have been a lot of silly and obvious jokes about this [along with cheap shots], and of course I get that. At a time when the world feels like it's either about to explode or declare bankruptcy, or so the jokes go, leave it to San Francisco government to debate the merits of legislation aimed at protecting guinea pigs. However, the Commission considering this proposal is there exactly for this conversation. Their mandate does not include world peace, the economy, jobs or housing. They are there, of course, to discuss problems which affect the welfare of animals in that city. And indeed there are problems with the sale of pets from pet stores.
Unfortunately, the story has also suffered from very poor reporting. In fact, sad to say, the print story in The San Francisco Chronicle got a number of simple factual points completely upside down, which hasn't helped the conversation. First example: the story reported that, on average, animal shelters in the U.S. are euthanizing 35% of their dogs and cats. Sadly, horribly, the opposite is true. Although the statistic is almost impossible to validate, the number reported and thought to be true is that on average U.S. shelters are adopting something like 35% of the dogs and cats in their care. The average in California is far better than that [perhaps 45-50%], and the average here in the Bay Area is probably about what the reporter stated [with a big range even here, comparing one community to another].
Second example: the story reported that there is little crisis in finding homes for dogs and cats in San Francisco, and that the problem is really now about hamsters. No, not true. Wish it were, but it's not. San Francisco's sheltering organizations, working in tandem with an incredible network of volunteer rescue groups and others, are indeed to be congratulated for having done many innovative and creative things to push the envelope in exciting ways, but there is no one running those organizations who would claim that the job is done in that City, at least no one who could honestly make such a claim. It's not.
So knowing that dogs and cats in SF are still in crisis, is there a need now to actually ban the sale of dogs and cats and all other pets [except fish] from retail stores? Hell if I know, but I sure don't think it's a stupid idea.
Although likely far less so with the small specialty shops which sell the more exotic birds and reptiles, the reality of pet shop economics for the big stores is that the animals are the loss leaders. In other words, you buy and they profit on the sale of tanks and cages and food and books and over-the-counter supplements and toys, and the animal is almost a giveaway. The hamsters, rats, geckos, small snakes, parakeets and finches you see in these giant super stores are indeed very likely victims of short term neglect at the store and they make far less than ideal candidates to end up living long and healthy lives in your home; over the years, people with my job title have seen countless examples of that, and have fought the good battle like David against Goliath to try and change those pet store policies, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Stopping the super stores from selling these animals would be a good thing for the animals, of that I am quite sure.
(Which is not to say, by the way, that smaller boutique pet shops are not also a point of concern. Although years back, I will never forget the level of animal abuse -- real cruelty -- we discovered in the back room of a Haight St. reptile pet store. It was some of the worst I've ever seen.)
So what about making the sale illegal? I really don't know if that makes the best sense, but it's absolutely worth discussing. And passing this off as some sort of joke isn't fair, because the suffering and death of animals is not funny. So my opinion: kudos to those in the City who are trying to figure out what makes sense in that City for the animals, big and small, exploited by the giant chain stores. Next time, add the fish to the equation.
| Jul 15 at 08:28 AM
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The wildlife nightmare that is BP, part 3
Following up again (see my earlier posts, June 29 and July 6) on the wildlife nightmare that is BP, it's now evident that the Federal oversight agencies which by law are there to look out for the interests of wildlife and the natural habitat were completely asleep at the wheel. Yea, I know, big surprise.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with their fellow government Minerals Management Service's conclusion that deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico posed no significant risk to wildlife. In a September 14, 2007 letter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife stated that the risk of such a disaster was "low."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife's endangered species program coordinator who was responsible for signing off on this "low" risk, Deborah Fuller, has justified her decision by explaining that her team came to the conclusion that there was less than a 50% chance of a catastrophic spill resulting from deep water drilling in the Gulf.
Anyone want to buy a car with the "low" or less than 50% chance of bursting into flames while on the highway? How about a carton of milk with a less than 50% chance of being rancid?
Now, with the opportunity to review the methodology which helped to green light the disaster currently killing untold numbers of animals and destroying habitat at an unprecedented rate, Ms Fuller now tells us "Obviously, we are going to relook at all these numbers for upcoming consultations." Wow, slow down there, you don't want to do anything too radical!
And if for some reason that in itself doesn't adequately address your concerns that wildlife, habitat and indeed we humans will be better protected by the Federal government in the future as the result of what they have now learned, I'm sure this will help. As result of the Gulf oil spill, the Minerals Management Service has been renamed. Their new name is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Now don't you feel like your tax dollars are working for you?
| Jul 13 at 08:24 AM
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thursday, July 08, 2010
The very red house finch sings a joyful song
The house finch I am staring at through my living room's sliding glass doors appears to either not know or not care that he is the subject of such attention. It is me and my two cats, Isabelle and Tsimmes, who are enjoying his show.
Frida and Archie, our dogs, are on the couch, watching us watch the bird. I am not sure the dogs are overly caught up in their part of this moment. Frankly, they look bored. But the cats and I are having a very good time.
I know the cats are having fun because their tails are twitch-twitching in that certain happy cat way, and they are chattering their eck-eck-eck sound which I believe they hope may convince a foolish house finch to hop over here and straight into their mouths. But since my cats are exclusively indoor cats, and since it is my reasonable expectation that the house finch will remain an out-of-house finch, I am quite sure that such feline optimism will go unsupported by real life experience.
While I can only surmise that the cats are having fun, I know I am having fun because I know. I always enjoy watching birds where they belong, which means outside, whether a majestic floating hawk or a tiny hopping finch. Watching birds is, simply, a wondrous thing to do. If you've bothered to read this far, I am going to assume you agree. If not, you are of course free to tell me otherwise in some rude comment posted below.
This tiny brown bird is wearing his best breeding colors, a lipstick shiny red to cover his head and breast and much of the rest of his upper body. He is more red than most, and he is doing his best to make himself more than obvious (and I suspect irresistible) to the ladies around him. From what little I can judge by the females' reactions, it doesn't look like he is having any success. However, the huge population boom in my yard's house finch population surely means that finch sex is indeed happening, although maybe just not for him.
But rather than think "poor little bird all dressed up and strutting his stuff, with only two hungry cats and one happy human impressed," instead I am delighted to just witness his joy. His long, relentless cheery, twittering song is of course not sung for me; regardless, it sings to me. He sings because he can, to celebrate the fact of his living, and because it is a beautiful day. Three cheers back at you, house finch, cheers of my own in thanks for the lesson of your optimism. I will wear a red shirt today in your honor.
| Jul 08 at 08:29 AM
Editor's note:
This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content.
advertisement
|
your ad here
