animal welfare

If environmentalism doesn’t include animal welfare, why not?

Over the past couple of weeks, I have tried to make what is essentially a straightforward case that environmentalism at its core is about respecting life and that separating this from our behavior towards individual living beings doesn't make much sense.

Since many environmentalists reject this notion and insist that environmentalism only includes preserving biodiversity and promoting resource sustainability, this suggests that one of the defining elements of environmentalism no longer holds: an opposition to whaling.

The activists among us should remember that there’s plenty to do together

I hope everyone's been following the discussion on animal rights and environmentalism. I continue to be impressed with the decency and thoughtfulness of the community that's gathered here.

Frogfish said most of what needed to be said. The unit of analysis for conservationism is population; for animal rights it is the individual. If you ask me, animal rights is morally bankrupt in the absence of environmentalism -- not the other way around.

But we should all remember: parsing the logical and ethical differences is a matter for thinkers. For doers, for activists, the job is to get things done. That means rallying people around the things they agree on, not emphasizing those that divide them.

No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare

Under a previous post on whaling, a commenter pointed out the hypocrisy of those in the environmental movement who oppose whaling while tacitly supporting other forms of animal slaughter no less morally offensive. The commenter made the point that as long as an animal species is being managed sustainably, there is nothing inherently wrong with using that animal, no matter how sentient, in whatever ways we desire.

This contention gets at a key weakness in the environmental movement, which deserves significantly more discussion and debate. According to this ethic of sustainability, all that matters is the quantity of the environment, not the quality, in terms of how non-human animals are treated.

This environmental ethic is almost by definition amoral; it provides space for such practices as:

Too graphic for TV

From peta2.com, PETA's youth-oriented site, we learn of a new music video by Rise Against intended to "[show] everyone what goes on in the world and what people are doing to this planet and to animals."

According to band member Tim McIlrath:

Zoo Peeper

Jacko gets a pass on conditions at his private zoo If there’s one subject we like writing about more than cow poop, it’s the narcissistic hijinks of our celebrity overlords. If they are 90 percent synthetic, all the better. Speaking of: Seems Michael Jackson has been cleared of charges of mistreating the menagerie of exotic […]

Sheri Speede, chimpanzee champion, answers questions

Sheri Speede. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I’m a veterinarian who directs a conservation project in Cameroon, in west-central Africa — In Defense of Animals – Africa. At the Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center in the Mbargue forest of central Cameroon, we provide sanctuary to 48 chimpanzee orphans of the bushmeat trade, ranging in […]

The seal massacre, in its full gory

I'm an environmentalist, not an animal-rights activist. Sometimes the two labels go hand-in-hand; sometimes they clash. Personally, I place a priority on healthy ecosystems (including the survival of whole species in their native habitat) over an individual animal's right to exist no matter where it may find itself.

So from that vantage point, the fracas over Canada's annual seal hunt doesn't seem to me to be an "environmental" issue, if we're pigeonholing. Seals, as I understand it, are not endangered.

But, trust me, you don't have to attach any activist label to yourself at all to be revolted and horror-struck by the hunt. The International Fund for Animal Welfare is posting new video footage daily of the mass killing -- and, despite the fact that some of it is set to cheesy, melodramatic music, the images of young seals being bludgeoned and skinned are stomach-churning and heart-breaking. And infuriating. Steel yourself and take a look. "Highlights from 2004 hunt" (shouldn't that be lowlights?), which you can access after registering, are particularly gruesome and illustrative.

As The Guardian notes, this year's particularly large hunt is being justified in part by the claim that seals are eating too many fish, wholly ignoring the fact that the Canadian government has long sanctioned unsustainable fishing practices. Yet another example of humans pushing a species to the brink, then using its scarcity as an excuse to massacre its natural predators. That's a fucked-up cycle.

PETA and getting your message Out There

I was going to leave this as a comment on Katharine's post, but I run this joint, so why not take advantage?

I used to completely agree with Katharine (and commenter Mike) that tactics like PETA's are counter-productive. In fact, I once wrote a post on it. Why do they always make the most extreme statement (wearing fur is like being a Nazi) and champion the most obscure causes (fish have feelings)? Don't they have enough legitimate, mainstream issues -- like, say, the horrific conditions at huge mega-dairies -- to be a sober voice at the table with the grown-ups? Why the clowning?

I've started to come around to their POV, though.

We live in a postmodern media environment. There's a lot of information flying around and it's harder and harder to make sense of it, particularly since the mainstream media has virtually abandoned its role as arbiter. It used to be that the road to having your views accepted was to plug away in the trenches, slowly building up support and credibility. Eventually the gatekeepers of the media would take note and give you a hearing.

But we no longer have neutral arbiters, and everything happens at light speed. Every side has their partisans, and the partisans' job is simply to be heard, to get their view Out There. Consider the Swift Boat slime campaign against Kerry during the election. The charges were rebutted repeatedly, but it didn't matter. What mattered was that the charges were inflammatory, salacious, and repeated at high volume over and over again. They were out there, in the media ether, and it cost Kerry big.

This is what PETA understands. It doesn't matter that in a calm, reasoned discussion, there would be better issues to start with than a fish's feelings. What matters is making a claim that is sufficiently theatrical to get the media's attention -- getting the notion that animals have feelings out there. Even if it strikes most people as ridiculous at first, it has entered the media ether. It is something-people-are-talking-about. Eventually it starts to seem less ridiculous.

The right understands this dynamic very, very well, and use it to their advantage. Something starts as ridiculous and provocative; through sheer repetition, it becomes less so. Eventually something like cutting taxes during war time becomes no biggie.

PETA is one of the few progressive organizations that get it. They play the media better than most other progressive groups. Maybe we should be learning from them.

Free the fish!

Hook, line, and stinker?

Not long ago, PETA launched a "Fish Empathy" project. Which I'll do my very best to treat seriously here ... just for the halibut.

Citing research that shows fish communicate, feel pain, store memories, and even tend gardens, PETA is trying to convince anglers to quit. In January, after former President Carter chatted on the Tonight Show about hooking himself in the face, PETA wrote him a note: now you know how a fish feels. More recently, the organization asked Maine's Bates College to disband its fishing club; bewildered club president Chester Clem, an environmental policy major, replied, "The club is just a bunch of guys who enjoy fishing." It also petitioned my new favorite governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska to make the channel catfish, a state icon, off-limits to anglers. He declined.

The website for this campaign does include some sobering reminders about mercury contamination and the like, but it's so mixed in with the screeching and the pandering to the Christian right that it gets lost.

I'm sorry the fish are in pain. Really, I am! But somehow it's hard to get worked up about this when there are, well, bigger fish to fry.