Commodification Is Not Conservation

An increasingly popular argument being made by conservationists is that the legal, controlled commodification of threatened and endangered wildlife could provide the incentive and funding required for conservation efforts. Be it the sale of stockpiled ivory and farmed tiger bones, the culling and collection of anacondas, or the hunting of apex predators, species nearing extinction are increasingly being viewed in terms of their economic value as the black market for live animals or their parts soars. But does placing monetary value on the head (or gallbladder) of a given animal truly incentivize conservation, or does it oversimplify the challenges facing imperiled species in pursuit of profiteering before extinction?

Recently, we have repeatedly seen a phenomenon of species that are virtually extinct in the wild, but abundant and commercially exploited in captivity. Though it appears superficially as though we have ample captive stock to avoid extinction, the commodification of species has created changes in the captive pool that challenge this assumption. The transition from captive populations for the sake of reproduction and reintroduction to captive populations for the sake of novelty and profit is posing a unique problem: we may well have thousands of individuals of a declining species in captivity, but only a small handful have the genetic health and purity essential to a reintroduction program. More importantly, captive breeding (which does not tend to have long term sustainability) addresses only a tiny portion of greater problems facing wildlife that must first be rectified for successful conservation to occur, which include but are not limited to habitat loss, poaching, pollution, and competition with feral and invasive species.

There are presently more tigers in the US alone than there are tigers (all sub-species combined) in the wild. Of animals held in zoos, circuses, wildlife parks, private hands, and yes, even canned hunts, proponents of the captive tiger trade often tout conservation as justification for the interment and use of these wild animals, noting that people will want to save tigers if they have monetary value. Yet as captive populations boom globally, wild populations continue to spiral downwards at an alarming rate.

Conservation, in this case, is being misconstrued; private captive ownership does not alter course for wild populations, which are ultimately what must be conserved to do true justice to the word from an ecological perspective. Simply enough, an infinite number of captive tigers will not change the fact that wild tigers are suffering from the results of habitat loss, declining biodiversity, shrinking gene pools, disease, and poaching. Even zoos with captive breeding & reintroduction programs are fruitless if there is no safe, stable habitat to reintroduce animals into. This, combined with the fact that the majority of tigers in the captive trade are hybrids, domesticated color morphs, or dangerously inbred reflects an important point: making wildlife into a popular product does not ensure their conservation in the wild, and may not even promote practices that bode well for the future of captive populations.

In fact, the illegal trade in organs, bone, and hides from captive tigers may be adding fuel to the fire of poaching. While some officials suggest that open, legal trade in products made from captive tigers could remove the incentives to poach by lowering the cost of expensive black-market items while simultaneously generating funding for habitat conservation, it could just as easily result in a higher demand as those who would not normally support black-market practices embrace legal, guilt-free tiger products. Given the near impossibility of accurately tracking the source of parts, the latter seems a more likely long-term result.

Parrots, too, are a fine example of how the "capital for conservation" theory fails when it comes to reducing poaching and creating meaningful steps towards conservation via consumer demand. The most obvious problem is that the sale of parrots does not in any way fund habitat conservation; like other animal industries, it only perpetuates captive breeding with no emphasis on protecting parrots in the wild. Certainly some private avicultural enthusiast organizations may help support and fund habitat conservation or research, but the average parrot sourced from a pet store puts money only in the pockets of the captive bird trade.

Additionally, though the importation of wild caught parrots has been banned in many countries and the market is very literally flooded with birds, a strong black market still exists. (Ironically, poaching has been known to cater to the very individuals breeding the animals for sale in captivity, as wild lines are periodically required to replenish the genetic health of captive ones.) The value in parrots despite their abundance in captivity has not declined significantly enough to make remove financial incentives for poaching; wild caught birds can be purchased for fewer than $25 then sold illegally for hundreds or even thousands of dollars because the market value of parrots has remained high even with thousands of birds abandoned annually by their owners. People are willing to pay big for parrots because of their perceived economic value, so even a glut in the market keeps the parrot trade - and thus the illegal parrot trade - profitable. Who is to say the same will not result should ivory, bear gall bladders, or tiger bones become a legal product?

Even the humblest of species are not exempt: The axolotl, a salamander native to Mexico, is another prime example of a species' economic value in no way reflecting its conservation priority. The axolotl is extremely popular in laboratory research due to its unique traits, particularly limb regeneration, and is also a common staple of the exotic pet trade. Despite the overwhelming number of axolotls bred in captivity, including a wide range of domesticated color morphs, axolotls are nearing extinction in their native habitat due to pollution and the introduction of invasive fish species. While in the past there had been some reintroduction efforts, urban expansion has all but signed a death warrant for wild populations - and because of the large captive pools, no one seems particularly concerned about the species becoming extinct in the wild. There is still money to be made off of axolotls even if they vanish from the wild, and by viewing them only in terms of money, we remove the motivation to protect wild populations - after all, the axolotl market will still be alive and well long after the animals have vanished from their native habitats.

Thus the message gravitates away from conservation and towards capital, and much as has routinely been the case with any resource, we are apt to find that there is no such thing as conservation and responsible use so long as there is money to be made. Even vital resources such as land, water, timber, and wild game (especially fish) have all been heavily over-exploited despite widespread knowledge of the steps needed to protect the environment and logical incentives for controlled, responsible use. And much as workers and livestock have been reduced to production units, abused and under-appreciated, so too will be wildlife once it is seen strictly in terms of maximum profit at minimal expense. Capitalism does not open a revolutionary door to bold new methods of wildlife conservation, but instead opens a Pandora's box of heightened exploitation that is apt to have a disastrous effect not only on the direction of conservation policy, but on the individual lives of the animals themselves.

If we allow the future of wild animals to rest on their commercial value and utility, we will inevitably see more species go the way of parrots, tigers, and axolotls. This is because a common demand of any product in a capitalist society is that it be easy (and cost-effective) to obtain, consistent in quality, and readily available on a large scale. Wild populations seldom support these requirements, thus making commercial captive breeding a more profitable option - removing the supposed financial incentive of protecting wild populations while simultaneously promoting exploitation and generating a market that will doubtless be additionally fed by poaching the few remaining members of a species. It cheapens the inherent value of sentient beings as well as marginalizes the importance of wildlife populations in the wild as a key contributor to vital biodiversity. Only when we recognize and appreciate that wildlife has its own intangible worth beyond whatever use we may devise will the matter of conservation be taken seriously. Until then, we should be cautious about plans that appeal to profiteering off of endangered wildlife, as experience has taught us that lives and profits rarely coexist with mutual benefit.

Farm Sanctuary Hoe Down '08

This blog is going to be a bit of a departure for the typical "Ren reads a current event and spouts off about it." I think it's important to occasionally immerse one's self in a positive environment and focus on the good being done by the movement rather than the bad being done by the opposition. So, I'd like to reflect on Farm Sanctuary's Hoe Down, which I just came home from after a truly fabulous weekend.

I admit I was a bit reticent to attend; I've interned, volunteered, and stayed at farm sanctuary numerous times in the past but never really felt inspired to get involved in what seemed like more 'hokey' elements of their fundraising. However, this year being my tenth "veganiversary," I felt it only appropriate to do a little celebrating. With the state of the economy, nothing is much cheaper than camping out at an inexpensive event with free food and entertainment, so I purchased tickets not really knowing what the Hoe Down entailed (aside from tales of drunken dance parties, of course).

Yes, there was an element of drunken vegan dancing in a barn on Saturday night, but more importantly, Saturday and Sunday were packed with magnificent educational presentations with reputable guest speakers. Gene Baur, Paul Watson, and Sue Coe were among some of the big names, with other groups representing everything from the infamous PETA to smaller grass roots organizations. The topics were equally variable, ranging from nutrition to contemporary environmental issues to the challenge of fighting factory farming and promoting veganism in the face of the "happy meat" craze without sending mixed messages. The theme of this year's hoe down was activism, so there was also a great wealth of empowering information on everything from grass roots to federal lobbying. It was pleasant to see a consistent message of "be an activist in a way that works for you" rather than some of the cookie cutter tactics pushed by other groups.

Paul Watson's discussion was truly magnificent; he is well reputed as a powerful speaker but seeing him in action was quite grand. He is one of very few people in the animal advocacy sector willing to speak passionately about issues pertaining to fish, and so long as they are to have so few advocates, I'm glad that he's the one doing it. Aquaculture is truly the rapidly emerging face of the new wave of factory farming, yet virtually no one cares about fish issues - including groups that advocate strongly for other farmed animals. I was dually pleased to see him draw the parallel between industrial fishing a bushmeat, for people who express outrage over the killing of terrestrial wildlife for food (in countries in desperate need of the sustenance and money no less) seem to express no concern about the massive, unsustainable, and inhumane slaughter of billions of wild fish every year. Even in a crowd of vegans, I saw shocked faces when Watson mentioned some of the figures on fish exploitation.

I am embarrassed to say that I can't recall his name, but there was a fantastic and sadly overlooked speaker discussing nutrition and foraging who was quite magnificent. It is rare for me to learn anything at a vegan outreach program, but the information he presented on the link between dairy and reproductive cancers was much more in depth and better articulated than anything I'd previously read. He also was unafraid to call out vegans on poor nutrition practices like a predominantly soy based diet, which is often taboo in the vegan community with its love affair with the much over-rated bean. And his foraging lesson was very simple, basic, but based on the audience response eye opening and effective. With the price of food rising and quality of store bought leafy greens increasingly inferior due to the use of chemical fertilizers, being able to obtain extremely nutrient dense meals for free from common, easily available sources is an invaluable resource.

Suzie was, of course, magnificent as always. Farm Sanctuary took on some extremely lofty rescue ambitions this year, and despite working around the clock to save emaciated, pregnant sheep and sun burned, pneumoniatic sows, she was just as spirited and positive as ever. I am consistently impressed by the fact that she is able to maintain personally connected to each and every animal in the sanctuary; she knows each animal by name, is in touch with their needs and personalities, and seems to have an endless abundance of love. Her energy more than anything else seems to help connect people to the animals; though we as vegans always talk about seeing animals as individuals, I find that the rescues are sometimes transformed into mere symbols. Suzie makes sure that they go from being "pig rescued from Iowa" or "cow that jumped a fence" to "[name], a great mother who loves playing with her piglets and getting belly rubs." One of the most powerful moments of the whole Hoe Down, IMO, was when Suzie was talking about one of the pigs at rescue where a vet was encouraging her to euthanize due to the animal's hoof infection since pigs are, to most livestock vets, simply production units. She said something very simple to the tune of "But she's not a product, she's Rosebud."

I could prattle on and on about each speaker, the fantastic food, the great cuddle time with the animals, and the social networking opportunities, but this is getting awfully verbose as it is. So, I'd just like to say in closing that I strongly suggest anyone and everyone to consider taking in next year's Hoe Down if time and funding permits; it is a great way for old activists to rejuvenate, newcomers to familiarize with the movement, and anyone to have a great time. In the mean time, do consider donating to Farm Sanctuary's emergency fund; virtually every sow rescued from Iowa (that's sixty nine of 'em!) was pregnant and/or suffering from costly health conditions. They could really use a helping hand for the huge expenses of this one of a kind rescue effort.

CCD: Symptom of a greater "disease"

For the ecologically minded, some of the biggest "buzz" this year has regarded the recent phenomenon of hive collapse in captive bee populations across the globe. Honey bees, frequently exploited by man for both honey production and the pollination of crops and greenhouses, have seen significant declines in population virtually world wide. Researchers are still scrambling to find the exact cause, with viral infections, mites, protozoal parasites, and even cell phone signals implicated in the losses of some 30-70% of captive populations world wide. The one thing no one seem to want to say is the likelihood that captivity and domestication itself has likely played a strong role in the decline in bee populations through many of the same mechanisms that diseases and disorders in livestock have been spread over the years.

Time and time again we see a pattern: when you remove animals from their natural habitat, weaken their genetic health through domestication, transport them to foreign environments, and attempt to control every aspect of their natural lives through artificial means, they inevitably suffer declines in health. Be it the factory farmed chicken that survives but a few months due to the demands of its unnaturally bulky body, the puppy-milled dog suffering hip dysplasia and seizure disorders, or the race horse who breaks his spindly legs merely running, the demands of the human world are often too great for the animal. Is it any surprise that bees, a creature whose complex behavior is only now just beginning to be understood by ethologists, are failing to thrive after years of increasingly intensive captive keeping?

We plucked the European honey bee from the wild, bred it within the confines of captivity - often with sub-species it would never naturally encounter, disrupted its social order, stole the fruits of its labor, and spread it across the globe. Exposed to new climates, new diseases and parasites, and non-traditional food sources, the honey bee thrived for some time nonetheless. But as honey production, like meat production, becomes more intensive, the other shoe has fallen. Colony Collapse Disorder is now thought to be the product of a number of combined factors, ranging from transport stress to imported viruses to native parasites the species was not equipped to combat. All of these factors relate closely to how we have kept bees in captivity.

Entomologists understand that invertebrates, for all their hardiness, easily become victims of stress. Their roles are highly refined, which mean most can survive only within a limited range of highly specific parameters. Many rely on a single species of plant or animal for survival. Some can survive only within a few degrees of range in temperature or humidity. For honey bees, social structure is proving to be the the most important factor for survival. Thus one must question what happens when natural behaviors are derailed in favor of artificial removal and introduction of the queen, restriction of nymph rearing, hybridization, artificial hives, global transport, removal of honey, and inhibition of swarming. Could it be that stress is the true root of CCS by simply making bees increasingly susceptible to parasites and disease? It is something worth considering.

It is only logical that honey production is not a valid reason to "farm" bees; it is a product of exploitation that is utterly non-essential for human health and wellbeing, a luxury that offers little more but allure to one's sweet tooth. Unfortunately, apiculturists have not only used the bee as a source of a product, but also for crop and greenhouse pollination. Whereas wild native bees once pollinated both the wild plants of nature and the domesticated plants of man, invasive honey bees have taken a monopoly in the Americas, where escaped specimens quickly began to edge out native pollinators. The panic now, of course, is that at least one third of our crops and much of our wild plants rely on the honey bee as pollinator. Instead of recognizing the folly of relying on the fragility of domestication and permitting (nay, fostering) the return of our native bees, the new goal is genetically engineering, hybridizing, and medicating the honey bees to create a strain more hardy and resistant.

Thus, what continues to be ignored is a second important detail: beekeeping has not just harmed the honey bee, it has harmed the populations of wild bees, and in turn, every living thing that relies upon them - from bee eating predators to native plants not attractive to honey bees. Indeed, it is probable that the honey bee has played a strong role in facilitating the spread of invasive plants, which though often snubbed my native bees are typically embraced by the bees that yield from the same regions. Entomologists are already reporting recovering populations of native bees as honey bee populations plummet, a phenomenon promising to biodiversity as a whole. Indeed this year we discovered that bee species hold greater diversity globally than both birds and mammals combined, and increasingly we find that this massive range of species is absolutely pivotal to the survival of entire ecosystems.

Unfortunately, the calm voice of reason noting that domesticated honey bees are unnecessary & environmentally devastating is being drowned out by the panicked hollering of "honey bee panic." It seems doubtful that the pollination industries will be willing to step back and permit nature to take its course, permitting wild bees to reclaim their rightful place as principal pollinator. Nor does it seem likely that the public will acknowledge that honey is exploitation and environmental destruction, for our infatuation with food over ethics is demonstrated time and time again even with species more appealing to the general public. If only we could we step back for just a moment and realize that the more we deprive, confine, domesticate, and exploit animals, the more problems we see arising in them and the natural world, we might realize that Colony Collapse Disorder may be a symptom of a greater "disease."

World hunger, environmentalism, and animal products.

The Sydney Morning Herald recently produced an article titled "Humble Chicken: The Meat Eater's Saviour." In light of the latest Green craze sweeping the country, which has spawned such rabid idiocy as E85 Ethanol, agribusiness is now promoting chicken as an eco-friendly alternative to beef and pork. The article explains the lower greenhouse gas emissions, better space efficiency (well of course, when you cram them all in warehouses by the million), lower waste output, etc. but then has the audacity to begin discussing the greater resource consumption efficiency of chickens.

Meat production is one of the most inefficient food producing processes in existence. In addition to the water, energy, and land directly required to keep and raise the animals themselves, they consume a massive amount of grain during their lifespan - anywhere from 2-8kg per kg of body weight - thus taking up additional food, water, and energy resources (one has to harvest, process into feed, and transport said grain, after all). Some 50% of all US grain production goes into feeding livestock, overtaxing arable land that could be better utilized to raise crops for human beings. With close to 10 billion animals now being slaughtered annually for consumption, one has to wonder what marvelous things we could have done for world hunger with the resources squandered to produce flesh.

The focal point of "Humble Chicken" indeed shifts quickly to global food resources, with David Farrell, a professor at University of Queensland who apparently failed math and logic, correctly stating that meat competes directly with people in developing countries for increasingly limited grain resources. He then goes on to contradict his own point, however, when he notes that unlike beef and pork (which require seven and four kg respectively), chicken only requires 2kg of grain to generate 1kg of body mass (note: body mass, not edible mass in particular). This is supposedly "better" for world hunger. What he failed to note was that 2kg of grain makes... 2kg of edible food (prior to preparation, which greatly increases the mass!), which arguably would be best applied to the 18,000 children who will die today of malnutrition and starvation rather than chickens. Think chicken would provide more nourishment than grain? Wrong-o! 1kg of oats trounces 1kg chicken in calories and protein, a lack of either being a primary cause of malnourishment in developing nations. And oats, compared to amaranth or quinoa, are not even the most nutrient dense nor efficient grain to grow - yet they still beat chicken on both fronts.

There is nothing environmentally friendly about any meat consumption; there are enough problems with horticulture in and of itself without having to produce such a vast amount for feeding livestock on top of what is farmed for human consumption. Be it hog farms contaminating streams with waste, cattle emitting greenhouse gases, chickens spreading illness to wild birds, or feral goats destroying the outback, industrialized animal agriculture is the antithesis to environmentally mindful consumerism. Add to this human rights concerns ranging from world hunger to the treatment of farmers & meatpackers, human health concerns like deadly food borne illness & diet related chronic disease, and of course, the serious ethical connotations of exploiting and commodifying other living beings, and the picture becomes very clear: we have chosen our pallets over what is safe, logical, and moral, at the cost of human and animal lives, our own health, and our own planet.

The basis of ethics is forming rational decisions on how we ought to live our lives based on strong evidence to support our choice, as well as consideration of the effect our choices have on others. Tell me again, now, how consuming more chicken is the right choice in the face of world hunger and environmental devastation?

Is this the new face of "environmentalism?"

Killing Sea Lions to Protect Fish (So We Can Kill Fish?)

I was reading an article today that made me want to collectively bitchslap the human race. It was about recent illegal sea lion killings thought to be tied to groups protecting salmon. The sea lions apparently "threaten" salmon populations (depleted and far more frequently threatened by overfishing and dams), and are thus trapped and relocated when they hunt in areas where humans would like to eat said salmon. Someone apparently decided that stealing food from the mouths of sea lions by dumping them elsewhere wasn't sufficiently speciesist, so he or she shot the trapped sea lions.

The article was ripe with language suggesting that the sea lions, not the humans competing with them for salmon, were the gluttons in the equation and had to be removed to protect fish. This much I could expect, especially since modern conservation often demands that we punish natural predator/prey relationships due to decimated populations of one or the other to prevent extinctions. However, I couldn't help but laugh that it was suggested that these actions, though illegal, "protect" salmon.

Salmon shouldn't need "protecting" from sea lions. Sea lions and salmon used to have a pretty good deal; some of the salmon get eaten, meaning more reproductive success for those that don't, and of course obvious benefits to the sea lions. When people decided that fish was the new healthy fad meat and started wiping out the salmon, it suddenly became our interest to "protect" the salmon from those mean ol' sea lions, having the effrontery to think that they, not us, were damaging the populations.

Salmon preservation today has NOTHING to do with protecting salmon for their inherent value as a species, for their role in the natural food web, their importance to ecosystems, or just the fact that they're pretty nifty and it would be nice if they didn't go extinct. It is strictly about making sure that we can eat them in the future, regardless of if that relationship is a healthy one for salmon and their natural predators and prey. This is not questioned at all; we only take issue with the moral implications of how to deal with cute and fuzzy things that compete with our appetites.

Arguably any protection is better than none, and I understand (though strongly disagree with) the perspective of people who suggest that the best way to preserve a species is to permit exploitation since people will want to keep populations sufficient for future exploitation. However, that isn't the focus here: the point is that we are killing one species to promote future killing of another species and call this conservation when time and time again this methodology has resulted in only further imbalance to ecosystems - not to mention the utterly unethical murder of other animals.

A better solution to species preservation would be not killing the salmon in general, which would also eliminate the need for ethical qualms with killing competitor species (an act facilitated solely by the competition of humans with sea lions). Basically, the "management" style of species conservation is inherently flawed and morally inexcusable, as we've seen exemplified with similar efforts involving land predators and hoofstock. Conversely, attempts to restore natural balances through non-fatal means (such as reintroductions or strict limits against hunting) generally have more favorable results not just for one species, but the ecosystem as a whole.

On a more personal note, I for one would love to see people respond with as much outrage about the deaths of millions of salmon at the hands of man as they did the deaths of a few sea lions.

This relationship is the one that needs protection.

Scapegoating Sharks

Recently, a great white shark killed a man off the coast of California, spurring mass hysteria and cries to track down and kill not only the shark implicated in the "attack," but sharks in general. Posing an "unacceptable threat to human safety," many Americans would like to see sharks, alligators, bears, and other species occasionally implicated in attacks on man eliminated. Since 1990, sharks have killed a whopping 12 people in the United States, making them very possibly the least threatening animal to human safety despite being among the most feared. In reading responses to news articles that often had people ranting about a "need" to eradicate sharks due to their inherent danger to human safety, it occurred to me that in our blind terror, we were forgetting about a much more dangerous animal.

The species in question kills roughly 50,000+ humans directly in the US every year, another 26,000+ through vehicular collisions, and a startling 14,000+ through infectious disease. Non-direct human deaths through other activities of this species kill many more. Ready to grab your rifles and wipe out these deadly beasts? Good. Turn your gun around and shoot yourself, because humans result in more human death than any natural predator in existence. 20,000 through manslaughter and murder, 30,000 through suicide, 26,000 in automobile accidents, and 14,000 through infectious disease - and that does not begin to account for self-induced deaths caused by substance abuse, sedentary lifestyle, or non-vehicular accidents.

The ocean is not human habitat, it is wildlife habitat. By entering the ocean, you do so at your own educated risk; without a weapon, humans rank pretty low on the food chain, and even when wild animals pose no predatory threat to us, plenty are deadly through defense mechanisms and disease alone. This is inevitable. Any interaction with wildlife thus holds the potential for harm or death, and that detriment can not be blamed on the species when your invasion is causative.

I have noticed virtually no coverage nor emotional outrage for the number of sharks being killed by humans annually. For shark fin soup alone, a wasteful Asian delicacy, it is estimated that 100 million sharks lose their lives. As slow reproducing and maturing animals, most shark populations are already in significant decline. This suggests that those calling for the extinction of sharks may soon get what they desire; most species are considered critically endangered, yet due to phobic human attitudes, few have been afforded any protection from exploitation. 100 million deaths annually for a single dish (non-inclusive of shark fishing for other reasons or shark bycatch) vs. 5-10 deaths annually (global)... and who is threatening whom?

What we should examine are risk factors associated with shark attacks and shark deaths, so that we might prevent the majority - for the sake of humans and sharks alike. Recently, an Austrian tourist was killed free-swimming in water deliberately baited with meat and blood to attract sharks. This is a rare (and stupid) example of activities that should be avoided to prevent shark attacks. More commonly, fatal shark attacks occur when people are surfing or body boarding - it is thought that the silhouette of a human on a board looks like an ailing seal resting at the surface. Divers are also targets, probably due to the fact that they are essentially wearing a seal suit in the middle of shark territory. That is not to say that such activities should be stopped, but that we should be mindful of heightened risks and act accordingly, such as taking shark spottings seriously and perhaps avoiding such activities at times where shark populations are projected to be high in a given area.

Absolutely, it is tragic when any human life is lost for any reason (though we seem to make exceptions for war and corporal punishment). However, it is a childish knee-jerk reaction to lash out at entire species for a human death. As a species granted disproportionate power over others, it is our duty to be merciful, not vengeful.