The Problem with No-Kill
It's not Enough
A lot of people and organizations in the animal welfare community have a problem with the no-kill philosophy, and we're no exception here at Olympic Animal Sanctuary. But it's probably not for the same reasons you think, so we urge you to read on.
Let's start with the way a typical animal shelter works. Shelters receive dogs and cats from owners who no longer want them or are unable to continue to care for them, and from Animal Control, who picks up animals that have been abandoned or confiscates them from abusive or neglectful owners. Those animals are placed in small, holding pens where they receive the bare minimum care, usually food, water, something to sleep on, and frequent cleaning and removal of waste from the cage. Stray animals are held for a few days, usually three to five, to give the owners a chance to come in and claim them, while the rest are made available for adoption. Those strays not claimed by their owners are put up for adoption. After a few days to a few weeks, depending on policy, any animals not adopted are killed. Somewhere between 7 and 12 million dogs and cats die this way every year in the US.
Of course, not all animals get a shot at adoption; sick animals that may or may not be treatable are killed. Old animals are often killed. Animals with temperament issues are killed. And sometimes shelter personnel just kill a bunch of animals to make room for more. It's important to note that the shelters call this "euthanasia" which literally means 'good death' -- we don't see much good in it, which is why we call it killing, and reserve the term 'euthanasia' for animals that would die an inevitable, horrible death as a result of illness or injury, or continue to live in agony indefinitely -- mercy killing, as opposed to killing for convenience, or because we simply don't know what else to do with all these animals.
The rules for killing shelter animals are that the death has to be quick, relatively painless, and as stress-free as possible, and most of us take it for granted that this is the case, but often it is not. The people administering the death drugs are usually not veterinarians, they may not give the right dosages, they may not use the right drugs, they may not be able to find a vein, so the animal endures repeated bad injections, or the shelter personnel may prefer easier, less humane methods, like intracardiac injection (needle into the heart) without first anesthetizing the animal. It's illegal in most places, but it is a lot easier.
Here's something to think about: would any of us dispute the idea that certain sadistic, abusive, predatory individuals become foster parents or seek employment at group homes, in schools, or in other places where they will have access to children so that they can have a steady supply of victims? Of course not -- we know this happens, because we hear about it every day. Most of the people in child services are there for the right reasons, but some are there to perpetrate abuse on the vulnerable. The same is true of elderly care, and care of the mentally handicapped. So does it not follow that some people enter the animal welfare field for the purpose of abusing animals? We know it happens, because we've seen it, but chances are you haven't. And since animals can't talk, and unlike child services, killing the animals is considered part of the job, these people's cruelty can go undetected for years. In fact, we've even seen people fired for animal abuse and go right on working at another facility, or even returning to the same facility after a management change!
Moving on, after the animals are killed, they're generally given to an animal disposal company, and in most cases they're taken to a rendering plant where they're chopped up and mixed up in a vat along with road kill, expired grocery store meat, dead animals from factory farms, mink carcasses from fur farms, etc. The contents are boiled, and what floats to the top is sold to pet food manufacturers as "animal fat", while what sinks to the bottom is sold as "meat", "meat byproducts", "protein meal", or other nondescript terms that essentially mean a mixture of dead animals, plastics, polystyrene, narcotics (remember the drugs they used to kill those shelter animals?), and anything else that may have gone into the vat. And we don't want to get sidetracked, but if someone ever needed to dispose of a human body... maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't.
So having read about how shelters function, how could we possibly be against no-kill? The answer is that we're not against the no-kill movement, we just have a problem with one part of it, which we'll get to, after we briefly discuss the movement itself.
The basic principle of no-kill is that no adoptable animal is killed if it is healthy or has a treatable illness or injury. Some shelters operate as no-kill facilities, while in other instances entire communities are no-kill, which is preferable, because when only the shelter is no-kill, the animals they don't have room for are still being killed elsewhere. For a no-kill community to work, there are several elements that need to be in place, and many organizations follow what is referred to as the "no-kill equation". It's not actually an equation, which only means that the people who wrote it, or at least named it, weren't mathematicians. Regardless, here it is:
- Feral cat TNR program: TNR stands for trap, neuter, and release -- the only method proven to reduce feral cat populations. The neutered cats stay in the area and keep outsiders from moving in, but since they don't reproduce, the population stays within reasonable limits.
- High volume, low cost spay/neuter: take away people's excuse for not sterilizing their pets -- make it as easy and convenient as possible.
- Rescue groups: animals transferred to other animal welfare organizations means there's more room for new animals coming in. This requires a form of community that isn't always easy to create, but hopefully it's a reasonable goal.
- Foster care: get the animals out of the shelter and into a home environment, where they no longer have to endure intensive confinement, exposure to diseases like bordatella (kennel cough) or worse, and where those nasty behaviors they pick up at the shelter don't get the chance to develop.
- Comprehensive adoption plan: increasing adoptions is key, and making sure the animals go to appropriate homes means they don't end up back in the shelter next year.
- Pet retention: coming up with ways to keep people and their pets together, which may include helping people understand their animals' behavior better, helping with medical bills, providing emergency assistance, etc.
- Medical and behavior rehabilitation: treating the sick and injured, and fixing those behavioral issues that would keep an animal from being adopted.
- Public relations/community involvement: this one is pretty obvious.
- Volunteers: having a strong volunteer base is crucial, as there is always more work that can be done.
- Compassionate director: it seems like this one wouldn't need mentioning, but some shelter directors aren't as compassionate as we'd like them to be. Without a compassionate leader, a compassionate community is going to be harder to create.
This all sounds good, but there's one, nagging detail that bothers us; there's one thing still missing. Remember when we said that no-kill organizations and communities don't kill adoptable animals? What about the ones that aren't adoptable? Even if an organization has a rehabilitation program for dogs with behavioral issues, won't there always be some that don't make it to adoption because they just can't get their acts together?
Most organizations use some form of temperament testing to determine whether or not a dog is safe and reliable, terms that are better used for describing a car than a live animal. It's a litigious age we live in, and no one wants to get sued, so shelters use all kinds of methods to ascertain a dog's suitability for home life: shaking a plastic replica of a human hand in the dog's face while it's eating, wiggling a baby doll in front of the dog, walking it past a kennel of barking, growling shelter dogs to see how it reacts. Of course, dogs don't recognize plastic replicas, because they don't view the world the same way we do, so that plastic hand and that baby doll are just toys, and what dog wouldn't bite a toy? And what dog wouldn't get defensive with all those other dogs barking and growling at it? But often, normal behaviors are what keep a dog from passing temperament evaluations, and even when the evaluations have some actual validity, as opposed to the methods just mentioned, some dogs simply aren't going to pass. Fighting dogs, severe abuse cases, coyote hybrids... there's only so much we can ask of these animals, and maybe asking them to change their behaviors so they can go live with the Cleaver family is a bit unrealistic.
So what do you do with a dog that bites strangers, that fights with other dogs, that kills cats, or that will struggle to the point of myopathy, potentially leading to organ failure and death, when you try to put a leash on it? For most organizations, the answer is to 'euthanize' the dog. For us, that's just not good enough.
Olympic Animal Sanctuary was created for precisely these kinds of dogs; sometimes rehabilitation takes years, and sometimes the dog never reaches that place where it can be considered completely safe and reliable. For us, that's OK -- we don't let the cat killers play with cats, we don't leave the fighters alone with other dogs, we don't let strangers, especially children, have access to any of the animals, and for those that won't take a leash, we don't make them -- sure, lugging them to the vet in crates is hard on the lower back, but we do whatever it takes, and we're pretty sure the dogs appreciate the effort. The problem is that we can only do so much -- a few dozen dogs is all we can handle at the moment, and we're turning them away left and right, often requests from no-kill shelters that have run out of options. That tells us that there are an awful lot of dogs that can't make the grade for adoption, and even the no-kill community is killing a lot of animals.
So what do we do? Well, what would you do? Not what would you do if you were in our shoes, but what would you do, you, the person reading this, whatever your name is, if someone said to you, "We have a dog that bites people, we've tried for months to rehabilitate him and he still bites people, we can't find a facility anywhere in the world that will take him, and if you don't take him and keep him for the rest of his life, he dies tomorrow. Here he is; you decide." Well, what's your answer? Do you find a way to give him a life worth living, or does he become low-grade dog food?
At this point you're probably saying to yourself that there's no way you'd take in a dog like that one when there are perfectly well-mannered animals that need homes, too, or maybe you're thinking about things like liability issues, how to keep visitors to your home safe from this dog, what it's like to get bitten by a dog -- a real bite, the kind that bleeds and requires a visit to a doctor... Hey, we know all about that stuff. But we also know that a few special needs dogs in a typical American home aren't that difficult a thing to manage for a lot of people. If you don't have young children, you're patient and flexible, and you don't mind having a dog that you can't take to beach parties or parade around in front of your relatives when they come to visit, maybe you can save this dog. Well, truthfully, he's already dead, but maybe you can save the next one, and leave the easy dogs to the people with the small kids at home, the never-ending stream of visitors, the door that doesn't always latch... But chances are there are still a few things you'll need to make it work. And to save you the trouble of sorting them out yourself, we'll provide you with a list:
- Training: you need to learn from people that have done this before, so you're not dependent on trial and error (those errors can be pretty expensive). You need to understand both normal and abnormal canine behavior, and you need to learn to determine what's acceptable, what needs to change, and what to address first. Do we practice walking on the leash first, or do we work on that biting thing? Should we address the food-guarding now, or should we wait until the dog lets us pet her? These are important questions, and there are others that won't be as obvious.
- Community: You need to be in touch with other people doing the same thing as you, to support you, share their experiences, and help you when you run into problems. Sometimes you'll just need to vent, and you'll need someone to listen to you. And what if you need someone to take care of that dog when you want to take a trip? We all need a vacation from time to time, but do we all have a pet sitter that can deal with a dog that eats people?
- Protection: You need liability insurance. For some dogs it's not as crucial, but you need to protect yourself and your dog, and you need to have an affordable policy to do just that.
Let us now reassure you that most of the non-adoptable dogs in the system turn out to be quite sweet; they just need a little time in a safe environment. Can you provide that? We hope so, because we're full, and that means dogs are dying because we were their last hope and we had to say no. As far as the training, community, and protection, well, we're working on that. Here's the plan, and we'd love for you to get involved:
A seminar on the care of special needs dogs in the home: this will likely be a two-day program, discussion-based, covering canine behavior, both normal and abnormal, how to house and care for special needs dogs, how to protect yourself, the public, and the dog, and how to do it all without your entire life being consumed. To attend, a fee and criminal background and reference checks will be required. At the end of the seminar, attendees will receive a certificate, a membership to a community of certified special needs adopters, and access to a website where they can find dogs to rescue, share with other members, get advice, read articles, etc. And perhaps the best part, we want to get a special rate on liability insurance for members. How does a $500,000 policy for $500/year for up to four dogs, and $50 for each additional dog sound? That's what we're going to push for. No guarantees, but we think we can do it.
Of course we recognize that there are older, larger, better established organizations that are more ideally suited to developing a program like this, so we're reaching out to them as well -- help us make this happen, so that when someone asks us, "Can you take this dog?" we can say, "No, but there are a thousand people we know who might be able to -- we'll ask them."
If you want to get in on the development of this project, please contact us; we'd love to have your help. Email steve@olympicanimalsanctuary.org.
Posted on June 18, 2008 | Link
Animal Welfare or Human Welfare?
People outside of the animal welfare field frequently hold the view that animal rescue is of less importance than other nonprofit enterprises, because it does not benefit people. Many even go so far as to suggest that those of us who work in this field do so because we dislike human beings, or because of some deep, emotional pain we received at the hands of our own species. It seems a valid theory at its face value, until you find out what sanctuaries and other animal welfare organizations actually do. Animal welfare is not just for the benefit of animals; we serve people, too.
There are many examples; take natural disasters, for instance, when animal welfare organizations are called upon to reunite pets with their owners. In the past, when people were evacuated to emergency shelters, pets were not allowed, and as a result, many people refused to leave their homes. It became immediately clear how important their pets were to them. After the destruction caused by hurricane Katrina in 2005, the importance of companion animals in people's lives was finally recognized, and in 2006, the PETS Act was passed, requiring that emergency preparedness authorities include pets in their evacuation plans. To reinforce the legislation, a disaster plan for pets is now required in order to receive grant money from FEMA.
In the case of non-companion animals, animal welfare groups help people in a different way, by keeping the animals away from them. Sanctuaries are filled with dangerous animals; some are powerful predators, some have venoms they use for defense, and others carry potentially fatal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, pets, or livestock. While a sanctuary's primary purpose is the welfare of the animal, public health and safety are also very real motivations.
It is well established that murderers and other violent criminals usually get their start by abusing animals. Animal welfare organizations and law enforcement agencies work together to stop the cycle before it escalates from animal abuse to human abuse.
Education is also a part of any legitimate animal welfare program, and its purpose is not only to encourage people to treat animals better, but to prevent them from making poor decisions that could one day result in their serious injury or death. In addition, this service is provided simply to enrich the lives of children and adults, and if it leads them to seek careers or volunteer opportunities in animal welfare or conservation, so much the better.
We've established that animal welfare work is work for the benefit of the human community as well, but as animal welfare professionals, we also spend the majority of our time working with people, not animals. So much for escaping those horrible human beings: staff, volunteers, board members, students, government agencies, foundations, donors, vendors, press, not to mention the opposition: exotic animal dealers, backyard breeders, smugglers, fur farms, auction houses, hunting ranches... that's a long list of human beings.
The truth is that we work with animals because we like them and we care about their wellbeing, not because we dislike people. In fact, most of the animal welfare professionals and volunteers we know are also involved with various human rights and human services organizations. We certainly aren't trying to escape from anyone; there are much easier and less expensive ways to do that.
Posted on January 17, 2007 | Link
The Lies Wild Animal Collectors Tell
Just as animal welfare proponents tend to come together in like-minded communities, wildlife collectors often form clubs and advocacy organizations, either in person or online, and as a cooperative effort, they've become fairly adept at lying to themselves and to everyone else about the true nature of what they do. Learning to recognize propaganda for what it is is an unfortunate necessity for wildlife rescuers. Here are some of the more common lies the collectors tell to justify their unethical activities:
Wild animals can make great pets if you know what you're doing. Wild animals, regardless of what anyone says, do not make good pets. They have special needs and instinctive behaviors that make them unsuitable for life in captivity. Even some of the smallest species are capable of inflicting serious injuries to people and destroying property, and many wild animals carry dangerous diseases that can be transmitted to humans. 'Knowing what you're doing' is a pretty relative term; animal husbandry is a trial and error skill set, and even the most experienced animal caretakers have a great deal still to learn. We think that if people knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be trying to make wild animals into pets.
I'm breeding endangered species for conservation purposes. This is one of the most common lies you will hear. It is important to realize a few things about captive breeding programs and their role in conservation. First of all, they are a last resort; it is almost always preferable to relocate animals from existing wild populations than to reintroduce captive bred animals. When this is not possible, captive bred animals may be released, but in many cases, even the Endangered Species Survival Plans administrated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums never result in captive bred animals being released. Often, surplus animals are sold or given away to the public instead. Private collectors may claim they operate captive breeding programs, but unless the program is the work of a government agency or a legitimate conservation organization, it's not viable. Furthermore, the vast majority of the animals found in these so-called captive breeding programs are of mixed genetic heritage, lacking the pure bloodlines that zoos try to preserve. They are therefore of no value to conservation programs and it would be not only ecologically disastrous but also illegal to release them. They are, however, of value in commerce, and this is what most breeders are up to. Real conservation programs don't sell animals.
White tigers/black panthers/albino boa constrictors/etc. are critically endangered and captive breeding is the only way to save the species. 'Designer' animals are very popular among collectors, and many of them will tell you that the animal is an endangered species. Do your research; in most cases this simply isn't true. White tigers are not a species, they are simply animals with a genetic condition that would make it difficult for them to survive in the wild. A black panther is just a leopard or a jaguar that happens to be black, which isn't that uncommon. In the reptile trade, breeders are constantly trying to produce new color morphs, in the hope of selling them for thousands of dollars; none of these are new species, and in many cases, they are hybrids, or intergrades of two or more subspecies, making them worthless to any legitimate endangered species conservation program.
I'm contributing to the pool of scientific knowledge by sharing my experience with others. The internet is full of this 'shared scientific knowledge,' and much of it is incorrect or unsupported. Most animal collectors are not scientists, and they are not applying scientific principles to their 'work'. They contribute far more to the pool of misconceptions and half-truths than to collective scientific knowledge.
I use the animals to educate people about wildlife. People don't need to see an animal in captivity to learn about it; there are plenty of ways to educate people without putting animals in cages. What's more, there are usually plenty of non-releasable animals at legitimate wildlife rehabilitation centers to be ambassadors to the public. Education is important, but it should not take precedence over animal welfare.
This is a wildlife sanctuary/I'm a wildlife rehabilitator. There are a number of legitimate sanctuaries and rehabilitators out there, but chances are the person you're hearing this from isn't one of them. Sanctuaries have a variety of permits, and hopefully they are accredited. Wildlife rehabilitators have to be licensed. Click here to read about pseudo-sanctuaries.
This is a home for retired animal actors. The truth is that there aren't enough retired animal actors in the world to fill all the so-called retirement homes we've seen. This is usually just a ploy to generate interest and revenue. Some collectors will even tell you the movies their animals have been in; if you're around long enough, you'll meet other collectors that will cite the same films. (Can't tell you how many of "the original" Charlie the Lonesome Cougars we've come across.) Animal actors are a lot like human actors in some respects, in that most of them don't retire. We wish they could all retire; animals aren't here for our entertainment, but in most cases, the retirement scenario is as phony as the scenes in which the animals were supposedly 'acting'.
I have a right as a pet owner to keep any animal I want. When they get tired of hearing about animal rights,
collectors often start crying about their own. The truth is that people do not have the right, natural, legal, or otherwise, to possess any living thing simply because they desire it. Animals have a right to live lives free from cruelty, and that right supersedes any human desire to possess a unique pet. Wild animals have the additional, natural right to freedom, and they should only be kept in captivity when there is no other good option. We understand why people want to spend time with wildlife, because we do too; we suggest that if you really love and care about animals, you be a part of the solution. Get involved with a legitimate sanctuary or rehabilitation center, become a field biologist, go to work for a conservation organization, or start an eco-tourism company (make sure it's ethical). Animals have a lot to teach us, and we don't need to 'possess' them for them to enrich our lives.
Posted on January 13, 2007 | Link
The Animal Welfare Crisis
There's no way around it -- animals are in trouble. If someone asks you to think of an animal in crisis, the first species to come to mind might be a highly endangered animal like the giant panda, or perhaps your thoughts would turn to pet overpopulation, but the animal welfare crisis is worldwide and spares no species. Pet overpopulation, the captive wildlife trade, fur farming, poaching, unregulated hunting, traditional medicine, habitat loss, pollution, introduction of nonnative species, and deliberate acts of cruelty and neglect all take a heavy toll on the animals with which we share our world, and the extent to which our impact on animals is made continues to shock even the most seasoned animal welfare and conservation professionals.
Animal sanctuaries are only one part of the solution; one of our main functions is damage control, but we also strive to educate people about this animal welfare crisis, in the hope that, little by little, things will change for the better. When Olympic Animal Sanctuary was first envisioned, it was to be a sanctuary for wild cats and canines, bears, and reptiles, but it quickly became clear that the animal welfare crisis was a much broader problem. We now envision a facility capable of permanently housing and caring for all types of animals. This is a truly ambitious undertaking, and one that will take a great deal of time and resources to accomplish, but the need is too great and we cannot be daunted by the magnitude of addressing it.
As you read through the following sections, you will probably be struck by the diversity of the species discussed, and surprised to learn how many of them are common in captivity.
The unfortunate fact is that any animal you can find in a zoo can also be found in back yards, basements, and garages throughout America. To exotic animal collectors, nothing is off limits, and if the law says it's not allowed, the lawmakers are to blame when the law is broken. Rare and endangered species are given no special consideration; they simply command higher prices. In fact, many exotic animal owners and breeders claim to be conservationists, and insist that they keep wild animals for the good of the species. This is simply not true. (Read more.) The individual reasons people have for keeping animals vary, but the constant and the sole motivation behind the animal trade is profit.
The following are descriptions of the kinds of animals we are working to save. Some, we do significant work with already, while others are part of our plans for the future:
Posted on January 8, 2007 | Link
Fur Farming
a Business of Brutality
The fur trade was brought to North America by the first Europeans to settle on its shores, and was quickly passed on to native tribes as a means of support in the wake of their loss of land and food resources. The beaver (Castor canadensis) nearly became extinct from over-trapping, and when wild fur-bearers became too scarce for trappers to obtain south of the Canadian border, the first fur farm was created in 1866.
Fur farms are responsible for the deaths of 3 million mink (Mustela vison) every year in the United States; the animals' skins are used to make coats, their subcutaneous fat is refined to produce mink oil, and their carcasses are used in low-grade, commercial pet food. The average lifespan of a fur farm mink is seven months, as opposed to the five to ten years they could live under good conditions. While on the farm, mink are fed entirely on animal byproducts - a mixture of intestines, fish offal, rotten eggs, and spoiled milk. Byproducts are required by law to be treated with toxic chemicals before they can be sold, for the purpose of killing bacteria; these toxins are consumed by the mink, and subsequently by companion animals fed on low-grade pet foods containing mink carcasses, often listed as protein meal in the ingredients. Farmed mink are kept in excessively small cages, typically 2,000 square inches (20"x10"x10"), which do not meet their enrichment needs. They are killed using carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide gases, or by neck-breaking; it takes an average of 50 mink to make one fur coat.
Foxes, chinchillas, rabbits, ermine, and sables are a few of the other animals farmed for their fur in the United States and in Europe. Slaughtering techniques for some of these species include anal and genital electrocution, drowning, bludgeoning, and gunshot. Sable (Martes zibellina) and chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) coats are considered the most valuable, often commanding prices over $100,000; despite their numbers in the fur and pet trades, perhaps fewer than 10,000 chinchillas remain in the wild.
Approximately 30% of the fur bearing animals used in the industry in North America are trapped in the wild, most of them in Canada. The leg-hold traps most commonly used have been banned in 89 countries and several American states because of the cruelty they inflict, and because they are not species-specific; nearly 90% of the animals trapped in Canada are non-target species, including endangered animals and family pets. This means that for every mink coat made from trapped mink, as many as 183 non-target animals are killed and left to rot. Considering that 30% of the mink pelts used for fur clothing in North America are obtained through trapping, the average mink coat represents 15 wild mink caught in traps, 35 farmed mink, and 55 dead animals of various species, including pet dogs and cats, that were simply thrown away.
In email correspondence, Fur Commission USA president Teresa Platt stated that farm-raised mink have a high rate of survival in the wild, and conceded that no evidence exists that they are genetically distinct from wild mink. According to Platt, fur farmers "[take] wild animals and [modify] them for human benefit," however the only modification that has taken place is the intergradation of different mink subspecies, a process that occurs naturally where ranges overlap. (Read more.) Despite claims that farmed mink are a separate, domestic species, there has not been sufficient time in the short history of fur farming for such significant genetic change to occur, especially in light of the fact that the phenotypic characteristics sought after by fur farmers are the same ones selected within the framework of Darwinian evolution. That is to say that the same thick fur that gives a mink coat a high retail value is what increases a wild mink's chances of surviving the winter - mink do not need to be modified for fur production. Virtually no legislation exists on the federal level to control fur farming, and the United States Department of Agriculture classifies fur farm animals as domestic species, with no reason for doing so other than the fact that the animals are kept in cages and used in commerce. Fur farmers want mink and foxes to remain classified as domestic animals so that they will not be subject to legislation regarding wild species and to limit the scrutiny of government agencies over their operations.
Fur has no intrinsic value apart from its use in high fashion; synthetic fibers require less maintenance, cost less money, weigh less, and have better insulative properties. Fur Commission USA claims that fur is a sustainable, biodegradable fiber, and that fur farmers reduce waste by "recycling" animal byproducts, which they refer to in their promotional materials as "garbage", indicating that fur farm mink are indeed raised on a diet of waste products. In reality, fur farms produce an enormous amount of waste; Finnish fur farms produce about 150 million pounds of droppings per year, a waste product that cannot be recycled or reused in its raw form. Raw carnivore feces are far too toxic for use in fertilizers, they harbor dangerous pathogens, and excess amounts can create a build-up of phosphorus and other pollutants in watersheds, killing native fishes. The ammonia produced by fur farm animals in Finland accounts for around 5% of the airborne ammonia in that nation. Fur is marketed as environmentally friendly, but a number of the chemicals used to process fur are highly toxic, and listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as potential carcinogens; in 1991, the Agency fined six fur coat producers a total of $2.2 million for illegally generating, storing, transporting, and disposing of these chemicals. In 1992, the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that advertisements promoting fur clothing as "ecological" were false and misleading. Perhaps most alarming is the study conducted by Ford Motor Company's Scientific Research Laboratory in 1979, in which it was discovered that the production of a faux fur coat expended 120,300 BTU (British Thermal Units), about the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, while a coat produced from farm-raised mink expended 7,965,800 BTU, more than 66 times the energy.
Fur farmers have a powerful lobby that influences legislation on their behalf, and releases propaganda filled with unsubstantiated claims about fur products and their opponents in the animal rights and animal welfare movements. Fur farmers claim to be conservationists and proponents of animal welfare, but their actions are not in line with the values they claim to espouse. Legitimate animal welfare proponents and conservationists must join together and oppose the fur industry for its cruelty to animals, indiscriminate killing of wildlife, and pollution of the environment. Genetic studies are needed to determine if there is such a thing as a domestic mink or fox, and if there is not, the USDA must be lobbied to reclassify them as a wild species. The Canadian government must be urged to prosecute fur trappers for poaching when they kill non-target species, and to ban leg-hold traps. The United Kingdom has already made fur farming illegal, and a number of European nations are in the process of doing the same; true conservationists and proponents of animal welfare must work to ensure that the United States does not become the last stronghold for the fur industry.
Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) farming is a similar industry that raises wild animals for their skins, and brings a premature end to the lives of wild animals in captivity; most alligators on skin farms are killed at around five years of age, although they might live natural lives of about 100 years. Another wild animal, the ostrich, is also raised for its skin, and sharks are persecuted in the wild for their valuable leather. A similar practice to skin farming also takes place in the United States, but has a decidedly more sinister bent; 'Rattlesnake Roundups' still occur in a few states, in which thousands of wild rattlesnakes are captured, put on public display, used in cruel games and contests, and killed to order. Rattlesnake hunters often wipe out entire breeding colonies, as the animals are captured in their hibernation dens. Public education is needed to change opinions about these animals, which play a vital role in rodent control, and want only to be left alone.
How you can help: Do not buy fur or wild animal leather, and boycott businesses that sell items made from these products. Read labels - do not buy pet food that contains fur farm carcasses, or leather-care products containing mink oil. Tell others what you know about the fur industry. Write to government officials and urge them to illegalize the fur trade locally, statewide, or nationally.
(This article was adapted from Steve Markwell's master's thesis; contact us for a list of supporting documents.)
Posted on July 17, 2006 | Link
What is Wild?
We talk a lot about wildlife, but what does it mean? What makes an animal wild?
Animals can be divided into three, broad groups: domestic, domesticated, and wild. The distinctions are not always clear; domestication comes more in degrees than in absolutes, but at the other end of the gradient, a species' wildness is fairly definitive.
Domestic animals: a domestic species is one that has undergone considerable physical, physiological, and genetic change as a result of prolonged captivity. Domestic animals are the descendents of wild animals, but over hundreds and thousands of years, they have become better-suited to life in captivity than in the wild. Domestics are the animals that are most familiar to us, either as companions or for their use in agriculture.
Domesticated animals: Domesticated species are those that have been raised in captivity for centuries or even millennia, but their physical and physiological makeup has changed very little, if at all. An example of this is the dromedary camel, which has been used for transportation in North Africa and the Near East for thousands of years, but is more or less identical to its wild ancestors. Domesticated species have typically undergone a behavioral change as a result of captivity, however they can revert to their wild state under the right conditions.
Wild animals: Wild species are those whose physical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics have not been significantly altered by human interference; while many species have been maintained and successfully bred in captivity, their wildness has remained essentially intact.
Hybrids: There are, of course, animals that don't fit into any of our main categories because they are a mixture of two of them. A hybrid is the result of interbreeding between two species; either occurring naturally or through human design. A mule is an example of a hybrid between a domestic and a domesticated species - a horse and a donkey (some would consider a donkey to be domestic, however). In the case of mules, the resulting hybrid is sterile. Wolves and domestic dogs have been crossed with great frequency to create wolf-dogs - animals that are not exactly wild and not exactly domestic.
The controversy: Those who profit from the trade in captive wildlife continually seek to change the animals' designation, in what becomes a series of semantic arguments that may go over well in the legal world, but which do little to address the relevant issue of a given species' welfare. Perhaps the most successful misinformation campaign has been the one conducted by the fur farming lobby. Fur Commission USA maintains that the mink used in fur farming are genetically and behaviorally distinct from their wild counterparts, however no scientific study has proven this to be the case. To support their argument, FCUSA states that captive mink are hybrids, mixtures of multiple mink subspecies. The flaw in their logic is that when subspecies, genetic variations of the same species, interbreed, it is not hybridization, but intergradation - a naturally occurring phenomenon. In the wild, there is not a distinct line that separates one subspecies from the next; wild mink intergrade as a matter of course, allowing genetic material to gradually pass throughout their geographic range over many generations. Intergradation in captivity does not make the resulting animal domestic any more than intergradation in the wild produces a domestic mink; the needs of a mink born from generations in captivity are identical to those of one captured in the wild.
Similarly, crossbreeding two wild species does not create a new, domestic species, but merely a wild hybrid, with all the needs of its wild parents, but often an inability to interact socially with either of them. In some cases, hybridization occurs naturally in the wild, but usually it is only through human intervention that different species will crossbreed.
Hybrids between wild and domestic animals present the problem of determining if the offspring should be treated as one or the other. Wolf-dogs, for instance, often have difficulty interacting with pure wolves and with domestic dogs, and must be placed into their own category, but many breeders claim that they can be dealt with like domestic animals - an argument that is rooted less in fact and more in a desire to sell wolf-dogs. Breeding a hybrid between a wild and a domestic animal does not create a domestic animal that looks wild; it may create a wild animal that is a little easier to handle, or a less predictable domestic animal - again, descriptions that become bogged down in semantics and do little to describe the animal's true nature. Traits are not always blended evenly, either; a hybrid may receive the 'best' or the 'worst' characteristics from each parent, or any volatile combination thereof. For instance, some ranchers insist that the result of crosses between American bison (Bison bison) and domestic cattle, known as 'beefalo', are far more aggressive than either species.
Another argument often used is that a species can be domesticated in a short amount of time, even within just a few generations. The problem with this idea is that when we examine the process by which species have been domesticated in the past, it was long and somewhat unintentional - a process that is in fact ongoing. Another interesting element to domestication is that, at least in the case of carnivores like dogs and cats, the animals may have taken the first steps. Wolves may have learned that human beings were a source of an easy meal well before people discovered the benefit of having a guard dog and a hunting companion. Some scientists believe that the feral dogs, or 'pariah dogs', found in proximity to human habitation throughout the world may not be descendents of domestic animals, but rather the descendents of wolves in an early stage of association with human beings. Cats may have initiated their own domestication merely out of a desire to hunt the rodents that human settlements tended to attract. In contrast, attempts have been made over thousands of years to domesticate ferrets for rodent control, but the arrangement never held up over the long term; today's 'pet' ferrets exhibit little if any of the behaviors that make domestic cats such good companions. This may be due to a lack of inclination among wild ferrets to voluntarily associate with human beings.
Why does it matter? Apart from legal designations, whether or not an animal is wild is important because it defines its niche in the world; should the species live with us in our homes, or is another environment more suited to its needs? Wild animals are ideally suited to life in the wild, just as domestic animals are ideally suited to life in captivity - it seems obvious, but proponents of the wildlife trade have sought to erase the distinction. Few would dispute the cruelty of abandoning a domestic dog in the woods to fend for itself, but forcing a wolf to live as a domestic dog is equally harsh. We can make captive life resemble life in the wild to some degree, and it has its benefits, like safety and scheduled feedings, but wildlife rescuers would prefer it if all wild animals lived in the wild, and keeping our definitions accurate is one way that we can work to that end. For those that tragically must live their lives as captives, we must address their needs as those of wild animals, not attempt to bend them to our own misguided desires.
Posted on July 17, 2006 | Link
Pseudo-Sanctuaries
Don't Be Fooled!
There are a number of impostors pretending to be legitimate animal sanctuaries. Some are no more than filthy, roadside zoos, while others are even more sinister, soliciting donations from the public while they breed and sell animals to hunting ranches, meat markets, and anyone else with the money to buy them. As an animal welfare advocate, you must carefully scrutinize any facility claiming to be an animal sanctuary before you give your support. Here are some things to look for:
- Is the facility accredited by ASA, TAOS, or ACE? If not, why not?
- Is the facility a licensed, nonprofit (501(c)(3)) corporation? If it's not, what is it?
- Are the facility's financial reports easy to obtain? How is it funded?
- Does the facility have all the necessary licenses from the USDA and its state wildlife agency?
- Is it open to the public? Do they charge at the gate? What's their reasoning for doing this?
- Do the animals perform for visitors? If the animals are doing tricks, it's not a real sanctuary.
- Have you seen them in the news lately? Was the coverage positive? Check the internet for news stories that may tell you what they're really up to.
- Are the animals allowed to breed? Where do the babies go? Unless the breeding is part of a legitimate conservation program, it's not a sanctuary.
- Are animals offered for sale? If so, it's absolutely not a sanctuary.
- Do staff and volunteers react with suspicion to your questions? Be suspicious in return.
- Are there animals that visitors aren't allowed to see? Sometimes there are good reasons for this, but ask why.
- How well-constructed is the facility? Is it clean? How do the animals look? Is it safe?
If you are unsure, call your local humane society and your state wildlife agency; they might know something about the facility. You can also contact ASA, TAOS, or ACE, who might be familiar with the sanctuary in question.
Posted on July 12, 2006 | Link
