Recently there was a front page story in a major Chicago newspaper regarding the treatment of pigs raised for slaughter. Animals raised for food are in one of the most powerless positions of any living creatures on earth. How they are treated, poorly in far too many instances, would cause an uproar if the same treatment were applied to companion animals. Because there is usually little to no human emotional attachment to animals raised for slaughter, the standards for the care and treatment of these animals are often ridiculously low.
These animals should have some measure of legal protection backed by people with the authority to exercise the law. Laws, no matter how strong, are meaningless if there are not sufficient numbers of people with the power and authority to enforce them. Agribusiness fails if it cannot provide minimal standards of care. It is not enough to provide cheap meat if it comes at a heavy cost in terms of animal suffering, poor working conditions and environmental damage.
There are better, more humane ways to lead pigs to slaughter than are presently practiced in many slaughterhouses. There are significant deficiencies, with some exceptions, in every aspect of the way pigs (and other animals used for food) enter this world, live in it, and then leave it.
There are better alternatives than keeping sows kept in confinement pens, without the ability to turn, move, exercise, and that in frustration chew on their metal bars. A simple search on the internet reveals alternatives offered to this severe confinement. It is clear that some people with strong knowledge bases regarding animal science are thinking about these matters, and there are better alternatives. Some of the alternatives are expensive, some are not. There is one design, carefully thought out, that is a relatively inexpensive alternative to restrictive confinement pens, and that does not involve putting sows in a stressful group situation (pigs in general are highly social animals that seek out the company of each other, but not in all situations).
It simply is inexplicable that technology has advanced at an incredibly rapid pace, but the technology for the proper care of animals raised for meat has languished. As long as the nature of a business involves the use of living creatures, simple human decency demands that the animals in their care be afforded the right not to be subject to unnecessary, excessive, gratuitous cruelty, violence or neglect.
In factory farms and slaughterhouses where wages are low and the stress for workers is high, management still has obligations both to its employees and to the animals in their care.
Government has an obligation to protect both these animals and the workers, and to quit shielding factory farms and slaughterhouses from any achievable methods of accountability.
The well funded, lucrative animal welfare, humane, against cruelty, ethical treatment type organizations, who also are never held accountable, have fallen far short. A simple challenge remains for any one of these organizations to debate in a public forum or in any manner of their choosing regarding their position that they help animals, and the opposing position that they are more ineffective, harmful and exploitative than they are helpful.
Few people choose to stop eating meat. Some people choose to eat meat only raised in a manner that meets certain standards. But for the vast majority of people, they do not have the will or interest, or the financial resources, to eat anything other than meat that is least expensive, regardless of how it is produced.
Most animals never receive any measure of protection other than what the industry itself provides. This makes it all the more imperative that there is consistent, across the board standards for all animals raised for meat. The science and technology already exists to mitigate against unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the moral will is still lacking.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
The Conservationists, Scientists, Academics That Failed Bats, And Flawed Bat Counting
Highly endangered bats faced with extinction came to the radar of a number of so called bat conservationists and other conservationists, bat scientists and academics, and related organizations and institutions. Being on the radar, studying the bats, having bat related meetings, expensive exotic bat related travel to the distant land, bat conferences, bat scientific studies; none of this stopped the destruction of the habitat upon which the bats depend, or the killing of the bats themselves.
A very lucrative project that destroyed habitat was of huge consequence, and no one raised a voice against it. The motives for silence in the face of destruction? Perhaps it was the belief in timidity as the way to remain "constructively" engaged, believing that raised voices would only be alienating. But what did that matter, when everything was going to be lost anyway? Maybe it was the fear of losing travel perks, funding, grants, or being able to operate in other areas of that country.
Meanwhile, a questionable method of counting bats developed by an academic was used as a way to declare bat numbers were on the rise despite development.
If conservation failures were as widely advertised as so called conservation successes, maybe then conservation would be approached differently.
A very lucrative project that destroyed habitat was of huge consequence, and no one raised a voice against it. The motives for silence in the face of destruction? Perhaps it was the belief in timidity as the way to remain "constructively" engaged, believing that raised voices would only be alienating. But what did that matter, when everything was going to be lost anyway? Maybe it was the fear of losing travel perks, funding, grants, or being able to operate in other areas of that country.
Meanwhile, a questionable method of counting bats developed by an academic was used as a way to declare bat numbers were on the rise despite development.
If conservation failures were as widely advertised as so called conservation successes, maybe then conservation would be approached differently.
Scientific Studies Are Not The Way To Stop Extinctions, Not For Tigers, Not For Almost All Other Wildlife
Scientific studies are not what saves species from extinction. Protecting wildlife and their habitat is what does. Proclaiming scientific studies are necessary to protect tigers or other endangered species from extinction misses the point. The fundamental threat worldwide is the continued failure to protect wildlife and their habitat.
Scientific studies might be good for generating donations for an organization, or for obtaining grants and employment for an elite, but that does not necessarily make them valuable or useful. A few species are faced with diseases that threaten their survival and do require study. But worldwide, the mass extinction that is taking place right now, the unraveling of biodiversity that threatens the very survival of humans, is caused by the continued loss of habitat and wildlife and the enormous failure to protect both. Governments must become far more involved than they are now, and take over the handling of this crisis. It cannot continue to be left in the hands of highly inadequate and often exploitative nonprofit entities and a few equally self serving for profit animal related media and other conglomerates. Governments do not hesitate to spend trillions on ways to kill each other, but expend little effort and funding to protect the natural world upon which we all depend.
Scientific studies might be good for generating donations for an organization, or for obtaining grants and employment for an elite, but that does not necessarily make them valuable or useful. A few species are faced with diseases that threaten their survival and do require study. But worldwide, the mass extinction that is taking place right now, the unraveling of biodiversity that threatens the very survival of humans, is caused by the continued loss of habitat and wildlife and the enormous failure to protect both. Governments must become far more involved than they are now, and take over the handling of this crisis. It cannot continue to be left in the hands of highly inadequate and often exploitative nonprofit entities and a few equally self serving for profit animal related media and other conglomerates. Governments do not hesitate to spend trillions on ways to kill each other, but expend little effort and funding to protect the natural world upon which we all depend.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Conservation And Wildlife Organizations That Fail In Only Two Things- Conservation And Wildlife Protection
The good thing about running a conservation and wildlife protection operation in a far away third world country is that the program can be utterly worthless and useless, as they are often, and no one will pay attention. Conservation and wildlife protection organizations, eager to impress their donors and supporters back home, will do practically anything to maintain a presence in the third world countries where they are operating, including kowtowing to ineffective, corrupt governments and other entities. Recently in one country, a massive development project destroyed habitat and wildlife, jeopardizing endangered species, while wildlife and conservation organizations, including some that are species specific, refused to do anything.
These organizations have their meetings, constructive engagements, expensive travel, so called scientific studies, and are lacking in only two things- conservation and wildlife protection.
These organizations have their meetings, constructive engagements, expensive travel, so called scientific studies, and are lacking in only two things- conservation and wildlife protection.
Long Overdue Critical Change Needed In Conservation, Animal Cruelty, Wildlife Protection, And Nonprofits
There are a number of important roles that government or the public sector must perform. In important areas where government is lacking, weak and inefficient, the key is to improve and strengthen the weakness and inefficiency. Stepping into the vacuum created by weak and inefficient government and exploiting this weakness to promote a nongovernmental organization is not an appropriate role for a nonprofit organization.
Nonprofits are not law enforcement agencies, for example. It is not appropriate or useful for any nonprofit entity to try and be the substitute for adequate law enforcement. By doing so, they allow certain crimes to flourish. First, because it enables law enforcement to continue to avoid their responsibilities. Second, as I have already discussed at great length, the so called investigations by nonprofit organizations into crimes such as animal cruelty and dog fighting are not only incredibly inadequate and lacking, but are oftentimes harmful.
There are many areas where nonprofits are of enormous service. Law enforcement roles or pseudo law enforcement roles are not one of them. Regarding conservation and wildlife protection, nonprofits cannot replace, nor should they try, to be the inadequate substitutes for appropriate government involvement. Protecting wildlife and habitat, which they have failed at miserably, especially in the third world (the places with the greatest biodiversity), needs to move fully into the hands of responsible governments that can assist countries in need. Preservation and protection has to be a more financially viable option than continued habitat destruction and wildlife decimation. Mankind is now in the midst of a mass extinction event, in which untold numbers of species are being lost, or are near to being lost forever. The collapse of biodiversity threatens the very survival of humanity.
Conservation and wildlife organizations can supplement appropriate government conservation and wildlife protection, but these organizations must stop being the horribly poor substitute for governments, particularly in the third world. Nor should they continue to be the timid enablers, granting undeserved legitimacy to governments and other entities that are destroying habitat and wildlife. Rather than advocate for endangered species, wildlife and habitat, they choose instead to be "constructively" engaged with the very corrupt forces that they know are destroying flora and fauna. They calculate that being present in a third world country is better for their own promotional and fundraising purposes, even if their presence and activities are utterly useless and even harmful.
Before more habitat and wildlife is lost forever, strong international and national interventions are required. Conservation and wildlife organizations can play important advocacy roles (for nature and for wildlife, not in order to promote themselves), but the bread and butter of wildlife and habitat protection must move fully out of their hands, where they have a long history of failure. Too often conservation and wildlife organizations have put their own interests over conservation interests and wildlife protection, Protecting habitat and wildlife must become an international priority, if for no other reason than that the survival of humanity itself is at stake.
All crimes, including dog fighting and animal cruelty, must move fully out of the hands of nonprofit organizations, and fully into the hands of law enforcement. Many animals, many people, have paid a huge price in pain and suffering by the actions and failures of these nonprofit organizations. They have made animal cruelty and dogfighting far worse than they ever had to be.
Governments, nonprofit organizations, for profit organizations, all have important roles in society. The failure to hold any one of these three accountable is an enormous mistake. Nonprofits must be scrutinized as to the efficacy of what they do, or claim to do. The failure to scrutinize has rewarded the undeserving, punished the deserving, and exacted a heavy price in pain, suffering and misery.
Nonprofits are not law enforcement agencies, for example. It is not appropriate or useful for any nonprofit entity to try and be the substitute for adequate law enforcement. By doing so, they allow certain crimes to flourish. First, because it enables law enforcement to continue to avoid their responsibilities. Second, as I have already discussed at great length, the so called investigations by nonprofit organizations into crimes such as animal cruelty and dog fighting are not only incredibly inadequate and lacking, but are oftentimes harmful.
There are many areas where nonprofits are of enormous service. Law enforcement roles or pseudo law enforcement roles are not one of them. Regarding conservation and wildlife protection, nonprofits cannot replace, nor should they try, to be the inadequate substitutes for appropriate government involvement. Protecting wildlife and habitat, which they have failed at miserably, especially in the third world (the places with the greatest biodiversity), needs to move fully into the hands of responsible governments that can assist countries in need. Preservation and protection has to be a more financially viable option than continued habitat destruction and wildlife decimation. Mankind is now in the midst of a mass extinction event, in which untold numbers of species are being lost, or are near to being lost forever. The collapse of biodiversity threatens the very survival of humanity.
Conservation and wildlife organizations can supplement appropriate government conservation and wildlife protection, but these organizations must stop being the horribly poor substitute for governments, particularly in the third world. Nor should they continue to be the timid enablers, granting undeserved legitimacy to governments and other entities that are destroying habitat and wildlife. Rather than advocate for endangered species, wildlife and habitat, they choose instead to be "constructively" engaged with the very corrupt forces that they know are destroying flora and fauna. They calculate that being present in a third world country is better for their own promotional and fundraising purposes, even if their presence and activities are utterly useless and even harmful.
Before more habitat and wildlife is lost forever, strong international and national interventions are required. Conservation and wildlife organizations can play important advocacy roles (for nature and for wildlife, not in order to promote themselves), but the bread and butter of wildlife and habitat protection must move fully out of their hands, where they have a long history of failure. Too often conservation and wildlife organizations have put their own interests over conservation interests and wildlife protection, Protecting habitat and wildlife must become an international priority, if for no other reason than that the survival of humanity itself is at stake.
All crimes, including dog fighting and animal cruelty, must move fully out of the hands of nonprofit organizations, and fully into the hands of law enforcement. Many animals, many people, have paid a huge price in pain and suffering by the actions and failures of these nonprofit organizations. They have made animal cruelty and dogfighting far worse than they ever had to be.
Governments, nonprofit organizations, for profit organizations, all have important roles in society. The failure to hold any one of these three accountable is an enormous mistake. Nonprofits must be scrutinized as to the efficacy of what they do, or claim to do. The failure to scrutinize has rewarded the undeserving, punished the deserving, and exacted a heavy price in pain, suffering and misery.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Deflated Numbers Of Dog Fighters, Inflated Numbers Of Tigers
I remember a prominent animal organization throwing out a ridiculously low figure regarding the numbers of dog fighters in the United States. When I challenged one of their officials about the number and on what basis his organization arrived at it, he sheepishly avoided answering. Years later, when Michael Vick was arrested for dog fighting, the same organization threw out the same ridiculously low figure. Because of their powerful brand name, everyone took their figures on blind faith. When this organization and others were all over the Michael Vick story, granted expert status and enormous free media coverage by the as usual unquestioning media, no one questioned their "facts".
When we approached a number of these organizations with the information and documentation that with few exceptions(such as Michael Vick), law enforcement was ignoring and not responding to dog fighting, they did not lift a finger. Looking back on the matter, I believe now that the weaker law enforcement is in responding to dog fighting and animal cruelty, the more these organizations can continue to fill the vacuum with phony, ineffective programs, campaigns and initiatives. The more they are perceived as the experts and answer to dog fighting and animal cruelty, the more the money pours into their coffers. The Michael Vick situation handed them a cash cow, and they in return gave to the public and to their too often lemming like donors more of their ineffective programs and illusions.
In an article in a recent issue of a reputable science magazine, it was implied that certain conservation organizations were using outdated methods to count tigers, perhaps because these methods allow them to inflate the number of tigers in the wild, thus allowing these organizations to appear successful in their tiger conservation efforts.
Why would an organization deflate the number of dog fighters, or just randomly throw out a number which happens to be deflated? Why would another organization inflate the number of an endangered species in the wild? The words self serving and lazy come to mind. What also comes to mind is that when people stop being so uncritical and easily fooled, things will finally change for the better.
When we approached a number of these organizations with the information and documentation that with few exceptions(such as Michael Vick), law enforcement was ignoring and not responding to dog fighting, they did not lift a finger. Looking back on the matter, I believe now that the weaker law enforcement is in responding to dog fighting and animal cruelty, the more these organizations can continue to fill the vacuum with phony, ineffective programs, campaigns and initiatives. The more they are perceived as the experts and answer to dog fighting and animal cruelty, the more the money pours into their coffers. The Michael Vick situation handed them a cash cow, and they in return gave to the public and to their too often lemming like donors more of their ineffective programs and illusions.
In an article in a recent issue of a reputable science magazine, it was implied that certain conservation organizations were using outdated methods to count tigers, perhaps because these methods allow them to inflate the number of tigers in the wild, thus allowing these organizations to appear successful in their tiger conservation efforts.
Why would an organization deflate the number of dog fighters, or just randomly throw out a number which happens to be deflated? Why would another organization inflate the number of an endangered species in the wild? The words self serving and lazy come to mind. What also comes to mind is that when people stop being so uncritical and easily fooled, things will finally change for the better.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Worldwide, National Parks Must Mean Something
National parks are one of humanity's best ideas. In the United States and in some other countries, national parks have set, unalterable boundaries. The parks are patrolled and protected by national park rangers. The government ensures all of this.
In many third world nations of the world, places with the world's greatest biodiversity, national parks are not protected. Park boundaries are rendered meaningless. In one once magnificent park, much of the territory was opened up to developers and other interests, and now the park is but a remnant of what it was once. Nature was not protected, and now what could have been a major tourist draw for that country can never be. Endangered species have been driven closer to extinction.
National parks are words that have to mean something. Like it or not, human beings cannot survive without nature. National parks are treasures. They not only protect and preserve biodiversity, but they have innumerable benefits to humans, not the least of which are recreational.
In many national parks in the third world, familiar words are heard- there is not the funding to properly secure and protect the parks. These parks face all kinds of threats, including exploding human populations, logging, hunting, mining, trapping, live bird and exotic animal capturing, and more. Underfunded national parks are not being properly patrolled and secured.
But the money is there. Even in the world of conservation and wildlife protection, a number of organizations are swimming in money. Why is the money and political will not there to protect the world's parks? Why is humanity losing its last chance to protect biodiversity, flora and fauna?
In the United States, and in some other countries, the government has a strong hand in the protection and patrolling of national parks. This must become the model for national parks worldwide. The wealthier nations of the world must work with the poorer nations of the world to ensure their parks are properly protected.
If we continue down the path of weak government involvement in much of the world's national parks by both nations and the international community, with weak, self serving wildlife and conservation organizations pretending to fill the vacuum, there will be nothing left to bequeath to the future.
Governments assume fundamental roles in the affairs of human lives. This includes defense and public safety. It must include the defense and protection of nature. Keep destroying nature, and regardless of whether one loves or hates nature, human life will not survive.
In many third world nations of the world, places with the world's greatest biodiversity, national parks are not protected. Park boundaries are rendered meaningless. In one once magnificent park, much of the territory was opened up to developers and other interests, and now the park is but a remnant of what it was once. Nature was not protected, and now what could have been a major tourist draw for that country can never be. Endangered species have been driven closer to extinction.
National parks are words that have to mean something. Like it or not, human beings cannot survive without nature. National parks are treasures. They not only protect and preserve biodiversity, but they have innumerable benefits to humans, not the least of which are recreational.
In many national parks in the third world, familiar words are heard- there is not the funding to properly secure and protect the parks. These parks face all kinds of threats, including exploding human populations, logging, hunting, mining, trapping, live bird and exotic animal capturing, and more. Underfunded national parks are not being properly patrolled and secured.
But the money is there. Even in the world of conservation and wildlife protection, a number of organizations are swimming in money. Why is the money and political will not there to protect the world's parks? Why is humanity losing its last chance to protect biodiversity, flora and fauna?
In the United States, and in some other countries, the government has a strong hand in the protection and patrolling of national parks. This must become the model for national parks worldwide. The wealthier nations of the world must work with the poorer nations of the world to ensure their parks are properly protected.
If we continue down the path of weak government involvement in much of the world's national parks by both nations and the international community, with weak, self serving wildlife and conservation organizations pretending to fill the vacuum, there will be nothing left to bequeath to the future.
Governments assume fundamental roles in the affairs of human lives. This includes defense and public safety. It must include the defense and protection of nature. Keep destroying nature, and regardless of whether one loves or hates nature, human life will not survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)