Hot-Iron Branding of Seals and Sea Lions: Weighing Individual Welfare against the Common Good

Transcription

1 Hot-Iron Branding of Seals and Sea Lions: Weighing Individual Welfare against the Common Good Dr Vaughan Monamy School of Arts and Sciences Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW Australia

2 Dedication Miriam Rothschild ( ) Looking back on the first half of my life as a zoologist I am particularly impressed by one fact: none of the teachers, lecturers, or professors with whom I came into contact... ever discussed with me, or each other in my presence, the ethics of zoology.... No one ever suggested that one should respect the lives of animals or that they, and not the experiments, however fascinating and instructive, were worthy of greater consideration. Animals and Man: The Romanes lecture for (OUP, 1986)

3 Talk Outline Valuing wild animals The Southern Elephant Seal branding controversy Exploring extrinsic and intrinsic objections to an action Policy scenarios to cater for such objections The Australian model

4 How do we Value Wild Instrumental value As a resource Food for many human societies Ecotourism Education and training Animals?

5 Valuing Wild Animals Intrinsic value Albert Schweitzer : Everything that lives has value simply as a living thing, as one of the manifestations of the mystery that is life.

6 Valuing Wild Animals We often imply a hierarchy when we consider intrinsic value and animals Wild (and especially iconic) species are valued more than, say, domestic livestock

7 Valuing Wildlife Research Generally seen as a (common) good by society Conservation biology Wildlife management Captive breeding and release programs

8 Despite involving intrusive research procedures with welfare implications Which may involve (re) capture restraint (for many hours) anaesthesia injections radio-tracking marking

9 Southern Elephant Seal Background 1 branding controversy In 1993, a long-term population study began following decade-long declines in numbers of Southern Elephant Seals on sub-antarctic islands Approval was given to mark up to individual pups and to track their life histories 1 Green & Bradshaw (2004) J.Nat.Conserv. 12:25-39

10 Southern Elephant Seal branding controversy Background Marking methods were trialled including: Paint Bleach Tags (electronic or rear flipper) Freeze branding Hot-iron branding

11 Successful hot-iron branding gave best results Easy to read Highly-visible mark No evidence of long-term harm

12 Southern Elephant Seal Background branding controversy However in 1999, a Tasmanian government wildlife scientist who had witnessed less-than-successful marking of pups Released video footage to the media of hot-iron branding and its impacts

13 Southern Elephant Seal branding controversy There was widespread public outcry as video footage showed poorly-marked individuals and animals with unhealed wounds The study was stopped in March 2000 by Ministerial intervention (after pups had been marked)

14 Southern Elephant Seal branding controversy Scientific studies since then have shown that hot-iron branding is demonstrably best practice Despite this, hot-iron branding remains indefinitely suspended.

15 What happened here? Scientists were conducting important research into a declining population of iconic wildlife after receiving all appropriate permissions using a marking technique approved by animal care and ethics committees and generally viewed as acceptable when used in livestock industries

16 Back to Valuing Wild Animal Research For many people, conservation research is seen as a good Few in society hold strong objections to this practice For many people, hot-iron branding of cattle falls into a category of the ends justify the means. Few in society hold strong objections to this practice

17 Valuing Wild Animals vs Valuing Wild Animal Research But hot-iron branding of iconic wildlife falls into the category of the means will never justify the ends. Many in society express objections

18 Objections to an action (I) In any ethical discussion, extrinsic (consequentialist) objections to an action relate to harmful consequences of that action in a utilitarian context. A moral decision based on extrinsic objections weighs arguments against each other and then prioritises each according to its moral value.

19 Objections to an action (I) The morality of branding seals is no easy calculation such as when weighing a moral right against a moral wrong Rather, it involves the weighing of two moral rights against one another Wildlife research is a good and Cattle branding is acceptable.

20 This weighing was done as a part of the approval procedure

21 Objections to an action (II) Intrinsic (deontological)objections to an action relate to spiritual, cultural, moral or otherwise personal beliefs (in this instance, about wild animals, Nature and the role of human interference). (which need not be consistent within society, based in science or even rational)

22 Valuing Wild Animals Hot-iron branding of baby seals causes a level of moral discomfort that forces a societal evaluation of the importance of any research that can only be conducted at the expense of individual animal welfare Extrinsic calculations were over-ridden by intrinsic objections Intrinsic objections can occur at any time and in response to any project proposal

23 Is there a policy scenario that can cater for such situations? Institutional Animal Ethics Committees Membership Veterinarians Scientists Welfare members Lay persons To consider welfare issues in all experiments Weigh extrinsic concerns as a part of permission process

24 Is there a policy scenario that can cater for such situations? Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) Has regulations in place where extrinsic calculations can be overridden by intrinsic objections

25 So what does this all mean? our valuing of animals is hierarchical our ethical decision making is inconsistent, and we have to have policy scenarios that cater for this Ultimately, the practise of wildlife research is conditional

26 Wildlife research is conditional Public attitudes are based on subtle case-by-case calculations of cost, benefit and ethical considerations but they are underpinned by an understandable caution about wildlife research where individual welfare is compromised, and/or potential conservation benefits are yet to be ascertained

27 Wildlife research is conditional Wildlife research can be viewed as a privilege (never a right) granted to scientists by the public and by their governments via statutes and regulations This permission comes with implicit as well as explicit caveats

28 Is this as it should be? The conduct of wildlife research should continue to be legitimately tested not only against Codes of Practice but also in the court of public opinion

29 Acknowledgements and photographs afari-tour.jpg Rusty_Stewart.jpg Green and Bradshaw (2004) Journal for Nature Conservation 12: jpg