Tracking Devices: A Response to Nick

Nick asks two questions. His first question is: Is the attatchment of these (neighly wieghtless to the animal) transmitters morally justifiable if the researchers claim to do it for the end result of "knowing the habits and migratory patterns of these animals"? Many claim that such data would provide information on how to best 'protect' these animals and their ancient system of life of which migration plays a large role.

To answer this question, I do feel that these transmitters are morally justifiable when used for gathering scientific research. The transmitters do no harm to the animals, and most of them fall off after a certain amount of time. The information gathered can be helpful to scientists and researchers, as Nick points out, in mapping migratory routes. This way, these routes can be patrolled more strictly (if necessary) during migratory seasons and the animals can be protected more from humans.

Nick then asks: What is the difference between a (supossed) securly attatched transmitter on an animal and a human's cell-phone?

The difference is that humans know about the transmitters in their phones while animals have no idea what transmitters are. It is possible an animal may not even know that a transmitter has been attached to them. Another difference, as I metioned earlier, is that the transmitters on the animals generally fall off after a certain amount of time. With humans, the transmitter is working as long as the phone is active.

My question is this: Can you think of any other differences between animal transmitters and transmitters in a phone?

Babs

All the talk of having pets being morally wrong made me think. All of the pets my family has had during my lifetime have all, in a sense, been rescued. None of them came from shelters, yet none of them came from breeders either. For this post, I would like to talk about our one remaining pet, Babs, because it is the story I can tell the best.

We took Babs in as a kitten. She appeared in our neighborhood out of nowhere when I was five years old. The first time I saw her, my parents and I had just left the house to go somewhere. A little black kitten darted from the yard under one of the cars parked in our driveway. After a few moments of coaxing, she came out. My mom opened her car door to see if the kitten wanted to come with us, but she just sniffed the outside and did not get in. My next memory of seeing her was at my next-door neighbor's house. She tried to come into the house when the door was open to let me in, but my neighbor shooed her out, saying something about how she was a pest. I felt sorry for the little kitten.

Finally, there was a night when my parents took her into our house. I can't remember why, but I do know they were going to let her back outside the next day. When they did, it was pouring hard outside, and the kitten just sat on our front porch at our door, meowing and meowing to be let back in. My parents finally decided to bring her back into the house. My guess is that, since we already had two cats and a dog, they weren't thinking about having another cat and that is why they tried to put her back outside. This idea is also fueled by the fact that after they brought her back inside, for the next few days, my parents brought her around the neighborhood, asking if she belonged to anyone. They also put an ad in our town's newspaper. No one came forward and claimed the kitten. When no one else stepped forward, my parents made the final decision to make her a part of our family. We took her to the vet, got her checked out, named her Babs after the vet told us she was a girl, and she has been ours ever since.

Babs has led a happy life since we took her in. She loves attention and will seek it out when she wants it. She knows when she's supposed to be fed and will remind us of it until she gets her food. She knows who to go to so she can sit in a lap and be petted, and she knows who to go to when she wants to play. Or if she's lying down and one of us starts to play with her, she'll join in if she feels like it. When she's not playing or wanting attention, she can be found in numerous spots around the house where she likes to go and lie down and be comfortable.

With all that said and the arguments against keeping pets, is it wrong to take in a stray animal and give it a happy life that it would not have were it left alone?

Seal Watches

Talking about preserves, safaris, and whale watches and how they can be unsuccessful in that it is possible no animals will be seen got me thinking. In Chatham on Cape Cod, I have departed for many seal watches. They caught my attention because I had heard of many whale watches before, but never a seal watch. They take place in the summer, and there are always seals. I can't remember how expensive they are, but they are local, which means we don't have to go too far out on the water, and they are entertaining, and we learn a bit about the seals during our trip. The best part is that the seals are not contained in any sort of area and are free to come and go as they please. I have not heard of seals being injured by the boats, and it gives credit to the people doing the tours that they actually slow the boats down. That said, it is not impossible for seals and other marine life to be injured by boats. Manatees are a good example. Still, the seal watches seem to have the best of all worlds. The seals are not confined, so they can come and go as they please, and they are in their natural ocean habitat. There is a guarantee that they will be seen (or at least, I have never not seen them when I've gone on these), and we learn a bit about the seals.

With all that said, I have one question: If endeavors such as this were guaranteed to be successful, would they be more popular?

Wearing Fur: A Response to Emily (Part Two)

Emily's question of "Are there times when wearing fur is morally justifiable?" still stands here. It wasn't until this morning that I thought of another way/reason that wearing fur can be morally justifiable. I know there are animals out there (sheep, llamas, alpacas, maybe even long-haired rabbits) whose fur is shaved in the summer to make the animals more comfortable. The heavy fur is removed, the animals' coats are lighter, and they won't be as hot. The fur is then taken, processed, and made into yarn or other materials and turned into clothing. In this way, the animals are not killed - in fact they are quite comfortable - and we get warm, comfortable clothing to wear. To me, it's a win-win situation for all.

That said, I have two questions: 1) Do you still see this as wearing fur? 2) Are there any downsides to this?

Fur as Clothing: A Response to Emily

Emily asks: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?

In our society, I don't think it is. I made this point in another blog, but fashion companies are making a push for realistic-looking faux fur on the designer school level. They look, feel, and part like real fur, and as a result, more students and faculty are looking to faux fur as an alternative. Also, they watched a video of how animals are treated in the fur factories. Even big-name designers are fooled by the look and feel of the faux fur, and many are making the switch.

That said, some societies may need fur for clothing. It goes along the same lines as subsistence hunting, but instead of hunting for food, you use the fur. Not to say that the food still isn't used. In any case, if there are no other viable alternatives, using fur can be morally justifiable.

My question now is, if there are viable alternatives to real fur in our society (like the realistic faux fur), why do some still use real fur?

Aldo Leopold

There is a quote among Aldo Leopold's piece, Game and Wildlife Conservation [1932], that really struck out at me. It said,

"I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket the unearned increment on a stock, or a bond, or a piece of real estate, I am 'selling out' to the enemies of conservation. When I submit these thoughts to a printing press, I am helping cut down the woods. When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping to drain a marsh for cows to graze, and to exterminate the birds of Brazil. When I go birding or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oil field, and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber. Nay more: when I father more than two children I am creating an insatiable need for more printing presses, more cows, more coffee, more oil, and more rubber, to supply which more birds, more trees, and more flowers will either be killed, or what is just as destructive, evicted from their several environments," (Leopold 451).

I realize this is a long quote, but it is worth mentioning. The last statement "evicted from their several environments" is true enough. Animals like deer are leaping across roads to get from one forested area to another, or are overpopulating an area because they can't go anywhere else, either thanks to humans building a town or city nearby, or roads being all around. Creatures like bears and coyotes, which are seen as dangerous creatures, are coming into contact with humans because their habitats have become smaller, thanks to human population, and they are looking for food. Sometimes these encounters end dangerously because a pet will be attacked. I don't know how likely it is for these animals to attack humans, but I won't discount it. Raccoons go through trash and are seen as pests, but again, they have been forced out of their natural habitat. They are trying to survive.

As for the rest of Leopold's quote, he wrote this piece in 1932. The damage may have been done then, but my guess is that it certainly has grown since. There are more people on the planet now than there were then, and so the demand for things like cream, coffee, paper, rubber, and oil are higher than they were before. That is especially true for rubber and oil, because there are more cars on the road than there were in the 1930s, and because cars today are more efficient than cars back then.

My question now is this: do others think that the destruction Leopold addressed back then has increased since? Why or why not?

A Response to Hallie

Hallie asks: Do you feel that members of your family or close friends are less ethically in the wrong when they do something you deem to be immoral than people you have never met or do not have a relationship with?

In her post, Hallie mentions how her family hunts deer and later eats the venison. To answer her question, I think some people do feel that their family is less ethically wrong, while others don't but are more willing to forgive or overlook some things like hunting.

Of course, there are some things I would hope people would stop a family member from doing. If anyone in my family were to ever abuse an animal - not feed it enough, not give it enough attention, kick or hit it for no reason - I would speak up and stop it. (Of course, no one in my family ever would do this - it's just an example.) When it comes to strangers, people also speak up in the defense of animals. I've seen enough animal cop shows to know that when people see a major problem with the way an animal is being kept or treated, they report it, whether or not they know the owner of the animal.

Of course, there are differences between keeping a pet and hunting. For one thing, as has been mentioned repeatedly by many people, when a person takes in a pet, they are taking on the moral responsibility for that animal. They need to be the ones to look after it, and if that cannot happen, they should not get a pet in the first place. With hunting, the intention has never been to take care of an animal, but to go out and kill it for a trophy, food, or what-have-you. So perhaps the fact that the animal is going to die or has already died plays a part.

What I would like to know is, is it easier to speak out against something when you know it can be changed (changing the conditions for an abused animal) than when it can't (a deer that has already been killed)? This question is not limited to family and friends or strangers; it can be for both.