Species conservation is vital, but the individual is important too.

Human life is important. The tragedy of a child’s death will invariably be met with a feeling that this little person had his or her whole life ahead of them. The knowledge that all of those years will now not be lived makes an already terrible loss all the more poignant. Conversely, whilst we may be bereft at the passing of a much-loved elderly friend or relative, the blow of their death may be softened by the feeling that they had “a good innings” (as my dad would say). These feelings stem from the universally accepted premise that being able to live a long, happy and healthy life is something which many, if not all of us, aspire to for ourselves and hope for for our loved ones. We don’t tend to question this premise. We don’t need to justify our reasons for feeling this way. Life just is important. Would you agree?

But when we talk about animals (perhaps with the exception of a beloved family pet), the simple suggestion that animals might, just like us, like to keep on living life until they reach the end of a “good innings”; that they might relish in having experienced a lifetime of family, friends, victories, defeats, gains and losses sometimes appears difficult for us to accept at face value.

I read an article this morning which highlighted the awful practice of “trophy hunting” of lions. For those unfamiliar with trophy hunting it is, as the name suggests, the practice of killing an animal in order to take his or her carcass (or part of it) as a prize. 

I should say from the outset that I am 100% behind work being carried out to bring an end to trophy hunting (have a look at IFAW or LionAid to find out more about this important issue) and I have no desire to detract from the vital efforts of the organisations that are working so hard to this end. So whilst I fully support the efforts being made, my interest in this instance is in the way that the argument against trophy hunting was presented in this particular article. The approach was not uncommon and similar examples could be found, I'm sure, in numerous other pieces on the subject of people, wildlife and their interactions with one another.

One question posed by the author of the article in question asked: “Why on Earth are we still allowing this animal [the lion] to be killed for "fun" when it's in danger of disappearing from the wild in our lifetimes?”

For me, the question should have ended after the word “fun”. By continuing to qualify the query by reminding readers that lions are threatened seemed to confuse matters. Rather than simply questioning the validity of a senseless and barbaric act in the name of “fun”, the reader is left wondering if the author believes that there may be circumstances whereby it might be okay to shoot lions for “fun” if they didn’t belong to a threatened species. 

Later in the article, the author states: “There are several reasons why trophy hunting is so bad for lions, beyond the obvious one that it kills healthy members of an imperiled species”.

Once again the tragedy of the lion’s death is given credence by virtue of his membership of a species in danger of extinction. It’s as if the self-serving actions of the hunters when they kill him to take his head to mount on a wall and boast to their friends of their prowess is not reason enough to object; that the lion’s loss of life, pure and simple, is not enough to warrant our opposition.

The article is clear that trophy hunting does have an effect at a species level; often as a result of infanticide as a new male takes over and seeks to rid the pride of all those young sired by his predecessor. But any discourse relating to the individuals, outside of the parameters of the discussion on species conservation, is overlooked.

Personally, I believe that the life of that individual lion, and the lives of the other 600 or so that are killed every year during trophy hunts, are important not just because that lion belongs to a species that we are fast driving to extinction, but because his life is his own and he will have been right in the middle of living it when it was brought to an abrupt and brutal end by a hunter. 

Having worked in and with in situ projects for around a decade myself, I appreciate and understand the importance of conservation efforts to save species and habitats. I am well aware that species form vital parts of the natural ecosystem that they have adapted to inhabit and their loss can have devastating effects on other members of the same system. I also understand that iconic animals such as lions can be put forward as “flagship” species in order to raise awareness and funds to support work which will have the effect of protecting entire habitats, and all the other life found within them. I understand that species being recognised as endangered can further their protection under the law and this is one of the key aims of the campaign which the article in question was discussing. I support this campaign wholeheartedly. Whilst I recognise the validity, indeed the necessity of this work, I think we too readily forget that species (whether endangered or thriving) are also made up of individuals. So, in the case of trophy hunting, my opposition to the cold-blooded killing of an individual (regardless of species membership) does not need to be justified using only species conservation arguments to make it viable. If lions were the most abundant species that walked the planet, shooting them to take their heads would still be wrong. Because their lives are important.

Species conservation is vital, but the individual is important too, and I think it is important to ensure that we recognise that in its own right.

Of course the problem is that, if we begin to accept that animal life, like human life, is important in and of itself then it begins to present serious conundrums for many of us in our day-to-day lives. After all if belonging to an endangered species is not the litmus test to decide whose life matters and whose life doesn’t, then how can factory farming or vivisection possibly be justified? Is there a logical reason to conclude that a lion is more important than a chicken, or a rat or a dog? If not, what consequences does that have for us, and our society? I suspect that many of us aren’t ready to face that conundrum.

Is all life important, or just some life? What do you think?

When the chips are down, shout “CONSERVATION” and hope for the best

A month ago, CAPS launched the Fight for Flight campaign to see an end to the cruel practice of pinioning (partial amputation of the wing) of birds to prevent them from escaping from zoos and wildlife parks. The news that this barbaric practice was being carried out up and down the country was met with horror by supporters and the general public. The campaign quickly fostered support with people calling for pinioning to be abolished.

The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), became a major focus of the campaign for two reasons:

1. The WWT was, to its credit, one of the few organisations which had admitted to pinioning its captive wildfowl and flamingos. Shockingly, in five centres in England alone the WWT currently holds around 5,650 mutilated birds.
2. The WWT is generally known for its conservation work and wildlife reserves rather than for operating a chain of zoos. Many people that would refuse to set foot in a zoo would happily visit a WWT centre in the mistaken belief that there were no animals held captive there.

The WWT don’t make a song and dance about the practice of pinioning. For example, searching 'pinioning' on the trust's website throws up no results and a statement published in direct response to the CAPS campaign a month ago was available only to those that had the weblink. However, as mentioned above, the organisation did admit that it engages in the practice. 

Furthermore, the WWT has been honest about why its birds are pinioned. CEO, Martin Spray, told a parliamentary committee that it was to “bring people close to birds, close to wildlife”. In short, it seemed that birds were being permanently disabled so that people could get a better look at them. As the Fight for Flight campaign was launched, this stance was reiterated by the not-quite-public statement referred to above which said: “The majority of the captive birds visitors see at our centres are there to help engagement, to connect people with wetlands and wetland wildlife”. At no point, as far as we were aware, had the WWT claimed that pinioning was carried out for conservation purposes.

Indeed, the trust would be hard-pressed to argue that conservation had anything to do with it considering that 86% of the pinioned birds in their centres belong to species which are not threatened in the wild. And to risk stating the obvious, a bird with half a wing missing can never be released to the wild. It therefore seems safe to conclude that there is no possible argument that pinioning is being carried out for conservation purposes.

Since the Fight for Flight was launched, pressure has been building for zoos to be held to account over this cruel practice. Perhaps as a result of this pressure, it seems that the WWT have now concluded that zoo visitors getting close to birds offers scant justification for permanently disabling thousands of animals. A public statement published yesterday on the WWT website makes little mention of zoo visitors getting close to birds, or birds helping engagement, but now appears to suggest that the justification for pinioning is rooted in conservation.

I am aware that I am repeating myself but, to reiterate: 86% of the pinioned birds in the WWT centres are not threatened in the wild. Birds with one and a half wings can never be released to the wild. By default, birds involved in release programmes must be full-winged.

There is no feasible argument which justifies pinioning for conservation purposes.

The tendency of the zoo industry to explain away holding animals captive for their lifetime with the word “conservation” has long been accepted by the general public. But animals do not need to be held captive, much less deliberately and permanently mutilated, to support conservation efforts.

All animals are adapted to form part of a complex ecosystem and it is work which seeks to preserve these animals as part of these ecosystems that truly conserves and protects them. If you are concerned about the conservation of exotic birds, or any other animal for that matter, please find out about projects working to protect them in their natural habitat and support those projects directly. 

Conservation does not happen in zoos and conservation efforts are certainly not furthered by the mutilation of captive animals. 

Conservation happens in the wild.