Snout Blog

CONVERTING SANPARKS’ ECOBABBLE INTO ORDINARY ENGLISH.

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:23:00 +0000

Once more the SANParks killing machine has moved in, this time on the jackals. Their subsequent report is now to hand and for the benefit of Snoutians, Chris Mercer has converted their Ecobabble into ordinary English:

Extermination of Jackals in Addo
The Jackal Slaughter by SANParks (or Einstein’s Quantum Theory on Jackals)

The ‘Brief report’ by SANParks is now to hand. After explaining that the Springbok herds in Addo and Karoo were not increasing at the desired rate, SANParks deduced that, in the absence of large predators, the problem might be caused by caracals and jackals. A reasonable deduction, all other things being equal. The solution? Kill all the jackals. (The report does not say anything about killing caracals! Hmmm.) Or as they put it in their quaint Ecobabble:

‘This intervention took the form of reduction of the jackal population, together with monitoring of jackal and antelope populations. Since the start of this intervention 132 jackals have been removed from Karoo National Park, 73 from the Darlington Section of Addo Elephant National Park, and 139 from the Kuzuko Contractual Section of the Addo Elephant National Park. The jackals were shot in accordance with SANParks Standard Operating Procedures for Lethal Population Management, which has been approved by the SANParks Animal Use and Care Committee. No traps or poisons of any kind were used’
(The jackals must have been very happy to know that they were being shot in accordance with standard operating procedures, as approved by the Ethics committee.)

Having admitted that the whole thing was an experiment, the report goes on to state as follows. However, it is written in Ecobabble, comprehensible only to the High Priests of Conservation, so we have translated the text into ordinary English after each statement, for better understanding by ordinary mortals.

1. The outcome of this intervention is envisaged to be a robust manuscript about the complexities of jackal-herbivore interactions, which will provide SANParks with guidance for jackal management. (Translation: When we have counted the dead jackals, and the live springbok, then we can tell other parks so they can also go out and kill all their jackals.)

2. All SA National Parks with jackal will benefit by having explicitly tested the competing hypotheses about the efficacy of jackal population management. (Translation: Once we have proved beyond doubt that exterminating jackal populations in game parks stops them from stealing springbok lambs, all of us in SANParks will be so much wiser..er..better informed.)

3. The results can be used in other parks outside of the Frontier Cluster to aid in drawing up mechanism diagrams, and hence management options, for park-specific jackal-herbivore interactions. (Translation: Conservation officers in other parks will be better equipped with ‘robust manuscripts’ telling them how to draw diagrams and exterminate jackals.)

4. The results will also contribute towards the broader understanding of jackal-herbivore interactions and the efficacy of jackal population control within the livestock farming community. (Translation: After this experiment, no one will ever be able to deny that exterminating jackals stops them from stealing springbok lambs, and we can pass this scientific truth on to livestock farmers so that they too can draw diagrams and exterminate jackals.)

5. SANParks will also benefit by being able to demonstrate its ability in implementing active adaptive management to strategically direct its conservation decisions in the face of uncertainty in complex ecosystems. (Translation: Once we are left with no jackals and lots of diagrams, everyone will have to admit how clever we are in solving complicated stock theft cases.)

THE REAL RHINO ISSUE

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:51:00 +0000

The WWF, in support of its P.R. campaign, declared an 'Anti Rhino poaching day' and urged people to 'make a noise at 13h00 in support of anti-rhino poaching.' But few people realise that behind the public image of WWF lies an organisation which actually keeps the system going by its old-style conservationist approach and its touting of a policy of sustainable usage of resources which sees sentient beings reduced to unfeeling commodities, indeed money making machines.
The WWF is not against the hunting or trophy hunting of sentient beings but about preserving a killing machine which brings in money. So it's all right to hunt, as long as you hunt sustainably, that is leave enough to be hunted another day.

One of the real comparisons we should be making is add up the number of 'poached' animals for the year and the number of those that are 'legally trophy hunted' (a very grey area) and add up these two. Only then will we get a better idea of what's happening with the animals. The only difference between 'poaching' and 'hunting' is that the money goes to different people, and that's the big issue for the game farmers associations - they are losing income. They don't give a damn about the animals.

It is notable that the WWF only makes a noise about politically correct issues and not controversial ones, such as, trophy hunting, the millions of animals tortured in the vivisection labs or, indeed, the slaughter of millions of sentient beings in the abattoirs on a daily basis, plus the intensive factory farming that feeds the latter practice and contributes to the major part of the destruction of the ozone layer and the subsequent earth warming.

I would urge Snoutians to read the Animal Rights Africa press release below which deals with the Rhino issue, and then you might even consult the following website:

www.goallover.org/rhino-charity-profits-from-trophy-hunting/8729

ANIMAL RIGHTS AFRICA
PRESS RELEASE: 05 August 2010

SOUTH AFRICA’S CALLOUS COMMODIFICATION OF RHINOS IS AT THE ROOT OF THEIR CURRENT MISERY

It is a foregone conclusion that at the very least, 300 rhinos will die horrible and painful deaths in South Africa in 2010.

South Africa is currently entrusted with the vast majority of the world’s population of rhinos, but at the same time it has become abundantly clear that not only are rhinos in South Africa facing one of their worst threats ever as a species, but they are literally under siege. More rhinos have been killed illegally in South Africa during 2008, 2009 and 2010 than at any other time in the last 90 years. South Africa is quite literally the last bastion for rhinos in the world but the colossal growth of rhino killings (both legal and illegal, and the concomitant insufficient anti‐poaching capacity and poor record keeping, means that rhinos are facing untold suffering, exploitation and death and has the potential to once again threaten the survival of the entire species.

Almost daily we read, see or hear about rhino killings. There is no doubt that ordinary South Africans are horror-struck and outraged at the suffering rhinos are enduring. Yet astonishingly, the perpetrators caught for these unspeakable acts of cruelty are never prosecuted under the Animal Protection Act but rather for the possession of illegal ‘wildlife products’.

“We should not be surprised that welfare and anti-cruelty legislation has never been invoked because treating rhinos as if they are merely a tradable commodity is the cornerstone of South Africa’s approach to ‘conservation’. There seems something deeply unethical and inappropriate about supposedly championing rhino conservation and protection but at the same time driving trophy hunting, trade in rhinos, the sale of rhino from national and provincial Parks to known ‘put and take’ hunting outfitters and the stockpiling of their horns by government and private individuals” said Animal Rights Africa (ARA) spokesperson Michele Pickover.

Undoubtedly that there needs to be a global initiative to tackle the insatiable illegal market for rhino horn in the East but equally South Africa needs to recognize its culpability in bolstering the market through trophy hunting and rhino horn stockpiling. It’s morally and ecologically bankrupt and rampant ‘consumptive and sustainable use’ policies are trumping ethical conservation, biodiversity protection and concern for the welfare of wildlife. This is literally translating into a war against wildlife. Wild animal, who were victims and suffered under colonialism and apartheid, now continue to be victims under sustainable use policies, which are turning living beings into mere commodities.

“ARA is extremely concerned about our government’s uncritical support for the ethically and scientifically flawed process of ‘sustainable use’ which has no regard for who rhinos and no understanding of their social complexities, relationships or culture. It is just a euphemism for unsustainable killing, suffering and massive exploitation. ARA urges the South African public to speak out against these current policies” said Pickover.

South Africa remains the world's top destination for the hunting of captive raised lions and is also the premier market for those wishing to shoot rhinos.The hunting permit system has been repeatedly used in recent years to launder horn into the illegal market. The government says it is trying to limit the number of rhinos hunted illegally. Yet despite the abuses within the industry, selling rhino hunts to foreigners remains a growing business.

It is therefore not surprising that it is within this context of overt ‘consumptive use’ that poaching of rhinos in South Africa has reached the highest levels in decades. In the short space of 19 months, poaching of rhinoceroses in South Africa has accelerated to a rate almost six times higher than that of the previous eight years and at the same time South Africa has become the conduit of most of the rhino horns leaving the African continent.

Exactly a year ago, through the release of a special report on rhinos entitled, Under Siege: Rhinoceroses in South Africa, ARA alerted people to the alarming situation in relation to rhinos. Since then the killings have not only continued but have risen. The recommendations of that report remain unchanged and need to be restated. There is an urgent need to:
• Open the government policy of ‘sustainable use’ and trophy hunting to public debate.
• Impose an immediate moratorium on all capture, sale, translocation and hunting of rhino in South Africa.
• Burn rhino horn stockpiles.

The Report is available on: http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archive/ARA_Report_Under_Siege_Rhinos_in_South_Africa2009.pdf

Ends.

BORN FREE – OR ARE THEY?

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:33:00 +0000

'A Robin Redbreast in a cage sends all heaven in a rage'

Many, like the author of the above - William Blake, would agree that imprisoning a bird in a cage for human entertainment is cruel, but few are fully aware of the vast trade in wildlife which causes animals to be taken from their natural habitats to be imprisoned either in zoos or circuses or else languishing in small indoor enclosures in private homes, in climates which are not endemic to their species. Wildlife Trafficking, the illegal trade in plants and sale of wild birds and exotic pets is said to be the second biggest threat to species survival after habitat destruction. It is also thought to be the third most valuable illicit commerce in the world, after drugs and weapons, each believed to be worth billions of dollars each.
There are serious environmental implications. A number of popular pet birds, especially those from Central and South America, are declining in number in the wild in the wake of the chopping down of trees, in the search of baby parrots in high up nests. The resultant deforestation then also destroys the habitat of other small animals. The Environmental Investigation Agency estimates that for every wild caught bird that reaches a pet shop, three others have died during capture, confinement and transportation.
A furore has recently erupted over the trade in the Kalahari Meerkat. This follows an undercover investigation by the Captive Animals’ Protection society (CAPS) which has spearheaded an international campaign based on the message ‘Wild Animals Belong in the Wild’. The investigation established that these little mammals sell for up to R 17 000 each in the flourishing pet trade. Indeed, they are on the wish list of an increasing number of Britons, according to Craig Redman, spokesperson for CAPS who found many of these mammals, indigenous to Southern African deserts, for sale in pet shops.
Grant McIlrath of the Meerkat Magic Conservation Project in Oudtshoorn confirms that the Meerkats are highly sociable animals who live in family groups of up to thirty and care for each other. They are generally considered cute but in fact bite and are very destructive indoors as they will still exhibit burrowing behaviour and easily become ill because of an incorrect diet. Many literally go insane because of lack of social contact, which leads to their subsequently being disposed of.
Permits are required before wild animals can be exported but there are many illegal means to circumvent the environmental laws. Documented cases have shown the involvement of zoos being used to ‘launder’ the animals. Whilst permits are not readily obtained for export for domestic purposes, it’s relatively easy to obtain permits for inter-zoo transfer. One such documented case was the transfer of three chimps from Whippersnade Zoo in the U.K. to Johannesburg Zoo whence they were obtained for experimental purposes in the SADF’s infamous Chemical and Biological warfare (CBW) programme. It’s also very difficult to trace the ultimate destination of animals transferred in this way, as zoos from time to time dispose of their ‘surplus’ animals, including baby animals that have reached maturity and are no longer a drawing card.
In this regard Paul Hart of the Drakenstein Lion Park, which provides sanctuary to abused lions rescued from cruel circumstances around the world, has many a tale to tell.
For instance Dodo, the cute lion cub, purchased illegally from an Eastern European zoo. This is quite a common practice with many of these zoos, which sell animals like lion cubs as pets to earn extra revenue. The buyer’s intent was to keep him as a pet, but obviously a growing lion does not fit in well in any household. Dodo's owner evicted him from the house and ended up keeping him in a small underground concrete pit. There he was incarcerated for almost his entire life of eight years. In winter his jail filled with snow while temperatures dropped to minus 20 degrees. Many animal welfare organizations tried to liberate Dodo from his dungeon, unsuccessfully, but Paul Hart persevered and after almost three years of hard work Dodo was finally freed from his prison.

No wild animal is safe from exploitation. Apart from birds, monkeys and even tortoises are exploited. “This is because animals are seen as commodities to be traded and there is a lot of pressure on governments in Africa to up their trade surplus. So animals, natural resources, etc. are all being stripped and going to the North,” says Michele Pickover of Animal Rights Africa. “There is little or no consideration for the welfare of the animals.”

And so the silent screams of these creatures remain unheard, while the human species continues to imprison them, creating the very market which sustains this unethical practice.

But at least there was a happy ending for Dodo the Lion . Highly traumatised on arrival at the Drakenstein Lion Park as grey walls and the rusted steel bars above his head were all that he’d seen his entire life, and unused to nature, he feared even the leaves that rustled in the wind. Fortunately, after several months of special care, he is now well adjusted.
“Everything he experiences is new for him and he delights in everything around him,” says Paul Hart. “He has found sanctuary and can now live the kind of life he deserves.”

If only this could be the fate of all wild animals.

PUPPY MILLS PERPETUATE THE CRUELTY

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:42:00 +0000

There is great need at the animal welfare societies that house thousands of dogs. As the number of available homes is limited, many of these loyal companion animals, some of them in the prime of their lives, have to be put down. One also hears how puppies, bought from a local pet shop, have to be put down owing to the fact that they are harboring an illness incubating at the time they are bought. Pet shops seldom bother to check whether new ‘merchandise’ has received all the necessary innoculations, possibly because it would be cutting into profits.
Another ugly reality is the ‘puppy mills’ or unlicenced backyard breeders who supply the pet shops. These puppy farmers care little for the well-being of the dogs, as long as they bring in the tax free profits. Very often the mothers have their pups removed at age six weeks instead of the optimal eight or twelve in order that they may become pregnant more quickly. So these hapless animals become little more than perpetual breeding machines, their off-spring sold, unspayed of course, to the nearest pet shop.
From time to time exposés highlight the plight of these wretched creatures, doomed to lives of misery. Currently, there is an on-going case against such a puppy mill brought by the Wet Nose Animal Rescue Centre (WNARC). Shocking scenes of the conditions at the puppy farm were aired on the TV programme Carte Blanche.
Laws are currently being considered, outlawing the breeding of dogs without a valid breeders’ license.
Considering the price pet shops ask for the puppies, that makes for an enormous amount of tax free merchandise. And anybody can open a pet shop and sell animals, without having any knowledge or background of animal welfare. What restrictions there are, pertain to health regulations and not the welfare of the animals. There does not appear to be any law requiring these animals to have valid vaccination certificates before being sold. The new Cape bylaws currently under consideration stipulate that pet shop owners have to have proof that the dogs and cats they are selling have been vaccinated. But these new bylaws have been a long time coming and besides they are difficult to police as the SPCA only covers a small area and this constitutes a big loophole.
Ideally, pet shops should not sell live animals anyway. This would not necessarily mean the end of the road for such concerns. Most well run pet shops who don’t deal in animals manage a steady income from pet accessories and dog foods which, world-wide, constitute a multi-billion dollar industry. Surprisingly, this market slice has also proved to be recession proof as good owners will always spend on their companion animals.
Meanwhile, a word of caution from the WNARC: Buy only from registered welfare organizations that will ensure that the animals come to you vaccinated and spayed. But if you should be so unwise as to buy from a pet shop, do read their legal disclaimer as the minute you leave there, any subsequent problems become your own. Take time about purchasing the animal and ensure that the breeder is registered, that the documentation is correct and the breeder info on the vaccination card is up-to-date. You should also contact the Kennel Union of South Africa (KUSA) in order to check up on the breeder who might just be among those banned from the organization because of bad practices. Some of the certificates that are supplied are fraudulent.
It is most unwise to advertise animals in the papers and on Gumtree offering them ‘Free to good homes’ rather than sending them to a registered animal welfare society. There have been documented instances where such pets have landed up in experimental laboratories or for use as bait in dog fights.
In the end it is those who buy from pet shops who must carry the blame for this unethical trade. If we would rather adopt from the nearest shelter, the puppy mills would close down. It’s all about supply and demand.
So the next time you walk past a pet shop on a cold evening or weekend, do spare
a thought for the puppies shivering inside, deprived of their mothers’ warmth. And remember that for every person that supports a breeder (be it backyard or registered) a rescue dog dies – even pedigreed ones.

Abuse against animals and humans – the link

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Thu, 27 May 2010 14:14:00 +0000

Capetonians were recently stunned to hear of a case of cruelty against a horse by a youthful gang in Macassar. Their game involves stealing ponies and taking them for a joy ride using a makeshift bridle, often of barbed wire. When the exhausted horse can go no longer respond to relentless whipping and beating, they stab it in the flanks to coax a further few kilometres out of it. On this particular occasion the aged pony had been put out to pasture, whence it was stolen. After the event, it managed to drag its pain racked body home where it subsequently died, just fifty kilometres from home.

Rescued from a life of abuse as a cart horse, he had found sanctuary with horse lover Anthea Myburgh 15 years before and it was to this happy home and his beloved owner that he tried to return with his last reserve of strength.

It is important that the youthfulness of the perpetrators or their social circumstances should not be used as an excuse for a less vigorous sentencing.

Sadistic tendencies are not just a result of poverty as sadists are to be found in all income groups. Rather, these barbaric acts should be seen as indicative of a greater problem which should be taken most seriously and investigated rigorously.

In his book Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty, Phil Arkow of the Latham Foundation shows a link between domestic violence and animal abuse. He shows how animals, esp. pets, often get caught up in the cycle of family violence and in many cases the animal is just the last victim in a cycle of abuse that filters down from the strongest in the family to the weakest. Women and children are sometimes intimidated into silence about sexual and other abuses by threats against a favourite pet. Pets are sometimes hurt or killed to punish a child for something he has done.

An abused child might act out aggression or frustration on an animal that is perceived to be more vulnerable. At the same time, well documented research shows disturbing correlations between early childhood cruelty to animals and later juvenile delinquency or adult aggressive criminal behaviour towards humans.

Animal abuse is a predictor of violent behaviour and psychopathic tendencies. Intentional cruelty is of particular concern, because it is a sign of psychological distress and often indicates either that an individual has already experienced violence, or may be predisposed to committing acts of violence. It could also be an indication of a serious pathological disorder. It is a fact that in most cases psychopaths have been found to have tortured animals in their youth and such tendencies escalate as the culprit grows older. Most serial killers such as the Boston Strangler and Jeffrey Dahmer have a history of cruelty towards animals.

Clearly, what is needed is an animal abuse reporting policy. We need a central base of animal abuse cases as pointers to domestic violence and vice versa and in this instance welfare and child protection officials should work together.

There is no doubt that, on a global scale, a culture of violence appears to be escalating and perpetrators of violent crimes are becoming younger. Taking animal abuse seriously will bring us step closer to eliminating violence from our society. It is therefore in the interests of society as a whole that these perpetrators be dealt with decisively and that justice is seen to be done, whatever the age of the perpetrators.

PORCUPINES – A PRICKLY ISSUE

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:29:00 +0000

Beatrice Wiltshire

Photo : courtesy of Anna Haw of the Landmark Foundation

Do porcupines really shoot their quills? This erroneous belief seems to have been around a long time, possibly perpetuated by childhood story book illustrations. The truth is that, if attacked, the little animal engages in some formidable posturing, erecting its quills, which are quite loosely attached and lets its enemy’s teeth sink into them. The attacker ends up with a mouth and throat full of painful barbs, as our own Jock of the Bushveld experienced.

On browsing through the gift- and curio shops, it becomes obvious that porcupine quills are increasingly being used in the manufacture of various commodities relating to the Afro-chic fad. And don’t be misled by the shop owner’s assurance that the quills were ‘picked up around the farms.’ The quills you see are usually obtained by killing the animal in the most inhumane manner by clubbing to death, hunting with dogs or the cruellest of all, using gin traps, the latter banned in more than 90 countries – but not in South Africa.

The specie has definite positive implications within a biodiversity context and porcupine research scientist Christy Bragg has written scientific papers referring to them as ‘ecosystem engineers.’ According to her, ‘studies show that productivity and diversity of plants within porcupine diggings can be many times higher compared to outside their diggings. They not only increase bulb diversity (which has important eco -tourism implications) but also contribute towards an increase in the diversity and germination of annuals, shrubs and grasses.’ This was all as Nature intended.

Going back in history, one learns that porcupine populations were inherently stable as there were

no urban or agricultural impacts on them. This stability was brought about by a self-regulating mechanism determined by population density and predation.

Then arrived the most destructive predator of all – the human being, which saw the natural balance disturbed and the start of human/animal conflict.

With an increase in agriculture and urban development, coupled with a concomitant decrease in natural habitat and predator species such as big cats, jackals, etc. this vegetarian animal turned to the ready food supply afforded by agricultural practices. With their strong incisors, porcupines were able to bite their way through agricultural fencing. In arid regions their keen sense of smell caused the thirsty animals to locate and bite through PVP water pipes, often positioned below ground level.

But this problem is not insurmountable. After discussion with farmers in the affected regions, Grant McIlrath of the Meerkat Conservation Project in the Karoo , suggested that farmers should raise their piping above ground level, perhaps on the farm fencing, to prevent porcupines from getting to them. Letsie Coetzee, Section Ranger from the Tankwa National Park, suggests that in other areas, where PVP pipes could be damaged by the sun, the problem appears to be solved by burying the pipes deep enough in the ground. It all depends on the area and its particular problems and needs.

Be that as it may, a tipping point was reached when porcupines were classified ‘vermin’ and ‘problem animals’ because of their perceived detrimental effect on farming activities. This classification led to large scale mortalities through hunting, trapping and poisoning.

Their fate was sealed when consumption of their meat entered into the equation and some game lodges now have porcupine steaks on their menus. Opportunistic farm stalls began introducing the public to the quirky commodity of porcupine quills, thereby putting an economic value on them. This led to an exponential increase in demand and killing to supply the quill trade.

Occasionally, however, some ethical farmers would contact conservation organisations, requesting help in removing problem porcupines, but this was not the norm and the fact that it is happening less frequently, is put down to the destructive impact the quill industry is having on porcupines. It appears that the animals are now being targeted specifically for their quills.

Because of their classification as vermin, porcupines were not afforded protection through either national or provincial conservation legislation. This was further compounded by the fact that little was known regarding their distribution and population. So while commercial exploitation of the species was taking place on a large scale, it was happening in a vacuum of scientific data on its effects. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW,) through their Think Twice campaign, highlighted the plight of the porcupine within Southern Africa and the threat placed on them by commercial exploitation.

In order to address this problem and as a result of public pressure, the government drew up draft Biodiversity and Threatened and Protected Species Bills and called for input in the matter from stakeholders. In the subsequent Biodiversity Act, the porcupine has now been listed a ‘protected species,’ which by definition means ‘an indigenous species of high conservation value of national importance that requires national protection.’

Because of the Government’s policy of ‘sustainable usage’ however, this new classification does not mean that they are no longer hunted or trophy hunted. It merely means that they may be ‘used sustainably.’

There has been an exponential increase in the number of quills being supplied to the market and no documentation to trace the source or extent of each transaction – a person can deal in porcupine by-products without having to obtain a permit to do so. So there is no control over this random hunting and killing of porcupines and no means of accountability. Exports thrive.

Meanwhile our indigenous porcupine continues to be trapped (including use of the inhumane gin trap) and then shot or clubbed to death, as well as hunted with dogs. The latter method is cruel to the dogs as well, because of collateral injuries. Such is the result of the commodification of sentient beings.

It has been pointed out, also in the Farmer’s Weekly (4 August 2006) that ‘no farmer/wildlife programme has much chance of success without input from the kingpins in the debate namely the farmers.’ This is so as, apart from a few isolated eco-friendly farmers, it is mostly the farmers who have been encouraging their labourers to hunt porcupines both for their meat and their quills.

And it is all so unnecessary. When we asked one of the biggest exporters of quill products whether these quills could be manufactured synthetically, the answer was a resounding ‘no.’ However, the Inter-Continental hotel at the O.R. Tambo airport sports an eighteen metre long sculpture, all made of synthetic quills, hanging in the atrium of its Quills restaurant. So the only thing keeping this cruel trade going is the retail industry.

The next time you are browsing through gift- and curio shops, don’t be tempted to buy an item of beauty made up of porcupine quills. By doing so, you are actively supporting a cruel and unethical, consumer driven trade and could be assisting in the demise of the porcupine. A relevant, recent example would be the indigenous porcupine in Italy, which was considered a delicacy and hunted extensively within its range until it became extinct.

We can do without the lamp shades, jewellery, picture frames and even glass coasters made up of porcupine quills, but our environment cannot do without our little eco-system engineers.

ZOOS – AN OUTDATED CONCEPT

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:51:00 +0000

“They pay the price for their beauty, poor beasts. Mankind wants to catch anything beautiful and shut it up, and then come in thousands to watch it die by inches.”

David Garnett – A Man in the Zoo.

Zoos have come to represent fun days for children, but the public spotlight is increasingly falling on this relic of colonialism. Like many institutions of the past that have fallen by the wayside as they no longer measure up to moral scrutiny (slavery and child labour spring to mind) modern society is increasingly questioning the incarceration of wild animals in cages.

Few are aware of the enormous cruelty inherent in the system. To be placed in zoos, animals have been captured in the wild, taken from their habitat and families, manhandled, transported, made to feel pain and caged in order to be exhibited and exposed to continual human gaze.

In their wild state, the average lion pride has a range of 15 to 150 square miles, depending on the carrying capacity of the habitat and prey density. Like elephants, primates and other wild animals, they live in colonies with strong social structures and hierarchies. So the environments provided by zoos are at best artificial, creating artificial animals, with not a thought to their sadness and loneliness, torn from their families, unable to live out their natural and social instincts, for the whole of their lifetimes, often decades.

States EC Young, Professor of Zoology, Auckland University: “The simple basis of my opposition to captivity in zoos is that we are holding animals in grossly unnatural, debilitating, and aberrant circumstances. None of their beauty and force and intelligence is apparent. Confined, frustrated, performing the same ritualistic and often dangerous damaging behavior of acute boredom, they caricature the real thing.” Confining wild animals to zoos can therefore hardly be called educational.

In his book: ‘Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals in Captivity’ Professor Randy Malamud exposes the zoo’s unwritten history in its relation to colonialism. Zoos were inextricably bound up with imperialism and its ideologies of conquest, and they provided much-needed symbols and legitimation for conquering nations. Animals captured in foreign lands were brought back to capitals such as London in order to be displayed for a gawking public. Exotic animals symbolized the empire’s prowess to gain dominion over nature. Prof. David Ehrenfeld of Rutgers University states in Ethics on the Ark: "In many ways, the zoo has come to typify the themes of the Age of Control: exploration, domination, machismo, exhibitionism, assertion of superiority, manipulation.”

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries humans were frequently exhibited in cages with animals as part of an exotic collection of life forms. Dwarfs, bearded women and people with all kinds of deformities and oddities were exhibited for human amusement, forming part of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ distancing scenario.

Closer to home in the early 20th Century, Saartjie Baartman , a member of the Griqua tribe in the Eastern Cape, caught the eye of a visiting English ship’s surgeon who persuaded her to accompany him to England as a subject of medical and anthropological research. She was considered a freak because of her extraordinary enlarged buttocks and genital peculiarities, and after being put under scrutiny by the researchers, was exhibited like a wild beast in the streets of London, eventually being taken to Paris where she was handed to a “showman of wild animals” in a traveling circus. While moral progress compelled people to realize the wrongs of exhibiting humans, society is only now starting to comprehend the injustice of exploiting wild animals in zoos and circuses.

A possible parallel to Saartjie Baartman’s story is the well documented case of Jackie the Chimp who, torn from the wild, was kept in unbearable captivity and taught to do demeaning tricks for the patrons of Boswell Wilkie circus. He was subsequently given to the Johannesburg zoo in 1966 before eventually being passed on to Roodeplaat, the South African Defence Force’s covert Biological and Chemical Warfare facility. His Hveterinary history over the period of 10 years spent at the zoo shows that he was kept on drugs and tranquillizers for most of the time.

Like the majority of zoo animals who are denied a rich social life, their every need and instinct thwarted and in possession of complex minds, he’d developed zoochosis, a term used to describe various psychological problems, from stereotypic behaviour that includes rocking and walking in circles, to self mutilation and even infanticide.

The drugs on which Jackie was kept also raises disturbing questions about what zoos do to animals in their care in order to make them viewable objects.

According to Travers and McKenna of the Born Free Foundation over 60% of polar bears in British zoos are mentally deranged.

Alarmingly, zoos are not only breeding excessively, but this is an activity that is encouraged, particularly because young cubs and baby animals are more of an attraction and because animals bred in zoos are often sold for profit via dealers. This is how zoo animals end up in the pet trade, in circuses or experimental laboratories, as victims of canned hunts, or as breeding animals for the cruel wildlife trade.

Says Dr. Steven Best of the University of Texas: “The fact that, as insipid parents claim, their children might ‘enjoy’ the zoo is not an argument for it, but a disturbing indication of an early stage in the warping of a young mind.”

Indeed, a society that cages animals cages itself.

CANNED HUNTING - THE LEGACY OF CALLOUSNESS AND GREED

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:32:00 +0000

The human animal has always tended to sport his manliness by vanquishing the weaker or defenceless. In an earlier civilization this resulted in the scalping of the vanquished, these scalps to be taken as trophies. Modern man has not evolved much. From the Nazi lampshades purportedly made from human skin, it is now the heads of defenceless animals that are mounted on walls as proof of male dominance.

In 1997, Roger Cook, producer of the British investigative television documentary The Cook Report, investigated the killing of rare wild animals in the name of sport. Posing as a tourist-hunter in South Africa, he was taken on a hunt for lions and tigers – the latter specially imported for the purpose. The documentary exposed more than just blood lust. It also exposed the despicable and clandestine activity known as 'canned hunting,' whereby captive-bred lions were let loose in an enclosure from which they had nowhere to flee and where they were shot by khaki clad 'hunters' from overseas. Many of them were not even good shots and after one or two wounding attempts the hapless animal would be put out of its misery by an accompanying hunter. But this was after all what they paid good money for, as well as being able to pose for the camera with one intrepid foot on the slaughtered animal, at an angle which did not show the fence in the background. One particularly poignant scene showed a lioness who had been separated from her cubs, being shot several times while attempting to get to her babies.

The resultant public uproar did nothing for South Africa's image overseas, and there were calls to have 'canned hunting' banned, not only because of its ethical but also ecological and biological implications. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) then resorting under Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk, also joined in the condemnation, but was subsequently accused by Animal Rights Africa and others of 'double speak'. With all the spin and fanfare put out by the government, the general public was lulled into thinking that canned lion hunting was indeed being banned but the industry, far from being controlled, grew exponentially, with the active support from the government. And it was not only confined to the hunting of large predators – elephants, rhinos, buffaloes and antelope species were also hunted in this way. Between 2007 and 2008 the number of lions trophy hunted and killed by the predator industry doubled. Captive lion breeding farms mushroomed. The government played a double game. On the one hand they made public announcements that they were going to 'put an end, once and for all, to the reprehensible practice of canned hunting' and that after 1 June 2007 there would be no more canned hunting of large animals in South Africa, while on the other hand providing the predator breeding industry with loopholes that would allow this reprehensible industry to continue and expand.

Loophole 1: The NEMBA Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) is a flawed and inadequate legislation that does not ban canned predator hunting but merely attempts to regulate it.

Loophole 2: Inexplicably postponing the implementation of TOPS from June 2007 to February 2008, thereby giving the South African Predator Breeders Association the opportunity to challenge TOPS before it came into force.

Loophole 3: Excluding lions from the definition for listed large predators of the TOPS legislation promulgated in February 2008, supposedly while the South African Predator Breeders'Association court

case against the Minister was pending.

Furthermore, as recently as 9 July 2008 the Deputy Minister Rejoice Mabudafhasi unequivocally assured them that "government does appreciate the existence of the industry and that there is no way that the regulations will eventually lead to its closure as the industry is an accepted part of the tourism experience package that South Africa markets."

Eventually, on Thursday 11th June 2009 judgment was given in the Free State High Court in Bloemfontein when Judge Ian van der Merwe concurred with the government that biodiversity must be protected and that the breeding of lions in captivity with the sole purpose of canned hunting did not aid their protection. The verdict was that these semi-tame animals may only be hunted 24 months after being set free from their breeding cages. The lion breeders' request that the period of 24 months in the regulations be changed to 'a few days' was dismissed with costs.

Reason to celebrate? Hold on to your hats and brollies! Whilst the verdict is welcomed, there are still some very serious gaps. There is no stipulation as to the size of the encampment into which the animals are to be released after being set free. So they could still be released into quite a small area from which they have no way of escaping. Furthermore, these are semi-tamed, hand reared animals and those who are involved with the rehabilitation of lions will agree that a lion that has been hand reared and thus human imprinted will never be able to be truly wild and fend for itself as a lion should. Also, how on earth would this be enforced? Surely not by the conservation officials, most of whom are hunters themselves and are widely suspected to be hand-in-glove with the breeding fraternity?

The bottom line is that the lion breeders have now escalated to 123 and there are 3000 canned lions waiting to be, well, canned. This situation could have been avoided. Attempts many years ago by Animal Rights Africa (ARA) and others to persuade DEAT to support a plan that would address the ethical and welfare concerns for the predators still caught up in the industry, fell on deaf ears.

And the industry has not been slow to engage in the emotional terrorism of pointing out that '5000 breadwinners will lose their jobs and 3000 semi-tamed lions will have be put down.'

Says Paul Hart of the Drakenstein Lion Park: 'This ploy to gain public sympathy is ridiculous in the extreme, especially coming from people who breed lions for the express purpose of killing them in a variety of gruesome ways, such as shooting arrows into them, setting packs of dogs on them and blasting away at them with high powered rifles.'

Meanwhile, the breeders will no doubt play for even more time by going to the various courts of appeal, a process which could take many years, while the problem continues to escalate.

Says Michele Pickover of ARA 'Quite clearly this is all about profits and greed, while what it should be about, is the animals.'

Until the property status of animals gives way to a classification of 'sentient beings' animal cruelty will continue.

THE HIDDEN SIDE OF GREYHOUND RACING

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:19:00 +0000

According to recent reports would-be promoters of the as yet illegal greyhound racing industry tout the legalisation of this industry as having the potential to create 30 000 jobs and provide a R1,5bn tax offspin. Indeed a preliminary report from that University in the land of BROC (Braaivleis, Rugby, Oranjejag and Canned Lion Hunting) would presume to support this.

The statements made are clearly a sop pandering to top politicians, in order to try and legalise what should remain banned. If we are now to legalise this form of animal exploitation, then why not legalise drug dealing, child pornography and the human slave trade? That would create a lot of jobs and tax offspin too.

But any offspin from Greyhound racing would only be short-term. Greyhound racing has not worked anywhere else in Africa, being patronised for a number of years and then falling into disuse, creating an animal welfare crises because of the surplus animals. Furthermore, supporting greyhound racing would draw people away from the Lotto which at least benefits a wide range of good causes across the board such as Child Welfare, Animal Welfare, Aids etc.

But worst of all are the abuses inherent in this cruel and unethical 'sport' which critics oppose on the following grounds:

Only one in two dogs is deemed fit for racing, leading to tens of thousands of healthy dogs being killed every year. Some trainers prefer to drown or starve their dogs to death, thus preventing unwanted veterinary bills. Many more end up in laboratories, only to be further tortured by vivisectors conducting 'research.'

Once the 50% who 'make it' begin serious training, around their first birthday, they are kept in cages their entire racing lives – cages so small (90cm x 120 cm x 90 cm high) that they have room only to stand up and turn around. The backs and thighs of many racing dogs are worn bare and some dogs develop sores from lying in their cages for extended periods. A total of 22½ hours a day are spent in these crates.

The Greyhounds' freest moments come in the matter of seconds they spend racing. Yet this freedom is not without risk. Dogs rocketing out of their starting boxes are bunched tightly and turns on the racetrack are challenging. Spills can fracture bones and cause other injuries. The normal rigours of racing cause foot-pad abrasions, sprained ligaments and fractured right-front hocks, which absorb most of the concussion as dogs bend around counterclockwise turns.

Barbaric training techniques, such as tying a live rabbit to the mechanical arm, though illegal, are commonplace as many people believe that dogs trained on live lures qualify for racing twice as often as dogs trained on mechanical devices.

Very few retired greyhounds are ever re-homed as they first have to be rehabilitated before being adopted out. This requires a great deal of time and patience.

But in the end, the real issue here is that the exploitation of animals and turning them into commodities is part of a bigger picture of exploitation of the defenceless, whether human or non-human. It's up to us to decide whether our country is in need of a moral regeneration or whether we can afford to exploit sentient beings in the quest for a fast buck for the enrichment of a few.

HOW ROBBEN ISLAND WAS ROBBED OF ITS HERITAGE

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:17:00 +0000

In An Unnatural Order we described how the Cape fur seal originated in the Cape, where 85% of the offshore islands are situated. Due to over fishing, sealing and banning, these colonies became extinct and seals fled north, to be further driven off the few islands off Namibia, until forced onto the mainland where currently 80% of all pups are born. One in four pups are caught by jackals and this has resulted in jackals’ numbers increasing due to the seal pup feed, disturbing even further nature’s natural balance. Not only do they have to contend with the marauding jackals, but human culling of seals on the mainland have forced the seals to flee north, with the newest and fastest growing seal colony, Cape Frio, being very close to the Angolan border. The further north seals are driven to escape government marine conservationists and scientists, the closer they get to the equator where they are unable to survive warm tropical weather and water. So one could say that the government, unchecked, is in fact driving the species to extinction.

We now describe how, in a previous unspoiled state, there existed a seal utopia on an island of 507 hectares, off Cape Town. This beautiful paradise, now lost, teemed with a rich wild life consisting of mostly seals and some sea birds. It was named Robben Island (Seal Island).

Today, because of government and Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) policy, there is not one seal left on Robben Island. Over-fishing and Apartheid style forced removals drove them from their historical breeding sites, causing the seals to become 'second rate citizens' - scavengers on their natural habitats.

There is a parallel: Established in the 1920s, the vibrant multi-cultural community at Sophiatown, Johannesburg, was a thorn in the side of the Apartheid-government. Not only did it prove that various races could live side-by-side in harmony, it was also a freehold township, which meant that it was one of the rare places in South African urban areas where blacks were allowed to own land.

Sophiatown was also the centre of a black cultural revolution. It was here that the most important developments in indigenous jazz took place and the products of Sophiatown included jazz masters such as Hugh Masekela, Jonas Gwangwa and Abdullah Ibrahim (then known as Dollard Brand), the poet Don Mattera, singers like Dolly Rathebe, Dorothy Masuku and Miriam Makeba and artists such as Gerard Sekoto.

In support of their ideology, the Apartheid government enforced the relocation of Sophiatown residents. Families were forcibly removed from their homes, their possessions loaded on the back of police trucks and dumped in Meadowlands in Soweto. Many formerly prosperous people were thus impoverished. Over the next eight years the vibrant Sophiatown was flattened and removed from the maps of Johannesburg to make way for a low-cost residential suburb for whites only, created by the policy of Apartheid. A Machiavellian touch saw Sophiatown renamed Triomf - Afrikaans for "triumph."

History has a way of repeating itself and the S.A. government, in the guise of Nature Conservation, saw fit to apply this model to South Africa's seal population, enforcing their removal to awash rocks, unfit for breeding, while proclaiming as exclusive 'bird islands,' the seals' historical breeding sites. These included 11 islands around which walls were built to prevent the seals from returning there. The seabird droppings, guano, were considered a commercial money spinner.

But back to Robben Island , which was later to become an island prison for opponents of the Apartheid state and was, for 26 years, the home of the most famous political prisoner of all, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. The island was proclaimed a world heritage site, a wild life reserve and a protected seal island.

Sadly, today there is not one seal left - they have all been chased off the island and have had to seek refuge elsewhere. Robben Island became a centre of tourism, weekend weddings, an upmarket fundraising venue and the like. Furthermore, having driven the original seal colony from their historic breeding site, MCM saw fit to introduce twenty three species of non-indigenous mammals while Tahrs on Table Mountain were being shot, for the very reason that they were not indigenous!

The banning of seals from Robben Island is apparently illegal, but nobody seems to want to do anything to stop it. A letter from Francois Hugo of Seal Alert-SA to the UNESCO World Heritage committee elicited no reply.

Then in a magnanimous gesture, Seal Alert-S.A. was eventually informed by the Chairperson of the Robben Island Committee, Ahmat Kathrada, as well as Herman Oosthuizen, the MCM scientist most closely involved with seal issues, that the seals could have 40% of the western coastline of Robben Island. Would they allow Seal Alert-SA to re-introduce the seals which had for so long been banned, in an attempt to get re-colonization going and thereby restoring the natural order? Oh no, that would be going too far. It had to be a natural process. “If it happens, it happens.”

It has now been two years and still no seals have returned to the island, a strange phenomenon, considering that there is plenty of fish around it.

Could it be that the seals are in fact being prevented from re-colonising the island? It is a fact that conservation authorities are chasing seals off and away from all the other islands. Why would seals breed on a small rock to the north, and in the waterfront, and 20km to the south at Hout Bay but not repopulate Robben - if not disturbed? Dead and shot seals wash ashore onto the island, why not alive seals trying to repopulate? So many questions …...

Snout decided it would investigate and so we contacted Herman Oosthuizen

who strongly refuted the fact that there were walls built around islands in order to keep the seals off. He also re-iterated that the seals could return to Robben Island but that it had to be a natural process. “The seals must decide,” the gentleman said.

But the intrepid Google Earth had another story to tell. There are clearly walls built around some islands as captured by their eye-in-the-sky. Vondeling and Dyer are just two of them. So somewhere something was wrong. Could there be a misunderstanding?

Snout e-mailed Herman Oosthuizen the following questions:

1. Are there any walls on the S.A. islands: Dyer, Vondeling and Marcus?

2. Could you please list which islands are protected under the ACT ?

3. Are the seals allowed to re-populate those islands?

4. What is MCM policy with regard to seals re-populating Bird Island, St Croix, Seal Island, Dyer, Robben, Dassen, Vondeling, Malgas, Marcus ?

To date there has been no response to our repeated enquiries.

AN UNNATURAL ORDER

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:09:00 +0000

Few people are aware of just how our marine heritage has come to be destroyed through human greed and over fishing and how forced removals and displacements, closely following the social engineering lines of our Apartheid past, disturbed the natural order of our marine life, causing the starvation of seals and sea birds alike and creating enmity where none existed..

Seven hundred years ago there was an estimated 20 million seals living on less than 46 barren islands along our coastline, 80% of these islands are found off the Cape/South African coast and 20% in Namibia.

The largest of these islands was Robben Island, named after the seals that colonised it. Being the top predator, seals dominated these few islands, although from earliest historical accounts, they shared the islands with seabirds with whom they lived in harmony. This was as nature intended.

Over millions of years, seals had evolved to play a most vital role in the eco-food chain off this coast. Their task was to remove the sick and the weak from migratory fish species that would mature far to the north, and then migrate south to spawn, before making the long journey back. This migratory fish selectivity ensured that the species they preyed upon remained healthy.

The islands, which were well placed geographically, would provide bountiful prey of the right size for the growing pups. The seal population was kept in check by a variety of factors, affording the alpha bulls and mating cows the opportunity to control their own population size, limited by the size of each island. The result of this unique relationship between seals, the size of their population, their islands and their prey, was a sea teaming with fish of many species and thus one of the most productive fisheries in the world - a fact soon discovered by man who systematically set about raping the environment in an unsustainable manner.

He started with the biggest, easiest and most visible, the whales. When depleted and no longer commercially viable, he moved on to the seals, the seabirds, their eggs and then, with regard to the offshore islands, the guano (bird droppings) scrapping them clean. His commercial mind then turned towards the seas where, in turn, he pillaged the surface shoaling fish, the big game deep water fish, the line fish, then the bottom dwelling fish and then even the sea-plants, his greed escalating commensurate with his profits.

Apart from ever increasing human consumption, this food chain was turned into dried and processed ‘fishmeal’ to be used in pet foods and live stock farming, despite seafood never having formed part of these land based animals’ natural diet. In fact, it is said that over 70% of the industry is dedicated to making ‘fish meal’.

In the wake of this rampant pillaging an entire echo system was destroyed and entire species were left in tatters. And the resultant cost to the environment carried an even greater one – a fresh water bill, allegedly far in excess of R 150 000 per month for washing fish at just one fish plant, instead of using freely available salt water. This is obscene in a country that is urged to conserve water as it is estimated that South Africa will run out of fresh water in at most 10 years.

But we digress.

Extensive sealing over the past few centuries saw all these offshore seal colonies collapse. By 1900 seals were virtually extinct. No longer hunted, they attempted to rebuild their destroyed colonies and fulfil their vital role. But their historic breeding habitats, their islands, were now denied to them.

One of the first consequences of this man-made imbalance in the natural environment was an unnatural growth and over population in the numbers of seabirds, due to less competition for space and prey and so they took over these former seal islands which had now become exploited for seabirds, their eggs and lucrative guano, by the human greed machine. So desperate were seals to re-colonize their offshore islands once again, that government was forced to build walls on 11 of the largest to keep them off permanently. With few available islands now situated in their historical, migratory fishing grounds, seals had few options and so, unnaturally, took to breeding on 16 small awash rocks, not suitable for their pups. The price the seals paid was high - almost all their newborn would be washed away.

Overcrowding became an issue and so around 1940 the seals were forced to begin breeding on the mainland for the first time, thus forever altering the evolutionary path of this species. By 1950, their numbers had sufficiently recovered to facilitate renewed interest in them, not because of their profitability in harvesting, but because of the concern they might in future pose to the now lucrative fishing industry, already feeling the effects of over fishing in the 1960's.

Because of dwindling numbers, the Cape Fur Seal became a protected species and up to 1990 the South African government, which at that time controlled both South Africa and Namibia, was involved in the administration of commercial harvesting of these creatures, this ‘harvesting’ being driven by the need for the manufacture of Scottish sporrans, a traditional export business. There was no other market for their skins. But the genitals of these hapless creatures are sought after for use as an aphrodisiac in eastern countries, already suffering a burgeoning over population.

In 1990, following a public outcry about the cruel clubbing to death of seals by untrained labour, the S.A. government placed a moratorium on commercial sealing. But by that time, with the independence of Namibia , dwindling breeding grounds in South Africa had forced the Cape Fur Seal to colonize the Namibian mainland where the cruel commercial slaughter continued.

Bizarrely, seals are today only found on 1% of the offshore island land mass with an unnatural domination on 99% of the off-shore islands by seabirds, the weaker lower species in the food-chain.

However, even in this bizarre situation, with probably the biggest mass mortality of top predators the world has ever seen, there is still hope. This hope comes in the form of the highest law in the land, the Constitution, which states: "the harvest of a natural resource (fish) has to be done in a sustainable manner."

By introducing seals back to one single island, as suggested by Francois Hugo of S.A. Seal Alert, we can alter the evolutionary path of seals back to what nature intended – but then we would have to harvest in a sustainable manner.

(See: How Robben Island was robbed of its heritage.)

ANIMAL RIGHTS ASSESSED

noreply@blogger.com (Beatrice Wiltshire) — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:51:00 +0000

The recent fires in the Helderberg elicited no uproar about the small animals burnt alive, as there would have been if domestic animals had been involved. To some extent this then illustrates the difference between the Animal Rights (A/R) and Animal Welfare movements.

Whilst the latter does not accord equal status to the various species of animals, the A/R movement sees all animals as individuals of equal and intrinsic value. Accordingly, whereas the abuse of cats, dogs and horses might attract wide public condemnation, the lot of the dassie for example, or the farm animal does not elicit the same level of concern.

The A/R movement abhors what it considers the moral schizophrenia of loving our pets while turning a blind eye to others being led to cruel slaughter.

In his 1996 book Rain Without Thunder, Professor Francione, Professor of Law at Rutgers University, traces the emergence of the Rights movement as a direct reaction to the conservative philosophy of Animal Welfare. He postulates that, in order to stop animal exploitation, the AR movement has to take a more radical stand that recognises that animals are not property and that they have fundamental and inalienable rights. The welfare movement, which morally accepts that animals may be exploited as long as they are treated 'humanely', is therefore not able to accomplish the real goal, which is the elimination of the property status of animals.

The A/R movement, which has a long philosophical history, has been described as the last of the great freedom movements. Like racism and sexism, it has its fundamental origins in a patriarchal society where blacks, women and animals were seen as inferior. Thus, when philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were ridiculed and elicited the response: "Women's rights? They will be telling us animals have rights next!"

The churches also long played a part in the general acceptance of women, animals and blacks as inferior beings with the status of ‘property.’

The Rev. Andrew Linzey, director of the Centre for Theology and Ethics at Essex University, England, admits that Christian theology ‘served long and well the oppressors of slaves, women and animals. It took 1900 years for theologians to question seriously the morality of slavery and even longer, the oppression of women.

But there are indications that the Christian Churches are rethinking the role of humans' relationship to animals and there is a steadily increasing amount of serious scholarship addressing the theme of human responsibility to the created order.

Archbishop Robert Runcie warned in 1988 that “our concept of God forbids the idea of a cheap creation, of a throw-away universe in which everything is expendable save human existence."

It is this view of animals as soulless, lowly beings which helped the growing commercial commodification of animals as subjects to be exploited in animal husbandry, in factory farming and as subjects for entertainment.

Marjorie Spiegel, in her book The Dreaded Comparison - Human and Animal Slavery (1966) describes the hunting and trapping of slaves: the branding; the transport ships where more than half the occupants typically died in the dreaded Middle Passage; the break-up of families and lovers at auctions; the rapes; the beatings; the forced labour and the subjugation to every whim of the master. Substitute 'animal' for 'slave' and one has a snapshot of what routinely happens to non-human animals.

In the late 1960's, respected philosophers raised important ethical issues. Prof. Peter Singer in his 1976 book Animal Liberation elaborated on the concept of 'speciesism'. He argued that speciesism was very much like racism and sexism, which made arbitrary distinctions between individuals, based on colour and sex. He went on to define animals' moral status according to their capacity to suffer.

In his subsequent book in 1984, 'The Case for Animal Rights,' Lawyer Tom Regan went on to accord rights to all creatures that could be the subject of a life and had qualities such as memory, beliefs, preferences and emotional status. Not least of these rights he considered to be the right to life.

Prof. Steven M. Wise of Harvard Law School, in his book 'Rattling the Cage. Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000) repeatedly makes the point that just as the ancient world regarded slaves (and sometimes women) as personal property, our own society until recently did so as well. Slaves, like animals, were considered incapable of reason, intelligence, or any higher-order thinking and could be bought, sold or discarded because they were owned. Disregard for the living being which does not have legal rights, Wise says, threatens the disregard for all living beings. These are arguments that would be of interest not only to those who are interested in animal rights, but human rights as well.

The Animal Rights movement, once considered beyond the pale as was the human rights- and feminism movements, today has some very well respected proponents and is rapidly achieving mainstream approval.

Beatrice Wiltshire is a resident of Somerset West and writes in her personal capacity.