Save the alligator! (But screw all the non-newsworthy animals)
Published November 16, 2003
Imagine a Martian is given an assignment by his superiors: Go over to Earth, study the humans there, and determine how they feel about the other animals on their planet. My guess is the first lines of the resulting report would read as follows: "The humans on Earth revere the non-human animals. Also they despise them. Also they have no feelings at all about them. At any given moment the humans will passionately rally to save the life of an animal, and in the next moment will slaughter another one without mercy. They will find unremarkable a lifetime of human-imposed suffering by a million members of one species, while finding the nature-imposed suffering of a single member of another species to be a tragedy worthy of heroic measures. The only near-guarantees of survival for an individual animal on Earth are to be of a species deemed 'cute' in that particular geographic region or to fall into a novel predicament and receive media coverage."
From the AP (emphasis mine):
MILWAUKEE--A four-foot alligator chewed its way out of a shipping carton before a postal worker tossed it into a hamper and called animal control officers.Employees were sorting mail Friday when they noticed the alligator chewing its way out of an Express Mail box, said JoAnne Blackburn, a Postal Service spokeswoman.
Workers tried to tape the box closed, but the alligator bit it open.
"The nose ... was sticking out with its teeth hanging out," said postal employee Jennifer Hejdak. She said a co-worker picked it up by its tail and threw it in a hamper.
The alligator will remain at a shelter for a week before being shipped to a northern Illinois sanctuary, said Len Selkurt, executive director of the Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control. The sanctuary owner will then take it to Florida, he said.
Obviously, the problem of having a live alligator on their hands could be solved very simply by the officials: Kill the alligator. Just shoot it (does nobody in Wisconsin own a gun?). Or smash its head quickly with a really big hammer. Or take it to a vet, pay a couple hundred dollars for euthanasia and disposal. Whatever. It isn't terribly hard to end an alligator's life. It happens all the time.
But no. Rather than solve the problem quickly and economically, government officials and animal-care professionals in three states are going to spend probably thousands of dollars (or the equivalent in labor and other resources) to house the thing and relocate it twice.
All of this expense and effort will be spent on one (1) alligator.
There is only one way that all of this effort could make logical sense to me: If every decision maker involved is a vegetarian. Going on the (probably safe) assumption that these decision makers (and those who agree that saving the alligator is the right thing to do) are not vegetarians, how to make sense of it? For example, in order to solve the minor problem of their own hunger tonight, these alligator-savers will likely elect to have, say, a chicken killed, when obviously they could have sated their hunger without killing any animals at all, if they truly believe that one shouldn't kill an animal to solve a problem.
- Save the alligator! (But screw all the non-newsworthy animals)
- Published: November 16, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Brian Flemming
- Brian Flemming's BC Writer page
- Brian Flemming's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Brian,
These are exactly my thoughts on the issue, too. This is such a confusing issue for a lot of us.
Although I lean toward lots of broccoli and cauliflower in life, once in a great while it's just absolutely mandatory to have a really good steak. After all, I live in beef country. And I won't go into details about how often dinner guests beg me to make my famous Heroin Chicken (so good it's addictive) or Steak Soup made with beef tenderloin.
I'm an animal lover and volunteered for 5 years with a pet adoption group. I go to great lengths to buy free-range eggs and shop at small "corner groceries" that deal with locals that aren't factory farms.
I know vegetarians that have cats. For those in the know, cats are "obligate carnivore" animals meaning that they MUST eat meat to maintain optimal health. As far as I know, there isn't a vegetarian diet for cats yet that works well. How does a vegetarian balance beliefs with Nine Lives and Fancy Feast?
I believe that factory farming is wrong. I believe that the horses kept pregnant and confined so their urine can be collected is wrong. (There are synthetic drugs that do the same thing so it shouldn't be necessary.) De-beaking chickens is horrible.
Your thoughts about having a concept about life and death is more than just a quandry for a lot of us.
I don't know the answer, but can't wait to see what gets posted here.
Susan
what's even worse is those people who think that humans are more important than all the other animals.
Well, I'M more important than all the other animals; I don't know about the rest of you people.
Okay, here are some super brief thoughts: Animals have all the rights humans choose to give them, which should include freedom from cruelty for the benefit of humans themselves: as we voluntarily elevate those below us we elevate ourselves.
Cruelty is wrong is all its guises, and anything that can feel should be treated with respect.
Beyond that, there is nothing wrong with killing and eating anything we can get our hands on. I do not hunt, however.
There is nothing wrong with experimenting humanely on animals for the benefit of mankind - that's one of the benefits of being the stewards of the planet.
I am glad we have anti-cruelty laws, but I do not want to see them taken any farther.
I agree, but keep in mind we're only stewards of the planet as long as the viruses let us live.
I would certainly be in favor of releasing all the chickens and cows so they can face their inevitable extinction with a sense of freedom, fulfillment, and self-actualization.
we could probably squeeze a pair of boots out of him too
3839 West Burnham Street
West Milwaukee, WI 53215
Shelter Hours:
Monday - Friday 8:00AM to 8:00PM
Saturday and Sunday 8:00AM to 5:00PM
http://www.alligatorfur.com/hides.htm#skinning
Eric,
"I am glad we have anti-cruelty laws, but I do not want to see them taken any farther."
The atrocities committed in Fairfield, Iowa in 1997 by three teenagers who broke into the Noah's Ark Animal Shelter received only a slap on the wrist.
See synopsis: www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8677/perps.html and
www.pet-abuse.com/cases/41/IA/US/1
Apparently in Iowa it's a misdemeanor to club cats to death with a baseball bat. Even when you break into a shelter with that specific intent.
Also, the Scruffy case in Kansas City, Kansas:
www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15/KS/US/1
In Kansas it's a misdemeanor to torture a dog, but it's arson to set it on fire. The longest sentence was for arson, not for animal abuse.
The laws in Iowa, Kansas and many other states need to be strengthened tremendously.
Unfortunately here in the Midwest, the food industry lobby carries a lot of weight due to the fact they are afraid the anti-cruelty laws will bleed over onto factory farming.
As well they should. Even the steer destined for McDonald's doesn't deserve to be clubbed to death with a baseball bat. And that same steer doesn't deserve to live his life in quarters so small he can't turn around.
Agreed, Sue. The sad thing is we have too many people who see nothing wrong with setting a dog on fire. I also believe animals should be slaughtered in a humane way.
Brian, I'm writing an entry called "Reflections of a Reasonable Vegetarian" that will cite this entry. I'll send you an URL when I have one.
SCREW THE ANIMALS. SHAVE THE WHALE
I am sickened by wanton cruelty and agree it should be punished. It would be preferable if laws were uniform between states, as it would in many areas of law.
What is a better way to slaughter cattle?
The final hours for many cows can't be described as anything but torture. Many slaughterhouses treat cows as if they do not have the capacity to suffer, or that if they do it doesn't matter.
But Temple Grandin, as PETA leader Ingrid Newkirk puts it, has done more to relieve suffering on the planet than anyone in history. Grandin really is an amazing person.
I have been trying to think of a philosophy that would counter PETA's and I agree with the entertainment/experimintation aspect, but not the food or clothes.
So, maybe animals are ours to use responsibly and reasonably for clothes and food, but not for experimintation or entertainment.
I know of too many people who depend on the meat from a deer or a hog, etc to help stretch the food budget over the winter months.
Why can't we experiment on animals for the betterment of animal-kind, including humans? Be as humane as possible, do the research.
Here's my question: why didn't anyone think to read the label on the package and contact the intended recipient of the alligator to come and pick it up? Is that just a crazy idea?
Nothing I like better than anthropomorphism. Seriously, I agree with the earlier posted thoughts that animals have the rights we give them. We use animals. If they serve a purpose, fine. If not, fine. There is nothing morally wrong with killing an animal. In fact, there are no morals but what we make them. Nothing wrong with eating a steak, and I don't care how it died. I have dogs that I wouldn't let anyone harm, but that is because they are MY dogs, not because it is generally wrong to harm dogs. I care about MY family more than other families, and I care about MY dogs, more than the neighbors dogs. I care about HUMANS more than I care about other animals, and anyone who equates an animal as having the same rights to life as a human is mentally defective and an evolutionary dead end. I consider that kind of thinking clearly pathological. Imagine a lion who decided that other lions were wrong for eating gazelles and decided to start a crusade to end gazelle killing. Then went further to claim that gazelles had as much right to live as lions and decided to stop all lions from eating gazelles (even if it meant making lions starve.) That's an evolutionary dead end. These people talk about how much "better" animals are than people. One thing that does make animals better, is they know their place on the food chain.
Hey, that was pretty cool; the last sentence demonstrates the first sentence.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10175)
Sample attempt: "Animals don't have rights."
Fine, except almost nobody truly believes this. If they did, they'd stand idly by while someone tortures an animal for pleasure.
Clearly, most of us agree that animals have the right not to suffer.
So "Animals don't have rights" doesn't cut it as a philosophy to compete with PETA's. Almost nobody truly believes it, and that's easy to prove.
"Animals have the right not to suffer, but death isn't necessarily suffering. We can kill them to eat them as long as they don't suffer."
This is probably closest to how I feel, but there are two problems:
1) There is almost no way to deny (except through absolute ignorance) that animals in general suffer enormously, from birth to death, in the dominant factory farm conditions. ("Horror" is probably the way most of us would describe these conditions if a family pet were subjected to them.) So this philosophy would still lead one to avoid all meat in supermarkets and restaurants (i.e., from animals that one did not raise and kill one's self) until factory farming ends or reforms.
2. Having decided that an animal has the right not to suffer, I don't quite understand why the animal doesn't have the right not to be killed. The answer that the animal has no concept of life and death leads to really troubling territory--there are plenty of humans (from fetuses to newborns to the mentally disabled to the elderly) who have no concept of life and death.