Michael C. Morris

Minimizing harm in possum control operations and experiments in new zealand

Pest control operations andexperimentation on sentient animals such as thebrushtail possum can cause unnecessary andavoidable suffering in the animal subjects.Minimizing animal suffering is an animalwelfare goal and can be used as a guide in thedesign and execution of animal experimentationand pest control operations.The public has little sympathy for the possum,which can cause widespread environmentaldamage, but does believe that control should beas painless as possible. Trapping and poisoningprovide only short-term solutions to the possumproblem and often involve methods that causesuffering. Intrusive experiments connected withthese methods of control and published in thelast 6 years are reviewed. Many of theexperiments do not attain the welfare standardsrequired by members of the public.Possums also act as vectors for bovinetuberculosis. While this is not as important inthe minds of the public as environmentaldegradation, as long as people wish to continueraising cattle, this disease needs to becontrolled.Immunocontraception is a humane means ofcontrolling possums with wide publicacceptance. The use of vaccines for cows and/orpossums would also cause far less sufferingthan present eradication operations. Researchinto these methods does require some intrusiveexperimentation. This can be reduced if liveanimals are not used for secondary antibodyharvesting, if adequate analgesia is provided,and if potential vaccines or contraceptives aretested under conditions that would beexperienced in the field.

Improved Nonhuman Animal Welfare Is Related More to Income Equality Than It Is to Income

The link between nonhuman animal welfare, income, and income inequality (Gini coefficient) was tested using consumption of animal products, laws protecting animals on the farm from the worst abuses, and animals used in experimentation as indicators. Experimentation on all animals and on rodents significantly increased in high-income European countries, although there was some evidence that the increase in experimentation on cats and dogs started to flatten out for the highest income countries. Consumption of all flesh products in high-income countries declined in more equal societies. More equal high-income countries also had stricter regulations protecting animals, although the same correlation was not seen between U.S. states. In New Zealand, there was some evidence that testing on cats and dogs declined during years when equality was improving. The results provide little evidence for a Kuznets effect of income on animal welfare, with the possible exception of companion animal treatment. They do, however, suggest that greater equality can be a predictor for better treatment of animals. Previous research has strongly suggested that social conditions for humans improve with greater equality. The same may be true for nonhuman animals. Alternatively, conditions conducive to improving human income equality may also lead to better animal welfare outcomes.

The Use of Animals in New Zealand: Regulation and Practice

On the statute books, New Zealand has a strong regulatory system that protects nonhuman animals on farms. Animals are guaranteed the “Five Freedoms,” including freedom to express normal patterns of behavior. This theoretically strong protection is weakened considerably, however, through institutional structures and practices. A loophole in the law allowing practices that violate the Five Freedoms in “exceptional circumstances” is used frequently. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is the government agency that administers animal welfare regulation. This agency is also responsible for increasing primary production, and the farming industry has undue influence with MAF. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) is appointed by MAF, and this group is also dominated by industry interests, with a view of animal welfare that excludes behavioral concerns. These factors result in a weakening of welfare requirements. Various solutions to increase protection are proposed, including a requirement that all science and public concerns be taken into account when making decisions on animal welfare and that animal welfare be regulated by an independent government body.

Middle Earth, Narnia, Hogwarts, and Animals: A Review of the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals and Other Sentient Beings in Christian-Based Fantasy Fiction

The way that nonhuman animals and other nonhuman sentient beings are portrayed in the Christian-based Harry Potter series, C. S. Lewiss Narnia series, and Tolkiens Middle Earth stories is discussed from a Christian animal liberationist perspective.Middle Earth comes closest to a liberationist ideal, in that vegetarianism is connected with themes of power, healing, and spirituality. Narnia could be described as a more enlightened welfarist society where extremes of animal cruelty are frowned upon, but use of animals for food is acceptable. In contrast, the more recent Harry Potter series portrays a less enlightened attitude toward human and nonhuman animals. Animals are treated merely as ends, vegetarianism is unheard of, and the view that even iconic species have intrinsic worth is ridiculed.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND THEORIES OF ORIGINS: A PLEA FOR UNITY

A useful philosophical case against vivisection influential with the general public rests on the following three premises: (1) animals have interests as conscious beings; (2) it is unethical to cause pain and suffering to conscious beings for trivial reasons; and (3) animal models cannot be extrapolated to human beings, so vivisection is a trivial reason. Darwinian arguments have been used to back up each of the three premises above, and, furthermore it has been asserted by animal liberationists that those who do not hold to the evolutionary paradigm are more likely to support vivisection. Here, we present arguments that show why a belief in Darwinism (or in evolution generally) neither strengthens nor weakens the three anti-vivisectionist premises above. We also argue that there is no evidence to suggest that Darwinists are any less (or more) likely to support vivisection than those who hold views on biological origin that are further from the scientific mainstream. By leaving out arguments on origins, we hope that Darwinists, non-Darwinist evolutionists and creationists of all types can work together to make the world a better place for non-human animals.

Animal suffering in New Zealand: Can science make a difference?

Abstract The main influences in the regulation of animal welfare policy in New Zealand are discussed. Animal welfare organizations on the one hand are intent on improving conditions for animals, whereas government regulatory bodies are more concerned with preserving the status quo. Both types of organizations have allies in academia. Government agencies are largely informed through research from the ‘mandated’ field of Animal Welfare Science, which is characterized by a positivistic framework that tends to support the status quo. Animal Welfare Science can be contrasted with the emerging interdisciplinary field of Human Animal Studies, which continues the tradition of critical theory that questions the positivistic basis of the animal welfare establishment. We conclude that while genuine science, defined as all rational and theoretically informed discourse, could make a difference to animals, the mandated field of Animal Welfare Science serves more to entrench animal suffering than to prevent it.