On Wednesday, a neighbour gave me the little dead body his cat unfortunately killed and brought to him. He felt bad but thought I'd like to see it. Incredibly, its a Feather-tailed Glider - it was still struggling to survive in the narrow corridor of weed-infested bush behind our houses.
Some people get angry about cats, and it is awful to see a cat not controlled. I suppose it is just about learning that we need to build cat enclosures. As a new culture in an Australian environment, we are slowly learning (she says optimistically...) that we need to protect our unique plants and animals. That's why I thought I'd tell the story. Most people I talk to have never even heard of a Feather-tailed Glider, let alone seen one in their backyard - but they and lots of other amazing creatures are still trying to survive our ways, and 'growth'. But time is running out.
I find the topic of our culture vs the environment interesting. For example, we actively breed (in a way, genetically modify) specific traits we feel a want or need for. 'Animal Assisted Therapy' (AAT) advocates put up a good argument that animals bred just for affection and obedience (such as our human-raised and trained puppies and kittens) can offer some amazing benefits to elderly, lonely, disabled, and sick humans (see attached photo of cat nuzzling up to an elderly man: 'Exploring the benefits from animal therapy' from De Pets).
I'm fascinated when I see advertisements for cat food - commonly with slogans such as: 'He'll love you more', and I wonder if we have a need in our culture to look at:
· how we meet our needs for affection,
· to learn to care for another,
· to feel like we can 'make things happen' - or have some control over something,
· and learn self-control.
Studies have shown that 'animals', '...could be catalytic agents in therapy and could aid in the orientation and connection to reality, particularly for those suffering schizophrenia or autism' (pioneering psychiatrist, Boris Levinson). Levinson also stated that 'pet animals in homes could restore healthy communication in the families of disturbed children'. He contended that companion (and residential) animals teach responsible, independent behaviours and non-gendered care-giving.
Our culture feels such a strong need for the affection of 'genetically modified' and artificially controlled animals, that if a person was to purposely kill or harm another's family 'pet', it is called 'inhumane', is a crime, and in additon, the offender could be fined $1000s for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Yet, here is a cute little Feather-tailed Glider almost wiped out as a whole species because of family pets, and attitudes of indiference to 'bush'.
Our culture feels such a strong need for the affection of 'genetically modified' and artificially controlled animals, that if a person was to purposely kill or harm another's family 'pet', it is called 'inhumane', is a crime, and in additon, the offender could be fined $1000s for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Yet, here is a cute little Feather-tailed Glider almost wiped out as a whole species because of family pets, and attitudes of indiference to 'bush'.
Its also interesting that it is illegal to pick a wildlfower - yet when a Bull-dozer drives through bushland - as I've just seen twice in my area in the last 2 weeks - it is not just beautiful wildflowers that are destroyed forever, many little animals are also squashed - Feather-tailed Gliders, Sugar Gliders, Blue-tongued lizards, Water Dragons, Leaf-tailed Geckos, Owls, Blue-Wrens, Fungi galore... the list goes on. Its a total massacre! Who's paying compensation for the infliction of emotional distress on all the people who see this - such as you and me - and the future generations?
My question is: do we need to look at how we treat each other living in our natural environment so we can feel ok about ourselves, meet our affection needs, etc? Or do we continue to use genetically modified cats & dogs to do this for us?
Good questions. Sadly - as the livestock and nursery industries continue to show - control/modification of animals and plants to satisfy human appetites and turn a profit, trumps the humane treatment of animals and respect for the natural environment.
ReplyDeleteMy comment is rather long and will be posted in two parts.
ReplyDeleteHmm while I agree that cats and dogs have been selectively bred for thousands and thousands of years and that the selection process has been in majority towards animals that will not attack their owners. (I leave it to you to decide if this is really the same as to show affection which I would argue as a specific trait only selected for some few hundred year.)I do not see cats and dogs as animals that in the area of showing affection to their owners as genetically modified animals. This is for the pure and simple reason that the behaviour of a cat or dog in this area is in majority a trait determined by its environment. Cats gone feral, or even simply neglected by their owners after one generation (If treated in this way since young/birth) will if picked up (Or more validly caught in some tricky way probably traps.) scratch, and bite and in general put all harm upon a person. If the trait were to be genetic surely a hundred generations of wild cats would still produce offspring loving towards humans?
That said I agree with your major arguments immensly and in fact look at it a further way. We have so many amazing Australian animals which can make great, loving pets when treated the right way. Animal carers know that things like Quolls, Tasmanian Devils, Sugar Gliders and a variety of other medium sized marsupials such as Numbats (Which I relent are next to impossible to feed.), if not exposed to certain natural stimuli (Like Tasmanian Devils being taught how to fight for food.)very quickly adapt to a 'pet' which if given human attention is very tame, trainable and can even said to show affection. (Possibly warm furry mammals just enjoy curling up on beds? :P)
Another point I would like to further is your point that a cat or dog killed by a person is viewed as a tragedy, while a whole area of bush being bulldozed is viewed (By many) as a necessary economic development with next to no loss. I would like to further this through a point relating to Australian snakes. Many people see a snake, fear a snake a kill a snake. This action is viewed not only as acceptable but right, by much of society, and the law even goes into effect of making this legal through that 'the person feared for their life' in the presence of a snake. I move to argue against this in two ways.
ReplyDelete1)- The most animal caused deaths in Australia every year are caused by what? Horses, then Bovine, then Dogs. All non native, 'pet' or farmed species. After that you go through sharks and crocodiles before even reaching snakes. By the interpretaion of the law used for snakes, it should be right then that people could in the presence of any horse, cow or dog, fear for their life and legally kill that animal?
Now I do not agree with that either that but use it to highlight the idiocy with which people act and the interpretation of the law is used to justify killing snakes. (I also realise and accept that it is completely infeasible to actually try and monitor people killing of snakes on their properties if it were illegal, and thus impossible to really illegalise the killing of snakes in a real and effective way.
2)- My second way if from a scientific viewpoint and for full effect I will restate where I am arguing this from. The killing of a snake someone fears, in there back yard, is deemed acceptable and right, by society and law. There are many, many scientists out there studying animals, most are doing the right thing, they want to learn about animals they have a passion for. In studying an animal they will have aquired a license to be able to catch it but they do not study every animal at once and it is very likely someone like them will stumble upon something interesting they are not appropriately licensed to catch. In fact they may even find something ordinary crossing a road and simply want to help it across. Are the actions of catching and viewing these animals (I am not talking about collecting as specimens, just picking it up and taking a look) really that bad? I do not think so, I cannot see why anyone else might either. But these actions are illegal and if evidence can be gathered to show this has happened, the scientist in question will most certainly be prosecuted. So a regular every day person chopping a snakes head off cause they do not understand it, legal. A scientist finding a rare snake, in the bush, picking it up, their full intentions being in the protection of species like it, illegal.
I realise my spiel is longer than the original article and I thank anyone who has taken the time to read through, and especcially thank those who read it with an open mind taking it into consideration.
Thanks so much for such wonderful, deep comments! :-)
ReplyDeleteYes – you’re right. Cats and dogs are always very dangerous if handled from a wild state and will not show affection to their ‘owners’ unless they’re behaviour has been modified - especially by taking them away from their mothers whilst still very young. And it seems that as a general culture, we have the want/need to do this. Interestingly, I’ve seen wild native Bush Pythons handled with no signs of aggression at all!
Native animals that look ‘cute’ to our eyes, such as Sugar Gliders, etc, are actually forbidden as pets! Well...actually, in US Sugar Gliders are very popular in pets, where apparently the suggested cage size for a max of three of the Gliders is about 90cm min ht x about 60cm wide. Sounds a bit restrictive to me considering in the bush their home range is about 3ha!
With the death of the little Feather-tailed Glider caused by my neighbour having a cat, it makes me wonder why we feel the need to ‘keep’ animals as pets in the first place. I know when I was young, I had a deep yearning to keep all sorts of animals. I wanted to see them better, get to know them, communicate with them I suppose? But really, it’s not so good to try to take an animal out of its home – its natural ecosystem. It could even be argued that it is cruel to varying extents.
So I wonder if our love of caging and manipulating animals has something to do with why we (as a culture) continue to allow our ‘pets’ to kill ‘untamed’ animals? And why, comparatively, we don’t place much value on whole populations – and even ecosystems of wild animals? And why we kill wild animals that we perceive as frightening – whether or not they are really a threat – or whether or not they are the last of its kind (like the Thylacine!). And why we further complicate things by genetically modifying organisms in very ‘unnatural’ ways. For example, there are some really amazing/shocking things done these days using recombinant DNA technology to produce ‘interesting’...things.
– such as ‘Glofish’ - glow in the dark aquarium fish sold as...pets! Interestingly, these were originally created (from Zebrafish) to detect environmental pollutants. So doing this was meant to be ‘good for the environment’. It turns out these Glofish are also helpful to us in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy. In this case, the fluorescent protein gene comes from a naturally occurring marine organism. Yet the Glofish retains the gene (which is currently classified as an ‘animal drug’ by the US FDA) from generation to generation...
And ‘Knockout Rats’! ? They have a gene turned off so they can mimic human diseases so we can study them.
And ‘Knockout Moss’ – which is just a Moss with a gene turned off so we can see what function it had... reminds me of a little boy pulling apart a machine just to see how it worked.
In 2006 a pig was engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene.
I don’t think humans are bad as a general rule. I know so many wonderful people who want to do the best they can in this life. So when I drove past yet another massacre of Bull Dozers smashing and permanently destroying more bushland at Gateshead and Mt Hutton a couple of weeks ago, and then saw the little dead body of a Feather-tailed Glider killed by a pet cat, it made me wonder what our culture is thinking...
Just a short comment this time sugar gliders are also able to be kept in some Australian states, off the top of my head Quensland, Victoria and Sout Australia. Just thought you might be interested.
ReplyDeleteSugar Gliders in the wild have a range of 3ha + because of their need to find large amounts of food. In captivity a smaller cage is quite possible as a foodsource can be as small as a dish instead of a forest of trees.
I am not sure what side of the pet argument I am on as I love having my pet reptiles, and would love pets of many other Australian animals but am equally not blind to the merits behind the argument of leaving animals in nature and cannot refute any of these arguments.