Hot-Iron Branding of Seals and Sea
Lions: Weighing Individual Welfare
against the Common Good
Dr Vaughan Monamy
School of Arts and Sciences
Australian Catholic University,
Sydney, NSW Australia
[email protected]
Dedication –
Miriam Rothschild
(1908 – 2005)
“Looking back on the first half of my life as a zoologist I am
particularly impressed by one fact: none of the teachers,
lecturers, or professors with whom I came into contact... ever
discussed with me, or each other in my presence, the ethics of
zoology.
“... No one ever suggested that one should respect the lives of
animals … or that they, and not the experiments, however
fascinating and instructive, were worthy of greater
consideration.”
“Animals and Man: The Romanes lecture for 1984-1985” (OUP, 1986)
Talk Outline
• Valuing wild animals
– The Southern Elephant Seal branding
controversy
• Exploring extrinsic and intrinsic
objections to an action
• Policy scenarios to cater for such
objections
– The Australian model
How do we Value Wild
Animals?
• Instrumental value
– As a resource
• Food for many
human societies
• Ecotourism
• Education and
training
Valuing Wild Animals
• Intrinsic value
– Albert Schweitzer :
“Everything that lives has
value simply as a living
thing, as one of the
manifestations of the
mystery that is life.”
Valuing Wild Animals
• We often imply a
hierarchy when we
consider intrinsic value
and animals
– Wild (and especially
iconic) species are
valued more than, say,
domestic livestock
Valuing Wildlife Research
• Generally seen as a
(common) ‘good’
by society
– Conservation biology
– Wildlife management
– Captive breeding and
release programs
Despite involving intrusive
research procedures with
welfare implications
• Which may involve
– (re) capture
– restraint
(for many hours)
– anaesthesia
– injections
– radio-tracking
– marking
Southern Elephant Seal
branding controversy
1
Background
• In 1993, a long-term population study
began following decade-long declines
in numbers of Southern Elephant Seals
on sub-Antarctic islands
– Approval was given to mark up to 20 000
individual pups and to track their life histories
1
Green & Bradshaw (2004) J.Nat.Conserv. 12:25-39
Southern Elephant Seal
branding controversy
Background
• Marking methods were trialled including:
– Paint
– Bleach
– Tags (electronic or rear flipper)
– Freeze branding
– Hot-iron branding
Successful hot-iron branding
gave best results
• Easy to read
• Highly-visible
mark
• No evidence
of long-term
harm
Southern Elephant Seal
branding controversy
Background
• However in 1999, a Tasmanian
government wildlife scientist who had
witnessed less-than-successful marking
of pups
– Released video footage to the media of hot-iron
branding and its impacts
Southern Elephant Seal
branding controversy
• There was widespread public outcry as
video footage showed poorly-marked
individuals and animals with unhealed
wounds
• The study was stopped in March 2000
by Ministerial intervention
– (after 14 000 pups had been marked)
Southern Elephant Seal
branding controversy
• Scientific studies since then have
shown that hot-iron branding is
demonstrably best practice
• Despite this, hot-iron branding remains
indefinitely suspended.
What happened here?
• Scientists were conducting important
research into a declining population of
iconic wildlife
– after receiving all appropriate permissions
– using a marking technique approved by
animal care and ethics committees
– and generally viewed as acceptable
when used in livestock industries
Back to… Valuing Wild Animal
Research
• For many people, conservation research is
seen as a good
• Few in society hold strong objections to this practice
• For many people, hot-iron branding of
cattle falls into a category of
– “…the ends justify the means.”
• Few in society hold strong
objections to this practice
Valuing Wild Animals vs Valuing
Wild Animal Research
• But… hot-iron branding of iconic wildlife
falls into the category of
– “…the means will never justify the ends.”
• Many in society express objections
Objections to an action (I)
• In any ethical discussion,
• extrinsic (consequentialist) objections to an
action relate to harmful consequences of that
action in a utilitarian context.
• A moral decision based on extrinsic
objections weighs arguments against each
other and then prioritises each according to
its moral value.
Objections to an action (I)
• The morality of branding seals is no easy
calculation such as when weighing a moral
‘right’ against a moral ‘wrong’
• Rather, it involves the weighing of two
moral ‘rights’ against one another
– Wildlife research is a ‘good’
and
– Cattle branding is acceptable.
This ‘weighing’ was done as a
part of the approval procedure
Objections to an action (II)
• Intrinsic (deontological)objections to
an action relate to spiritual, cultural,
moral or otherwise personal beliefs
– (in this instance, about wild animals,
Nature and the role of human
interference).
– (which need not be consistent within
society, based in science or even rational)
Valuing Wild Animals
• Hot-iron branding of baby seals causes a
level of moral discomfort that forces a
societal evaluation of the importance of
any research that can only be conducted
at the expense of individual animal welfare
• Extrinsic calculations were over-ridden by
intrinsic objections
• Intrinsic objections can occur at any time
and in response to any project proposal
Is there a policy scenario that
can cater for such situations?
• Institutional Animal
Ethics Committees
– Membership
–
–
–
–
Veterinarians
Scientists
Welfare members
Lay persons
– To consider welfare
issues in all experiments
– Weigh extrinsic
concerns as a part of
permission process
Is there a policy scenario that
can cater for such situations?
• Australian
Environmental
Protection and
Biodiversity
Conservation Act (1999)
– Has regulations in place
where extrinsic
calculations can be
overridden by intrinsic
objections
So what does this all mean?
• our valuing of animals is hierarchical
• our ethical decision making is
inconsistent, and
• we have to have policy scenarios that
cater for this
• Ultimately, the practise of wildlife
research is conditional
Wildlife research is conditional
• Public attitudes are based on subtle
case-by-case calculations of cost,
benefit and ethical considerations
– but they are underpinned
• by an understandable caution about wildlife
research
– where individual welfare is compromised, and/or
– potential conservation benefits are yet to be
ascertained
Wildlife research is conditional
• Wildlife research can be viewed as a
privilege (never a right) granted to
scientists by the public and by their
governments via statutes and
regulations
– This permission comes with implicit as well
as explicit caveats
Is this as it should be?
• The conduct of
wildlife research
should continue to
be legitimately
tested
– not only against
Codes of Practice
– but also in the court
of public opinion
Acknowledgements and
photographs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/womenmse/NotableWomen/miriam2.jpg
http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=video&action=print&thread=228
7
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/canon/eos1dsmark3/photography/s
afari-tour.jpg
http://www.gondwananet.com/images/aboriginal-hunting-byRusty_Stewart.jpg
http://www.thelincolnstudio.com/zoopa.html
http://www.paulamcdonald.com/
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WR06073.pdf
Green and Bradshaw (2004) Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 25-39
http://www.ec.gc.ca/api-ipy/49C984AC-C94A-42E8-B0B5-5928B50C46E9/X20080515104649296.jpg
http://www.kellysmithmarketing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/branding.jpg
http://www.leatherwoodonline.com/ee/images/uploads/antarctica-c-09.jpg