The Case Against the Commercialisation of Australian Wildlife

by Claudette Vaughan

Professor Eleonora Gullone is a social scientist trained in the scientific method which emphasises objectivity, adequacy of measurement, and demonstration of empirical support for proposed claims.  Her strengths as a scientist are supported by her many publications (in excess of 90) in high ranking refereed international journals in the field of psychology – a social science discipline.  A search of Psych Info. will provide supporting evidence for this claim.

For the Abolitionist-Online she is responding to Dr Paul Hopwood’s interview. She details her serious concerns and reservations regarding the validity of his claims below.
 

Q.  What is your opinion on the commercialising of native wildlife and bringing them into the Australian suburbs.

A.  We already have more problems than we can handle relating to the welfare of companion animals despite the strong support basis that exists for owning companion animals including commercial food, bedding etc. We also know much more about their daily requirement and their health needs.  Vets have specific training relating to commercial animals and companion animals. Relatively less is known about wildlife in relation to diet, their daily requirements, their temperaments etc. Can they be toilet trained? Would they be happy living indoors? Can they be trained not to climb on curtains or hop around on the furniture?  If they were kept outdoors, would they stay?  Would they become prey to other neighbourhood animals such as the next door neighbour’s cat or dog?  Also, most Australian native animals are nocturnal.  What fun is there in having an animal who needs to sleep when we are active and who keeps us awake with their nighttime antics when we are trying to sleep? Where would we get their food from? Would we have to grow our own (tea trees, gum trees etc)?  There are too many unknowns. Why not put our resources and energy into fixing the problems that already exist for animals who we currently have as companions?

Q.  Professor Hopwood denies nonhumans the right to personhood rights. What are your views?

A.  ‘Persons’ is really a word that denotes human beings so far.  Perhaps individuals is a better word.  If we are talking about individuals, there really is no reason why an animal could not be classified as such.  Hopwood talks about self-consiousness as something almost magical that requires a higher order of respect. Firstly, there is evidence that there are animal species who are self-conscious, particularly among the primate species.  Secondly, if we are talking about a humane ethic, why should self-consciousness be the variable we are considering? I think, we should consider group and pair bonding as being more relevant to issues related to cruelty.  If, for example, killing a mate causes sufficient distress, then we are not only causing distress but potentially interfering with species’ reproduction since an animal who is sufficiently distressed may die due to grief.  Further, the question of a humane ethic should consider many dimensions, not only suffering. We should consider the interconnections between species and the relationships animals have with their environments and their habitat. Destruction of one usually results in consequential destruction of the other.

Q.  What’s you analysis on Hopwood’s view to using the kangaroo as a ‘alternative production animal’.

A.  Hopwood’s views on the farming of kangaroos are absurd.  It is extremely unlikely, given Australian’s (and indeed the world’s populations – consider our export markets) that kangaroo meat will become a popular substitute for the other meat industries currently existing. Rather, it is likely that the kangaroo meat industry would become another meat industry in addition to those that currently exist.  Given what we know about the “modern” diet of humans (that people are already consuming far more meat than is healthy for them), the last thing we need is yet more meat!  My knowledge of Hopwood suggests that he has a vested interest in a thriving kangaroo industry and that the “science” is not at all basis for his position – frankly the science is too scarce for any sensible decision to be based on it.

In terms of welfare, the way in which kangaroos are farmed is much less controlled than other existing meat industries (which also have their own welfare issues) and a particular unresolved welfare issue exists with the outcomes for dependent young when the mother kangaroo is killed.  Dependent young are left without a mother and will likely starve to death. Pouch young are clubbed to death or shot – neither method of which does not present with significant welfare issues.

Q.  Hopwood denies new diseases would eventuate in the suburbs if native animals were brought in to feed the uncontrolled appetites of a consumer faddist society.

A.  He is being simplistic and total unscientific about this.  We simply do not have sufficient information to rule out the possibility of new diseases becoming a problem for humans and or for companion and domestic animals.

Q.  SBS TV recently said Australians spend more on these fashion outfits for companion animals than the whole of the funding for overseas aid.  What is your opinion on the problem of designer clothes and accessories for certain breeds of nonhuman animals and where is this coming from?

A.   The whole designer clothes and accessories thing is really something that is an issue in relation to a small proportion of the population.  It certainly does not represent the majority of pet owners but certainly there is an increasing trend to consider companion animals to be a part of the family and so there is positive stuff coming out of this.  In particular, once a companion animal is elevated to family member status, there is an increased likelihood that they will have their needs met (e.g. health care, diet etc).  Welfare issues do present themselves if owners go too far and forget that their companion animals are not little fluffy human beings and forget that they have their basic needs (e.g. dogs need to mix with other dogs, cats need their quiet sleeping time).  Where does this indulgence stem from?  If there is money to be made – if there is a market for something (doggy fashion etc) then you can bet that there will be someone willing to exploit that market!

Q.  Hopwood said he’s been working on better utilisation of Australian natives “whether its for slaughtering or pampering”.  What is that saying to you?

A.  Hopwood’s determination to “use” native animals belongs to the past.  We have evidence all around us that this sort of attitude is destructive.  Australia already has the worst record of any country in the world related to species’ extinctions and we have substantial empirical and scientific evidence that human behaviour has brought about significant destruction to our environment.  Once upon a time in our species’ history, when there were substantially fewer of us (humans) in the world and when we did not have the sophisticated technology that we now have, the utilitarian attitude was fundamental to our survival. Now it is actually to our detriment that we continue down that path.  We need the natural environment to support our survival and we still have very little knowledge about the intricate connections between different natural systems as evidenced by our many blunders in trying to fix up previous blunders (e.g. the problems created by introducing cane toads).

Q.  The multi million dollar pet shop industry say they have the potential to act as a buffer against extinction in the wild and they would also re-introduce extinct animals back to the wild.  Are they trying to convince us they have a conscience or what?

A.  Regarding the proposal that the pet industry would re-introduce extinct animals back into the wild, show me a precedent where this has worked and I will believe that it is possible.  Firstly, the pet industry would be very unlikely to invest the money needed to carry out the science required to be successful in doing this and secondly they would need to be convinced that there was a profit to be made in doing so.  The supporting evidence to suggest that these outcomes would occur does not exist to my knowledge.

Q.   What do you think of Hopwood’s “new” paradigm shift idea: Use It or Lose it?

A.  The “use it or lose it” proposal put forward by Hopwood is not at all supported by historical fact.  Indeed the opposite is true. The things that we have used or are using are hugely damaged. Take for example forests – logged for wood and paper, fish species –farmed for food, the health of pigs, chickens and dairy cows—biologically manipulated to maximize “yield”/ “profits”.

Professor Eleonora Gullone’s Biography:

I describe myself primarily as a research developmental psychologist whose research has primarily focussed upon the emotional development of children and adolescents. However, over the past decade I have become actively involved in both the psychological wellbeing outcomes for both human and non-human animals of interactions between species.  My work in this regard has included both activism and research.  In relation to research, I have been particularly interested in the relationships between children and animals, both positive and negative.  I have also been involved in research examining the link between animal cruelty and human violence as well as criminal behaviour.  Whilst I have a theoretical interest in the research areas I have described above, ultimately I hope that the work I do will have some real impact in the lives of both children and animals (companion, domestic and wild).  On a more personal level, I have lived with companion animals my whole life.  I am particularly fond of cats.  At present my household includes two cats (half brother- Miskie and sister - Misy) and a dog (Pepe).