Give Whales A Voice @ IWC

June 5th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be meeting on 21st June to discuss a possible lifting of the commercial whaling ban. The IWC regulates the whaling industry and is responsible for the ban on commercial whaling which came in to force in 1986.  However the commission is largely focused on regulating the whaling industry so that it can be sustainable and the ban had little to do with animal welfare. Whale stocks were hunted to near extinction and a ban was necessary.  However three countries; Japan, Norway and Iceland have continued to hunt whales. Iceland and Norway have objected to the ban and set their own hunting quotas – ignoring international law. Japan operates it’s whaling industry under the guise of ’scientific’; research – the ban allows for limited whaling in the interest of scientific research. Australia have recently filed a suit claiming that Japanese whaling has nothing to do with science and is more commercially motivated.

At the upcoming meeting members will vote on a deal which will see the end to the ban and legitimize commercial whaling. The proposal would allow the three countries that have defied the ban to hunt legally provided they kill less whales than they have been doing illegally. This is a ridiculous proposal, it’s like telling a criminal that their activities are no longer illegal but as a trade-off they can no longer commit the crime so often. Firstly they probably won’t listen because they have already shown they have no respect for the law. Secondly, the international community should not bow to bully nations throwing their weight around. Thirdly, it completely disregards the fact that whaling is inherently inhumane and as such should not be inflicted on any number of whales.

How to Help

I have scouted around the net for various ways you can show governments and the IWC that you do not want to lift the ban on commercial whaling:

1. Everybody can sign this petition to the Norwegian Government  here

2. Everybody can join WSPA Australia’s campaign to give the whales a voice. They are asking everyone to record messages to the International Whaling Commission which they will take to the meeting on June 21st here

3.  In America you can write a letter to your senator asking them to support the International Whale Conservation Protection Act here. The USA is as ever a key decision maker and it id vital that they vote against lifting the ban.

4.  Email the International Whaling Commission to tell them what you think at secretariat@iwcoffice.org

5. In this international community it is important that we all show our national representatives how we feel.  You can find the name of the representative of your country in the IWC  here.  Please contact them and tell them how you would like your country to vote.

Australia Files Law Suit Against Japan over Whaling

June 4th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

Australia took a decisive step to protect whales, filing a suit in the International Court of Justice against Japan’s “scientific whaling” in the Southern Ocean. The suit seeks an injunction to bar Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary a 50-million square kilometer area surrounding the continent of Antarctica, where the IWC has banned all types of commercial whaling.

This news comes as the International Whaling Commision meet to discuss a possible compromise with whaling nations that would allow them  to resume commercial whaling with the understanding that they abide by quotas. The IWC is the body responsible for the management of whaling and its main purpose is to regulate the whaling industry. Established in 1946, in 2008 it has over 79 member countries.

Australia claims that Japan has abused its right to conduct scientific research whaling under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which provides for a scientific exemption. They also assert that Japan has breached the terms of CITES by hunting endangered whale species.  In 2008-09 Japan killed 1,004 whales, including 681 in the Southern Ocean. Since the moratorium came into effect, more than 33,000 whales have been killed under the scientific exemption clause.

The Australians are willing to call Japanese whaling what it is — a mockery of science and a crime against nature. Lets hope the rest of the international community back them up on this one!

A tale of volunteering in Indonesia

May 30th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

Firstly, apologies for my lengthy absence from this e-zine.  I was in Sulawesi, Indonesia for 2 months volunteering at an animal rescue centre. Then upon my return I was mentally and physically exhausted and spent the last few weeks sleeping metaphorically and physically. However with a rising mojo I am back! Sometimes we all just need a little time out, especially in fields where you care deeply about issues that are so wide-spread and commonplace that it can tie you up in knots trying to figure out where to begin.

I digress, back to April when I went to volunteer at Tasikoki Animal Rescue Center. Now despite my passion for animal welfare, up until this point I had never volunteered in the ‘field’  unless you count my local RSPCA cat shelter. It was a total shock to the system which wasn’t helped by the severe sun burn and heat stroke that struck me on my stop-over in Singapore. 

The first night there was unbearably hot and I didn’t sleep a wink. So I was up and showered by the time the alarm clock went off at 5.30 am! Simon took us on our first day to show us the ropes. It was hot and tiring.  There are a lot of hills in Tasikoki. I was also terrified of the Macaques. They were stressed and scared – much like myself.  I was shocked by the conditions that they were living in. I thought to myself that their enclosures wouldn’t pass a lab inspection back in the UK. Aside from two release groups in Large open enclosures, the other macaques were kept either in solitary cages and slept on bars or in what I called cell block H where they live in small concrete enclosures with chicken wire walls. I couldn’t decide which was worse, the macaques in solitary looked worse off because of the bars and isolation but they were a lot calmer than those in cell block H. I think this was because in the cell block the macaques had no visual escape from each other, which caused a lot of stress and aggression. Read the rest of this entry »

What does new British government mean for fox-hunting?

May 30th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

Ok, so bad news first – the Conservative party are the largest party in British government with 307 seats. The good news is that they needed at least 323 to form a majority government and therefore had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Why is this good news? Well, because the Conservatives and Liberals couldn’t be further apart ideologically. The conservatives look after the landed classes and people with money in general, wanting to lower taxes on the rich, cut back on public spending and most importantly to me, repeal the fox-huting ban – favourite past time of the ‘old money’ landowners. On the other hand the Liberal Democrats care about people and to some extent animals too.

Unfortunately as part of the coalition agreement, on page 18 it states,  ”We will bring forward a motion on a free vote, enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.” So it appears likely that a vote on the issue will come up in parliament at some point in the next five years – provided the coalition makes it that far. However the Liberals are anti fox-hunting and don’t have to vote with the conservatives to repeal the ban. Labour brought the ban in to place and won’t want to see it repealed either. Hoever there may be other marginal parties that will side with the conservatives on the issue and it could be a very close contest.

As luck would have it a timetable for such a vote failed to materialise in the Queen’s Speech, effectively indicating that it was no longer a priority and had been shelved! This is possibly because they would be heavily criticised for prioritising a law that affects few people and is effectively about a past-time  when the country is facing a massive financial deficit and their are more universally important issues to address. It also might cause unnecessary friction with the Liberals.

So, it looks like the foxes are safe to live another day – for now! But we must not get complacent and we must continue to show that many more people oppose fox-hunting than support it. The country-side alliance is making more noise on the issue because they don’t have their way, we must not let them manipulate the issue. So 4000 members of the country-side alliance want fox hunting back – there are 70 million people in the UK!

Why You Can’t Tell a Sheep “Bon Voyage”

April 22nd, 2010

Contributed by Alina Lilova

Countless farm animals are subjected to long journeys across countries and even continents. To them, this is no small matter but a very unpleasant and sometimes even painful experience. The physiological evidence for this is plentiful. Stress hormones like cortisol rise steeply in sheep during transport, and ewes may skip or delay their estrus (heat) cycle. The immune systems of pigs become weaker. Chickens may overheat and die, even on cold days. Many animals also suffer injuries from bumping into each other and falling on the ground, and from poor handling when they are loaded or unloaded from the vehicles. Just the vibration and noise of a lorry can feel uncomfortable and scary to the animal, especially if he has been raised in a barren environment with little chance to explore new things. In fact, pigs who were placed in a transport simulator and shown how to turn it off quickly learnt to press the switch panel, choosing to keep the apparatus off most of the time.

As long as physical injuries and deaths are kept to a low percentage (and “low” is defined by purely economic considerations), the industry has little interest in shortening journey lengths or improving standards, and laws are often inadequate even in the EU – hence the large amount of undercover investigations, campaigns and petitions against long-distance transport.

At times the industry may argue that what seems to be a cruel practice is actually better for the animals. For example, currently in the European Union adult sheep may be transported for up to 14 hours, then given a single hour for rest, water and perhaps food, then travel for another 14 hours straight. During that time, they are usually packed like sardines in a box, with only a third of a square metre per sheep. Imagine travelling for 28 hours squeezed inside a dark, crowded bus and having no idea of what’s going to happen to you. It must be worse than being stranded in an airport because a volcano erupted in Iceland – and yet it’s daily reality for millions of animals. Nevertheless, some will have you believe that the crowding is necessary to keep the sheep from falling and hurting themselves on rough roads.

A group of scientists challenged this view in a recently published experiment. They put sheep in a double-decker livestock lorry and had a commercial driver give them a 6-hour ride along a variety of roads (from motorways to minor country roads). The sheep – ewes and lambs – were grouped into five categories with different space allowances, from the minimum set out by the European Regulation, to more than 1 sq. m per animal. Sheep with their fleece on had more room than shorn sheep. Cameras captured the movement of the animals and sent live video to the scientists.

Sheep packed in lorry according to the European minimum - which is often what the industry uses. Photo: CCTV by Jones et al.

The sheep who had more space tended to lose balance, slip and fall far less than the sheep who were tightly packed. The effect was particularly pronounced when the road was bad. Like people, sheep sought to maintain balance not by pressing onto their companions, but simply by spreading their legs or taking small steps back and forth so the inertia doesn’t rock them off their feet. No matter how social sheep are and how much they like to flock together, a crowded lorry would not be their idea of time well spent. Furthermore, the sheep were much more likely to be trampled by their neighbours when they had little space, and in one case it took a sheep over an hour to stand again after being forced to the floor. Also, after four hours of travel, many of the sheep got obviously very tired and wanted to lie down – but those ‘enjoying’ “the European minimum” didn’t have much opportunity for such rest.

If you would like to do something for the sheep and other species that commonly endure long journeys in awful conditions, check out NGO’s like Compassion in World Farming and Animals’ Angels.

Sources:

Appleby, M. and Hughes, B., eds. Animal Welfare. CABI Publishing, 2007.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_003/l_00320050105en00010044.pdf

Jones, T., Waitt, C. and Dawkins, M. “Sheep lose balance, slip and fall less when loosely packed in transit where they stand close to but not touching their neighbours.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123 (2010) 16-23.

A pleasant surprise from our youngest contributor

April 16th, 2010

MY BEST FRIEND

By Cecilia Roy (8 years old)

My best friend is Peaceful paradise, the horse.

I love to ride on him. He listens to me nicely.

Those days, I didn’t have many friends.

So, I made Peaceful paradise one of my best friends.

We brought him for me from the Delhi race Course.

The day we bought him I was very happy because my wish was to ride on a horse which was granted.

We named him Peaceful paradise because he was as peaceful as a Paradise.

When I first rode him I felt as if I was dreaming.

The second and third time I felt very very happy.

And sometimes I got scared. Now I know how to stop and control him.

I like brown horses. So, we bought a brown horse.

After every ride, I would give him a pat – to say thank you

Sometimes, I take him for grazing – some nice fresh juicy grass.

I used to leave him free and he used to feel nice.  He never tried to run away and was happy being with me.

Jack Yeats, For the Road. National Gallery of Ireland

Clever Birds Challenge Us Not to Parrot Old Beliefs

April 2nd, 2010

Contributed by Alina Lilova

African grey parrot, photo by Michael Gwyther-Jones

What is going on in the mind of an African Grey who mimics human speech? Is he little more than a voice recorder that “parrots” whatever you say? Some people still hold on to the old belief in the “dumb bird,” but over the years plenty of evidence has accumulated that points to the very opposite.

Early scientific attempts to test the language abilities of birds failed—not because the birds didn’t live up to the hype, but because researchers underestimated them. In the mid-twentieth century, mynah birds took part in studies where they would hear human speech on tape while housed in sound-proof boxes. The mynah birds learnt nothing despite the food rewards. That is, the experimental subjects learnt nothing: their buddies who were kept as pets in the laboratory, listening to the natural flow of human conversation, talked loads. It turned out that just like natural song learning, the retention of words needed a social context, with someone real to imitate.

A social context was provided to African grey parrots trained by Todt and subsequently Pepperberg. Their techniques involved two humans talking to each other, and proved much more successful. Irene Pepperberg’s famous parrot Alex (1976-2007) knew the vocabulary for different shapes, colours and materials. He could also answer the questions “What’s different?” and “What’s same?” about two unfamiliar objects — the shape, the colour, or the “matter,” pronounced “mah-mah” — as well as questions like “What object is round?” or “What object is bigger?”. Alex was also clever enough to know when to answer “None.” Similarly, he could use the numbers from 1 to 7 in a meaningful fashion and had a concept of zero. He used and understood about 100 English words and even invented a new one, “banerry” to mean “apple” (because he already knew the words for “banana” and “cherry”). Another famous African grey parrot, N’kisi, similarly used “flied” for “flew” and once said “pretty smell medicine” to mean his owner’s aromatherapy oils. Such innovative use of words points to some genuine understanding of vocabulary and grammar taking place in the psittacine brain.

When Virginia Morell, author of the article “Minds of Their Own” which appeared in National Geographic, visited Dr. Pepperberg a few years ago, she witnessed Alex practicing on his own, without the need of constant treats and encouragement. She also saw him tell off other parrots when they mispronounced words, and occasionally he would deliberately give a wrong answer to a question, as a joke, just to be contrary. It is only natural, she writes, that a species of such longevity and complexity of social organisation would have to rely on more than just instinct to survive.

Even more interesting—and certainly more controversial—is the telepathy research with N’kisi, who was mentioned above. His owner, Aimée Morgana, has recorded hundreds of bizarre telepathic incidents. For example, once, when she was in a room on a different floor but could hear N’kisi, she happened to look at the image of a beautiful purple car. She was marvelling at the colour when she heard the parrot upstairs say, “Oh wow, look at the pretty purple.” Scientist Rupert Sheldrake helped Morgana test N’kisi in a formal experiment. Morgana was looking at photographs which corresponded to some key words of N’kisi’s vocabulary. In the meantime, the parrot was recorded as he talked in another room, and his speech was subsequently interpreted by three independent transcribers. It turned out he’d scored far more “hits” than would be expected by chance. The methodology was criticised, as always in paranormal research, but that doesn’t make the study any less worthy of attention.

But if parrots can reason, joke and even ‘read minds,’ would they make great pets? I’m not sure, though I have never owned one. They seem to be like human children who need to be brought up very carefully and educated over long years. Like teenagers, even. At 31, Alex died relatively young, and Dr. Pepperberg said that he’d lately become “moody” and “like a teenage son.” (Interestingly, chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall also talks about how difficult, even dangerous, chimps become in their teen years—and how unwise it would be to keep one as a pet.)

Alex changed forever the way people would view parrots, but Dr. Pepperberg’s training and research took many years and a huge effort, and on the downside, this bird lived his whole life in captivity. He had a favourite elm tree that he loved to look at through the window. He would say, “Wanna go tree,” and perch on Dr. Pepperberg’s hand to go to the hallway for a taste of the green wilderness that was never to be his home.

Sources:

Griffin, Donald R. (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. The University of Chicago Press, pp. 180-186.

Morell, Virginia (March 2008). “Minds of their own.” National Geographic.

Sheldrake, Rupert and Aimée Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 601-616.

Spare a Thought for Seal Hunting

March 30th, 2010

Opinion by R. Cyril Roy and Selvi Roy

Two studies looked at the activity of seal hunting with a view to determine suffering. One was done by the International Federation for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and another by Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). Even though both studies indicated that the current method of seal hunting involved suffering, the recommendations of both the studies varied. The IFAW suggested drastic intervention such us immediate stopping of the hunt where as the CVMA study suggested better management of the hunt.

One of the issues of contention regarding seal hunt, is identifying suffering during the hunt. After a seal is shot or clubbed, the seal shows some active movement of various body parts before the cessation of all its behaviour. There are different opinions on whether the animal is suffering during this period or not. Some feel that once the seal is shot or clubbed, it is unconscious and thus the animal does not feel pain even if body movements are visible. They feel that all animals show some movements before death even in an unconscious state. Others opine that the seal is conscious and thus is able to feel pain and is suffering.

Assessing how conscious a seal is after being shot or clubbed, needs the expertise of animal welfare specialists with understanding in physiology, neuroscience and animal behavior rather than pure mathematicians or statisticians. Science is a pursuit of truth. More often than a single line of enquiry, a multidisciplinary approach often gets the benefit of bringing together different viewpoints, allowing scientists to work together and come to a conclusion.

Such an approach will help the people and government of Canada get a deeper understanding of the pros and cons of this seal hunting activity and take appropriate decisions. It’s our personal opinion, in the interest of all animals and humans, that we should refrain from killing any animal. But a consistent science-based approach also has its merits in bringing people of diverse cultures together to a common platform on contentious issues like this.

Best of Friends – Owen and Mzee

March 29th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

Owen and Mzee are a hippopotamus and a tortoise, respectively, that became the subject of much media attention after forming a unique bond of friendship.

A baby hippopotamus, Owen, was orphaned in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Kenya near Malindi during the Indian Ocean earthquake on December 26, 2004. The baby hippo, weighing 600 pounds (270 kg), was stranded on a large rock not far from shore. He was finally rescued during a day long effort by nearly 1,000 villagers using shark nets.

Owen was taken to Haller Park, a restored limestone quarry near Mombasa. He was released into a large wooded penned-in area that included a pond and a co-inhabitant − a 700-pound (320 kg), 130-year-old Aldabran tortoise named Mzee (Swahili for “wise old man”).

Owen immediately bonded to Mzee and would crouch behind him. However, Mzee initially resisted Owen’s overtures. Over time, the old tortoise came to accept the young hippo, who began to mimic his adoptive parent. Gradually, Mzee taught Owen what to eat and where to sleep.

In the first year, the two became inseparable companions who ate, slept, swam, and played together. Owen often played with the old tortoise by jumping on Mzee’s back, scratching the old tortoise on the neck, and in many other ways. They surprised scientists with the strength of what appeared to be a genuine bond, as well as with the unique vocal communication that developed between them.

Now they have a whole website and books dedicated to their special friendship. If you are interested in learning more about Owen and Mzee, click here.

Counting Rats?

March 29th, 2010

Contributed by, Nicola Gothard

It can be difficult for us to understand what goes on in the minds of other animals because at first they appear so different and let’s face it, it can be hard enough to work out what other people are thinking unless they tell us! So, researchers have to find ingenious methods of doing just that.

In one study, researchers put themselves in a rats ‘shoes’ to devise an experiment that would show them if rats count. They thought about the types of situations in which rats might find counting useful. Rats are nocturnal animals that find their way around largely by touch, smell and hearing. So, they devised a system of 6 tunnels arranged in a row along the side of a box. All of the tunnels had food in but their were hatches stopping the rats accesing the food in 5 out of the 6 boxes. The rats were split in to 3 groups; Group 1 rats could eat the food in tunnel 3, Group 2 rats could eat the food in tunnel 4, group 3 rats could eat the food in tunnel 5.  New tubes were used every time so that they couldn’t identify the current tunnel number by scent and swing doors prevented them from seeing which tunnels were blocked and the distance between each tunnel was changed at random. So, the only way the rats could find the correct tunnel number would be to count from the starting hatch.

The rats all successfully learnt which tunnel their food was in very quickly. The tunnel 5 rats were particuarly interesting because they went all the way to the end of tunnel 6 and then went back one tunnel to arrive at tunnel 5. Then they made it even more difficult by putting some of the tunnels around a corner but even then the rats went to the correct tunnel number.

It seems that the rats were using a form of counting between 1 and 4 to identify the ordinal positions of the tunnels. They certainly appeared to have an abstract internal representation of the world!

Source

Dawkins, M.S. (1998) Through Our Eyes Only. Oxford University Press. Pp 43-52.