Wildlife in the Balance - animal rights activists have different agendas than conservationists - includes related article

Animals, Nov, 1998 by Wendy Williams

You might think the objectives of the conservation and animal-protection communities would be compatible, if not identical, when it comes to protecting wildlife. Yet historically this has not always been the case. Today the rift that separates these two movements is growing wider, even in the face of an antienvironmental backlash that threatens the success of both camps. Is there a middle ground? And how should the humane movement, or conservationists, adapt? Part 4 of our Animals 2000 series.

In May 1996, federal employees put poison in seagull nests in the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge off Massachusetts's Cape Cod. About 5,000 herring gulls and black-backed gulls grew thirsty, suffered kidney failure, and died. Many of these deaths were drawn-out affairs, observed publicly as the birds fell out of the sky over Chatham and into the town's ponds, onto Main Street, even onto the roofs of area homes.

The wildlife managers' intent was to promote the nesting of roseate terns, which are severely endangered birds, and of piping plovers, listed as threatened. The gulls were crowding out the other species, preying on their nests; and refuge officials believed they were taking a difficult but necessary action. "Usually," commented one, "we're the good guys in the white hats." But not this time.

As the birds died, federal officials, conservation groups, and animal-protection groups found themselves mired in an increasingly bitter battle. The officials and some wildlife researchers accused opponents of "irrational thinking," of "emotional reactivity," of "grandstanding to the press." Several moderate animal-protection groups lost a federal court suit to stop the poisoning. After that, other groups showed up at the refuge's administrative center--which they dubbed "gullicide headquarters"--to offer a symbolic plates-of-poison lunch to federal officials. Extremists threatened violence, promised vaguely defined "tactical maneuvers," and predicted an inundation of "boats and planes" that would transport the gulls to safer environs. Warned Peter Souza of Earth First! "If they have to bring in the Marines, it's going to cost a lot of money."

Printed in the local papers, the most divisive statements wended their way into the national flow of information, appearing across the continent in newspapers, on television, and on the internet. By then, true communication had become impossible. Federal wildlife officials insisted on continuing with the poisoning. The press reported all the disagreements, but without any depth, so that it looked to the general public as though the whole animal-conservation/protection community had disintegrated into a morass of angry, petty infighting. This was a public-relations disaster for everyone: for those opposed to the poisoning, for those in favor of the action, and for the animals themselves.

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon story. Feuds about how to approach difficult animal dilemmas are not new, and some would say they are occurring with alarming frequency. In Washington's Olympic National Park, groups have long dueled over the mountain goats that were introduced (or reintroduced--no one knows for sure) into the area when it was managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Claiming the goats are destroying rare plants, some groups want the animals shot. Others want them left alone. And attempts to airlift and relocate the goats have instigated cost and safety concerns as well. The local press has reduced this issue, too, to the lowest common denominator. "Zap the goats? Hardly. Set sights on goat-shooters," reads a headline of a Seattle Times outdoors column, as if suggesting that shooting the shooters would help improve the situation.

Then there's poor Keiko, the orca of Free Willy fame. After Keiko was discovered in poor condition in a Mexican amusement park, some groups shouted, "Free the whale!" Others decried the "waste" of millions of dollars--the amount raised to relocate Keiko to a U.S. aquarium and eventually fly him to Iceland, to rehabituate him to the North Atlantic, and then (hopefully) to watch him thrive as he swims free. In Africa, groups argue over dehorning rhinos (some want the horns sawed off as protection against poaching, while others say the action is an affront to the animal's dignity). Others argue over the hunting of elephants, with some conservation groups condoning the practice as sustainable use but with many animal groups condemning it as an inhumane cop-out. Different points of view have even led animal advocates and conservationists to debate the ethics of captive breeding for endangered animals. The list goes on and on.

How bad is it? Bernard Rollin, a Colorado State University professor of philosophy and physiology and an animal ethicist, has been trying to find some consensus. It has not been unusual, he says, to hear himself called "Nazi" from one side of the table and then, on the same day, "sell-out" from me other. "It's fratricidal warfare," he says. "It's just like the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland."