animal suffering
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

269
(FIVE YEARS 89)

H-INDEX

16
(FIVE YEARS 2)

Mammalia ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Pereira ◽  
Luís Miguel Rosalino ◽  
Slaven Reljić ◽  
Natarsha Babic ◽  
Djuro Huber

Abstract Management of free-ranging wildlife may include the capture of animals, with the implication that the capture process is optimized, both logistically and economically and in a way that avoids animal suffering, injury or accidental mortality. Studies targeting the optimization of trapping techniques are scarce, especially when focusing on large European mammals. Therefore, to fill this knowledge gap, we aimed to evaluate key factors that help determine brown bear capture success. This was done by analysing a complete data set from 23 years of capturing free-living Eurasian brown bears in Croatia by using Aldrich-type foot snares. Results showed significantly higher capture efficiency when traps were located at permanent feeding sites when compared to temporary feeding sites. Also, the use of a trail trap design was significantly more efficient in capturing bears than using a cubby set. Finally, results showed that trapping was more efficient when we bait the traps more frequently and when we implemented longer trap-sessions, with at least 14 days.


Author(s):  
Ignatius Nsaidzedze ◽  

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Benjamin Zephaniah’s famous poem “Talking Turkeys” can be labeled an animal protectionist or an animal anti-protectionist poem. Using natural and utilitarian theories of animal rights defenders, the paper argues that in the human animal relationship, the humans are the cause of the problem in the relationship not the animals and that they will benefit more if they make animals their friends. At the end of the study it has been found out that when one reads the poem Talking Turkeys’, one unique vocabulary labels Benjamin Zephaniah as an animal protectionist who shows his admiration for animals which prompts his anthropomorphism towards them as well as his pointing of accusing fingers at us humans/patriarchy for being the cause of the animal suffering and killing. The poet advocates friendship with animals to replace our killing and eating their flesh/meat. On the contrary he advocates we become vegans/vegetarians implicitly when he urges us to feed turkeys with green and beans. He reminds us that turkeys have rights, feel pain and have mums, associations which we should join and they should not be artificially manufactured and should also be allowed to enjoy Christmas like receiving gifts and listening to good music. Humans we are told spoiled Christmas.


2021 ◽  
pp. 161-166
Author(s):  
Yew-Kwang Ng

AbstractFor animals capable of affective feelings (enjoyment and suffering), we should also be concerned with their welfare. Welfare biology studies at least three basic questions: Which (species are capable of welfare)? Whether (their welfare is positive)? How (to increase their welfare? As affective feelings entail energy costs, species not capable of making flexible choices are not capable of affective feelings. The fact that members of most species either starve to death or are eaten before successful mating, their net welfare is likely negative. We could decrease animal suffering by banning pointless cruelty and making the living conditions of our farmed animals better (like increasing cage sizes of chicken farming). However, the widespread reduction of extensive animal suffering including wild animals will largely have to be left after our significant scientific/technological, economic, and moral advances. Excessively strict guidelines on animal experimentation that inhibit scientific/technological advances may thus be counter-productive in animal salvation in the long run.


2021 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 72-72

This monthly column features a print by student Daniela Lujan focusing on wasteful practices in slaughterhouses that cause animal suffering and a photograph by art professor Gina Mumma Wenger of a dragon-shaped tree at Manzanar National Historic Site.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher John Bryant ◽  
Annayah Miranda Beatrice Prosser ◽  
Julie Barnett

We conceptualize the journey to ethical veganism in the stages of the transtheoretical model of change, from precontemplation through contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. At each stage, we explore the psychological barriers to progressing towards veganism, discuss how they manifest, and explore ways to overcome them. It is hoped that this paper can be used as a guide for animal advocates to identify the stage an individual is at, and understand and overcome the social and psychological barriers they may face to progressing. We argue that, while many people are ignorant of the cruel practices entailed in animal farming, many deliberately avoid thinking about the issue, are unable to appreciate the scale of the issue, and simply tend to favour the status quo. When engaging with the issue of farm animal suffering, meat-eaters are largely driven by cognitive dissonance, which manifests as motivated reasoning aimed at protecting one’s image of oneself and one’s society. This is facilitated by confirmation bias and complicit media which cater to the preferred views of their meat-eating audience. Even once convinced of veganism, habit and willpower present further barriers to acting on those beliefs. This is all in the context of a speciesist and carnistic culture where meat consumption is normal, farming is noble, and vegans are ‘others’. We locate and elucidate each of these biases within the stages of the transtheoretical model and discuss the implications of this model for animal advocates and for further research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Gaia de Sousa ◽  
Rogério Carvalho Souza ◽  
Suzane Lilian Beier ◽  
Briza Sousa Barcelos ◽  
Kennedy José Souza Araújo

Pain control is an area that is currently gaining great importance, mainly for beef production. Determining the origin and causes of the painful process is a task that demands great attention from professionals, especially so that they can intervene in the best possible way. In addition to seeking to remove the factors that prompted them, they act in the prevention and treatment of the pain mechanism with the use of various drugs available on the market. The use of opioids has been the subject of studies as a pharmacological strategy for the control and management of animal suffering, a fact that induces serious losses and losses for bovine production, at the productive, reproductive and economic level. However, more and more studies are needed regarding the benefits they can provide to cattle, since there are some limitations such as cost and adverse effects.


Author(s):  
Josh Milburn

AbstractWhat we could call ‘relational non-interventionism’ holds that we have no general obligation to alleviate animal suffering, and that we do not typically have special obligations to alleviate wild animals’ suffering. Therefore, we do not usually have a duty to intervene in nature to alleviate wild animal suffering. However, there are a range of relationships that we may have with wild animals that do generate special obligations to aid—and the consequences of these obligations can be surprising. In this paper, it is argued that we have special obligations to those animals we have historically welcomed or encouraged into our spaces. This includes many wild animals. One of the consequences of this is that we may sometimes possess obligations to actively prevent rewilding—or even to dewild—for the sake of welcomed animals who thrive in human-controlled spaces.


Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 1047
Author(s):  
Georg Gasser

Nature shows itself to us in ambivalent ways. Breathtaking beauty and cruelty lie close together. A Darwinian image of nature seems to imply that nature is a mere place of violence, cruelty and mercilessness. In this article, I first explore the question of whether such an interpretation of nature is not one-sided by being phrased in overly moral terms. Then, I outline how the problem of animal suffering relates to a specific understanding of God as moral agent. Finally, in the main part of the argumentation, I pursue the question to what extent the problem of animal (and human) suffering does not arise for a concept of God couched in less personalistic terms. If God’s perspective towards creation is rather de-anthropocentric, then moral concerns might be of less importance as we generally assume. Such an understanding of the divine is by no means alien to the biblical-theistic tradition. I argue that it finds strong echoes in the divine speeches in the Book of Job: They aim at teaching us to accept both the beauty and the tragic of existence in a creation that seen in its entirety is rather a-moral. Finally, I address the question what such a concept of God could mean for our existence.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Dustin Crummett

Abstract It may be possible, now or in the future, for humans to technologically intervene to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by wild animals. There is a debate about whether, if humans can do this, they should. Here, I consider the implications for this debate of the theological claim that humans have been granted dominion over the other animals. I argue that it's more plausible to interpret the dominion claim as granting humans (i) the responsibility to care for the well-being of individual animals than to interpret it as giving humans either (ii) the right to do whatever they want to other animals or (iii) the responsibility to care only for the well-being of aggregates of animals (such as whole species). I then show how this understanding of dominion undermines a range of arguments against intervening to reduce wild animal suffering. These arguments claim that humans do not stand in the right sort of relationship for intervention to be obligatory (or perhaps even permissible). But if we possess such dominion, we do stand in the right sort of relationship for it to be obligatory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document