Ethical question of the month — September 2015

Ethical question of the month — September 2015

In assessing animal welfare, the livestock industry often refers to production values as indicators of welfare. Other groups prefer to measure welfare based on the affective state of the animal, i.e. contentment, freedom from pain, etc. and the ability to perform natural behaviors. Do incremental increases or decreases in production values such as kilograms of milk or grams of gain represent actual changes in the welfare status of livestock or should changes in productivity be what welfare improvements are measured against? Can incremental changes in productivity truly represent changes in the welfare of an animal without a concomitant improvement in the animal’s affective state or behavior?

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: tim.e.blackwell@gmail.com.

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Ethical question of the month — July 2015

Feral cats are reported to kill large numbers of songbirds and other wildlife and thus disrupt ecosystems wherever they exist. In addition, feral cats are a source of infectious disease for domestic cats and a reservoir of zoonotic disease for humans. Elected officials and policymakers know that killing cats is unpopular with a large proportion of their constituents. Trap, neuter, and release (TNR) programs are being promoted as a more humane method of limiting or eliminating feral cat populations. To date, such programs are reported to reduce or stabilize feral cat populations but not to eradicate them. How does one balance the welfare of wild birds, rodents, and the native predators that depend on these species with the welfare of feral cats? Can one compare the properly performed euthanasia of a feral cat to the comparatively painful death cats often impose on their prey?

Feral Cats — comments

Trap and euthanasia is a non-starter. No “cat group” would participate and no politician could withstand the heat. The politically correct, but more costly compromise is trap, neuter, release (TNR). We aren’t wise enough to find the right balance. Neuter the cats, send them back home and let Nature find the balance for us.

Gerald Goeree, DVM, Kitchener, ON

The relevant question is not whether euthanasia of free-living cats is ethical, but whether it effectively reduces their population. Except in very constrained circumstances such as on a small island, it does not. Until a more effective solution is found, TNR is the best answer we have.

Jessica Hekman, DVM, MS, Urbana, IL, USA

Feral cats may be an introduced species, but by this point in time, have been around for several hundred years. It helps me to think about them now as one of the many different predators that survive in our environment. I would not advocate the eradication of any of the other predators in our environment (raccoons, skunks, foxes, coyotes, mink, bear, wolf, cougar, etc.) — the prey/predator relationship can be brutal, but is very complex and more involved than the fact that one species must rely on the death of another to survive.

Outright eradication through euthanasia/trapping/hunting/poisoning is likely an impossible goal in such a prolific, adaptable species (much like it has been with the coyotes, foxes, and skunks in our communities that we also get lots of complaints about). Unfortunately, when it comes to a welfare issue, because people keep these predators as pets, we tend to be more closely attuned to their welfare, meaning we make emotional decisions.

The other unique aspect is that the keeping of cats as pets also presents other challenges: if we adopt a euthanasia control method, we will inevitably be euthanizing peoples’ pets. Yes, people should be responsible and keep their pets indoors — but then we face a totally different ethical dilemma, how to maintain the welfare of a species that was designed to travel, roam, hunt, and explore while keeping them in a 950 ft² environment. Trap, neuter, and release isn’t perfect, but I think it has many benefits over lethal means of control while we continue to develop additional tools to limit the impact this species has on our environment. In the long term, we need a list of various tools so we can tailor the control method to the multitude of unique ecosystems these animals have filtered into.

Tessha Gathings, DVM, Medical Director of the Cheyenne Animal Shelter, Cheyenne, WY, USA

An ethicist’s commentary on feral cats

Some years ago I read a wonderful book entitled The Arrogance of Humanism, by a scholar named David Ehrenfeld. Lavishly enriched by numerous examples in many fields, the book illustrates the extent to which modern humans believe they can control numerous aspects of the world, far improving on both nature and God. Ehrenfeld’s examples range from “unanticipated consequences” of a catastrophic nature emerging from damming the Nile, to the absurdity of creating exams that, in 3 hours, allegedly predict one’s suitability for success in law or medicine.

Ehrenfeld’s major concern is how badly we do when we attempt to manage the environment. Common sense should tell us that we only grasp a handful of the complex multiplicity of variables that determine the fate of the environment. But we forge ahead! I once wrote that the banner for the human race should have inscribed on it the logo “oops!”

We have done no better when it comes to managing animals. Consider the millions of healthy dogs and cats we kill each year. When we turn our attention to an issue such as feral cats, our thinking caps really come off. Back in the 1950’s a law was promulgated in the state of Illinois and was passed by the General Assembly of the state legislature. Entitled “an act to provide protection to insectivorous birds by restraining cats,” the bill would have permitted any citizen to trap a free-roaming cat and would have required impounding and destruction of such an animal. The bill was vetoed by the then governor of Illinois, presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, who made the following points in a speech to the assembly:

“The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but we may be called upon to take sides in the age-old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the state of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.”

As evident from this quotation, despite Governor Stevenson’s predilections as a liberal, he understood the limitations of human intellectual power. I am not suggesting that the problem is not real, or that we should try to avoid interference in nature. I am saying that in a case like this the best we can do is “muddle through.” If TNR is, at least stabilizing the feral cat population, and thus limiting the extent of the problem, that is perhaps the best we can do.

Nor would I attempt to judge in a comparative way veterinary euthanasia to death by cat, as our knowledge in this area is limited. The great explorer, Livingston, once remarked on the death of a gazelle taken by a predatory cat. After the initial onslaught, the animal appeared to grow peaceful and not resist its fate. In fact the passage has been used to illustrate the efficacy of stress-induced analgesia, and the concomitant “wisdom of the Creator.” I believe we should devote our intellectual creativity to problems more within our purview, and not attempt to police nature.