This week an interesting ethical issue came up in New Zealand - though it
might be considered in the realm of animal rights rather than environmental
ethics. The NZ Dept of Conservation branded a number of sea lion pups in
the sub-Antarctic islands using a process that was described as "removing
their hair follicles" under anaesthetic - whether with chemicals or burning
I do not know. They claim it was painless. I don't know the process, but
the result is much like a burnt brand - though with rather large numbers
evident on the seals for obvious visual identity. The research technique
passed DOC's ethics committee, and they explained that the same techniques
are in use in Australia and North America.
It happened that an adolescent sea lion turned up on the south coast of NZ,
where some people saw the large number "169" branded on the side of the sea
lion. The initial reaction you get is one of unsightliness. The brand is
frankly ugly. It insults your sense of the aesthetic. The result was - I
suppose - inevitable. A nice "animal" story for the front page of the local
daily, television crews interviewing school children, DOC researchers and
the seal if possible. (A good thing it wasn't "666" on the side of the seal
or we would have had the evangelists there in droves as well.)
Did DOC do wrong? Is this an issue for environmental ethics, for animal
rights or environmental aesthetics? Are they one and the same? And what is
it that makes people react based on initial instinct rather than some
consideration of the issues?
Chris Perley
|