Written by Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer (England)
There has been much written in scientific journals about how conservation is influenced by changing values and beliefs, and the increasingly held view that animals and humans are equal sentient beings resulting in compassionate conservation approaches and ultimately calls for animal personhood. This results in concerns about the management of some species, such as when controlling predators or pests.
But are these values and attitudes applied to all animals equally?
The simple answer, I believe, is no. As I have written before, attitudes to animals can vary depending upon the context or situation and indeed culture and religion. This means that animals may have more than one role; for example, in our own culture animals that are also pet species are used to test cosmetics, pesticides and drugs. But ultimately the trend towards mutualism (seeing nature and humans as equal) reflects cultural trends in society such as increased wealth, education and urbanisation.
In the UK, animals are now pets to most people, and TV programmes on nature, whilst educating us to its complexities and majesty, can also encourage such an attitude by calling the young ‘babies’, or giving names to birds or animals that are the subject of the camera’s focus. Stuffed toys of many animals are now available; no longer just the teddy – you can now get a cuddly rat! The result of this trend towards mutualism, it is argued, is that current approaches to conservation are based on domination and exploitation with animals a means to an end, and that approaches to conservation need to become more compassionate.
Our changing relationship with animals over recent decades to me is perhaps most epitomised by our attitude to dogs. Whilst in the UK they are largely pets, in some cultures dogs are considered to be a delicacy or are a sign of wealth. Probably the number one pet (apparently at least one third of households worldwide own at least one dog), I suspect that many owners do not know the history of their breed. I’ve looked at the ten most popular breeds today on the YouGov website and their histories and it is quite interesting (see table) – and then at number 11 is the beagle, a dog bred for hunting the hare!
| Dog breed |
Historical context |
| Labrador retriever |
Bred to aid fishermen and hunters in the waters around Newfoundland. |
| Golden retriever |
Specifically bred in the 19th Century for retrieving game. |
| Cocker spaniel |
Originated in Spain. The English strain was developed for its prowess in hunting woodcock. |
| Collie |
Used by Celtic tribes as herding dogs. |
| Border collie |
Only recognised as a distinct breed in 1995, its history is as a herding dog. |
| Alaskan husky |
Used by North American and Inuit tribes for transport and hunting. |
| St Bernard |
Originally bred in the 17th Century to guard and protect St Bernard hospice residents in the Swiss Alps. |
| Alsatian/German shepherd |
Bred for herding sheep. |
| Cavalier King Charles |
A toy breed loved by King Charles I and II, bred from hunting spaniels to warm laps! |
| English springer spaniel |
Bred as a gundog to flush (spring) game. |
The attitude we have to our dogs today as pets rather ignores this history. These breeds are now more likely to walk the pavements of our cities, share our beds or be taken on leads for walks on designated footpaths than being able to exhibit their inherent working skills and characteristics. In some cases, a dog is a fashion statement, paraded around in an over the shoulder bag or dressed to the nines with jewellery, studded collars and jackets (although I acknowledge that collars and leads have an ancient history probably dating from the Sumerian era as part of the domestication of sight hunting dogs such as greyhounds and saluki).
In treating them like this, are we valuing these animals so little as to deny them their intrinsic value? True, some were bred for show – the Cavalier King Charles and the Pekingese come to mind. But the breeds I am talking about were bred for scenting, retrieving, fishing and shepherding. Before friends point out that my dogs have their own sofa in the house (!), I acknowledge that I fall partly into the ‘dogs as pets’ category. However, I do work my dogs using them for picking up – an occupation they were bred for – and I train them (or at least try to!) to optimise their instincts in this regard.
When it comes to discussing animal welfare, the farmed animal and wild animal are increasingly seen as not fitting the image of animals as pets and so, consequently, demands for changes in attitude to their ownership and management are made.
Whilst I would never condone poor welfare or maltreatment of any animal – pet, farmed or wild – part of me feels that these changing values and beliefs should be applied to each animal in respect of its own behaviour, traits and context. It is interesting, therefore, that concerns are being expressed in academic literature that compassionate conservation could hinder biodiversity recovery by limiting the tools available such as “captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression”.
With statistics showing that urban society is already three generations distant from the countryside and that by 2028 urban memory of the countryside will have dwindled to zero, the influence of these compassionate values is only likely to increase. Whilst they have a sincere and genuine basis, when it comes to conservation the writing is on the wall for many of our red-listed species if policy is based on mutualism values, and if calls for animal personhood prevent the use of vital management tools.
(Please note: These monthly musings are intended as interest pieces and to provoke thought. I do not pretend to have deep knowledge about the subjects I am covering or indeed to be comprehensive in my coverage. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoy researching and writing them.)