In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the seven commandments that guide the animals are eventually reduced to one: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
While humans have always applied this standard to the animal kingdom (e.g., house cats are more equal than house rats), applying that maxim to the fishing industry—dolphins trump nearly all other marine species—is creating an ecological disaster.
Consider for example the effect the dolphin-first attitude has had on the tuna industry. With over four million tons caught and consumed every year, tuna has become one of the most economically important fisheries on the planet. But the means of acquiring them raises ethical and ecological concerns. Because dolphins can often be found swimming with tuna, they can be used as used as a means of tracking since they come up to the surface for air. This has historically been the most popular means of locating tuna throughout many regions of the globe. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of fishermen, dolphins are often caught in the tuna nets (before the change in methods, about 133,000 were being killed each year).
Public outcry over this process in the late 1980s and early 1990s forced tuna fishermen to adopt methods that could be certified as “Dolphin-Safe”—tuna caught by means that don’t require tracking dolphins. By 1994 only Dolphin-Safe tuna could be sold in the U.S.
But the law of unintended consequences often binds good intentions. Dolphin-Safe methods lead to the rampant destruction of other fauna. As the Environmental Justice Foundation discovered, saving one dolphin costs “382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks, and almost 1,200 small fish.”
As one shark conservationist asks, “Is it worth saving dolphins, who were not and are not endangered, at the expense of sea turtles, sharks, and many other fish species who are endangered?”
He adds: “What can you do? Either don’t eat tuna or eat ‘Marine Stewardship Council’ approved sustainable tuna, which is caught by rod and reel and has no bycatch. However, it is much more expensive, and is hard to find.” Indeed, sustainable tuna costs about three times as much (seventy-five cents an ounce compared to the twenty-five cents per ounce of typical store brand canned tuna).
How should those of us who are concerned about conservation and creation care respond? How do we balance our concern for particular species with the need to provide abundant and nutritious forms of food for the world? As a pragmatic conservationist who knows that people aren’t going to stop eating tuna, I lean toward returning to the purse seine method for tuna fishing.
But is that the right approach? Or do dolphins deserve special protection? If so, what is the proper ratio? How many sharks, turtles, and fish should die so that Flipper may live?
September 15th, 2009 | 5:30 pm
I’m not aware of any good theory for determining the proper ratio for moral considerations among the animal species.
But it does seem that dolphins deserve greater consideration than fish. One obvious difference between them is the difference between mammal and fish. Fish are to be valued insofar as they fit into the larger ecological context, and insofar as they are wonders of creation. But care for mammals should extend to how we affect them. While it may be appropriate, for instance, to carry out experiments on rats for research purposes, or to poison the rat for reasons of sanitation, it would not be appropriate simply to capture a rat for torture. (PETA’s claims aside, I’m not sure it would be meaningful to speak of torturing a salmon).
But among the mammals, we also make distinctions, according to special relationships certain species have with people. The dog and the horse are to be treated with greater affection than the coyote and the deer.
(Among the Hindus, the cow is considered sacred by reason of a relationship. Although this relationship is not directly to humans, it is to something sacred.)
And we seem also to think that mammals showing certain similarities to human beings also deserve more care. It seems as though it would be less desirable to harm a chimpanzee or gorilla than to harm a mountain lion. And this is true even though other primates do not relate well to humans (as dogs and horses do).
Sentiment for the dolphin seems to be from both reasons: (1) although we do not have dolphins as pets, they do relate well to humans, and we have many stories of dolphins actually saving endangered swimmers. (2) the people who are in the business of telling us these things tell us that dolphins show a number of signs of intelligence. I’m sure at least part of the reason it seems the experts tell us that dolphins are especially intelligent for animals is that we never hear about the uninteresting, negative studies that don’t show us that they are intelligent. But whatever the fact is, this seems to be one of the reasons for the sentiment. And if the fact is true, then I think it is good justification for the sentiment.
None of which, in my opinion, provides a decisive answer to what the appropriate ratio is, but these are the parameters I would work within.
All very anthropocentric of me, I know, but I sort of have a soft spot for the rational animals.
September 15th, 2009 | 5:42 pm
Excellent comment, SMatthewStolte. Very thoughtful.
I wonder if there is something in our being created in the image of God that makes us feel more concerns for animals that appear to be anthropocentrically similar to us?
September 15th, 2009 | 11:13 pm
[...] the whales … at what expense. Mr Kuznicki once offered that issues on the front burner don’t necessarily push others out [...]
September 16th, 2009 | 4:34 am
[...] the whales … at what expense. Mr Kuznicki once offered that issues on the front burner don’t necessarily push others out [...]
September 16th, 2009 | 10:27 pm
There have been endangered species since the beginning of time. Organisms living on the brink of extinction is perfectly normal…it’s part of the natural process. And yes, humans are also part of the natural process, though we like to sometimes imagine ourselves “outside” the life-cycle box looking in. We often think we can tinker with this or that species population or habitat, not fully understanding the unintended consequences of such actions.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact