Just who do we think we are, and what do the animals think about us?

In the past few weeks there's been some interesting news that says a lot about our relationship with other animals and I just want to share some of this with you to bring you up to date. Many of these issues are discussed more fully in my recent and forthcoming books, my Psychology Today blogs, and elsewhere (Walk with the animals and New Zealand Public Radio.

Some questions that have been presented in the popular media and also directed to me from my Psychology Today blogs and at various meetings, all of which are part of the real world scenario in which we all actively participate, include:

--How should we deal with the fact that we're "all over the place", "here, there, and everywhere" as the Beatles said - a big-brained and dangerous invasive species that can do whatever we want whenever and wherever we want to do it? And, because there are too many of us and we over-consume as if it's the thing to do, and because we do what we please, we do indeed ruin the lives of billions of animals a year?

--Should we try to save endangered species? Should we bite the bullet and let some species go, even what's called the charismatic megafauna.

--Should we trade off the life of an individual for good of their species? Should we be moving individuals animals from one place to another knowing that some might die but other members of their species may live (e.g. the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park)?

--Should we grant protection to animals who we 'bring back' from near extinction or whose numbers were very low? A case at point concerns wolves who live in Yellowstone National Park are no longer be protected. What right do we have to being animals back and then allow them to be killed? Indeed, it's federal shooters who are mercilessly slaughtering the wolves left, right, and center. Some examples include 52 wolves killed in Idaho since the start of hunting season; 3 wolves killed in Idaho's southern mountains; for a gruesome review see).

--Should we allow, and even encourage, endangered (or other) species to practice their predatory skills on animals who are raised simply to become a meal so that individuals of these imperiled species might be released into the wild (where they'll have to get their own meals) where they will only have, at best, a modest chance of surviving? Is it ethically defensible to allow and encourage some animals to kill other animals "for the good of their species?"

--What role do conservation psychology and the exciting new field of conservation social work that's emerging at the University of Denver's Institute for Human-Animal Connection play in helping us to come to terms with who we are and how we should interact with other animals?

I put these questions out for you to ponder. Right-minded people will argue for different positions but it's essential that a sound argument be offered because whether we like it or not we do indeed control and take the lives of billions of other animals each and every year, and many of us think it's just fine to do whatever we want to them. We also value some animals more than others. Wolves decimated populations of coyotes in some areas of Yellowstone National Park and let's not forget the prey animals who are raised merely to be others' meals.

Let's also keep in mind that many of the animals we kill or allow to be killed are sentient beings who don't want to be treated in this way. Why this doesn't matter to many people - why we wantonly slaughter and silence sentience - needs to be brought to the table for open discussion. The good old days of massive and reprehensible slaughter by government officials and others must be stopped now. Divisions of Wildlife are Divisions of Wilddeath and we must call attention to the ways in which they express their "love" for wildlife. Remember, as the late Gretchen Wyler, Founder of the Ark Trust (now The Hollywood Office of the Humane Society of the United States) used to say: Cruelty can't stand the spotlight. And it can't.

Let's not bring animals back from near extinction and then allow them to be killed because we think there's enough of them or because they become "pests." Let's not raise animals merely to be food for others. Every indivdiual can make a positive difference in the lives of other animals so let's get out and do it now, not later when it might be more convenient. The animals are depending on our goodwill and indifference and inaction lead to continued suffering by billions of sentient (and other) individuals, much of which can be avoided. That's what the animals want.