Using hamsters to save ferrets: The need for compassionate conservation

Should human beings feed golden hamsters to black-footed ferrets? This provocative question (and for some, an unanticipated query) leads to many others about how we interact with nonhuman animals (hereafter, animals). Our relationships with animals are confusing, paradoxical, frustrating, challenging, and force us to consider who we are, who "they" are, and how and why we choose to interact with them in the ways we do. When push comes to shove human interests usually trump those of other animals, as we are a selfishly dominating species.*

As a focal point for dealing with deliberations about how we interact with animals, we have chosen to use reintroduction projects, in which an attempt is made to reintroduce individuals of a given species to areas where they once thrived. These projects often involve balancing the interests or right to life of individuals of one species with those of another, and balancing the interests of individuals with concerns for the integrity of entire populations, species, or ecosystems.

A number of ethical questions arise that warrant serious consideration because we, human beings with large brains, self-centered importance, and a tendency to be thoroughly and uniquely invasive, can do anything we want to other animals and their habitats. It is inarguable that ethics must be firmly implanted in conservation biology even if these discussions move us outside of our comfort zones and even if it means that some projects must be put on hold temporarily or forever. Many conservationists are concerned about the widespread loss of critical habitat as we redecorate nature. The well-being of animals is often less emphasized. But we must remember that loss of habitat is not only an environmental matter; it also influences animals and so gains the attention of animal advocates.

Some of the questions that need to be examined by the broad-based group of people interested in conservation biology include: How do we reconcile the interests or rights of individual animals with the health or integrity of larger entities such as populations, species, and ecosystems? Can we really "recreate" or "restore" ecosystems? Should individuals be traded off for the good of their own or other species? Should individuals of a prey species be used to train the hunting skills of predatory animals who are candidates for reintroduction?

Here we focus on the last question. However, we operate on the assumption that it is difficult if not impossible to recreate or restore ecosystems to what they were in the past and we realize that reconciling the rights of individuals to exist – even if it means that species and ecosystems might go extinct – would require a much longer discussion in which many others are involved.

The question "Should individuals of a prey species be used to train the hunting skills of predatory animals who are candidates for reintroduction?" raises issues with which we are specifically concerned regarding the importance of recognizing that the lives of individual animals matter. Consider the black-footed ferret recovery program. To prepare these endangered captive-bred predators to hunt in the wild, people working in this program provide the ferrets with live black-tailed prairie dogs and golden hamsters. The hamsters are bred specifically for this purpose. Their fate is sealed, though their deaths are not easy. Surely these sentient rodents endure pain and suffering when they are sought by the ferrets, especially hamsters who encounter a poorly trained or poorly skilled hunter. And surely their fear is immense, as they are placed in enclosures with predators who are trying to kill them. One needs only to watch their defensive behavior and look into their eyes. You'll sense the same fear as you would in a terrified dog.

In email correspondence the people responsible for managing the ferret-hamster encounters stated, "In 2008 we fed out approximately 3,200 hamsters and in 2009 we fed out approximately 4,100 hamsters. They are fed out either live (70%) or dead (30%) depending on supply. Hamsters are euthanized using CO2 as approved from the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines on Euthanasia. All hamsters are produced at the Ferret Center."

So, in one recent two-year period, 7,300 hamsters were "produced" – bred to be killed – and fed to the ferrets. Of this number, about 5,100 were offered alive to these developing predators. In addition to the hamsters, in 2008 and 2009 a reported 2,466 prairie dogs were supplied to the ferret program by various sources. Sixty percent of these animals were fed alive to the ferrets.

What do you think about feeding hamsters and prairie dogs to black-footed ferrets? Did you know that this was done? Consider that the hamsters were bred solely for the purpose of being killed by the often inexperienced, fumbling ferrets. Is the use of the helpless hamsters as training bait permissible? Do their lives count less than those of the ferrets? Given that hamsters are sentient mammals who share with us the same neural structures that are important in processing emotions in the limbic system, what do you think they feel as they are fed live to the ferrets? These animals also have keen senses of smell and hearing and therefore it is likely they are aware of the suffering of other hamsters who are being killed by the ferrets. A study published in 2006 in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science showed that mice are empathic rodents who feel the pain of other mice and many other animals also display empathy.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Do People Everywhere Cheat?

Maybe We Need to Say Less About Ethics

We consider the use of hamsters and prairie dogs to be impermissible. We are not anti-black-footed ferrets, but pro-hamsters, speaking on their behalf. The project is unacceptable as long as live animals are used as bait.

What can be done to save hamsters and train ferrets? Humane alternatives such as the surrogate, inanimate models used to study the development of predatory behavior in African dwarf mongooses by the German ethologist Anne Rasa could be developed, as could inanimate models used to study anti-predatory behavior in yellow-bellied marmots by UCLA biologist Daniel Blumstein. These alternatives would not only be more humane because sentient animals would not have to be used, but also much more economical.

If humane non-animal alternatives were used to train the ferrets, other questions still need to be considered, such as why would we want to reintroduce animals such as black-footed ferret in the first place? Are they that important to the ecosystems in which they used to live or are to be reintroduced? Could the enormous amounts of money and time devoted to this project be used in more productive ways? It has been estimated that when only released surviving ferrets are considered, the cost may be as high as one million dollars per animal.

It is in the best traditions of science to ask questions about ethics. Ethical discussions can enrich us all, and we are not alone in calling for these exchanges. In September 2010 there will be a much-needed conference on Compassionate Conservation in which these and other questions will be discussed and debated. Biologists John Vucetich and Michael Nelson argue in their excellent paper titled "What are 60 warblers worth? Killing in the name of conservation" that human activities that cause intentional suffering and death in the name of conservation demand careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, such issues are rarely discussed.

We agree that open discussion on these and other questions is sorely needed. For example, why do people who get upset at the abuse of other animals permit the use of hamsters? If you had a hamster friend would you allow him or her to be used in this project? How about a dog or a cat? If you are an ethical vegetarian or vegan how do you defend the intentional breeding and killing of hamsters as meals for ferrets? Why are hamsters different from cows or pigs? (see) Some who support eating meat argue that because the animals have had a chance to have a "good life" before they are killed it is permissible to slaughter them. This line of reasoning (with which we disagree) does not apply to the hamsters.

The use of hamsters also offers an uninspiring and confusing message for children, future ambassadors for a more compassionate and peaceful planet. There are no ethical principles of which we are aware that could be offered in humane/conservation education that would allow hamsters or other animals to be used to train predators.

We realize these are difficult questions but that does not mean they should be avoided. They will not go away if we ignore them and indeed they should not be pushed aside. In his book A World of Wounds renowned ecologist Paul Ehrlich stressed that people who hold opposing opinions need to engage in open discussion with well-reasoned dissent. Positions should be questioned and criticized, not the people who hold them. Personal attacks preclude open discussion because once someone is put on the defensive fruitful exchanges are impossible at least for the moment.

We are not trying to be anti-science or "radical." Indeed, we strive for the time when asking these questions would be mainstream and the radicals would be the ones who allow such programs to persist. We also need to strive for consistency. If we find it offensive to use dogs for research or cows or pigs for food or clothes, then why is it permissible to breed hamsters solely to be killed? We fully recognize that ethics might mean the demise of some projects forever, or that they have to be put on hold until more humane alternatives are developed, something that could be done in the ferret recovery program.

It is individuals who count when we consider how we treat other animals. It is individuals – not species – who personally feel pain and suffer. Animals aren't mere resources or property. We must respect their dignity and their lives. We suggest that the guiding principles for conservation projects and all of our interactions with animals should be: (1) do no intentional harm, (2) respect all life, (3) treat all individuals with compassion, and (4) tread lightly when stepping into the lives of other animals.

These principles form the foundation of a global moral imperative to expand our compassion footprint to which we all should aspire. We can rewild our hearts, build corridors of compassion and coexistence, and all animals, including ourselves, will benefit. We do not own the world and when we ignore this fact it is to our peril and loss. We suffer the indignities we impose on other beings. If we are not part of the solution we contribute to the problems.

The harm done to hamsters violates the above principles because it constitutes premeditated and intentional harm. Therefore, it is unacceptable. While we are concerned with the fate of populations, species, and ecosystems, we argue that humane and ethical alternatives must be developed if projects in which animals are intentionally harmed are to continue. We look forward to further discussions with others who share our interests, including those who hold other views.

*This essay was co-wrtten with David Crawford, Animal Watch Colorado; http://awcolo.org