Friday, May 28th, 2021

Animal Resistance! Animal Agency and the Paradox of Capture and Control

Erica von Essen, Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University

Michael Allen, Professor, East Tennessee State University

In a recent iteration of research into animal agency, multiple fields of study now consider empirically and conceptually the ways in which animals subvert orders, actions and representations imposed on them (Colling 2020). Notions of ‘nature strikes back’, trickster wild life, and rebel animals escaping from the slaughterhouse all powerfully engage anthropologists, wildlife managers, sociologists, cognitive ethologists and above all the public. In the following paper, we examine how animal resistance is manifested in the modern sport hunting context—a perhaps unlikely case given ostensive power imbalances. Indeed, first, the seeming absence of mutual consent in interspecies sports like hunting make it difficult to suggest wild animals may be ‘playing the game’ to the extent they resort to counter-deceptions to fool and misdirect hunters (von Essen, et al. 2020).

Nevertheless, we show how there are several resistant modalities on the part of wildlife in modern hunting: one of these is a species-level adaptation to capture including camouflage; another is the use of individual wiles to deflect or deceive hunters or their dogs in response to chase; and a third modality, we suggest, is how the technology of wildlife surveillance employed by hunters (trail cams, gps-trackers, and more) can be rendered by animals to tell their own stories, thus resisting subjectification (Verma, et al. 2016). To this end, we show how resistance and emancipation of wild animals becomes an affordance of technology that was originally paradoxically aimed to capture and control wild animals. We conclude by discussing key questions around intentionality around animal agency and ideas of consent in game-playing.

Keywords: hunting; resistance; technology; trickster; wildlife

Works cited:

Colling, S. 2020 Animal Resistance in the Global Capitalist Era: The Animal Turn: Michigan State University Press.

Verma, A., van der Wal, R. and Fischer, A. 2016 'Imagining wildlife: New technologies and animal censuses, maps and museums', Geoforum 75: 75-86.

von Essen, E., Allen, M. and Tickle, L. 2020 'Game of Drones: On the Moral Significance of Deception in Modern Sport Hunting', Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence 4(2): 137-157.

Title: Morality Lessons and Ethical Frameworks through Anthropomorphic Woodland Creatures in Late 19th Century Germany

Author’s name: Hurley, Alec

Institutional affiliation: The University of Texas at Austin

Keywords: Woodlands, Fables, Physical Culture, Morality

Abstract:

Writing under the pseudonym ‘the Frog,’ the lead humor-columnist at the most widely-read sporting newspaper in Germany in the 1890s presented a unique lens into the daily impact of modern sport in the 1890s. Taking the form of morality tales, drawn in part from the legacy of the masterful German poets and authors of the eighteenth century, the woodland creatures of the Athlete-Humor column in the Internationale Illustrirte Athleten Zeitung addressed pressing ethical concerns and dilemmas in the era of increasing formalization of sport. Through a variety of illustrations, serials, and anecdotes, the menagerie portrayed the formative ideals of nineteenth century sport – fairness, personal accountability, and honor through achievement.

The Frog character itself would become a defining moniker of the German strength movement. Found on postcards, steins, and promotional material throughout Germany into the early twentieth century, the image represented all that was ethically proper about sport. Lessons on perseverance, deference to expertise, and the underlying admiration and respect for the natural environment became signature and enduring elements of German physical culture. An analysis of the fables starring ‘The Frog,’ alongside his woodland companions, competitors, and judges offers compelling insight into the morals and ethics of an idealized sporting community.

Key citations:

Der Frosch, ‚Gruß!‘ Internationale Illustrirte Athleten Zeitung, 7 January 1894.

Sport: spitz und spöttisch! 70 Karikaturen über Turnen, Sport und Spiel aus 175 Jahren (Sportmuseum Berlin, 1993).

“Die fable vom starken Frosch,“ Internationale Illustrirte Athleten Zeitung, 7 January 1894.

Title:

Can Extreme Sport Be Valuable for Nonhuman Animals?

Authors:

Eric Gilbertson (Texas State University) and Bob Fischer (Texas State University)

Keywords:

extreme sport, dogsledding, animals

Abstract:

Based on the way sled dogs are trained, the conditions in which they’re kept, and the grueling nature of competitions, PETA opposes dogsled racing. In one of PETA’s calls for its abolition, the organization argued that the Iditarod’s CEO should replace dogs with willing human endurance athletes. Although we don’t want to defend the current model of dogsled racing, we submit that the parallel between these dogs and human endurance athletes raises an interesting question. Consider theories about the good of human physical excellence as cultivated in endurance sports: to what degree can they be extended to nonhuman animals? Drawing on the work of Russell (2005) and Hochstetler and Hopsicker (2012), we argue that if there is indeed great value in participating in extreme and dangerous sport because of the opportunities it offers for self-affirmation and self-realization, then animals can—at least to some degree—realize that value too. In principle, then, it’s possible to maintain that dogsled racing could contribute to dogs’ flourishing without endorsing an objective list theory of wellbeing, as such theories have been sharply criticized in the recent literature. What’s more, this is compatible with maintaining that dogs generally don’t flourish given the actual nature of these events, and that any value that might be realized isn’t sufficient to justify dogsled racing all things considered. We conclude with some tentative suggestions for reforming dogsled racing in ways that would make it less objectionable.

Key Citations:

Hochstetler, Douglas and Peter Matthew Hopsicker. 2012. “The Heights of Humanity: Endurance Sport and the Strenuous Mood.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 39 (1):117-135.

Russell, J.S. 2005. “The Value of Dangerous Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 32 (1):1-19.

Longer Drives: Golf Technology, Course Expansion, and the Impact on Wildlife

Adam G. Pfleegor, Ph.D.

Belmont University – Nashville, TN, USA

Keywords: golf; sustainability; technology; wildlife management

Abstract

In February 2021, The United States Golf Association (USGA) and Royal and Ancient (R&A) released a Distance Insights Report examining the impact better club and ball technology has on driving distance and the game of golf. While the advances in technology such as ball dimple pattern, driver length, and springlike effect of driver face have important consequences concerning how the game of golf is played, there are additional impacts on sustainability and wildlife management that must be addressed. Rather than reign in the limits of equipment technology by manufacturers (e.g., Titleist, Ping), governing bodies have relied on changes to course architecture and the expansion of footprints. Namely, increased land movement, deforestation, and land use. Notably, courses built since 1990 average 64 acres more in footprint than those built in previous generations. These changes have lasting environmental and wildlife impacts. In this proposed presentation I will examine how golf ball and club technology has expedited the nefarious impacts on wildlife posed by golf course design and construction. Further, using specific cases advanced by Audubon International focused on the preservation of monarch butterflies and relocation and protection of raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, kestrels), the presentation will aim to present an understanding of best practices with regards to conservation initiatives. While the impact on wildlife from golf courses has been a decades old problem, the topic is more poignant than ever with the substantial increase in rounds played over the course of the 2020 and 2021 coronavirus pandemic.

Key References

Audubon International (n.d.). ACSP for Golf. Retrieved from: https://audoboninternational.org/acsp-for-golf/.

Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2009). The role of golf courses in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Ecosystems, 12, 191-206.

Dodson, R. G. (2000). Managing wildlife habitat on golf courses. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.

United States Golf Association. (2021, Feburary 2). Distance insights. Retrieved from: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2021/02/distance-golf-equipment-research-topics-areas-interest-usga-randa.html.

Wheeler, K. & Nauright, J. (2006). A global perspective on the environmental impact of golf. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 9(3), 427-443.

The Environmental Impact of Off-road driving

Elavia, Dilshad

UNB-Saint John

Jan. 26, 2021

Abstract

Off-road driving (ORD) with ATV’s, dirt bikes, four-wheelers is, one of the most environmentally harmful recreational activities. The individuals that enjoy driving these off-road vehicles are unaware to the environmental impacts that they create when they drive in the beaches, forests, or trails, ORD has caused huge disturbance in diversity and species richness. Furthermore, the use of off-road vehicles for recreational purposes has caused increased sediment erosion, which can cause damage to marine life specifically coral reef (Ramos-Scharron, 2020). Moreover, places like beaches provide a transition zone for marine and terrestrial environment to exchange physical interactions of sediments and water movement to change beach structure (Davies et al, 2016). If the ground in beaches or forests are disturbed this can cause damage to species richness, thus causing a disturbance in the ground structure. Lastly, It is also important to understand the psychology of these individuals and what motivates them to go out and drive, instead of doing other non-environmental harming recreational activities.

Keywords: Off-road driving (ORD), erosion, species richness, sediment, recreation, psychology

Reference

Davies, R., Speldewinde, P. C., & Stewart, B. A. (2016). Low level off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic negatively impacts macroinvertebrate assemblages at sandy beaches in south-western Australia. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24899

Petch, N., Maguire, G. S., Schlacher, T. A., & Weston, M. A. (2018). Motivations and behavior of off-road drivers on sandy beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management, 163, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.021

Ramos-Scharrón, C. E. (2021). Impacts of off-road vehicle tracks on runoff, erosion and sediment delivery – A combined field and modeling approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, 136, 104957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104957

Professor Carney Anne Nasser (Animal Rights Expert and Member, Sports Lawyers Association)

Title: Foul Ballin’: How Some Professional Athletes and Sports Franchises are Furthering Wildlife Trafficking and Placing Benches and Locker Rooms at Risk

Key Words: tigers, big cats, endangered species, roadside zoos, wildlife trafficking, player contracts, off-field conduct, conduct detrimental

This article examines the dangerous trend among professional athletes in having hands-on interactions with apex predators like tigers, and explores the resultant—but apparently unaddressed—violations of player contracts and league rules as well as the role that these interactions play in furthering illegal trafficking in endangered species. Through specific examples involving players from each of the four major professional sports leagues in the U.S.,1 it provides shocking demonstration of the apparently growing popularity among professional athletes of visiting unsafe, unsanitary, menageries (including roadside zoos featured in the Netflix reality show, Tiger King) for selfies and play sessions with dangerous wild animals— including juvenile and adult lions, tigers, and cheetahs—that pose not only a substantial risk of personal injury, but risks contracting highly contagious infections like Covid 19, ringworm and 2 a number of other zoonotic infections (e.g., E. coli, Cryptosporidium, salmonella) that teams likely wouldn’t want in their locker rooms—particularly during a global pandemic. It specifies how these encounters violate league rules, player policies, and further illegal wildlife 3 4 trafficking 5. By explaining defects in federal laws governing animal welfare and wildlife 5 trafficking, and through the author’s first-hand knowledge as one of the attorneys who put together the wildlife trafficking case against Joe Exotic, the article finally explains why teams and commissioners should care, and what steps they can and should take to end this conduct.

1. See, e.g., MLB’s Trevor Gott photographed with a juvenile lion who was over the legal age for pubic 1 contact at the time, Instagram @trevor_gott (Aug. 12, 2019), available at https://www.instagram.com/p/ B1FZsNGAEAg/.

2. U.S. Dep’t of Agric, Statement on the Confirmation of a Tiger with Covid-19 in New York, (Apr. 5, 2 2020); available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2020/ny-zoo-covid- 19

3. See, e.g., Section XVI of the 2019 MLB Rules, which states, in pertinent part, that all MLB players shall 3 refrain from “any… activity involving a substantial risk of personal injury.”

4. See, e.g., NFL Personal Conduct Policy, available at https://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/ 42017/08/11/0ap3000000828506.pdf.

5. Sharon Guynup, Captive Tigers in the U.S. Outnumber Those in the Wild. It’s a Problem., National 5 Geographic (Dec. 2019); available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/11/tigers-in-the-unitedstates-outnumber-those-in-the-wild-feature/? fbclid=IwAR1GlQrA24zop96DchdSUF35tLKUPO4gnVCkrnQCk3MyH7qLtFwl0geNjGk.

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

Human-Free Habitat Association

mjvande@pacbell.net

Trail-Building: Habitat Destruction by a Different Name

Scientists are generally honest, in what they say – but not in what they choose to study. Despite a diligent search in one of the world's best libraries (the University of California, Berkeley), I wasn't able to find a single book or article on the harm done by trail-building. I notice that whenever I see a picture of a trail, I think "Oh, a trail – so what?" It takes an effort of will to think about the wildlife habitat that was destroyed in order to build the trail. And the habitat destruction isn't restricted to the trail bed. As Ed Grumbine pointed out in Ghost Bears, a grizzly can hear a human from a mile away, and smell one from five miles away. And grizzlies are probably not unique in that. In other words, animals within five miles of a trail are inhibited from full use of their habitat. That is habitat destruction! If there were no trails, we would be confronted by our own destructiveness every time we entered a park. It is only because the habitat has already been destroyed for us, that we can pretend that we are doing no harm. That leaves only one option compatible with wildlife conservation: minimizing the construction, extent, and use of trails.

Keywords: habitat destruction, mountain biking, trails

References:

Dawson, Chad P. and John C. Hendee, Wilderness Management Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 2009.

Forman, Richard T.T., Daniel Sperling, John A. Bissonette, Anthony P. Clevenger, Carol D. Cutshall, Virginia H. Dale, Lenore Fahrig, Robert L. France, Charles R. Goldman, Kevin Heanue, Julia Jones, Frederick Swanson, Thomas Turrentine, and Thomas C. Winter, Road Ecology. Island Press, 2002.

Hilty, Jody A., Annika T. H. Keeley, William Z. Lidicker Jr., and Adina M. Merenlender, Corridor Ecology - Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Adaptation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2019.

Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!

In 6 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area off limits to humans -- an area which we deliberately choose not to enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested by humans. Yet, our observations and intuition about wildlife suggest that most want and need such seclusion in order to survive. Recent research confirms this: even recreation traditionally considered harmless is actually detrimental to wildlife. Restoring true wilderness will require rethinking and redesigning all land uses and wildlife management regimes, as well as changing how we relate to wildlife.

Vandeman, Michael, Ph.D.

Keywords: wildlife,habitat,wilderness

References:

Gross, Liza, "How Fear of Humans Can Ripple Through Food Webs and Reshape Landscapes", http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-fear-humans-can-ripple-through-food-webs-reshape-landscapes-180963987/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=socialmedia

Reed, Sarah E. and Adina M. Merenlender, "Quiet, Nonconsumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness". Conservation Letters, 2008, 1–9.

Weiner, Douglas R., A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.