Turning the tide on torturing nature

The US urgently needs to devise adequate policies to prevent appalling animal cruelty and irreversible environmental damage worldwide, says Gary Simon

While the campaigns of John Kerry and George Bush failed to educate America about the neglected state of its environment, there were two stories aired on National Public Radio (NPR) in November 2004 which touched upon this subject. The first concerned the inhumane treatment of the world's sharks by Japanese fishermen. Despite the fact that these animals are threatened, they are still hunted solely for their fins. Not only are they hunted, they are tortured in the process. Unimaginable as it may seem, once the shark is taken from the water, its fins are savagely removed. Not long afterwards, and still alive, the maimed animal is thrown overboard. There it remains, with blood pouring from its sides, a helpless victim to predators as it suffers a grueling death.

The second story dealt with a ruthless Texas rancher whose income is earned through virtual hunting. On his property, and via the use of computers, men and women are permitted to bag game animals without soiling their boots. Here's how it works. First a computer locates the animal that one intends to “take.” Then a rifle is placed and positioned for that person's convenience, and wholla, with a single bullet, the stunned zebra (or whatever defenseless beast) goes down.

As disturbing as these scenes are, their stories only offer a glimpse of man's cruelty to his fellow creatures. Unfortunately, this has been our history. From Paleolithic times to Modern Man, the human race has plundered more than replenished the earth. We have cemented over the land with 4 and 6-lane highways, choked our rivers with toxins, uprooted our forests, scattered our wildlife, and over-polluted and poisoned more than is imaginable. During the last four years the Bush Administration has set the environmental clock back 30 years. We have mismanaged and put the future of our resources in greedy hands.  As a result, we are approaching an environmental crisis not only in the States, but also abroad.

Our relaxed and corrupted environmental laws, under our current administration, have given industry free reign to exploit public lands, mine our natural resources and eradicate “troublesome” animals. Our once healthy out-of-doors is choking the life out of both young and old alike and our threatened wildlife remains unprotected. We've already lost the Bali tiger, blue pike, Caribbean monk seal, dodo bird, passenger pigeon, dusky seaside sparrow and thousands more. Although many fundamentalist thinkers believe otherwise, all species and sub-species are not replaceable; nor are all resources renewable. The sad fact is our earth is failing in habitat and wildlife and it's time for the rest of us to speak on the side of Truth.

Fortunately, in some pockets at home and abroad the word is getting out. At the same time NPR was running its animal stories, an international conference was held here in the states, announcing more disheartening news. A report from its meeting found that many of the over 15,000 accounted for threatened animals and plants on the Endangered Species List will, in all probability, be extinct within a decade. 15,000 was only a conservative number. How many thousands more undiscovered, unaccounted for plants and animals are on the verge of extinction? We may never know, but what we have documented is far from encouraging. For instance, a few weeks later, at another meeting, in another city, a Global Tiger Forum announced how tiger populations have plunged from around 100,000 at the turn of the century to between 5,700 and 7,000 today.

The sad fact is we will never have a full and total picture of the incredible harm done to our animals and plants. But there is overwhelming, scientific evidence, such as increased human-animal conflict due to rising human populations, shrinkage and degradation of animal habitat and declining prey base that cannot go ignored.

As unhealthy as our natural state is, it is difficult imagining how we can turn this debacle around when state agencies, such as the Alaska Board of Game, also decided this November that it was in man's best interest to eliminate 900 wolves through aerial shootings and hunts. Gun enthusiasts and politicians believe that because of a lower number of caribou and moose in recent years,  it would be prudent to destroy the one animal solely responsible for the well-being of the herds . . . canis lupus. Of course they don't mention over-development, loss of habitat and mismanagement as possible causes. Despite the fact that wolves have kept these herds in check for centuries by preying solely upon the weak and infirm, gunslingers will most likely have their day of blood again.

While some politicians and governmental agencies have been quick to lower the boom on the environment, we still have our champions, like Al Gore, to speak on our behalf. Although he stayed  quiet on the environment during his two terms as vice-president, he has made amends since by speaking passionately on this subject at colleges and conferences. At one such gathering earlier this year he proclaimed the number one issue for the 21^st century to be global warming.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to this topic, he is in some pretty impressive company such as the 300 worldwide scientists who in November filed an Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report. This paper, which strongly supports Mr. Gore's position, also warns of an accelerating melt of the Arctic polar cap and Greenland's ice sheet due to the destructive use of fossil fuels. They also note that since Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the Earth, polar bears and other Arctic animals may not survive the effects of rising sea levels by the end of this century.

The only bright spot associated with global warming is that we still have some time to reverse its predictable outcome. This cannot be said for the disproportionate number of threatened species or their habitat. Therefore, if I can amend Mr. Gore's statement I would like to propose that the three, (and not one), major themes for the 21st century be prudent environmental management, public enlightenment and then global warming. Unless our society becomes immediately and duly informed, we will not have the proper environmental management to protect what is left. It goes without saying that global warming will be a certainty.

I don't know where it is written (or is it some silent code?) that politicians must remain mum on the environment. At some point people will expect their government to face up to some real issues. Gore Vidal essentially summed it up in his “Imperial America” by exclaiming, “We should have . . . a cleaning of the air, of the water, of the earth before we all die of the poisons set loose by a society based on greed.” That's what I was hoping for from John Kerry, a straightforward go-at-them-let-‘em-have-it approach to the environment, as he crisscrossed the country. Obviously his advisors felt his touching upon a subject so removed from the general public would spell defeat for his presidential bid. So, he took the professionals at their word and instead of delivering his own environmental message, repeated worn refrains about jobs and medical insurance coverage. This safety net may have captured a few extra votes, but in falling short on the environment he disappointed more than he pleased.

Maybe his advisers were right, though I hope not. Maybe there will never be a time when the environment receives the attention it deserves. But I am not willing to accept this notion, at least not yet. I am also aware of the opposition. It is still the thinking of far too many that nature is indestructible and that its resources are infinite. If there are more hurricanes, heavier rains and continual damaging floods, they rationalize, then it is either the natural course of nature, or maybe El Niño. Global Warming may be a factor, but that's decades away.

The fact is we have turned the face of nature around. How many wolf dens can we burn? How many tigers can we trap? How  many whales can we explode? How much and how far can we dig and drill in sensitive areas without creating environmental havoc? How lax can we be about pollutants? About regulations for emissions from nuclear power plants? How many toxins in the air are we willing to tolerate before we say enough? How many children, how many of the unborn will have asthma because the government and its people refuse to take responsibility?

As we have often heard from the right and left, “we can do better.” I also believe the public can and is willing to become more informed about the environment and the role and impact it has upon our lives. Although Kerry refused to tie our health to the water we drink and the air we breathe, more than a few would have wanted to listen. Perhaps, he might have also converted a few nay-sayers along the way.

Imagine that well-meaning but uninformed individual, watching television and hearing Kerry talk about our government's plans to disrupt the Arctic and the permanent harm it could bring this last pristine area. Might he not be moved? Might there not be some interest if he were told of the hundreds of illegal dump sites in America (more in the south and more under this administration) and that he the taxpayer will eventually be required to pick up the tab? I think he could be coaxed to listen further.

Might he not want to learn were he told that there are only 350 North Atlantic right whales left in the world? Maybe that single fact in itself won't make him an activist or energize him to save others, such as the manatees or wild mustangs or baby harp seals. But a combination of similar stories and their effects upon man and his earth might accomplish the job that is needed to begin the thinking process. And what a first step that would be!

If we are to ever secure a clean, harmonious world, responsible people must start stepping forward. The electorate is not as apathetic as one might believe, especially when circumstances affect their children's health. But before we can act we first must be educated and as one journalist for the Kansas City Star commented, “Americans need a reminder that this country is going the wrong way with elected officials' inattention to – or outright disregard of – environmental concerns.”

Once more, returning to our recent election, what might the impact have been had Kerry spouted a few words in favor of Mother Nature? What sort of response could we have expected, not just from the people, but from the press, the air waves and his opponents had he gone out on a limb and portrayed a different America from the one too many households pretend exists? What sort of outcome might we have expected had Kerry opted for the environment? What might our despoiled countryside be four years from now had he delivered a message such as this:

"Our Animal Black Market is more vigorous than it's been in previous years. Due to the minimal policing in this area, and because current U.S. policy permits the importation and exportation of once protected exotic animals, parts and organs of endangered critters pass freely through international gates. Even with the public's outcry, too many porpoises, turtles and other animals are still captured and suffocated in fishing nets, only to be thrown back into murky waters. And the list goes on­from the elimination of our rain forests, to the disappearance of our wild salmon, to the withering of our prairie dogs and hundreds of other small creatures.

"Here in the United States our older coal burning factories are given even more leeway to pollute already toxic air. Strip mining continues to clog hundreds of our rivers and mercury contamination has reached catastrophic levels. Timber companies push to log and deforest our national parks. Loud and careless snowmobilers terrorize wildlife in those very parks from which they were once prohibited while oil companies draw plans to drill in sensitive areas of the country, regardless of the threat posed to endangered wildlife."

Those were the thoughts I wanted John Kerry to bring into America's homes. Those were the sentiments I wished Al Gore had expounded upon four years ago. However, that was  the past and now we've entered a new era with a new regime more intent upon raping the land than in healing her wounds. After observing this current administration dismantle the environmental accomplishments of the last three decades, I have to ask is it our “one political party . . ., the Property Party, with two right wings, Republican and Democrat” (to again quote Vidal),  or is it us, the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil-forever quiet public, the unenlightened, who have allowed our resources to be pummeled by corporate greed and political insanity?

Yet, if they are both guilty, which obviously they are, then what about us, the environmentalists, who are supposed to be the informed, the protectors of the public domain? We've been yelling and pounding as loud as Walden's architect, Henry Thoreau, once did, if only "to wake his neighbors up." Still, as far as I can tell only a dedicated few have made it out of bed. Given the unforgivable state of our surroundings, I again have to ask the obvious question: "At what price are we willing to sacrifice ourselves and those we love?"

With the exception of native American Indians, Americans have never learned to live harmoniously with our environment. It seems we go out of our way to malign the very elements that secure our survival. Animals were on this earth long before we arrived and have much to teach us. The wolf, for instance, is an extremely social animal and along with its extended family, functions as a cohesive unit. It lives together, plays together, and hunts together. Existence is more than economy to the wolf; it is the perpetuation of its species, a living close to the land, off the land and in harmony with her elements. These are lessons for our serious review.

We spend more time conquering nature, holding "dominion" over its inhabitants, than we do exploring its functionality. How much more beneficial would it be to exist as partner and neighbor, to thrive where there are no rulers or captives – only, as Ralph Emerson would have liked, communities co-existing with Nature, Higher Thought and Understanding. Whether we admit it or not, we need the trees, grasses, vegetation and wildlife that eventually die and decompose, adding richness and nutrients to the earth. We need the natural environment for photosynthesis. We need running herds of animals to maintain and sustain nature's balance. We require the wild for our own survival – the linnet, and walrus and prairie fox so we can keep on breathing and eating and learning from nature's examples. There is something which the porpoise, bobolink and elephant can teach us. Families do matter. Animals do care for one another, capable of emotion, of mourning, of deep sorrow.

And we can hear them. Some are not that far away – if we listen closely enough. Personally, I think it's time we also opened our eyes before lumber companies put roads through our national forests; before industries level our mountains; before developers plow over migratory routes and replace them with “human improvements.” Yes, I think we'd better start listening before the last snowbird does indeed become the last.

Note: This article was first published by JUST Response on December 1 2004. Gary Simon did doctoral work at Wayne State University in the early 1970s and owns an advertising agency in New Orleans. Much of his time is spent writing and strategizing for clients although his personal passion is a commitment to a healthy environment and protection for all wildlife.

Return to top

Return to opening page