The Welfare of Animals Part 3 docx

Can we expect the same of animals – would they benefit from a close

relationship with nature? Clearly they do not appear to use art to portray any

positive feelings about nature, although sometimes their constructions, such as

the nest of a bower bird, portray a sense of order and invoke a feeling of wonder

that may incline us to believe that it is art. In contrast to this, the activities of the

elephants that are persuaded to daub paint on canvases which are sold to

tourists in Asia are not art, but merely the performance of a reward-driven

behaviour. Even though they don’t usually portray their feelings through the

sort of art that we know and understand, we have reason to expect that animals

derive similar benefit from a close connection to nature. As well as us, animals

are likely to benefit from being able to identify the natural features of the

environment and return to safe places at times of danger, find food sources

more readily and obtain shelter when needed. If a latent need to be close to

nature is present in humans and animals, it is likely that both derive mental

satisfaction from a more natural environment – a need that may be partially

satisfied if the enrichment in a cage is natural rather than artificial.

There have been a few experiments designed to test this hypothesis. One such

was an attempt to discover whether rabbits, a natural grazing animal, prefer to

eat grass or whether they would be satisfied with an artificial food mix that is

commonly offered to caged rabbits (Leslie et al., 2004). The rabbits showed no

clear preference for grass, although this could be explained because the mix

could be eaten faster, and most prey animals like to consume their food as

quickly as possible so that they can retreat to safety. Other students in my group

were unable to demonstrate any benefit of, or serious interest in, natural

enrichment (foliage and tree branches) for gliders (Greer, 2006) or the scents

of favourite plants for squirrel monkeys (Carling, 2005) in a zoo environment.

In another experiment, my research group did find that cattle function more

efficiently (as in circumnavigating an obstacle faster) when their environment is

bathed in green light, compared with red or blue light (Phillips and Lomas,

2001), suggesting that the light under trees might be more attractive. However,

this could just be because this is in the middle of their visual spectrum, where

acuity would be expected to be increased. This is a limited set of experiments,

and there is much more to be done to test the hypothesis, but we can only

conclude that so far there is very little evidence on whether animals benefit from

being kept in a more natural environment.

If the hypothesis is supported, that animals do have a sense of beauty or

respect for natural things, compared with man-made, then it may well be of

benefit to the animals in zoos to provide tree branches for animals to climb,

rather than alkathene pipes, or foliage to eat rather than pelleted food. Cages

are often made to look natural for the benefit of the viewing public, who

equate it with better welfare. This could be tested and adopted if found

beneficial for animals in other intensive management situations – farmed

and laboratory animals in particular. What features of the natural environ￾ment would be beneficial to add to the environment of animals housed in

intensive environments? Should it be green, but this might not be appropriate

32 2 Mankind’s Relationship to Animals in Nature

for a desert animal, and to what extent are these enrichment forms species

specific? There are opportunities for research to determine the responses to

natural or unnatural enrichment, but the difficulties centre on how to measure

the responses. Some experts consider that it is not important that enrichment

mimics the situation in the wild (naturalism), rather that the animal can

perform similar tasks to those that it would perform in the wild (functional￾ism) (Swaisgood et al., 2003).

There are alternative hypotheses to the benefit of a sense of beauty that

man has when he is in touch with nature. In the Christian religion, followers

are encouraged to view nature as the work of God, for example in the Psalms,

which encourage reverence for God and a belief in his powers in nature.

Furthermore, if a god has instilled in man a sense of respect for nature, and

in the Christian religion at least, has ordained man to manage and look after

animals, then a sense of respect for nature, and a feeling of pleasure when we

are in contact with it and it is correctly managed, would be a significant step

towards achieving this goal. We may feel a sense of awe when we see a

magnificent mountain, but when we see nature destroyed, such as when we

come across animals killed on the road, or the mountain is transformed into

piles of waste stones or slate by open-caste mining, we feel a sense of loss or

shame. In the past many works of art were created by people supposedly

inspired by their religion, but as Dawkins has argued, this is not necessarily

evidence that a god exists, rather that the artists were following the dominant

convictions of the time (Dawkins, 2006).

If our sense of wonder at nature was simply a feeling of nostalgia, a yearning

to return to the times when man was in close contact with nature, it is unclear

what benefit would derive from such a feeling. There can be no doubt that man’s

inventions, his construction of an artificial world around him, have benefited

his survival. They have enabled him to colonise the planet in even the most

hostile of regions, to live in relative comfort, with increased longevity and

improved quality of life. And yet man still benefits mentally and to some extent

physically from close contact with nature. The close and positive relationship

with animals benefits people as much as it does the animals. The advantages of a

close relationship between animals and their owners are emphasized in books

on animal management, e.g. English et al. (1992), and they provide an altruistic

reason for improving animal welfare, which is often referred to in prose, since

people looking after animals well are themselves enriched by the experience.

Conversely people that are cruel to animals are considered outcasts by society.

For example, the poet William Blake emphasized the antisocial nature of ill￾treatment of animals:

He who shall hurt the little wren

Shall never be beloved by men

He who the Ox to wrath has movd

Shall never be by Woman lov’d

Blake, 1803

The Benefits of Naturalness 33