Science-based animal-friendly poll question | Reply | Opinion

Re: Rachel Gabel’s recent columns in the Denver Gazette and Colorado Politics on three votes to ban fur sales and slaughterhouses in Denver and ban sport hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats statewide Attacking the plan.

As a PhD biologist and animal behavior expert with over 14 years of experience studying wildlife, I was disappointed to read such misguided views. These ballot measures are not only scientifically sound, but also a logical and progressive step in the right direction if we care about building a safe, humane, and sustainable future. .

Gabel’s main argument against Denver’s fur and slaughterhouse bans is that they interfere with tradition. There is no doubt that tradition has value, but it cannot justify the very real harm caused by the fur and meat processing industries. Animals raised for their fur spend their entire lives in small cages and are sometimes killed with gas, electrocuted in the anus, or skinned alive to avoid damaging their fur. This includes millions of domestic dogs and cats whose fur is sold under deceptive labels in the United States. If that’s not enough reason to ban fur, the World Health Organization has warned that fur farms pose a serious public health threat as breeding grounds for human disease. Last year, a study by infectious disease experts recommended that fur farming be phased out “to prepare for a pandemic.”

Stay informed: Sign up for Daily Opinion in your inbox, Monday through Friday.

Banning Denver slaughterhouses is an equally positive decision, regardless of whether we personally eat meat or not. Scientists have repeatedly found that a societal shift away from animal slaughter to a more plant-based food system is key to addressing the climate crisis. A 2020 study published in the respected journal Science found that “even if fossil fuel emissions were to end immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would not be sufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C. “It could be possible…Therefore, there would be major changes in the way food is distributed.” We need something produced. ”

Slaughterhouses also incur significant human costs. Slaughterhouse workers suffer high rates of physical injury and psychological trauma, and research has linked slaughterhouse work to increased violent crime.Denver’s only slaughterhouse dumps waste into the South Platte River in violation of the Clean Water Act, further damaging the Globeville area, already one of the most polluted areas in the country.

Finally, as a wildlife ecologist, I strongly support the idea of ​​banning the hunting of wild cats. Studies have shown that methods of hunting these animals, such as chasing them with hounds or trapping them, increase stress and often result in injury. Hunting females will inevitably produce orphan kittens, which are unlikely to survive. Mountain lion hunting is often justified as a means of reducing conflict with humans, but this is not supported by science. In fact, studies have shown that hunting increases the proportion of conflict-prone young animals within a population, which can exacerbate conflict. A 2020 study found that California, where mountain lion hunting has been illegal since 1972, has more problems with humans than states where mountain lion hunting is legal, despite similar mountain lion densities. There were fewer encounters and fewer livestock raids. The researchers recommended that “state agencies re-evaluate the use of sport hunting as a mountain lion management tool.”

Furthermore, although science can tell us how to achieve wildlife management goals, it cannot determine what those goals should be. It’s determined by societal values, and all voters have an equal say, not just the 6.4% of Coloradans who hunt. It is entirely legitimate for the public to decide that wildlife policy should reflect concerns for animal welfare and population viability, and to prohibit practices that objectively cause great fear and suffering to wild animals. be. Rachel Gabel’s derision of this democratic process as “biology of the ballot box” belittles voters and suggests that the interests of trophy hunters, the fur industry, and big agribusiness are more important than the interests of everyone else. You are making an incorrect assumption.

Mickey Pardo is a biologist specializing in animal behavior and applied wildlife ecology. He is a former postdoctoral fellow at Colorado State University and currently works remotely at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology while continuing to live in Colorado.