Carl Safina

This argument: that rational beings must be considered ends in themselves, was the lifeblood of the movements of the 1970s that sought to bring oppressed groups under the umbrella of equal moral consideration. These prolonged and often violent debates revolved around demands for equality through which oppressed groups could attain their liberation. As such it is not surprising that the movement for animal liberation stems from these concerns. In fact, they are explicitly allied with them. Peter Singer’s seminal text Animal liberation is deliberately called so to evoke memories of the fortitude and determination of these earlier movements for human liberation. Singer emphasises rationality and self-consciousness of some animals as evidence

Wolves have always been a symbol of the wild, free in spirit and roamers of the land. These animals are considered majestic and protectors of the wilderness. They have always roamed the western United States, although their population has fluctuated over time. Over the past 10 years wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park has been a controversial topic to those of the United States. As of 1995, wolves have been reintroduced into the park. This has come with some strong opposition and yet has prevailed. The future of the wolf in Yellowstone park is now looking bright, although not certain since there still are those who want them banished again.

For centuries, wolves have been regarded as the enemy. Whether from fairy tales like the three little pigs, to little red riding hood, people constantly loathe them. Why is this? You see, it is human nature to look for a common enemy. Unfortunately, wolves are seen as that enemy. Nevertheless, despite the negative images in the media and mass wolf culls, they keep on persisting. By killing wolves, we are damaging our environment and disrupting the natural cohesion that has been established between wolves and lower members of the food chain. Wolves are believed to be responsible for the majority of cattle losses, but this simply is not based on scientific evidence. One species of wolf, the Red wolf, is actually so endangered that less than

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service are considering removing the gray wolf from the endangered species list once Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have enough wolves to be deemed sufficient to continue to expand the wolf population, requiring only that each of these three states have a management plan in effect to prevent the gray wolf from becoming endangered again. With the current attitude of the governments in these states, the wolf should not lose their federal support under the Endangered Species Act as it would merely serve to cause the wolves to become endangered once again, or at best, held to the absolute minimum population that the states can pass off as “viable, self-sustaining populations”

In human history, several oppressed human groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly and have consideration. This means that when an issue concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value. This equality should not be determined by that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical stren¬¬gth of their bodies. Peter Singer brings up a similar idea in his essay: “All Animals Are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when an issue concerns them (Singer, quoted in Williston, p. 29-36). Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have

Throughout his article, Schmitz emphasizes the fact that, “the idea of ranking things, even as equals, is a child's game.” Schmitz points out that each species has different valuable talents and abilities, so it is pointless to rank such qualities. That being said, Schmitz argues that humans have more of these valuable qualities than nonhuman animals, therefore, the two cannot be considered equals anyway. He criticizes Singer’s argument that because some animals are more intelligent than some humans, that all humans are equal to all animals with the argument that a small minority of more-intelligent animals should not entitle all animals to the same rights and considerations as humans. That being said, Schmitz’s argument that human abilities are superior to animals’ does not seems to counter his statements that all species have unique capacities that cannot be ranked.

In Peter Singer’s All Animals are Equal, he presents an argument for equal consideration for members of nonhuman species, otherwise known as animals. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s argument does not prove that animals are deserving of equal consideration because it contains a premise that is not obviously true. The premise I believe to be inadequately supported is the premise that there is no property that all human sentient creatures have that not all sentient creatures have that would explain why the interests of human sentient creatures ought to be given equal consideration even though it is not true that the interests of all sentient creatures ought to be given equal consideration.

LIKE some people who might rather not admit it, wolves faced with a scarcity of potential sexual partners are not beneath lowering their standards. It was desperation of this sort, biologists reckon, that led dwindling wolf populations in southern Ontario to begin, a century or two ago, breeding widely with dogs and coyotes. The clearance of forests for farming, together with the deliberate persecution which wolves often suffer at the hand of man, had made life tough for the species. That same forest clearance, though, both permitted coyotes to spread from their prairie homeland into areas hitherto exclusively lupine, and brought the dogs that accompanied the farmers into the mix.

Summary: The featured story for this issue is "Wolf Hero: How these canines helped save a park" which tells about how the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf to Yellowstone National Park brought back other species that had been suffering without the wolves to keep the elk population from overrunning the park. The magazine includes other small articles of interest, large info graphics, and photos of wildlife, landscapes, puzzles, and games.

Public opinion towards wolves is by no means positive in many parts of Washington state. There are a lot of people who are fearful that the wolves will attack them or their pets while they are out hiking or even just in their own yard. However, the largest concern that many people in Eastern Washington have towards wolves the is that they will drastically reduce the amount of big game and that this will affect hunting practices. This concern is surprisingly undiscussed in papers addressed to public, despite the fact that wolves have been shown to not largely affect game and hunting. This information needs to be distributed more to show other the true effects that wolves have on our big game.

In this course, I discovered many new things and expanded my knowledge as I learned about animal emotions, their representation in the media, their moral status and more. When reflecting back over the wide array of topics covered in the course, there were two areas that resonated strongly for me and made me reconsider my own views. The first was the discussion of the hierarchy of animal rankings and how that affects their treatment. The second was the exploration of the capacity animals have to feel emotions and their anatomical similarities to humans. In the following paragraphs I will reflect on these two areas of the course, current opinions related the each area and why they had such a profound impact on me.

I started to read my second book about wolves called Face to Face With Wolves by Jim and Judy Brandenburg on the 28. In the early 1970s, there were fewer than 1000 gray and red wolves (Brandenburg 21). “Some estimates show more than 5000 wolves in the lower 48 states, include 3000 in Minnesota, and 6000-7000 in Alaska (Brandenburg 21). There were about 15000 wolves worldwide in 57 different countries (Brandenburg 22). There are many studies of wolves happening now but one of the longest study is a wolf-and-prey relationship that is happening at Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior (Brandenburg 22). They have been studying wolves and moose for 50 years (Brandenburg 22). Ranchers oppose of reintroducing wolves and threatened to shoot them

"Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened." (Anatole France) Animals are an important aspect of human life. Whether it be for food or for companionship, animals have been a part of human society since the beginnings of civilization. They connect us to nature in both physical and spiritual aspects of life, and their actions influence the actions of humans. Although they seem mindless, animals in literature are important for strengthening one’s morality because of what they symbolize.

It is obvious that primary predators such as wolves are tigers are important to having a well-balanced ecosystem. However, there will always be controversy because there will be ranchers and other groups who find problems with carnivore conservation and reintroduction. Research has proven they are significant to restoration of the ecosystem and their presence is good for the environment. The widely-debated issue of bringing back carnivores such as wolves to their former home ranges should be taken seriously and both sides will need to come together to find common ground that can benefit both predators and mankind.

They are our closest evolutionary cousins. They wear our clothes and star in our TV shows. Yet, they are treated cruelly in the poaching industry and research facilities. They have been observed meeting most of the criteria for what we define as ‘human’, yet their habitats and wellbeing are being intruded everyday. The belief that all humans have ascribed natural rights that can not be infringed upon by a system of government is a fairly new concept, becoming predominant in the 20th century. However, religious scriptures have made mention of these concepts as early as 5 thousand years ago. It is apparent that though concrete natural rights for persons may be a recent idea in society, civilizations have been attempting to define the rights of personhood for millennia. I use the language ‘persons’, intentionally, to exhibit the contrast between this and ‘human’. Though the two words have become almost synonymous in modern day language, personhood is not exclusively defined by humanity by definition. We simply have not observed any species that we have unanimously considered worthy of this title. This brings in a moral dilemma, as people wonder what species, if any, should be ascribed personhood along with its rights, and to what extent. I propose that a potential candidate, that will kickstart conversation about the rights of all animals, is the Chimpanzee. A major justification for this is their genetic and behavioral similarity to that of a person. Exhibiting a