The tourist trap: 'Loving animals to death'

A friend very kindly send me an article from the Times today: India to stop tiger tourism in attempt to prevent species extinction. I'd been looking for an article just like this when I was studying tourism and gorillas for my thesis, yet since there was nothing available of this definite caliber, I'd guess India takes the remarkable step forwards here. Gorillas are now in a trap where tourism is what pays to keep them alive, but at the same time endangers their lives when humans carry more in their luggage than they realise - for example, viruses that gorillas can't fend off. As well as this, can we consider the quality of life for all the wild and wondrous creatures we call flagship species: the gorillas, the tigers and the bears?  I can liken it to celebrities and the paparazzi, the only difference here is that celebrities have the option of hiring security guards, not going somewhere they know will be busy, or even moving to another country where they won't be permanently harassed. There's no need to cut off all interaction with these animals, but we do need much stricter regulations on tourism and I applaud India's decision. The general public could also do better by learning the methods of the wildlife photographer: know your species, never disturb its environment and leave only footprints. It's only the same as checking the web page for the Embassy of another country for its rules and regulations - walking into the Taj Mahal in a bikini it is not.

Diane Fox photography: UnNatural History

I've been looking again at the photographic works of Diane Fox. Her work is shot in natural history museums and the "UnNatural History" she speaks of seeps out from every pore of her images; slowly and eerily until you become aware that you are being confronted by your own objectification of the 'subjects' - animals. Fox uses reflections in many of her images to unsettle otherwise calm re-creations of 'natural' settings. The animals are nose-to-nose with themselves or vandalized by information boards and ghosts of other subjects in the room. The works become busy and confusing, out of line with the 'natural' scene we have come to expect. At the same time, I feel Fox captures exceptionally well the discomfort we sometimes catch a glimpse of within ourselves whilst observing caged animals in zoos - pacing up and down - or when we're looking at dead, stuffed animals in museums. We might wonder if this is the 'right' way; is it educational or is it just manufactured nature, served up cold? You can see Fox's work at Greyfriars Art Space in Kings Lynn, UK, on Saturday 10 July 2010.

Voting for animals on election day

The Institute of Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) hosted their first European conference in Liverpool yesterday with an interesting and varied programme. Jasmijn de Boo from Animals Count gave a political talk about how our UK votes affect animals. It got me thinking and since it comes at such a poignant time, I thought I'd share her research results with you. The Conservatives came off worst with a vague mention of 'promoting high welfare standards' in a 131 page manifesto. Labour went so far as to also mention 'protecting species like polar bears, seals and bluefish tuna' - seemingly an empty support for flagship species, popular with the media. The Liberal Democrats were much more considered in their manifesto, considering the bigger picture: they would 'establish an Animal Protection Commission' and state animal ownership is not a 'responsibility that should be abused'. Overall, I'd say this is a pretty disappointing expression of interest in animals from all of our main political parties. The Green Party, as you'd image, has a thorough agenda for both animals and the environment with plans to abolish live animal transport, phase out intensive farming and more. Their problem is that people wonder if they are a one-policy party. Jasmijn de Boo introduced Animals Count as a new political party, but surely concerns about their overall agenda are significantly worse. Why other living beings can't exist politically on a level playing field with humans - not as an aside, but equally, not as a spectacle, shows a widespread culture of animal abandonment in a so-called nation of animal-lovers.

Earthlings: Do we need to see this?

A documentary from 2005, I watched Earthlings this week. It's taken me a good few days to mull over just how much this footage is or isn't necessary viewing. The film covers five areas of human ownership and/or consumption of animals: Pets, Food, Clothing, Entertainment and Research. Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix with music from the most famous vegan of all, Moby, Earthlings is called 'the vegan maker' because it exposes unimaginable cruelty to animals and some of the methods used to torture living beings were news to me. It's fundamentally important that each and every one of us realises what's going on around us: how our food is produced, where our clothes come from and to understand the complexities of pet ownership. However, I'm not convinced this is the way to do it and the film only makes vegans out of people who care enough in the first place to buy or watch the documentary. I wouldn't show this film to a child-teen because it's so disturbing, but I would want them to know about its contents. I stand by the words I've already written in AnimalTheory: How long have you been a carnist? because in order to reach the 'innocent bystander', which I was myself for many years, it's more important to inform people about decisions they are making unknowingly by closing their eyes and ears to reality. Witnessing it graphically by sight for a straight hour and a half, I don't believe is so effective - it's simply upsetting, makes you feel powerless to stop it - regardless of whether or not one more vegan is made, and although the last fifteen minutes of the film are mildly aspirational, you're not given any understanding about how this can happen in the first place, why you contribute and what steps you can take to promote effective change.

Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations

I'm pleased to see another fantastic-looking conference on offer for human-animal studies, this time from the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu in Estonia. One of the key topics at the Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations conference that's of real interest to me is the "semiotic perspectives on animals in literature, art, films etc. (e.g. seeing man in animals, and the animal in men)" and I'll be submitting my undergraduate dissertation for consideration in the Call For Papers. Human-animal studies conferences seem few and far between and it's who you know, not what you know when it comes to hearing about them. I'm looking forward to an event closer to home this Thursday: Animal(s) Matter(s) in Liverpool, UK, from the Institute of Critical Animal Studies.

How long have you been a carnist?

I did a lot of research for my photography projects last year and 'Convenience Food' kicked off a gruesome journey into the exploration of food - what's in it, how it's produced, and how the choices I had been making (or not making) effect all our lives. I was horrified by what I found and I'm not talking about butchery or battery hens, albeit those things are naturally abhorrent to any compassionate person. What horrified me most was our detachment from the food we eat and our complete ignorance about the level of deceit included in the recipe. Most memorably, there was Marcus the sheep who was reared at a primary school to teach students about where their meat comes from. The Daily Mail (of course) reported outrage from parents who were upset about Marcus going to the abattoir and presumably right after they enjoyed a Sunday roast. There was Lochmuir salmon from M&S - sounds nice and wholesome, doesn't it? Except Lochmuir is just a brand name and clearly used to play on people's desire to do better and buy organic. There was so much rotten information I became sick of reading about our own greed and hypocrisy - so much so, that I haven't been able to eat meat or buy milk since. I'm not against meat-eating per se; what I really can't stomach is 'the industry' and I now hope to contribute to it as little as possible, which - as it turns out, is actually very, very difficult. If you'd like to understand more about the choices you're not necessarily making of your own free will then I highly recommend Melanie Joy's new book: Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. She gives the name 'carnism' to the "invisible belief system" in the "violent ideology" of choosing to eat meat, regardless of how it came to be edible and where only meat from certain animals and not others is acceptable. As an ex-carnist I find this debate fascinating and hope to continue to represent such questions photographically and without judgment. Although, next time I get asked how long I've been a vegetarian...

Great Apes, by Will Self

I just can't recommend this book enough. It's over a decade old now (1997), but it's no less relevant or striking: "Great Apes is a brick dropped into the stagnant pond of contemporary English prose" - New Statesman. Having just written my dissertation on gorillas and human compassion I found this book the perfect accompaniment to my final thoughts about the screwed-up world we share with other animals and great apes especially. Great Apes is filthy - disgustingly so in parts, controversial, fiercely intelligent and it made me grimace or laugh with a real sense of satisfaction. I couldn't find any way to better tell this story. Read it and reconsider your human smugness. Are we all just animals like these Great Apes? Are we great or are we gross? We need more of these stories; more questions, more change.

Stop the humans, not Save the animals

I was really pleased to see an interview with Jane Goodall from the Ecologist this week entitled 'I'm not going to fight for animal rights'. Ideally, all animals would have rights, but 'Save the animals' is no longer working and this is something I think about in my work all the time. Why? Because people are desensitized to animal abuse images and we're fatigued by pleas from do-gooders. I've spent my adult life donating to charities and volunteering time, but none of it seems to have made a jot of difference to the level of animal cruelty. I don't think it's about showing the results of our actions any more, I think it's about inspiring a fundamental shift in the way we think about animals in the first place. Dr Goodall is "fighting for human responsibility" and I agree this is the only way forward. I'll continue to use my images and words to confront tradition, tolerance and acceptance of routine animal abuse and killing; questioning our choices.