Discussion: Re: Keiko (fwd)

Michael Williamson (pita@whale.simmons.edu)
Mon, 17 Jan 1996 16:28:20

Return-path: <pita@whale.simmons.edu>
Received: from whale.simmons.edu by VMSVAX.SIMMONS.EDU (PMDF V5.0-4 #8767)
 Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by whale.simmons.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16414; Mon,
 15 Jan 1996 18:41:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:41:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Williamson <pita@whale.simmons.edu>
Subject: Discussion: Re: Keiko (fwd)
To: WhaleNet <whalenet@VMSVAX.SIMMONS.EDU>
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960115184019.16363A@WHALE.SIMMONS.EDU>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Here are two opinions about "Free WillY."  What do YOU think?
Mike Williamson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 13:24:22 +0800
From: Mr Stephen Leatherwood <csgopcf@HK.Super.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list MARMAM <MARMAM@UVVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Keiko
Dear Anne Doncaster,
I hope you never have to face a really vitriolic attack.  As for your
definintion of what constitutes "humane" we certainly have lots of room
for debate, even without evoking some elizabethan chain of being.
You miss our point, at least mine.  To the extent that the free willy
campaign has been billed as a humanitarian gesture towards one animal, I
have no argument.  Folks can decide for themselves whether or not they
wish to spend their money in this way.  One does not stop social spending
on the arts just because there is spending on science.  But the
suggestions that this project is a "scientific" one are certainly based
on flimsy and highly debatable grounds, and arguments that it is a
conservation project are flat misleading and maybe even dead wrong!
Certainly it is that part of the Free Willy propoganda that set me off.
So, you are mistaken in your reaction.  Those of us who oppose this
particular project's representation as a boon for science or conservatin
are not necessarily insensitive clods out to attach the animal rights
movement.  Let's keep the argument where it started.
Stephen Leatherwood
> There seems to be a
common theme in the comments
from many > scientists vis-a-vis Keiko and the money "wasted" on him.
> The theme is that wildlife species are important, individuals of a
> wildlife species are not.
> In terms of humans, most people do not see the two as being
> incompatible. I think most of us would agree that to discount
> the life of an individual human, on the grounds that the individual
> was not a member of an endangered species, would be highly immoral.Is
> it that a moral hierarchy exists within the animal kingdom in which
> animal welfare applies only to humans?
> The protection of the individual animal from human abuse is the
> mandate of the animal welfare/rights movement and we receive funding
> from members of the public who share our concern.  I suspect,therefore,
> that the outrage expressed against the funding of Keiko is a general
> condemnation of the objectives of the humane movement. If so, then
> all I can say is how have we failed to reach you?
> However, leaving aside your opinion of the humane movement, if the
> bottom line is that you want money, wouldn't your time be better spent
> earning public support rather than uniting in a vitriolic attack on
> humanitarians who have succeeded in doing so?.
> Anne D.
> Anne Doncaster
> International Wildlife Coalition
> P.O. Box 461
> Port Credit Postal Station
> Mississauga, Ontario L5G 4M1
> Canada
> Tel:  (905) 274-0633
> Fax:  (905) 274-4477