This is really cool! Love seeing tangible efforts for near-term and large-scale reduction in animal suffering. The lack of easy and cost-comparative alternatives to ARs worry me a bit, though.
I suspect the “ARs causes secondary poisoning to pets” angle would more effectively convince governments to mandate using alternatives. I don’t know if they have much power to enforce it, though.
General strategies include rodent-proofing housing and waste disposal systems; limiting access to harbourage, food and water; and introducing predators (both wild and domesticated)
Do you guys think introducing predators (presumably cats) is a welfare improvement over ARs?
Thanks so much for reading the article. I’m glad you found it interesting! I’m also concerned about the costliness of more humane alternatives, but perhaps there is some hope that some of the costs could be driven down if there was enough adoption to scale production. Some of the interventions may also be more costly in the short-term but prove less expensive than ARs in the long-term. In this case I have in mind things like rodent-proofing and deterrence.
I agree with you too that from an advocacy perspective, alternatives to ARs are more likely to gain public support by appealing to the welfare costs of ARs to non-target beings like pets, children, and wild animals that aren’t considered pests.
I don’t have a definite answer about domestic cats, unfortunately. As a cat companion, I am often disturbed by the way they slowly hunt and kill their prey, but this may still be better than dying from ARs. On a more serious note, from what I’ve read and heard, one of the complications regarding domestic cats is their impact on non-target wildlife. Some of these costs could be mitigated using bell-collars and keeping cats indoors, although especially in informal settlements this would not be easy to regulate.
This is really cool! Love seeing tangible efforts for near-term and large-scale reduction in animal suffering. The lack of easy and cost-comparative alternatives to ARs worry me a bit, though.
I suspect the “ARs causes secondary poisoning to pets” angle would more effectively convince governments to mandate using alternatives. I don’t know if they have much power to enforce it, though.
Do you guys think introducing predators (presumably cats) is a welfare improvement over ARs?
Hi Emrik,
Thanks so much for reading the article. I’m glad you found it interesting! I’m also concerned about the costliness of more humane alternatives, but perhaps there is some hope that some of the costs could be driven down if there was enough adoption to scale production. Some of the interventions may also be more costly in the short-term but prove less expensive than ARs in the long-term. In this case I have in mind things like rodent-proofing and deterrence.
I agree with you too that from an advocacy perspective, alternatives to ARs are more likely to gain public support by appealing to the welfare costs of ARs to non-target beings like pets, children, and wild animals that aren’t considered pests.
I don’t have a definite answer about domestic cats, unfortunately. As a cat companion, I am often disturbed by the way they slowly hunt and kill their prey, but this may still be better than dying from ARs. On a more serious note, from what I’ve read and heard, one of the complications regarding domestic cats is their impact on non-target wildlife. Some of these costs could be mitigated using bell-collars and keeping cats indoors, although especially in informal settlements this would not be easy to regulate.