I have pretty strong opinions about these issues and welcome others’ comments, thoughts, and views A few of us have been discussing the role of the researchers in meerkat life (and in other AP programs/shows) at these threads …
The following is posted at the KMP Q&A page, in response to a question about whether the researchers tried to save Flower. In my opinion, it seems at odds with what has been posted elsewhere, that efforts were made to save Flower, and that the KMP research involves only "observational" study. To be sure, I believe the research team has a strong connection to the meerkats and care deeply about the animals' welfare (just wanted to get that out there!
A statement by Prof. Tim Clutton-Brock:
"The death of Flower has caused a number of people to write to me about our policy of intervention so I thought it was sensible to clarify the situation. The Meerkat Research Project monitors the breeding success and survival of individuals and investigates the factors that effect reproduction and survival. Obviously, our results would be valueless if we intervened to save animals that would die. We consequently make no attempt to avoid individuals being killed by predators or dying for other reasons, with the exception of animals in the later stages of TB which are euthanased to reduce the rate at which the disease spreads. It is important to remember that the meerkats we observe are wild animals not domestic animals that are within our control. Even if we wished to protect individuals against natural processes (which we don’t), we should only be able to do so to a very limited extent: we are working with 12-15 groups and, on average, are only with groups for less than 25% of their time.
Any interventions that we carry out are aimed to answer questions about the animals. We do, for example, anaesthetise individuals to fit and remove radio collars and if their collars appear to be becoming too tight we quickly check and adjust them. We also give individuals (very) small rewards of egg or water to induce them to climb onto scales so that they can be weighed; and we carry out playback experiments with recordings of their calls to investigate the effects of different vocalisations. All these interventions are necessary to answer the questions that we are investigating.
The film teams are only allowed to film on the Reserve if they agree not to interfere with the animals. We certainly would not allow the film teams to do anything that affected the animals’ welfare. They focus almost entirely on Whiskers for around five months for each series and I review the programmes after they have been edited and advise on the scripts but we do not control what the film teams shoot, how it is presented or what is said in the programmes. However, our experience is that the programmes keep very close to the actual events that occurred during the periods that the animals were being filmed. We believe that our collaboration with Oxford Scientific Films is useful and productive and that the programmes give a realistic view of the daily lives of the animals."
I found this research interesting in a lot of ways, and especially relevant to this issue!
The description of the study below suggests that the researchers provided supplemental food to a group of free-living meerkats to determine the effect of bountiful nutrition on the level of play in (young) meerkats. The book, “The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits,” by Gordon Burghardt, similarly indicates that the researchers gave the meerkats supplemental food (p. 158, see link below). I’d definitely like more information, as it seems to be (once again) direct intervention that goes well beyond observation and habituation.
My sense is that the researchers, perhaps understandably, are themselves conflicted about the extent to which they have intervened in the life of the Kalahari meerkats and thus are not comfortable broaching this issue fully with viewers. However, it leaves some of us disappointed in the inconsistency and seeming lack of candor in this area. Scientific research—-whether observational or interventional—-is very dynamic. An initial hypothesis or mission can be changed considerably, for a variety of reasons. I doubt anyone would fault the research team for modifying their approach … I know I wouldn’t.
Animal Behaviour, vol. 64, p. 113–121, 2002 Experimental provisioning increases play in free-ranging meerkats L. L. Sharpe, T. H. Clutton-Brock, P. N. M. Brotherton, E. Z. Cameron, M. I. Cherry
The sensitivity of play to variations in food availability has been cited as evidence of the costliness of play, since energetically stressed animals dispense with costly behaviours. However, the causality of the relationship between nutrition and play has not been adequately tested. Using weight gain as a measure of food intake, we documented the food consumption of free-ranging meerkat, Suricata suricatta, pups and found that long-term nutritional status (weight gain over a 6-week period) was positively correlated with rates of play. We confirmed the causality of this relationship by conducting long-term (4–8 weeks) provisioning experiments that raised the nutritional status of experimental pups, subadults and adults. Experimental animals more than doubled their rate of play compared with their nonprovisioned controls. Short-term variations in food consumption (daily weight gain) were not correlated with subsequent rates of play, and we used a short-term feeding experiment to document the transitory effects of hunger satiation. We established that an increase in available energy contributed to the increase in rates of play, rather than the animals simply having more time available to play as a result of being released from the constraints of foraging. We conclude that play in meerkats was energetically costly, and must be adaptive given that the cost of play to juveniles (in terms of future reproductive success) was potentially high.
An additional link describes the food rewards used in this study to enable the researchers to weigh the ‘kats but it does not describe the “food provisioning experiments” (link incl. a photo of some very cute meerkats! Check out that little pup staring down the camera!): http://asab.icapb.ed.ac.uk/exercises/alevel_psych/meerkat_play.html
Me personally, I am a non-interventionist. I firmly believe that outside of the "interventions" required to conduct their research, the researchers should not interfere in the life (and death) of the meerkats. For one, to do so would skew the results. Second, well...who gave us the right to determine the outcome of animals in the wild? I think we have done enough "intervening" and it's time to leave well enough alone.
Hi geniebelle! Thanks for your message. It is something of a double-edged sword in that as humans, we have disrupted so many natural habitats and ecosystems and have often introduced fauna, disease or predators that weren't there before, throwing things off balance significantly. To that end, what responsibility do humans have to the pre-existing populations?
In my own "backyard" areas that until a few years ago were wooded lands have been over-developed with little to no concern to the indigent animal populations. The new homeowners and business people are now upset that deer, beavers, and other animals that have lived in those areas for hundreds of years without human interference are doing what comes naturally--eating plants and gardens, gnawing away at trees, etc. Many of these people refuse to support or use even simple approaches to address these issues (e.g., planting certain types of gardens that deer don't like, blocking off the lower ends of tree trunks to avert beavers). And they are completely against more sophisticated efforts such as "darting" deer with contraception to keep the deer pop's in check, which I realize may be controversial ... however, many of these people say they'd rather have deer kills.
What gets me is that these folks aren't willing to accept the role that humans are playing in disrupting or eliminating natural habitats. It bothers me a lot. I guess this is somewhat, or a lot, off track but it seems to be a continuing theme where people are concerned.
Why not save the animals in the wild? There are people killing wild animals on a daily basis and now some people on here are stating that we should not save animals in the wild? I am a STRONG believer that people have the obligations to help and save the beautiful animals that make the ecosystem as precious as it should be. How you be a researcher of the meerkats and emotionally give the animals names, dye marks, etc and not expect people to become attached to them and not save them when they need it? Do you not think that a meerkat that knew it was passing away did not look into the eyes of one of the camera men, or research crew and wanted them to help them? I am positive that some of the meerkats were taking their last breaths and were staring at one of the researchers hoping they would try and save them. I do believe that the research team try to intervene in saving the animals, whether it is a big effort or not, I do believe they do something bout it. Offcourse they are going to say that they do not try to intervene in saving the lives of meerkats, they are not going to tell us that they had been helping the meerkats after letting us know that their main job there is to study and film the animals and not to intervene.
Same thing around here is happening, we are getting deer, foxes, raccoons, etc that have been living here for thousands of years still around, which I don't mind. Most of the animals are being captured and are being moved up north where it is mostly wooded, but some people are uneducated about these beautiful animals, and they try to hurt them. How can anyone believe that these animals have no right to continue to live in their habitats just because people have come in and taken it for themselves? This is a very personal issue because after college I wanna work for an organization where I can go to different countries and save/rescue any animals that I find in danger, which means I would be intervening with the animals, but that may upset some people in here because they don't believe intervening with animals is right, but in my opinion, animals should not die due to sickness or attacks from other species, just as humans should not die in the same manner. Some people in here state that the research crew should not intervene in saving the lives of Meerkats, but that's easy for them to say because if they get sick they can go to doctors and hospitals, these animals don't have those options, they can either recover on their own or die. I would not want any doctor to turn down a patient that comes to them for medicine, so why is it ok for some people to believe that it is ok for the research crew/producers not to help these animals when they see them lieing down taking their last breaths?
I understand and respect your opinion, but I have to ask this. If you don't think animals should die from attacks by other species, then what is that "other species" supposed to? Starve or die from exposure? Or do you think we should round them all up and put them in sanctuaries/reserves/zoos and be "animal cops"? Furthermore, what are humans supposed to do? Are we supposed to just die and disappear so that no animal is hunted or killed? That's not very realistic. Even at our most primitive point in history we hunted, and ran animals off of their land.
While I do not believe in deliberately hurting or killing an animal just for sport, I will never put the needs of an animal over a human life. I firmly believe that the life of any human is greater than that of an animal. I believe God gave man dominion over animals. Yes, I know, that's a religious belief, but that's the way I see it, whether the rest of the world agrees or not.
Thanks for the additional comments!! You both make good arguments, and represent the differing viewpoints of so many of us! As humans, we should be good stewards of the planet and of the earth's people and animals. While we can't always save each individual or all species, I do think we have a broad responsibility to do our best to reduce harm and do what we can in special situations. That's where I join many others, but not everyone, in arguing strongly that the MM researchers, who do intervene in the day-to-day lives of meerkats, have an ethical responsibility to save Squiggy, given the dire circumstances he was facing, that humans were present when the family left him behind, and that (sorry but this bears repeating) the researchers clearly and regularly intervene in these animals' lives.
As much as they may try to say otherwise, the researchers are not simply "observing" these groups ... I am perfectly okay with additional intervention. Others are not. And so we we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being.
I have to say I agree with Geniebelle on this one. I dont think we should intervene, except maybe in extreme conditions where mans intervention is causing extintion. To possibly save animals from dying out. I hate to think of animals just in zoos one day. In some cases, intervention is clearly nessecary. Yes, man was given dominion over the animals, but man has done a good job of killing their enviorments too. I feel a certain responsibilty to the planet and the animals. Just my personal feeling.
It is the circle of life, for animals to be eaten by other animals. That is the natural order of things.
In the case of Squiggy, they are already interening for the sake of science, so I agree they should have saved him. It would be nice to find out what they did.
Would anyone disagree that all humans should be helped from other humans to save their lives when it is in danger? Why not the same with animals? I don't believe that any human or animal should die unless of old age, or for food of another animal for their survival. If a animal dies due to another animal for food and survival of the other animal along with the cube, then that is fine, but to stand there and not help out a animal that you are video taping and watching it pass away without even lending a hand is immorally wrong. If you saw someone on the floor breathing deeply, you would call 911, why not try and help an animal that is in the same condition? The lifecycle of the world when it comes to animals is Omnivores eat plants, carnivores eat mainly omnivores, Herbivores eat plants and animals, and scavengers eat dead animals, I do not disagree with that in the manner that animals are killed by other animals for food, but in most meerkats, or any other show aired on tv, people have the responsibility to atleast attempt to save the animals, did most humans not kill off most other animals, some to extinction? Although there are a lot of animals saved and rescued by people, I believe in all types of situations like Meerkat manor, the people should save the animals. I also do believe that the research team does intervene a lot in trying to help the animals, but I have to speak out when people say that animals should not be helped by humans. By the way, don't the research team intervene with the animals when we see the pictures of the fkmp team in the Kali? Who ever does not believe that then they must be seeing different pictures then I am. the research team intervenes when they weigh the animnals, pet the animals, etc.
I do not believe that any human life is more precious then an animal! I love humans and animals of all kind, and will never want any human to die, or animal to die. I do not believe that any human should kill an animal for sport or food, unless the human society is living in a manner where they need hunting to survive, example, Eskimos and Indians. Basically what some of you are saying is that it was ok for the Tiger in the San Francisco zoo to be killed for attacking the 3 teenagers that were throwing rocks at her, jumping on her fence and yelling at her, and sticking their foot inbetween the fences posing a threat to her? I wish the 3 teenagers were smarter on what not to do with animals like Tigers, but apparently not. When you do things like that, then that triggers a attack from the Tiger in self-defense because she believes they are a physical threat to her. I wish the situation did not occur for the 3 teenagers, especially the one who was killed, but the Tiger should not have been killed for protecting herself because it is her nature, just like it is our nature, to protect herself in dangerous situations.
By the way: God created animals before he created man.
This is why I could never be a researcher. I admire and respect them, but my mind would tell me not to intervene, but my heart would not let me sit there and know an animal is dying and that I could help. They sit on a precarious fence and no matter which way they turn, there is always going to be people that disagree, all with very good reasons.
Hi Philmeerkat! Don't even get me started about that poor tiger. Firstly, anyone that torments an animal "gets what they get"...sorry, but that is how I feel. The zoo had already been warned about the enclosure not being fit for tigers, but they do nothing? Let's say no one was bothering the tiger and it just got out. And like you say, to kill the tiger...I will stop here...I think it is best to restrain myself.
Well....I do believe human life is greater than that of an animal. That may not be a popular opinion, but it's mine. Humans have just as much right to Earth's resources as any animal.
As far as the tiger being killed....if that animal is put on public display and has seriously injured or killed someone, then yes it should be humanely euthanized. But this could all have been prevented if the tiger were allowed to live (and yes die) in it's natural environment and not cagged up and put on display in some zoo simply because we are too tender-hearted to know what's best for wild animals. And that is......they belong in their natural habitat to live and die the way nature intended, not the way WE think it should be.
Hello geniebelle! I have mixed feelings about zoos, just like I do about the researchers. There is good and bad with both. I am quite disheartened about the tiger being killed. Firstly, it was not in it's native habitat, already a cause of stress (like you say, what is best for the animal), so I do agree with the "natural habitat" part of your post. The tiger was being tormented and the enclosure was not adequate and that is where I feel that the tiger was not the problem, so why kill it? That is like the elephants that run amok and are killed, it upsets me when man has intervened and it results in an animal's death. I feel the tiger should have been sedated, not killed. I will withold my comments on those that tormented the tiger, I don't want to get saturated with nasty tail bites.
I do not know who has dominion, man or animal. I just know that I am not going to approach a tiger and torment it to try to convince it that I have dominion. YIKES!!!
I have enjoyed your posts and respect your opinions. Flotosbea
Phil, You and I are definitely of one mind and I totally agree with all you've written. Secondly, as far as religion is concerned, we all have our own path to follow. My path is an alternative spirituality and we believe all creatures (regardless of how many legs) are to be treasured and honored equally (no, I am not a Buddhist although I greatly respect and admire them.) Any creature that dies a needless death truly upsets me, especially one that cannot speak for itself. Do I believe in intervention, you bet your sweet smile I do! One of the core foundations of my life is intervention with animals - I will do anything/everything I can to help an animal in need. This is one of the most positive aspects of my life - more people should try it!
There was an 8 foot fence to protect the people from the Tiger, which is not enough considering that Tigers can leap 16.5 feet, but the 3 teenagers were harrassing the Tiger and the Tiger did not do anything about it until they started throwing rocks at the Tiger. I don't know about anyone on here, but if someone throws rocks at me, then I will protect myself from them. Tigers are protective of themselves, just like all other animals and humans are, and when someone threatens them, then they use their natural born instincts to do something about it. I also believe the Tiger should have been sedated, especially when the 3 teenagers were the ones harrassing the Tiger, and not killed. It was bad judgement on the San Francisco police just like it is bad judgement, in my opinion, on the researchers that stand there while a poor meerkat is breathing its last breaths and not doing anything bout it.
Yes, that story about the tiger broke my heart and it was the fault of the teens, not the tiger. Nothing should have happened to the tiger. What should have happened was that a stronger, better barrier should have been errected to prevent humans from harassing the tigers. I also agree that an animal knows when its in trouble and can look to a human to help it - I've seen it as a volunteer with a dog rescue group. They know and they understand. I'm not faulting the research students, this is their job and learning experience and we owe them our gratitude for bringing the kats to us and for all they do. They are wonderful people and put up with conditions most would not even think of and I am positive that they love animals - our kats in particular. However, how much harm has been done to animals in the name of research?
A few of us have been discussing the role of the researchers in meerkat life (and in other AP programs/shows) at these threads …