I'm reposting this from the 'why not just intervene' thread--Thanks, Lexie

Platform please!

First, anyone who says or thinks the researchers and others don't intervene and/or interfere with these animals' lives is flat-out kidding themselves. If all you saw was the 30-minute "Making of MM" or even one of the short video researcher responses, you can see how clearly humans have intervened and continue to do so. That's on a more general level.

More specifically, despite official statements to the contrary, the researchers have admitted to intervening to try to save Flower's life (very sadly, they were too late) and to euthanize animals suspected to have TB (again, sadly, there is no vaccine available for meerkats, and treatment is lengthy and probably unrealistic, but either are clear interventions).

And I return to the "feeding study" conducted by the researchers and published in a scientific journal (described at the top of this thread). In this study, the researchers gave some free-roaming meerkets additional food to study play activity. THIS IS CLEAR INTERFERENCE. HOW DID THIS INTERVENTION AFFECT THE MEERKATS OVER TIME? Did this additional food give the animals an advantage over the non-fed groups (e.g., more robust health)? Did it give them an unfair advantage, say, by making them less likely to forage compared to the non-fed groups?

If the researchers were truly simply observing the meerkats, they would have designed a study (1) comparing groups living in areas with lots of food and water with groups in areas with considerably less food, or (2) comparing activities in animals during bountiful seasons of the year versus seasons in which food is scarce.

These are just a few examples of human intervention on the manor. That the researchers, producers, etc., can't or won't admit their involvement is a pretty significant shortcoming on their part, in my opinion.

What I can't figure out is the inconsistent decision making regarding when and with which animals they choose to intervene.

I would never take away an animals natural instincts and right for them to thrive by catching and eating their prey. That is what comes natural to them. I don't want to see it though. I don't want to see any animal in pain. That said, intervening to save an animal in distress is a different thing. What would've taken to have scooped up Squiggy who probably wouldn't have survived long considering his handicapp and taken him to sanctuary or zoo where he could've lived a happy life? There is intervention by them being there. They are not filming from a far, they have meerkats climbing all over them for crying out loud. They feed them egg and water to weigh them. If they are not intervening, then film from a distance and don't go near them.

Animals are precious and just because they don't speak does not mean they don't feel. We are superior because of this? Sometimes I think not. We have hunted and killed these precious animals who just want to live. We don't go hunt people because of overcrowding do we?? Well everyone has their own opinion, personally I like animals more then I like most people! It is just hypocritical to me for someone to say they would save a cat or dog but not an animal in the wild. Why? Or are these the same people that couldn't bare to stop or swerve their car to avoid hitting a defenseless squirrel or possum crossing the road????

I'm just going to put my two cents in.

I'm a non-interventionalist for the most part. I, like Geniebell, believe that God created the earth, humans, animals, and everything else. I also think that humans have dominion over animals,not not to say that humans have the right to abuse animals.

I think that the researchers should not intervene. But there is 1 exception: in perdicaments like Squiggy's, where there's no chance of the family coming back to save him and he would not make a substantial meal for a predator, it would do no harm to scoop him up and send him off to a zoo someplace. Other than that, they shouldn't intervene. With endangered animals, intervention is fine with me.

That's my opinion.

lexie_kat: I am reposting also from 'why not just intervene' thread...

When a person goes out and hunts and kills an animal is that intervening? I should think so. That is why some animals are on the endangered species list. Geniebelle would you help out a sick or dying wild animal on an endangered species list if you came across it and could save it from dying? I know I would and even if it was not endangered I was always taught that all life should be saved if possible.

If the researchers are coming across a Meerkat that has TB we have been told that they remove this animal and put it down as to not spread the TB. This is intervening and I know that this has to be done. If the TB epidemic continues and gets out of control then all Meerkats could be placed on the endangered species list. Geniebelle..would you help out a Meerkat that is ill or dying and try to save it if you were there with it? I know I would even if it was not on the list. It is quite easy to come on this forum and say what you would not do and what people should not do to intervene, but to come face to face with a wild animal who is dying and you have the means to help it? I think if you have a heart you should help...no doubt about it.

I wanted also to add that man has been intervening for many many years by hunting and killing animals and taking away their land. But it is not ok to help a sick and/or dying animal if we can? I do not understand the logic here.

RDWhiskers:
To say they should help Squiggy and not others is contradicting but I appreciate your post and the way you said it.

I just thin that you should only intervene with the meerkats when it will have no impact on the environment. If Squiggy was saved it would not have impacted anyhting.

Philmeerkat: I disagree that we should save every animal. That would have bad consequences. Saving some animals is fine, but saving all animals wouldd have bad side affects.

I totally disagree, RDW. Why should only some of them be saved, but not all of them? I cried to see Len and Squiggy, and yes, Squiggy could easily have been pocketed and taken to a rescue site. That is exactly what I would have done. If humans are going to interfere even slightly, then we need to do it all the way. Somewhere on here, someone claimed that the researchers tried to help Flower, but why only her? Do none of the other kats have value because they weren't DF?

I tried to edit my post, but of course was not allowed to do so. This is what I wanted to add:

If they tried to help Flower, (which I am not sure I believe), then why only her? If they're going to try to help one of the kats, then they need to help all of the kats. Just being there is interfering, so they need to make a decision, either film from a distance and have no physical contact with the kats, or provide the help that they need when they need it.

Exactly what I said, not sure if in this thread or another, Lunar, if you don't want to intervene, film from a far and do not ever go near and walk amongst the meerkats. I have seen many documentaries where wild animals were filmed from a far even attacking and killing their prey. I highly doubt them film crews were standing amongst a pride of lions, feeding them egg and water to weigh them, letting them stand on their equipment or heads for that matter. That is not interaction, I can see why they don't interfere. But to be so close to them, walk with them, touch them, etc. how could you not pick one up or treat one if in need.

I do not doubt the researchers feel for the meerkats and love what they are doing, but I feel to be completely non-interventional, you have to go nowhere near the animals.

I agree with you 100%!! Because humans have evolved further than the animals, we have a responsibilty to care for every animal that we come across, whether cat or kat or cow, most especially in situations where humans are interfering with the natural order of things anyway.

I don't think that is the case at all, luvalltheanimals.

Habituating the meerkats does not change their daily lives at all. The researchers feed the meerkats extremely small quantities of egg, and giving them water doesn't change anything, either.

lunar_kat:

I do respect your opinion completely. But please keep in mind this is a research project. If they saved every one of the meerkats, it would be a zoo instead of a research project. my point was that sending abandoned pups to a zoo would not affect their research or the predators in the KRR.

quote:

sending abandoned pups to a zoo would not affect their research or the predators in the KRR.

That's where you're wrong. There are other animals in the Kalahari that prey on meerkats...birds of prey, snakes, and jackals just to to name a few. Why take food away from those animals?

No, you are wrong and I disagree with you. It would not affect their research.... I do agree that abandoned/sick animals should be taken to a zoo or a place like F.E. I totally agree with this and I stand firmly on this. I think there should be more places just like this for animals to live out their lives instead of being left to the desert or to die.

You really need to take your cause to people who are poachers and kill animals and take
the animals land away from them. These people are disrupting the food change when they do this. They are disturbing nature and how it is suppose to be now aren't they?

It wouldn't affect the research, yes, but it is still taking food away from other animals.

For the record, I never said I was for poaching. The hunting of animals for no other purpose than stuffing it and putting it on a wall or on display is wrong.

So now answer these questions:

1) What is going to happen when these zoo and sanctuaries are filled to capacity? How long do you think it will be before these facilities start resembling something from an episode of Animal Cops?

2) What are you going to do about the un-natural increases and decreases in animal populations? Put them in a facility as well?

3) Who is going to pay for all of this? Donations will only get you so far, and will not cover anything to the extent that you would like to see.

quote:

Originally posted by geniebelle:
That's where you're wrong. There are other animals in the Kalahari that prey on meerkats...birds of prey, snakes, and jackals just to to name a few. Why take food away from those animals?

Ahem, I said in one ofmy previous posts that an abandoned meerkat pup would not make a substantial meal for a predator. And if the animal is sick, do we really want to let a scavenger catch the sickness? I certainly wouldn't.

So geniebell, I have a question.

One month ago we found a finch in our garage. He would clearly die if we didn't save him; so we saved him. We took him out side and placed him in a bush. Now there was no chance of a predator getting into our garage. Would you help that defenseless finch in that situation?

I am not talking about all the animals. Read my post...you seem to read what you want to read.

Rescuing an animal does not mean caging it. Most rescues return them to the wild.
Who determines what is a natural increase or decrease? Scientists? Rescuing animals has never affected the population. Man has i.e.wolves in Yellowstone.

We all pay for it when nature is destroyed by man's intervention i.e. pollution, DDT in pelican and eagle eggs off the coast of california, poaching, removing bear gall bladders and rhino horn for man's own pleasures. This is profitable for everyone but for the animals so maybe we need to pay nature back for all that we have done. Look at the percentage of money given to animal causes compared to how much money we waste on driving cars, gasoline, etc......

We are one planet, man, animals, plants, iinsects...all co-dependent on each other to survive.

RDW, you don't agree with my post about if they dont' want to intervene then they should film from a far, that is ok but having any interaction is giving cause for this discussion. Habituating the meerkats may not change their daily life but when the researchers step in and intervene at times and don't at others is what makes no sense. When your touching the meerkats, walking with them, letting the crawl on you, stand on your head, feeding them even small amounts of egg, you are going into their world. It may not change things to them but if you just want them to live and not intervene then don't go near them and film them as if you were filming a docu on tigers. I bet they wouldn't go near them. My gosh, they are so used to the researchers that they think they are part of the Kalahari's population.

Well, technically they are part of the Kalahari's population.

I do agree, it is entering their world, but they have to habituate the meerkats, walk with them, etc., to be able to conduct research. They wouldn't really be able to get much information if they acted as if they were working with tigers...

The research team does not have to break their contract by saving the animals, just call a conservation group to come and save the animals. I know that the WWF (World Wide Federation) is an animal organization that travels to almost every country saving injured animals and their habitats, I know they have groups in South Africa helping the animals there.

An animal who hunts and kills another animal for food is ok because it is how they survive, but a animal that has been injured by humans or by another animal should be saved! I don't know how anyone can see a animal lieing on the grassland, forest, desert, mountains, etc in pain and walk right by not helping them?

I totally agree, Phil! I rescued a small bird many years ago, brought it into my house and gave it a safe place to sleep, with food and water. It recovered just fine, and the next morning I released it. According to opinions here, was I wrong? Did I ruin the natural order of things by rescuing this one little bird? Should I have left it to die in the road? By saving this one small creature, I felt better, he or she certainly felt better, and I know I did the right thing. I could not have stood there and watched it be eaten by something, or left it to suffer and die slowly. That would have been totally inhumane and cruel, and I could not have lived with myself if I had just left it to die.

After visiting fellow Earthlings and holding a meerkat in your hand you get a different prospective on the nature of these fantastic animals. I'm definitely going again.

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a heaven in a Wild Flower,
To hold life in the palm of your hand
leaves a eternal memory ZM

I have read the discussion, and now I would like to pose questions. I am disgusted with all of the intellectual dishonesty in what is SUPPOSED to be factual research. More importantly, I am wondering if others have thought about these issues. The producer claimed that the meerkats have been “habituated,” that researchers don’t “intercede” and “have to let nature take its course.” He also stated that researchers [don’t affect] “the outcome of what's natural in the Kalahari.” The producer seems to indicate that researchers etc. operate under the notion that this form of observational research equates with not affecting/not being present. So do they REALLY think they aren’t impacting nature, especially considering how many people believe that humans always alter? The fuel alone is changing that environment according to some. IT CAN’T BE BOTH WAYS. Are researchers, cameras, equipment, crew, helicopters, fuel carbons etc. “natural in the Kalahari?” Have researchers also “habituated” the rest of the residents of the Kalahari? Do they actually believe that they are somehow able to escape the laws of nature and physics? The reality is, they are NOT “natural” in the Kalahari, and from the subtle to the obvious, their mere presence impacts and changes what would have been were they not there. Sound/vibration, movements, obstacles (like equipment and personal items), reflections, scent…all affect and create an effect, like it or not. For instance, apparently snakes respond to vibrations and can intentionally avoid humans. Who knows whether or not a person or item impacted the snakes’ paths in any of the previous days, hence inadvertently sending them to Flower and brave little Shakespeare? Did the scent or footprint of a human manipulate predator or prey in a positive or negative way? Did a reflection from a camera lens, a watch or other item alert the birds of prey? Hunters learn signals for food! Certainly, in all those years at least some of the predators have discovered that “researchers” and the camera crew indicate that meerkats (a.k.a.