by Bengt Holst | Feb 20, 2025 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature view, Wildlife
Since the wolf returned to Denmark in 2012, there has been an ongoing debate about its danger and whether there is room for wolves in Denmark. The waves have been high and the fronts between supporters and opponents of the wolf have been heated at times. Now the debate has flared up again after wolves have been spotted in the middle of the town of Oksbøl in southwest Jutland – not just once, but several times. And then, of course, the question arises: Can you shoot wolves?
The wolf is totally protected – but with exceptions
In principle, the wolf is totally protected, not only in this country, but throughout the EU. Only under special circumstances are the authorities allowed to regulate the wolf population or cull so-called “problem wolves”. The big question is when these special circumstances are present.
Is the wolf pressure in Denmark great enough?
Some suggest that when wolves move into cities, it must be because the population has become so large that they have no other option. The territories outside the cities are occupied and therefore some wolves move closer to humans than they normally would. However, there is no indication that we have reached that point yet. With a maximum of 80 wolves spread across most of Jutland, half of which are pups from last year, the territories are hardly full. With around 30 kilometers to the nearest wolf pair – both to the east and north – and in good wolf terrain, the wolf pair in Oksbøl is hardly under pressure to move into the town.
Read more at Kristeligt Dagblad
by Bengt Holst | Nov 3, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature and environment, Nature view
We’re used to seeing death as something negative – and with good reason. It takes life away from us and creates a sense of loss when loved ones pass away. It is so final and cannot be undone. But death is also a prerequisite for life and a very important event in the natural processes.
The role of death in nature
“One man’s death is another man’s bread”, there is a saying that applies on many levels.
In nature, death is a prerequisite for the survival of predators and the livelihood of the many animals that feed on carrion, from vultures, hyenas and marabou storks to carrion beetles and fly larvae. The dead animals quickly decompose and become new life, which fulfills important roles in ecosystems and in this way also becomes a prerequisite for our own lives. Life and death go hand in hand in the biological processes that make up life here on Earth.
Acceptance of death
Death is thus just another biological state that we find difficult to relate to, but which is a completely natural element on a living planet like ours. To understand nature, we need to accept death as a premise on a par with life itself and not let our feelings about the meaning of death for ourselves guide our actions.
Intervening in nature’s processes
And with this in mind, we should not least look at our intervention in the natural processes where death plays a role. Should we intervene in the face of impending death in nature, knowing that if we do so, we deprive other living organisms of the opportunity to create new life?
Ethical considerations
Should we satisfy our own feelings and value those feelings so much that we intervene and prevent the coming death based on a principle of “compassion”?
In cases where we are responsible for the coming death of other beings – by running over animals or shooting them and the like – the answer can be quite easy. There we have made ourselves responsible for the lives of others. But what about the many situations in nature where we simply witness death? Should we intervene there too? Read the rest of the post in Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Sep 29, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature view
This year marks 10 years since Copenhagen Zoo was caught in a global shitstorm for euthanizing a young giraffe. After the euthanasia, the giraffe was autopsied, and as it was too big to lie on the normal autopsy table and it was a cold February day, they decided to perform the autopsy on the ground in front of the veterinary clinic, where there was plenty of space and where the public could witness the autopsy – a great opportunity to convey good biological knowledge about anatomy, organ functions, adaptations to life in the wild and much, much more. And finally, after sending most of the organs to research institutions at home and abroad, the meat – approximately 250 kilos – was distributed to the garden’s predators, including the lions, who were able to taste giraffe meat for the first time in their lives. It was a completely natural process that the Zoo had openly carried out with many other animals over the years, from snakes, goats and antelopes to lions, tigers and zebras that had been euthanized and required autopsies.
The reactions and international criticism
But this time the reaction was completely different. The media reported it as a major drama, and the story went around the world in a matter of hours. Copenhagen Zoo and its employees were portrayed as barbarians, and people from all parts of the world demanded that the Zoo be closed down and the responsible employees, including myself, who at the time was the scientific director and thus also responsible for the decision, be fired. Some even took the opportunity to send death threats against me and my family, as well as against the Zoo’s veterinarian who performed the actual euthanasia and the subsequent autopsy.
The shitstorm’s strongest points of criticism
After the big fuss and many clarifying interviews later, we analyzed the many emails sent to the Zoo during the shitstorm to see what the strongest points of criticism were. And to my amazement, it turned out that what offended people the most was that the Zoo had allowed children to witness the autopsy and to see the lions subsequently being fed half a hindquarter that still had the skin on, so you could see that it came from a giraffe. A third of the 40,000 emails the Zoo received during that period fell into that category. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Aug 4, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Wildlife
The sun is shining and the bees are buzzing in the flowers in the meadow in front of the terrace. The children are busy eating their breakfast so they can get out to play and maybe even go for a swim as soon as possible.
An unexpected guest
And then it happens – little Peter suddenly notices a pair of eyes staring at them from a nearby bush, and out comes a half-sized kitten that shows no fear whatsoever. Quite the opposite.
The kitten becomes part of the family
As soon as the children crouch down to call it, it comes closer and snuggles up against the children’s bare legs. It’s clear that it wants to be cuddled. And the children are quick to respond to the kitten’s clear signal.
“Oh, he’s so cute,” and “Mommy, he’s hungry,” the children say, and mom immediately fetches a small bowl of milk and places it in front of the kitten.
Used to humans as it is, the kitten immediately takes to drinking and is soon fully integrated into the little family. The children love playing with it and the parents support the idyll by giving it food and water every day. No wonder the kitten stays around the house and enjoys all the attention. And no wonder the little family is enchanted by the little creature. Because it’s cute!
When the vacation ends
But at some point the vacation ends and reality sets in. Despite the children’s intense pestering, the parents refuse to take the kitten with them when they go back home after a great vacation.
The children say goodbye to their playmate and the kitten is left to fend for itself. Suddenly there’s no one to bring it food and milk and no one to check on its well-being.
A sad fate for the cottage cat
It’s all alone and now has to find its own food and generally find its way in a world full of competitors who are in no way welcoming to it, as the children were. And when winter comes, it’s likely to die, either from the cold or from lack of food.
This is how many cottage cats end their short lives, an ending that could have been avoided if the family hadn’t adopted the cat during the few weeks they were on vacation in the area. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Oct 6, 2023 | Animal ethics and welfare, Wildlife
Have you ever tried breathing through a straw while holding your nose? If not, you should try it. You’ll quickly realize that you’re short of breath and if you try to run, it becomes almost impossible to breathe. This is pretty much how several dog breeds with flat noses feel. The desire to breed dogs with as short noses as possible has led to breeds like the French Bulldog and Pug where the nostrils, oral cavity and throat are so narrow that the dogs struggle to breathe. All to make them “cute” in our eyes. But is it even acceptable to breed dogs – or cats – with congenital disabilities that prevent them from living a normal life just to satisfy human desires?
Breeding should not lead to suffering
The Animal Ethics Council clearly believes that this is not acceptable. Breeding can be beneficial as long as it ensures healthy animals that can live without defects. But when breeding focuses on extreme physical traits that directly harm the animals, we reduce their quality of life. At worst, we become responsible for the offspring living with pain, permanent injury and significant disadvantages – contrary to section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act, which obliges us to protect animals from unnecessary suffering. The question is, are we really a dog’s best friend – or do we just see ourselves as one?
Years of criticism with no effect
As early as 1999, in its Opinion on the breeding of dogs and cats, the Animal Ethical Council warned against the negative consequences of targeted breeding for appearance. At that time, the Council recommended that breeders, specialty clubs and show judges take responsibility. When no improvement was seen, the criticism was repeated in 2008 with a stronger call for legislative action if the industry did not resolve the problem itself. Since then, the Council has repeatedly tried to raise awareness of the issue – but without significant change. The dogs are still suffering.
Time for action – legislation as a solution
Therefore, the Animal Ethics Council has now called on the Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Jacob Jensen, to take the necessary steps. Already in 2014, a possibility to regulate the breeding of family and hobby animals was introduced, but it has not been used. The Council recognizes that such legislation can be difficult to enforce, but it will send a clear signal about what we as a society accept. Other countries with similar legislation are now seeing the first court cases in this area, showing that enforcement is possible. Denmark should follow suit and ensure rules that cover not only dogs and cats, but also other hobby and family pets. Perhaps this could even be the beginning of a wider debate on breeding goals for agricultural animals, where animal welfare is often also overlooked.
by Bengt Holst | Jul 4, 2023 | Animal ethics and welfare, Wildlife
At last year’s World Equestrian Games, Denmark won no less than ten medals, cementing the country’s position as one of the world’s best equestrian nations. This is an impressive achievement for a small country like Denmark, and the many medals have increased interest in equestrian sports in Denmark. But the success should also be an opportunity to take a closer look at the sport. It’s a sport where the welfare of the horses can potentially come under a lot of pressure due to the high level of ambition and money involved.
Is the horse a “happy athlete”?
Equestrian sport has traditionally portrayed the horse as a ‘happy athlete’, but in reality its participation is all about human ambition. Unlike humans, horses don’t choose to participate in elite sport and they can’t say no. Therefore, both riders and organizations have a great responsibility to ensure that the sport does not compromise the welfare of the horses. Although the Danish Equestrian Federation has ethical guidelines that prioritize the welfare of the horse over the interests of the owner and trainer, the rules are only as good as their implementation – and unfortunately this is often lacking in practice.
Control, behavioral understanding and equipment
There is a great need for more control of injuries and the use of physical and psychological pressure in equestrian sport. In addition, riders and judges should have a better understanding of the horse’s natural behavior – especially its conflict behavior, which shows when the horse is experiencing discomfort. Only performances where the horse shows no signs of pain or stress should be awarded, no matter how technically proficient or fast it completes a competition.
At the same time, there should be an increased focus on the use of equipment. Bites, spurs and whips should only be used for guidance and correction – never as punishment. While this principle is recognized in theory, the reality is often different when the pressure to perform sets in. Therefore, control before, during and after competitions should be strengthened.
New thinking is needed for the future of equestrian sport
In its Opinion on the use of horses for sport, the Danish Council on Animal Ethics has presented a number of recommendations to improve horse welfare in equestrian sports. If the sport is to remain widely accepted and if it is to live up to the ethical ideals formulated by the Danish Equestrian Federation itself, it requires innovative thinking and consistent implementation of the rules. This applies not only to equestrian sport, but also to other forms of equestrian sport where animal welfare should be a top priority.
Post originally published at Animal Ethics Council
Recent Comments