This is a short post from Fr. J. Breck on the Orthodox Church in America website

March 2, 2004

POKER, R.I.P.

The other day we had one of our dogs “put down,” that is, euthanized. Actually he wasn’t even our dog. The neighbor had received him as a gift from his sister, had no interest in him, and neglected him completely, other than to toss a little food out to him in the evening. He was a beautiful animal, despite the matted hair, myriad ticks, and mud up to his tail from tramping through the marshes.

He was a thoroughbred English Spaniel, black and white, and gentle as a fawn. He had a fawn’s eyes, too, large, liquid and a little sad. His owner had named him Poker. When the fellow said we could keep him, the poor animal was afflicted with heart worms, hook worms, ear mites and an eye infection. When we got him back from the vet, some $300 later, he clung to us so closely we began to call him Cody, for “co-dependent.” But Poker he was, and Poker he remained.

The veterinarians, a man and a young woman, cared for Poker often during the three years he was ours. Last week, just before his tenth birthday, he stopped eating. Lethargy set in so that he could hardly get around. For a couple of days we nursed him at home, hoping it would pass. By the weekend, those deep, sad eyes told us we had to take him to the clinic. A blood test showed what we had feared: he had massive kidney failure. We could subject him to aggressive and painful treatment, the vet said, with no real chance of improvement. Or we could accept to put him to sleep. I thought about it, tried to pray about it—I loved this little creature—then called my wife, who drove up to join me.

The vets came in, both of them, and wrapped Poker in very genuine affection. One of them pulled out a box of tissues in case we needed them. His eyes reddened, and he reached for one himself. Then the young woman, in a gesture of remarkable tenderness, inserted the needle, as I cradled Poker’s head in my arms.

A moment later his heart stopped. The doctor touched his open eye with the tip of her finger and said quietly, “He’s gone.”

Gone where? She didn’t say “He’s dead,” rather, “He’s gone.” Trying to hold back my own tears, my mind went back to the first time I carried a cadaver. It was in a small Swiss village, in 1968. An elderly friend named Paul, a leader in his local parish, died one morning in the shower. His wife, choked with grief, called the pastor, and he called me. We found Paul where he had fallen, lifted him up, carried him to the bed, and covered him to the chest with a sheet. I looked at him, and realized that he was “gone.” Not dead, but simply gone, not there. This body stretched out on the bed was a shell, nothing more. Where was “Paul,” the real Paul that we had known and loved? Like Poker, he was gone.

In the few minutes we stayed with Poker, who was warm yet lifeless, I thought too of the first meeting I had with Father Lev Gillet, the much revered spiritual elder who wrote many brief and beautiful books under the name of “A Monk of the Eastern Church.” It was the summer of 1967, and he and I, together with my wife and our infant son, were strolling down a street in London (he was for many years chaplain of the London-based Society of St Alban and St Sergius).

I don’t recall how we got on the subject. I just remember Father Lev expressing the firm conviction that animals—particularly domestic animals who have lived with and been loved by people—experience some form of afterlife. He was a brilliant man, a highly respected theologian, whose writings on Scripture and Prayer of the Heart had offered spiritual nurture to multitudes of people throughout Europe and, to a lesser degree, in the United States. His words were not pious wishful thinking; they emerged from a life of thoughtful reflection and prayer.

Animals have an afterlife? At the time I couldn’t quite believe it. Do animals have souls? And can those souls be what we call “eternal”?

If, like Father Lev, we can answer that question in the affirmative, it can only be by adjusting altogether our way of looking at God and His creation. He is the Creator and Lord of all, and in some special way, of every living thing. The mystic perceives heaven in a blade of grass, the petal of a flower, or a child’s uplifted face. Heaven is not “out there.” It’s all around us, enveloping everything and everyone in light and beauty that once in a great while we can perceive as a gift of sheer grace. And perceiving it, we enter into it, even in the midst of our daily routine, despite our distractions, despite our sin.

Everything that lives derives its life from God, from participation in the Life of God. In some inexplicable way, all living things come forth from God and return to Him. The life they share, again in some unfathomable and mysterious way, is God’s own life. Perhaps this is what theologians mean by “panentheism”: God is in and through all things, not ontologically as a “pantheist” would hold, but by grace—the dynamic and life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, “who is everywhere present, filling all things.”

Is it conceivable that life simply disappears, ends, vanishes? Nothing vanishes, physicists tell us. If matter is transformed into energy, maybe something analogous occurs between the physical realm and the spiritual realm, between life and death. We know this happens with human persons, endowed with what we call an “immortal soul.” A theologian would reply, “But persons are unique, made in the image of God.” And my musings he would probably dismiss as nostalgic self-deception, a pointless and empty attempt to assuage the grief I feel over the loss of a little dog who used to cling to me like my shadow, a friend and companion whom I loved. Do dogs, too, have immortal souls? Does a blade of grass?

I can’t answer these questions in any reasoned way, a way that is theologically convincing. All I can do is recall Father Lev’s conviction that every creature finds its true destiny in the heart of the merciful God, because there it has its true origin. If God has shared our life in the person of Jesus, it is because we, from the moment of our creation, share His life. And that life is eternal. Is it permissible to make a logical leap here, to conclude that therefore not only our human life, but every life, is likewise eternal?

I don’t know. All I know is that I miss Poker, and somehow in my simple fantasy, I hope that he misses me. I hope that he is not dead, but that he is really “gone”: gone home to the Creator of his life, that life that brought me warmth, laughter, love and occasional tears. I hope that for him, as for all of us, R.I.P. means not so much “Rest in Peace” as “Rejoice in Paradise.” It’s a naïve, childlike hope. And maybe it’s vain, even heretical. But when I think of Poker—as when I think of our friend Paul, and everyone and everything that we love and cherish—I want very much for it to be a hope fulfilled.

Available at the O C A website https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/poker-r.i.p

ICON – CHRIST BREAKING THE BONDS OF ANIMAL SUFFERING

Here is a brief post on a new Icon representing Christ’s concern for animal suffering. It is on the basis of the arguments laid out in my PhD and forthcoming book that led me to instigate discussions with one of the United Kingdom’s most experienced iconographers Aidan Hart.[1] Our collaboration on this theme has led to the creation of a beautiful triptych entitled Christ Breaking the Bonds of Animal Suffering.

I also asked Aidan to write a brief explanation of the meaning behind some of the symbols in the Icon:

The icon suggests Paradise by the inclusion of trees, sea, grass, bees, birds, fish, snake and lizard, all of which look healthy. These creatures, and Saints Irenaeus and Isaac, face Christ, acknowledging Him as their Creator and Sustainer. One of the bees flies towards Him. This attitude of praise lies at the heart of Edenic life, just as ingratitude lies at the heart of the hellish life… This triptych shows Christ in the midst of creation, like a second Adam in paradise. He blesses with it His right hand, and directs it with His left.  He is a prophet, priest and king of creation. 

In our discussions I expressed the desire for the icon to depict different aspects of animal suffering in the contemporary world whilst ensuring that it was grounded in both Eastern Orthodox theology and in the Patristic teachings of Luke 13:15 and 14:5.[2] I gave Aidan some ideas on how Christ might be depicted surrounded by a variety of animals, some emaciated, emerging from cages with broken doors, whilst others would be shown with broken chains, thus symbolising the breaking of the bonds of death and power of Satan. Aidan beautifully captures this brief in the center panel and explains that the icon:

...shows Christ blessing and liberating them, the tiger and chicken from their cages and the dog from its chains. Christ has come to set not just humanity free, but all creation. [3]

Cruelty to animals not only causes physical suffering to the victims but also introduces a tragic dissonance to this cosmic hymn. Such behaviour is therefore a sin not only against the animals, for it is also a failure of us humans to be conductors of the Eucharistic choir.

Aidan also explains that the image doubles as an image of Christ’s second coming:

Rome is home to numerous apse mosaics dating from the first millennium. Some of them show Christ in the midst of brightly coloured clouds. Examples are found in the churches of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, Santi Cosma e Damiano, Santa Constanza, Santa Prassede, and Santa Maria Trastevere.  What do these clouds represent? They are clouds of a sunrise, and thus indicate Christ’s Second Coming in glory:

…then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory… (Matthew 24:30)

Most of these apses also bear a cross at the apex. This is the “sign of the Son of Man” that will appear in the skies at Christ’s coming, a sign traditionally understood by the Orthodox Church to be the cross.  The stars that surround our cross in the triptych represent the host of heavenly angels that will accompany Him.

On either side of Christ are Saints Irenaeus of Lyon and Isaac the Syrian who are depicted holding scrolls of texts which refer to two of their important teachings for this theme. On the left panel we have one text from St Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:2:5) which reminds us, should we forget: ‘Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced.’ It is as a result of our failure to remember this teaching and others like it, that has resulted in our current ecological crisis and incalculable animal suffering.

On the right panel is St. Isaac with a lesser known teaching from Mystic Treaties, (Ch.1): ‘Oppression is eradicated by compassion and renunciation.’ Here we are reminded that it is through compassion – and we could add other virtuous behaviours – together with a recognition and renunciation of our sins against ‘all things’ in creation,  that will enable us to rid ourselves and those we are to care for, of all forms of oppression and harmful vested interests.

Both of these teachings are grounded in the Saint’s love and desire to reflect the true image of God.  The icon above reflects just that.

[1]  Aidan Hart Icons  http://www.aidanharticons.com. Aidan’s article will be posted on our website when complete.

[2] Drawn either side of Christ in the centre panel. The discussion on Patristic teachings on Luke 13:15 & 14:5 has been discussed in greater detail in my article in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review,Volume 61 Fall-Winter 2016 Numbers 3-4:125-140.

[3] Rom 8:19-23.

This article is of interest for the topic of killing badgers in the UK.

Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Control in Britain: Science, Policy and Politics

Authors: Steven P. McCulloch:  Steven.McCulloch@winchester.ac.uk. University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK & Michael J. Reiss:  m.reiss@ucl.ac.uk. UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL,UK.

Published online in: J Agric Environ Ethics (2017) 30:469–484 DOI 10.1007/s10806-017-9686-3, 24 August 2017.

Abstract Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) is the most economically important animal health policy issue in Britain. The problem of what to do about badgers has plagued successive governments since a dead badger was discovered with bovine TB in 1971. Successive Labour governments (1997–2010) oversaw the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) from 1998 to 2006. Despite the RBCT recommendation against culling, the 2010–2015 Coalition government implemented pilot badger culls. This paper provides an account of the evolution of bovine TB and badger control policy, focusing on the 1997–2010 Labour, the 2010–2015 Coalition and the 2015-present Conservative governments. Interviews with bovine TB policy stakeholders supplement discussion of the development of bovine TB policy. The paper discusses the science and politics of bovine TB policy, in which there are different badger control policies in Westminster, Welsh and Scottish governments. Badger control is a highly polarised issue, and the Coalition and Conservative governments have been heavily criticised for a culling policy opposed by the independent scientific community. Recent governments have defended badger culling on the basis of veterinary advice and experience in countries such as New Zealand. The paper concludes with two key recommendations to inform controversial animal health and welfare policy issues such as bovine TB. First, mandatory Animal Welfare Impact Assessment provides objective data on the impacts of policy options on cows and badgers. Second, robust ethical analysis, conducted by independent experts using established moral frameworks, should be applied to animal health and welfare issues for the benefit of decision makers.

Introduction

Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) is the most important animal health and welfare policy issue in Britain. This paper provides an overview of the science, policy and politics of bovine TB in Britain, with a focus on the highly controversial issue of badger culling. The first part of the paper documents the interviewing methodology used to inform discussion in this and related papers (McCulloch and Reiss 2017a, b, c, d). The second part of the paper provides a chronological overview of bovine TB policy and the issue of badger culling. The third part of the paper briefly discusses how the contested scientific evidence base, plural values and political factors influence bovine TB policy. In the final part of the paper, a case is made for the inclusion of Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) and ethical analysis to inform animal health and welfare policy such as bovine TB and badger control.

 Animal Health and Welfare Policy Interviews

As part of the research undertaken for this paper, the first author conducted semi-structured interviews with animal health and welfare policy actors. The interviews were conducted between 2012 and 2013. Seventeen individuals were interviewed. Interviewees were primarily selected based on their roles giving them knowledge of the animal health and welfare policy process. Interviewees were given the option of whether to be identified or to remain anonymous. Hence, in the quotations from transcripts in this paper, some actors are identified, whereas others are labelled with reference to their professional role and affiliation. Interviewees include a former government minister, a retired Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) civil servant, an Animal Health and Welfare Board of England (AHWBE)¹ member, a former President of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA), a National Farmers Union (NFU) TB policy official and Professor John Bourne, the Chair of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG), which conducted the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Interviews, which were digitally audio-recorded, lasted for up to three hours (an hour typically) and the material was transcribed and thematically coded for analysis. The interviews covered a range of issues related to the broader project on animal health and welfare policy with discussion of bovine TB one part of the interview.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Bovine TB is a notifiable zoonotic disease² of cows caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis. In 1934, 40% of dairy cows in Britain were infected with bovine TB and at least 0.5% of these produced tuberculous milk. Bovine TB was estimated to cause 2500 human deaths and 50,000 new cases arose each year (Reynolds 2006). Up to 30% of cattle in Britain died from bovine TB in the 1930s (Grant 2009). The pasteurisation of milk, which began in 1935, has effectively prevented transmission of M. bovis to humans, although transmission is still possible by aerosol spread or by consumption of unpasteurised milk (Defra 2014b) .

Early Government Policy

The British government encouraged voluntary eradication of bovine TB as early as 1923. In 1935, a national programme of attesting herds to be free of disease began. This became a compulsory eradication scheme in 1950 (Grant 2009). This scheme involved testing cattle for bovine TB and slaughtering those which reacted to the test. The herd was considered as the infectious unit, which resulted in a number of whole herds being slaughtered [John Bourne, Chair ISG]. Movement restrictions were put in place on herds which suffered reactors. To achieve attested status, a herd had to pass three consecutive tuberculin tests. Attested herds could only buy in cattle from other attested herds. Attested herds also had to demonstrate biosecurity measures. In 1960 the whole of Britain had become an attested area and in that decade it was widely believed that bovine TB had been brought under control (Grant 2009). Due to the improving situation, herd testing frequency was relaxed and in 1979 less than 0.5% of the national herd was infected. However, these herds were geographically concentrated in a few small pockets in the south west (Defra 2014b). With the lifting of restrictions, these areas were never cleared of disease and today remain as hotspots of the disease in cattle [John Bourne, Chair ISG]. McEldowney et al. (2013) report how the chief veterinarian at the time claimed the end of attestation would result in an increase in bovine TB. When the attested scheme was lifted, the incidence of bovine TB did indeed subsequently increase. Bourne claimed that the ending of the attested herd scheme, together with a move to regard the individual animal and not the herd as the infectious unit, led to resurgence of the disease [John Bourne, Chair ISG]. Godfray et al. (2013) report a meta-analysis study that found the tuberculin skin test has only a 49% sensitivity at herd-level. This would mean that the tuberculin skin test misses around half of infected herds.

Bovine TB and Badgers

In 1971, a dead badger found in Gloucestershire was found to be infected with M. bovis. The discovery of bovine TB in badgers led to badger culling commencing in1973. Initially, licences to kill badgers were issued to farmers under the Badgers Act1973. The badgers were killed either by cage-trapping and shooting or by free shooting. In part due to concerns about the welfare of badgers being shot by farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Farming (MAFF)³ took over the role of culling in 1975. MAFF culled the badgers by gassing setts with hydrogen cyanide, under a provision in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 (Spencer 2011). Further concerns about the welfare of badgers led to the first of a number of reviews on bovine TB and badgers. The following discussion of the Zuckerman and Dunnet reviews is informed by Spencer (2011, p. 93).

A review by Lord Zuckerman found that badgers were a reservoir of infection and proposed a ‘clean ring’ strategy (Zuckerman 1980). The clean ring strategy involved sampling badgers around infected farms and culling a whole sett if badgers tested positive. Further adjacent setts would then be tested and culled if positive until no further M. bovis-infected badgers were found. The process would continue for six months to maintain a ‘clean ring’ around the farm.

The Dunnet report was the follow up review of Zuckerman’s clean ring strategy (Dunnet et al. 1986). Dunnet et al. found that the incidence of bovine TB across Great Britain had reduced whether or not badgers had been culled in the area. Furthermore, the costs of the clean ring strategy were considered to be unsustainable. For these reasons, an interim strategy was proposed. The interim strategy involved farmers taking biosecurity measures to reduce the potential for cattle-to-badger contact. Additionally, badgers were culled where it was reasonably suspected that herd breakdowns were caused by badgers. The culling was confined to the farmer’s own land and the infected herd. Despite the intentions of the interim strategy to be a short term policy, it continued from 1986 to 1997, in part because of MAFF’s focus on BSE.

Professor Sir John Krebs⁴ chaired the third government-commissioned review into bovine TB (Krebs et al. 1997). The Krebs report found badgers to be a ‘‘significant source of infection in cattle’’ but said that the evidence was ‘‘indirect’’ as it consisted of correlations and not cause and effect (Krebs et al. 1997, p. 6). The Krebs report recommended an experimental trial to quantify the impact of badger culling on bovine TB.

The RBCT, the King Review and Hilary Benn’s Decision

The government appointed Professor John Bourne to Chair the Independent Science Group (ISG), which designed and conducted the trial proposed by Krebs. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) began in 1998 and ran until 2006, being interrupted in 2001 by the foot and mouth epidemic. The RBCT was conducted in areas of high incidence of bovine TB. The trial consisted of ten sets of ‘triplets’, each composed of a proactive-culling area, a reactive-culling area and a survey-only area. Reactive culling was abandoned early in the trial as it was found to increase, rather than decrease, the incidence of TB in cattle. In the reactive cull areas badgers were killed when there was an outbreak of TB in cattle. Proactive culling of badgers was found to reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in the culling area by 19%. However, proactive culling was associated with a 29% increase in bovine TB in the area outside the culling area (Bourne et al. 2007; Donnelly et al. 2006). The increase in bovine TB outside of the culling area was due to the perturbation effect, in which culling caused changes in the social behaviour of badgers including greater ranging outside their normal territory (Bourne et al. 2007; Woodroffe et al. 2006).

As a result of these early ISG findings, the government introduced pre-movement testing of cattle and changed the compensation scheme to farmers for loss of cattle due to TB. In addition, a public consultation was launched on badger culling. The consultation documents included the information that badger culling could be an effective method to control TB in cattle and that veterinary advice supported a cull. The ISG criticised the document on the basis that it did not accurately portray the findings to date [John Bourne, Chair ISG]. Despite the government’s presentation of information in the consultation document, 95.6% of respondents were opposed to badger culling (Defra 2006).

In June 2007 the ISG submitted its Final report to government. The report concluded that ‘‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’’ (Bourne et al. 2007). Bourne and his team found that although badgers contribute to the disease, bovine TB is mostly a problem of cattle-to-cattle transmission that can be solved by cattle-based controls:

Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed,and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone. (Bourne et al. 2007)

This conclusion was unexpected, and indeed unwelcome, to some in the animal health and welfare community. As a former Labour Defra minister involved at the time reported: ‘‘When I arrived [at Defra] … John Bourne’s ISG report basically was on the desk. And I suppose what it said was not quite what people, or some people, expected’’ [Former Defra Minister, Labour Party]. Bourne reported that from the start of the trial it was expected future policy in Defra would be based on reactive culling [Bourne, Chair ISG].⁵ After the ISG submitted its Final report, the government asked its Chief Scientific Adviser to review the evidence.⁶ In contrast to the ISG, the King review found that badger culling ‘‘could make a significant contribution to the control of cattle TB in those areas of England where there is a high and persistent incidence of TB in cattle, provided removal takes places alongside an effective programme of cattle controls’’ (King 2007 para. 51).

Despite King’s findings, Hilary Benn, the then Secretary of State for Defra, found the evidence of the  ISG more persuasive. He announced to Parliament in July 2008 his decision not to go ahead with a cull:

Having listened carefully to a wide range of views from scientists, farming,veterinary and wildlife organisations, and many others, and having considered all the evidence, I have decided that although such a cull might work, it might also not work. It could end up making the disease worse if the cull was not sustained over time or delivered effectively, and public opposition, including the unwillingness of some landowners to take part, would render that more difficult. It would not be right to take that risk. (HC Deb 2008)

Benn’s decision was celebrated by the anti-cull lobby, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the Badger Trust and the left wing press. It was criticised by the Conservative Party, the NFU, the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the right wing press.

2010 and a Change in Government

The British public returned no clear majority in the 2010 general election and the Conservative Party formed a Coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative Party had opposed Benn’s decision in Parliament and favoured a cull of badgers (HC Deb 2008). Both parties represented a large number of constituencies in rural areas and the Liberal Democrats had a significant base in the south west of England, where the disease was endemic. The new government confirmed its policy of a ‘‘carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control’’ in its Coalition Agreement (HM Gov 2010, p. 18).

Due to the economic recession, the government had an overarching deficit reduction and cost sharing programme. The conclusions of the ISG were in part based on the practicality, including economic sustainability, of a government-led cull (Bourne et al. 2007). Due to the economic costs of delivering a cull, the government proposed a farmer- and landowner-led cull (Defra 2010a). Farmers and landowners would be granted licences by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Countryside Act 1981.⁷ The government proposed that the culls must take place in areas of at least 150 km2, where the cull company employed by the farmers and landowners had access to over 70% of the land area. The costs of monitoring and licences would be paid for by government but the farming industry would pay for delivering the actual cull (Defra 2011).

A NFU bovine TB official outlined the organisation’s position on the culls:

We know that if you cull badgers in a proactive, sustained manner, not reactive culling, proactive culling, so removing large numbers from a relatively large area, and that’s sustained for a period of 4 years, we know from the RBCT that we’re getting 30? % reduction, that persisted you know 4–5 years after culling. So the principle of culling the badgers has been made. Even based on the way that they did in the RBCT, the issue the ISG had is with cost of delivering the cull … what we’re saying is industry will come together and deliver the cull, and industry will pick up those costs, so in effect it is cost sharing in practice. So we’ve said in industry, yes you’ve [government] caused this problem by lots of inaction, but we’re actually prepared to pick up and run with this and deliver a policy [NFU official, TB policy]

The government published a veterinary assessment of the risk factors associated with the cull. In particular, for the cull to be effective, it must mitigate against perturbation of badgers (Defra 2010b). The government also encouraged  the licensed BadgerBCG vaccine to be deployed to mitigate perturbation (Defra 2010a). In the consultation document the government stated that if a different culling strategy were employed to that used in the RBCT ‘‘the effect on TB incidence and the degree of the resulting perturbation is uncertain’’. In addition, the veterinary assessment stated it to be ‘‘essential’’ that culling is done using methods that are ‘‘both effective and humane’’ (Defra 2010b; HC 2013, p. 8).

The government announced in January 2012 that two pilot culls would take place in west Somerset and west Gloucestershire. The culls were planned to commence in summer 2012 but were delayed until 2013 for three reasons. First, the 2012 London Olympic Games put pressure on police resources to oversee the cull. Secondly, the Badger Trust challenged the legality of the cull in the High Court. Thirdly, the NFU had written to the minister to request the cull be postponed until 2013. This was because of recent fieldwork which estimated the badger population was higher than originally expected (HC 2013). It was the latter reason that led to the national press mocking Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for Defra, for claiming that the badgers had ‘‘moved the goalposts’’ (BBC 2013). The government’s broader approach to bovine TB was to divide the country into three geographical areas based on risk. These were the ‘high risk area’, the ‘low risk area’ and the ‘edge area’. The high risk and edge areas would be subject to more stringent cattle controls. Badger culling would take place in high risk areas, with some vaccination of badgers in the edge area (Defra 2013).

The Queen guitarist and animal rights activist Brian May played an active role in the badger culling debate. May set up the Save Me trust during the 2010 general election campaign to oppose Conservative Party policies to give Parliament a free vote to repeal the Hunting Act and to introduce a badger cull. Later, May was instrumental in setting up Team Badger, a coalition of national and local organisations against badger culling.⁸

The Pilot Culls

The Coalition government announced in August 2013 that the pilot culls had commenced. Requests for extensions to the cull were granted in both Somerset and Gloucestershire due to an insufficient number of badgers being culled. The Somerset pilot culled \48% of badgers and was extended from six to 9 weeks. The Gloucestershire pilot culled \39% and was extended from six to 11 weeks (HC 2013; IEP 2014). The target in both Somerset and Gloucestershire was to cull 70% of the badger population.

In interview, a former BCVA President spoke of the importance of humane culling of badgers:

As BCVA President when I spoke to the Secretary of State … I said that the absolutely key thing to do was it has to be done humanely. And I’m sure she came to that conclusion long before I came to her. But that, as a veterinary surgeon I felt that was an essential message to get across. [Former BCVA President]

In February 2014, the BBC reported leaked findings of the expert group auditing the pilot culls. The Independent Expert Panel (IEP) was charged with overseeing the efficacy, safety and humaneness of the culls. The BBC reported that the pilot culls had failed both the efficacy and humaneness tests. A parliamentary backbench motion on 14 March to stop further culling was passed by 200 votes to 1 (HC Deb2014). The IEP report was later published and had found that 7.4-22.8% of badgers took longer than 5 min to die (IEP 2014). The government humaneness target had been that\5% of badgers should take over 5 min to die.

Subsequently, Defra announced the culls would not be rolled out across the country in 2014, but that the pilot culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire would continue annually. Dyer has claimed that Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, concerned about the unpopularity of the cull and the IEP report, withdrew his support for extending the pilot culls into Devon and Cornwall until the problems with effectiveness and humaneness were resolved (Dyer 2016).⁹ The IEP was disbanded after the first year of the pilot culls, despite the findings of serious problems with effectiveness and humaneness of the culls. Owen Paterson stated that lessons would be learned to improve future culls, and there was greater emphasis on the use of badger vaccination (Defra 2014a). The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) would provide a written report on later annual culls to replace the IEP audit.

The 2015 Conservative Government Policy on Badger Control

 The 2015 general election resulted in an overall majority for the Conservative Party, with the Liberal Democrats being decimated at the polls. The Conservative Party had pledged to implement its 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine TB, which included badger culling, in its manifesto (Conservative Party 2015). The unpopularity of the badger cull can be inferred from the manifesto’s simple statement to ‘‘implement our 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine TB’’, and the complete omission of any reference to badgers or wildlife (Conservative Party 2015, p. 21).

The government announced a third culling area, in Dorset, to commence in 2015. The decision to continue free shooting of badgers and roll its policy out to Dorset led to a further open letter to the government by eminent bovine TB experts (Barkham 2015; Bateson et al. 2015). The letter, organised by the veterinarian Mark Jones of the Born Free Foundation, questioned the scientific basis of the cull and called on the government to reconsider its policy. It was signed by, amongst others, Professor John Krebs, Professor John Bourne and Professor Ranald Munro. Hence, the Chairs of the three major recent scientific reviews on badger culling—the Independent Scientific Review Group (Krebs), the Independent Scientific Group (Bourne) and the Independent Expert Panel (Munro)—openly expressed opposition to the continued government culls. In their letter, the scientists also pointed to the lack of economic grounds for a cull. A Freedom of Information request by the Badger Trust revealed that the cost of culling a single badger was £6775. In response to this criticism, the government claimed that farmers were paying for the majority of costs and that costs are reducing with further culls (BBC News 2015).

The BVA withdrew its support for the free shooting of badgers in 2015 after the second year of culls failed to improve the humaneness criteria (BVA 2015). Despite the government policy of permitting both free shooting and cage-trapping and shooting, the BVA continued its support of the government’s badger culling policy in general. As a result of internal disagreement in the BVA, it’s Ethics and Welfare Group was disbanded and replaced by a weaker Ethics and Welfare Advisory Panel.

Culling began in seven further areas in 2016 in the counties of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Cornwall, Devon and Dorset (Defra 2016b). These culls led to a Westminster debate on badger culling and bovine TB in September 2016, secured by the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) MP Dr Paul Monaghan. Paul Monaghan stated the following in his opening speech opposing badger culling: ‘‘No substantial or respectable body of scientific work has ever been produced to contradict the conclusions of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB’’ (HC Deb 2016).

In general, Conservative Members of Parliament supported a continued cull as an unfortunate but necessary policy to combat bovine TB. Labour MPs were opposed to badger culling and criticised the scientific case for government policy. Those opposed to culling also argued that spending £6000–7000 per badger culled could not be justified on economic grounds, especially in a broader context of economic austerity. Given the importance of the economic justification for culling to government, Defra published a Badger control policy: value for money analysis report. The report concluded that the benefits of culling should outweigh the costs by £0.56 million per culling area over 4 years, despite advising ‘‘considerable uncertainty’’ about the figures (Defra 2016a, p. 2).

A further petition against the cull across 2016–2017 surpassed the required 100,000 signatures to be debated in Parliament. Paul Flynn MP (Labour) moved the motion to consider the petition. Flynn called for the ‘‘walls of Government prejudice to come down’’ and for the adoption of a ‘‘scientific and humane’’ approach (HC Deb 2017). The subsequent debate covered the various bovine TB approaches of the devolved UK nations, other countries such as New Zealand and Australia, inadequacies of the diagnostic skin test, biosecurity and economics of bovine TB. The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, George Eustice,¹⁰ gave the government response. After describing the government’s approach to bovine TB, he urged Parliamentarians to keep some perspective. He claimed, based on veterinary advice, that a badger cull was necessary to eradicate bovine TB. He finished by putting the following moral question to Parliament: ‘‘Is it really that different from the approach that we take to controlling other wildlife, such as foxes, or deer in royal parks?’’ (HC Deb 2017).

The Conservative Party had promised a referendum on continued EU membership in its 2015 general election manifesto. The Prime Minister David Cameron campaigned to remain in the EU. However, in 2016 the British public narrowly voted to leave the EU. Cameron resigned and was replaced as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minster by Theresa May. To increase her majority and strengthen the government’s negotiating stance on Brexit, May called a snap general election for 8 June 2017.

The 2017 Minority Conservative Government Theresa May’s plan backfired and the British public returned a minority Conservative government, supported by a confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). The Conservative Party manifesto had not mentioned badger culling (Conservative Party 2017), whilst the Labour Party pledged to end the cull (Labour Party 2017). Michael Gove was appointed as Secretary of State for Defra and George Eustice continued as the Food and Farming Minister. Gove promised to review the evidence on bovine TB and badger culling. Less than a week later, he reaffirmed the government’s position on badger culling in an interview with the Farmers Guardian (Kay 2017).

Contested Science, Plural Values and Political Factors

That the badger has a role in the transmission of the disease to cattle is widely accepted. The nature of the disagreement revolves around two key questions. First, how much of a role does the badger play? Secondly, are there effective, practical and socially acceptable measures which can reduce the transmission?

The question about effectiveness arises because culling causes perturbation in badgers, where they roam outside of their normal ranges, which can have the effect of increasing transmission of disease. The costs of cage-trapping and shooting, the method of culling used in the RBCT, is prohibitively high to conduct on a sufficiently large scale. Compounding these constraints, the behaviour and anatomy of the badger make the cheaper option of controlled/free-shooting problematic. Badgers are a nocturnal, low slung and muscular species, meaning there is a high risk of suboptimal culling, resulting in welfare problems for wounded animals.

These two questions have been debated in the public arena by leading scientists in national newspapers. Ian Boyd, the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser, and Nigel Gibbens, the CVO, have argued the government’s case for badger culling in The Guardian (Boyd and Gibbens 2012). Boyd and Gibbens cite evidence from other countries where wildlife control has assisted TB control, the future potential, but current limitations, of cattle and badger vaccination, and stress that badger culling is part of a wider package of disease control measures (Boyd and Gibbens 2012).

In response, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, President of the Zoological Society of London, published an open letter in the Observer signed by 30 eminent scientists. The scientists urge the government to reconsider its policy because ‘‘the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it’’ (Bateson et al. 2012). A key function of expertise in policy making is to depoliticise policy. In bovine TB policy, Wilkinson has claimed that rather than expertise depoliticising policy, the expertise itself has become politicised (Wilkinson 2007).

Grant (2009) and Cassidy (2012) have discussed how the public’s understanding of the badger has been constructed and how this influences policy. Cassidy claims there are two opposing constructions of the badger. The ‘good badger’ is epitomised in Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows. In contrast, the ‘bad badger’ is a carnivore, a disruptive digger and a disease carrier (Cassidy 2012, p. 192). Grant conducted archival research of MAFF files into policy makers’ constructions of the badger. He found that MAFF and Defra use the construct of an ‘old rogue badger’:

The concept of the ‘rogue badger’ is still present in frames of reference as it was referred to in a discussion between the author and the Defra bovine TB team in May 2009. The myth of the rogue badger permitted the construction of an image of a bad, deviant or antisocial badger, a ‘senile and virtually toothless’ creature… whose actions could be presented as a basis for intervention against a cherished animal. (Grant 2009, p. 563)

Grant claims that such framings of the badger need to be taken into account in the policy process and argues that technocratic welfare-based models of policy making have contributed to ‘‘long term intractable policy failure’’ (Grant 2009, p. 563). Gibbens and Hepple appear to concede such policy failure by describing bovine TB as a ‘‘wicked problem’’ (Hepple and Gibbens 2013, pp. 235–237). The authors—a Defra official and the Chief Veterinary Officer—write:

Some policy issues concerning animals can also be identified as wicked problems. It is often the differing values of the animals involved that can lead to issues developing into wicked problems. It becomes an even greater mess when different species with different values to different sectors of society are intimately involved in the same wicked problem. (Hepple and Gibbens 2013, 1.236)

These multi-factorial and complex dimensions of bovine TB policy have led to Britain having three different policies on bovine TB (Spencer 2011). In England, badger culls were first conducted in 2013 and are on-going. In Wales, the Labour government rejected a cull and has pursued a badger vaccination trial and increased cattle controls. From 2008 to 2015, the bovine TB incidence in Wales decreased by around 50% (APHA 2015, pp. 6, 18). More recently due to a global shortage of the BCG vaccine, badger vaccination has been halted and the Welsh government has agreed to targeted culling of badgers on some chronically-infected farms (Welsh Government 2017). Scotland, which has a far lower incidence of bovine TB, has been granted TB-free status.

The Justification for Animal Welfare Impact Assessment and Ethical Analysis of Bovine TB and Badger Control Policy Natural England advice to Defra prior to the 2013 pilot culls estimated that if culling were successfully completed, 30–50 badgers would be killed for every bovine TB herd breakdown that is prevented. The same report states that the level of culling in the badger culls will cause a 14-27% reduction of the badger population in England, and a 25–54% reduction in the South West and West Midlands (Natural England 2011, p. 5). Figures for the number of badgers culled and the number of cattle that avoid slaughter due to badger culling are documented in an Animal Welfare Impact Assessment presented in McCulloch and Reiss (2017d). Here, it is important simply to state that badger culling is clearly an ethical issue. A former BCVA President recognises the ethics inherent in badger culling:

Well, you know, making a decision to kill part of our indigenous wildlife, no matter how well it’s controlled, and how humanely, is a massive decision. We’d live in a pretty lousy society I think if we just said, ‘‘Yeah we’ll go and kill badgers’’, and nobody turned a hair. So I think it does have to be considered very, very carefully and I guess these individual politicians just have to weigh up the ethical and the scientific issues [Former BCVA President]

We argue that the weighing up of ethical issues needs to be conducted by independent experts using established moral frameworks. Policy on badger control should not, and indeed cannot, be based exclusively on the scientific evidence base (e.g. the RBCT), economics (e.g. a cost–benefit analysis) nor public opinion (e.g. a Defra 2006 public consultation). Furthermore, it is problematic for a number of reasons to leave politicians to ‘weigh up ethical and scientific issues’. Ultimately, in the final analysis, policy on badger control is necessarily a moral issue that should be analysed in the context of the following question:

Ethically, what is the right, or most justifiable policy on badger control, considering impacts on all morally relevant affected groups?

The natural science evidence base, economic tools such as cost–benefit analysis and public opinion should all inform policy. However, given that cattle and badgers are, like humans, sentient, government policy options should be appraised in the context of the above question. Necessarily, an informed answer to this question entails the following:

1. An Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) to assess the impacts of policy options on cattle and badger populations
2. Robust ethical analysis, informed by the empirical evidence base, of badger control policy options.

The exclusion of either 1 or 2, or indeed both, leads to the exclusion of the interests of animals in policy making. The public has a legitimate moral concern about how public policy impacts sentient animals. Therefore, the exclusion of 1 and/ or 2 leads to the exclusion of legitimate values held by the democratic public about how society treats animals. The AWIA is described and applied to bovine TB and badger control policy options in McCulloch and Reiss (2017d). Ethical analysis is applied to bovine TB policy using established frameworks in McCulloch and Reiss (2017a, b, c).

Conclusion

Bovine TB is the most economically important animal health policy issue in England. The disease cost the UK government some £500 million between 2004 and 2014 and this cost is set to double over the next decade. Badgers are a wildlife source of infection but the government’s badger culling policy has proven controversial. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG), after an 8 year field trial, recommended against badger culling, concluding that bovine TB can be controlled and ultimately eradiated by cattle-based measures alone. However, a review by the Chief Scientist, David King, found that badger culling could contribute to bovine TB control.

The 2005–2010 Labour government followed the ISG recommendations and resisted calls by the NFU and BVA for a badger cull. However, the 2010 Coalition government and the 2015-present Conservative government pursued a farmer-led badger culling policy. The IEP reported that the first year of the badger culls in west Somerset and west Gloucestershire failed in terms of effectiveness and humaneness. Despite this, the government has continued with a cull and rolled it out to a total of 10 areas.

The scientific evidence base, economics and ethics of badger culling is highly contested by stakeholders. Government and the pro-culling lobby claim that badger culling is necessary to control bovine TB. They argue that badger culling is justified on the basis of scientific evidence, economic benefits, veterinary advice and the experience of countries such as New Zealand. Those opposed to a badger cull argue that culling is not supported by the scientific evidence base, is not cost effective, and is inhumane. They argue that vaccination is more effective and humane than culling and point to Wales, which has substantially reduced its incidence of bovine TB without culling.

In this paper, we argue that Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) and independently conducted ethical analysis should be necessary components to inform animal health and welfare policy such as bovine TB and badger control. AWIA provides objective information about the welfare impacts of policy options, for both cattle and badgers. Objective data relating to welfare impacts are a necessary component of policy making that considers the interests of affected sentient animals. Furthermore, no matter what the impacts on affected parties, bovine TB and badger control is necessarily a moral issue. There are clear winners and losers in the various policy options. Hence, independent ethical analysis, conducted using established moral frameworks, is a necessary element of just policy making.

Endnotes:

¹ The Animal Health and Welfare Board of England is the principal advisory body to Defra on strategic issues relating to health and welfare.

² A notifiable disease is one which must be reported to regulatory authorities by law. A zoonotic disease is one which is transmissible from animals to humans.

³ MAFF was dissolved and replaced by Defra in 2011, in part due to failings and perceived conflicts of interests that arose during the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) inquiry.

⁴ Professor Krebs has since been appointed to the House of Lords.

⁵ ‘‘There was a very definite view from the outset that future policy was going to be the reactive culling. That was it. And when it was shown that it was not gonna work there was all hell let loose’’ [John Bourne, Chair ISG].

⁶ Sir David King worked with five other scientists: Prof. Tim Roper (ecologist), Prof. Douglas Young (immunologist/microbiologist), Prof. Mark Woolhouse (epidemiologist), Prof. Dan Collins (veterinary medicine) and Dr Paul Wood (veterinary microbiologist/immunologist).

⁷ The Welsh Assembly proposed a badger cull in Wales under the Animal Health Act 1981. This was found to be unlawful under judicial review when challenged by the Badger Trust. The judge cited one reason as the estimated reduction in bovine TB being ‘‘modest’’ and not ‘‘substantial’’ (Spencer 2011, p. 97).

⁸ The Team Badger coalition included the Badger Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Born Free Foundation (BFF), RSPCA, Save Me, League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Animal Aid, Animal Defenders International (ADI) and many local wildlife and badger protection organisations.

⁹ Dominic Dyer wrote Badgered to Death: The People and Politics of the Badger Cull based on his experience as Chief Executive of the Badger Trust, a leading campaign group against the cull.

¹⁰ George Eustice has a farming background and his family has a herd of South Devon cattle in Cornwall, an area of the UK with a high incidence of bovine TB.

References

APHA. (2015). Epidemiology of bovine tuberculosis in Wales: Annual surveillance report. London: Animal and Plant Health Agency.

Barkham, P. (2015). Experts call for immediate halt to £7,000-per-badger cull. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/02/badger-cull-experts-call-forimmediate-halt-programme.

Bateson, P., Begon, M., Blackburn, T., Bourne, J., Sutherland, W., Burke, T., et al. (2012). Culling badgers could increase the problem of TB in cattle: Badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control. The Observer. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2012/oct/14/letters-observer?guni=Article:in%20body%20link.

Bateson, P., Krebs, J., Bourne, J., Munro, R., Sillero, C., Crispin, S., et al. (2015). Badger cull is flawed and must now stop. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/ 02/badger-cull-is-flawed-and-must-now-stop.

BBC. (2013). Badgers ‘moved goalposts’ says minister Owen Paterson. BBC. Retrieved from http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24459424.

BBC News. (2015). Badger culls costs taxpayer more than £16 m. Retrieved 29 June 2017, from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34128594.

Bourne, F. J., Donnelly, C. A., Cox, D. R., Gettinby, G., McInerney, J. P., Morrison, W. I., et al. (2007).Bovine TB: The scientific evidence—final report of the independent scientific group on cattle TB. London: Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

Boyd, I., & Gibbens, N. (2012). Badger cull furore is distracting attention from the real problem. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/11/badger-cullfurore.

BVA. (2015). BVA council position on the pilot badger culls and badger culling policy in England. London: British Veterinary Association.

Cassidy, A. (2012). Vermin, victims and disease: UK framings of badgers in and beyond the bovine TB controversy. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(2), 192–214.

Conservative Party. (2015). The conservative party manifesto 2015: Strong leadership, a clear economic plan, a brighter, more secure future. London: Conservative Party.

Conservative Party. (2017). Forward together: Our plan for a stronger Britain and a prosperous future. London: The Conservative and Unionist Party.

Defra. (2006). Public consultation on controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England: Badger culling—summary of responses. London: Defra.

Defra. (2010a). Bovine tuberculosis: The government’s approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy. London: Defra.

Defra. (2010b). Bovine tuberculosis: The government’s approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy—Annex E, veterinary assessment on culling. London: Defra.

Defra. (2011). The government’s policy on bovine TB and badger control in England. London: Defra.

Defra. (2013). Strategy for achieving ‘‘officially bovine tuberculosis free’’ status for England: An ‘edge area’ strategy. London: Defra.

Defra. (2014a). Press release: Plans to eradicate bovine TB in England unveiled [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-to-eradicate-bovine-tb-in-england-unveiled.

Defra. (2014b). The strategy for achieving officially bovine tuberculosis free status for England. London: Defra.

Defra. (2016a). Badger control policy: Value for money analysis 2016. London: Defra.

Defra. (2016b). Further measures to eradicate bovine TB [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www. gov.uk/government/news/further-measures-to-eradicate-bovine-tb.

Donnelly, C. A., Woodroffe, R., Cox, D. R., Bourne, F. J., Cheeseman, C. L., Clifton-Hadley, R. S., et al.(2006). Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle. Nature,439(7078), 843–846. doi:10.1038/nature04454.

Dunnet, G. M., Jones, D. M., & McInerney, J. P. (1986). Badgers and bovine tuberculosis: Review of policy. London: HM Stationery Office.

Dyer, D. (2016). Badgered to death: The people and politics of the badger cull. London: Canbury Press.

Godfray, H. C. J., Donnelly, C. A., Kao, R. R., Macdonald, D. W., McDonald, R. A., Petrokofsky, G.,et al. (2013). A restatement of the natural science evidence base relevant to the control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. In Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 280, no. 1768.

Grant, W. (2009). Intractable policy failure: The case of bovine TB and badgers. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11(4), 557–573. (2013). Badger culling (SNSC-5873). London: House of Commons Library.

HC Deb. (2008). Bovine TB. Hansard, 478 (col. 1153).

HC Deb. (2014). Badger Cull. Hansard, 577 (col. 456).

HC Deb. (2016). Badger Culling/Bovine TB. Hansard, 614 (col. 141WH).

HC Deb. (2017). Badger Culling. Hansard, 624 (col. 1WH).

Hepple, S., & Gibbens, N. (2013). Animal ethics and the government’s policy: ‘To guard and protect’. In C. M. Wathes, S. A. Corr, S. A. May, S. P. McCulloch, & M. C. Whiting (Eds.), Veterinary and animal ethics: Proceedings of the first international conference on veterinary and animal ethics, September, 2011 (pp. 229–244). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

HM Gov. (2010). The coalition: Our programme for government. London: The Cabinet Office.

IEP. (2014). Pilot Badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire: Report by the independent expert panel. London: Independent Expert Panel.

Kay, A. (2017). Defra secretary Michael Gove on the customs union, badger cull, support payments and more. FG Insight. Retrieved from https://www.fginsight.com/news/exclusive-interview-defrasecretary-michael-gove-on-the-customs-union-badger-cull-support-payments-and-more-22102.

King, D. (2007). Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers. London: Defra.

Krebs, J. R., Anderson, R., Clutton-Brock, T., Morrison, I., Young, D., & Donnelly, C. (1997). Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers. London: Independent Scientific Review Group.

Labour Party. (2017). For the many not the few. London: Labour Party.

McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017a). Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling in England: A utilitarian analysis of policy options. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806- 017-9680-9.

McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017b). Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling in England: An animal rights-based analysis of policy options. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics. doi:10. 1007/s10806-017-9683-6.

McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017c). Bovine tuberculosis policy in England: Would a virtuous government cull Mr Badger? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806- 017-9682-7.

McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017d). The development of an Animal Welfare Impact Assessment (AWIA) tool and its application to bovine tuberculosis and badger control in England. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9684-5.

McEldowney, J., Grant, W., & Medley, G. (2013). The regulation of animal health and welfare: Science, law and policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

Natural England. (2011). The impact of culling on badger (Meles meles) populations in England and measures to prevent their ‘local disappearance’ from culled areas: Supplementary advice provided under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended): Natural England.

Reynolds, D. (2006). A review of tuberculosis science and policy in Great Britain. Veterinary Microbiology, 112(2), 119–126.

Spencer, A. (2011). One body of evidence, three different policies: Bovine tuberculosis policy in Britain. Politics, 31(2), 91–99.

Welsh Government. (2017). Strengthened approach to tackling bovine TB in Wales announced. Retrieved 30 June, 2017, from http://gov.wales/newsroom/environmentandcountryside/2017/170620- strengthened-approach-to-tackling-bovine-tb-in-wales-announced/?lang=en.

Wilkinson, K. (2007). Evidence based policy and the politics of expertise: A case study of bovine tuberculosis Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series (Vol. 12). Newcastle: Centre for Rural Economy.

Woodroffe, R., Donnelly, C. A., Cox, D. R., Bourne, F. J., Cheeseman, C. L., Delahay, R. J., et al. (2006). Effects of culling on badger Meles meles spatial organization: Implications for the control of bovine tuberculosis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(1), 1–10. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01144.x.

Zuckerman, O. M. (1980). Badgers, cattle and tuberculosis. London: HM Stationary Office.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

This Blessing was adapted by Fr. Simon for the blessing of the Argos Sanctuary in Cyprus. It can however be used by all.  We give our thanks to Professor Reverend Andrew Linzey for his permission to incorporate extracts from his book entitled Animal Rites- Liturgies of Animal Care into the blessing.

Blessing for Animal Welfare Staff and Sanctuaries

Blessed is our God, always now and forever and to the ages of ages
Amen

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and God saw everything He made and behold it was very good.

Almighty God we come together to thank you for beauty and the glory of your creation; to praise you and your holiness and grace; to acknowledge our responsibility to animals and for our use of the created world. But, first of all, we pray for your forgiveness for those who take part in sins of thoughtlessness and cruelty towards animal life.

Let us pray with the whole church and in the words of the saints, poets and theologians, for all those who struggle against the abuse of animals and for the strengthening of compassion in our hearts. Give those who work in this sanctuary the strength to continue to rescue and care for your creatures abused by others and to show the right path to all people.

For animals abandoned and abused
Give us new hearts O God
For the animals neglected and ill-treated
Give us new hearts O God
For animals cast out from homes
Give us new hearts O God
For animals hunted to death
Give us new hearts O God
For animals killed for convenience
Give us new hearts O God
For those companion animals who have died after giving us                                              love and the pleasure of their company
Give us new hearts O God

Holy God, your mercies are all over the earth, bless the creatures in this sanctuary and those that care for them and help us delight in the works of your hands.

Blessed before you O God, are those who struggle for peace and justice not only for human beings but for all of Your creatures. Strengthen their endeavours by the power of your Holy Spirit and may the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit be upon them.

O Creator and author of all things, giver of all spiritual graces and bestower of eternal salvation, send down your Holy Spirit with a blessing from upon high for this animal sanctuary that, fortified by the might of your heavenly protection, it may fulfill its promises to the animals of [Cyprus[ and all who make use of it.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord, we in turn, send our praises and love both now and forever and to the ages of ages.

Amen

I have added this article from a post from Prof. Marc Bekoff – short bio below. It is a summary of a more detailed report by 16 well regarded scientists entitled Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. I have read both and confirm that their findings concur with my own conclusions which is also based upon scientific research in this field.

Animal Consciousness: New Report Puts All Doubts to Sleep

A thorough summary of what we know shows skeptics ignore solid scientific data.

I have no doubt that numerous nonhuman animals (animals) are conscious beings, and I know I’m not alone in taking this strong and uncompromising position. Whenever I publish something to this effect and write about a new study or review that clearly shows animals are indeed conscious, I often receive emails that go something like, “Gee, isn’t this reinventing the wheel and a total waste of time?” or “We’ve known this for centuries” or “Tell me something we didn’t know.” I couldn’t agree more that the real question at hand is why has consciousness evolved in other animals rather than if it has evolved. And, the position that it is unquestionable that other animals are conscious and sentient beings is not only or merely that of animal activists or pro-animal people. Indeed, the recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness signed by 16 well-known scientists, some of whom do or have done invasive research, concluded:

“Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

They could also have included fishes, for whom the evidence supporting sentience and consciousness is also compelling. For more discussion of consciousness in fishes please see “It’s Time to Stop Pretending Fishes Don’t Feel Pain” and links therein, as well as Jonathan Balcombe’s excellent summary of research on the cognitive and emotional lives of fishes called What a Fish Knows: The Inner Lives of Our Underwater Cousins and wide-ranging discussions in the journal Animal Sentience in which researchers and other scholars predominantly support the idea that fishes are sentient being. For more discussion of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness please see “Scientists Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings” and for more on nonhuman sentience see “A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: No Pretending.”

Source: Courtesy of Andrezj Krauze

For an essay I wrote for New Scientist magazine called “Animals are conscious and should be treated as such” about the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, there is a wonderful cartoon of animals, including a fish, sitting around a table discussing these issues (reprinted here with permission of the artist, Andrezj Krauze). The print copy was called “Welcome to our world,” and it’s about time we did so with open hearts.

“Animal Consciousness”: A comprehensive and current comparative review of what we know about consciousness in other animals

A few days ago I learned about a new and report called “Animal Consciousness” authored by 16 scientists (the complete study and an 8-page summary can be found here under the heading DOCUMENTS). It’s long and detailed, but I figured if they took the time to write it, I could take the time to read through it. I fully realize that many people won’t, so here I just want to summarize some of their findings. This comprehensive report was conducted by INRA, Europe’s top agricultural research institute, upon request of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). So, while the authors took a broad comparative view of consciousness in nonhuman animals, there was somewhat of a focus on so-called livestock because of how billions of these sentient beings are routinely and globally abused for human palettes. “Livestock” is a demeaning word I disdain because these are living sentient beings rather than merely “stock.” If anything, they should be called “deadstock.”

Concerning this exceptional report, at INRA’s website we read, “This INRA collective scientific expert report is based on a critical review of international literature on animal consciousness. 659 references selected from the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection (WOS) database were studied by 17 experts, including 10 INRA experts, from different scientific fields (biologists, cognitivists and philosophers). 75% of these publications come from international scientific journals, 33% of which were published after 2010. INRA’s Delegation for Scientific Expertise, Foresight and Advanced Studies (DEPE) coordinated the report.

Here are some snippets from this study to whet your appetite for more.

Caution is required before excluding consciousness in species not having the same brain structures as the mammalian ones as different neuralarchitectures may mediate comparable processes.

Considering the limited amount of data available and the few animal species studied so far, we conclude that different manifestations of consciousness can be observed in animals but that further refinement is still needed to characterize their level and content in each species.

… the overall picture obtained from the large range of species considered strongly provides evidence for different types of consciousness in both livestock and fish.

We provide a few examples of higher levels of consciousness in domestic livestock: in poultry, hens can judge their own state of knowledge suggesting they are conscious of what they know or do not know. Pigs can remember what events they experienced, where, and when. Several other examples of cognitive capacities potentially underlying consciousness in domestic livestock are also available, such as recognition of individuals in sheep and cattle. Collectively these studies and those on wild and laboratory species, clearly support the hypothesis that domestic livestock species are capable of complex conscious processing.

Livestock species, such as poultry, pigs, and sheep, exhibit cognitive behaviours that seem to imply levels and contents of consciousness that until recently were considered exclusive to humans and to some primates. That is even more the case for fish and invertebrates that until recently were not even considered as sentient.

It’s high time to stop pretending we don’t know if other animals are conscious and sentient beings: Bridging the knowledge translation gap

In the INRA report we read, and I quote directly because it is essential to acknowledge what the authors themselves conclude:

It is thus likely that what matters to animals is rather similar to what matters to humans. We believe that human sentience is the capacity to suffer and to feel empathy for the suffering of others, and deserves ethical recognition … Therefore, the same should apply to non-human beings supposed to possess a “sentience-like”. (my emphasis)

The level of respect due to the animals is driven by the understanding of the forms of consciousness accessible to different animal species. Broadly speaking, we can say that the development of the cognitive sciences has resulted in the recognition of cognitive capacities in many species of animals (particularly mammals and some birds), including the capacity to experience a range of mental states and thus the possession of a mental universe much richer than that of mere existence as a sentient being. And yet this scientific development has coincided with the development of contemporary livestock production systems in which animals are, in the view of animal welfare advocates, increasingly treated as mere machines. In laboratory research, animals are likewise treated as though they were nothing but tools. Inquiring into the cognitive capacities and forms of consciousness manifested by various animal species thus results in a tension between a “thing to respect” in animals, which tends to expand, and a human behaviour that in practice respects the animal less and less, at least insofar as the public opinion understands it.

All in all, similar to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and other documents, the INRA report provides conclusive evidence that nonhuman animals are conscious beings and it’s high time to put the debate about whether they really are conscious to permanent sleep.

The important question at hand, then, is what are we going to do with this information? In our book called The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age Jessica Pierce and I wrote about what we call “the knowledge translation gap,” referring to the practice of ignoring tons of science showing that other animals are sentient beings and going ahead and causing intentional harm in human-oriented arenas. On the broad scale, it means that what we now know about animal cognition and emotion has not yet been translated into an evolution in human attitudes and practices.

A sad and inexcusably self-serving example of the knowledge translation gap is found in the wording of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which explicitly excludes rats and mice from kingdom Animalia (even though a first grader knows that rats and mice are animals). We could also call the AWA’s slip up an “alternative fact.” In the 2002 iteration of the AWA we read:

“Enacted January 23, 2002, Title X, Subtitle D of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, changed the definition of ‘animal’ in the Animal Welfare Act, specifically excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research.”

For more on the idiocy of the AWA’s misclassification of rats, mice, and other animals, please see “The Animal Welfare Act Claims Rats and Mice Are Not Animals.” Where have all the scientists gone who know that rats and mice are animals? Why haven’t they spoken out en masse about this egregious and unscientific move? Most likely, it’s simply because it works for them to ignore it.

Let’s welcome other animals into our world and the arena of conscious beings

I hope that people who are interested in the general topic of animal consciousness will take the time to look at the INRA report. You can do so in different sittings.

All in all, this landmark report is a thorough summary of what we know about animal consciousness and it makes it extremely clear skeptics who say something like, “We really don’t know if animals are conscious” ignore solid science and are dead wrong. It’s time for them to go home and read available scientific studies, end of story.

These individual conscious and sentient nonhuman beings care about what happens to themselves and to family members and friends, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for who they are, not what we want them to be. Recall what the authors of the INRA report concluded, namely, “It is thus likely that what matters to animals is rather similar to what matters to humans.” These animals’ lives are valuable because they are alive — they have what is referred to as inherent value — not because of what they can do for us — what is called their instrumental value. It’s about time that we welcome them into our world and the arena of conscious beings

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his scientific research including the Exemplar Award from the Animal Behavior Society and a Guggenheim Fellowship. Marc has published more than 1000 essays (popular, scientific, and book chapters), 30 books, and has edited three encyclopedias.

I am very satisfied that humankind has progressed and has found rules to keep us on a good path.  I remember a big debate in America, about the ways animals are killed and that the animals should not be tortured in any way.  Any killing should be done without pain and suffering to the animals. They have rules for how they breed them and how they kill them and I completely agree that such rules are necessary.  We should be respectful and treat them with kindness. There are laws for how animals are bred and killed and if people do not follow these rules they are bad people.

Violence and mistreatment – when you hear of this, apart from the suffering of the poor animals, we also think of the person who has done this act.  We ask who are these people and how could they do such things? The answer is because they have a bad heart.  It is a psychological and psycho-pathological problem.

Presbytera Christina: Yes father, there is much evidence to show that those people who perpetrate extreme violence to other humans have already exhibited the same extreme violence to animals when they were children.  In the past this connection was not made but now it is one of the key indicators for psychiatrists and the police in understanding a deeply disordered personality.

So Father, this is a great overview and a welcome and positive statement of the position of the Orthodox Church’s views about animals and their treatment.  Could we now look at the specifics of the research in Cyprus?  The original research showed that the Orthodox Church was thought of as not caring for animals.  That is not what my research into the early church has shown.  There, we have many examples of compassion for animals and so despite having a wealth of examples and texts, this appears not to be the practice on the ground.  For example, when people have written to the Church they have not received any response. This lack of communication has reinforced this misunderstanding of the Orthodox Church’s teachings.  Up until now, until my research, all that has been said recently has been on the environment -creation in its widest sense, but nothing has been said about the animals and how we should treat them. In my interview last week with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, I have a clear statement on the Orthodox Church’s position on a variety of animal themes but until this meeting that we have today, we have nothing from the Orthodox Church in Cyprus, can you explain why this is?

Bishop Isaias: It is traditional for us as Orthodox to have a good relationship with the animals.  Our theology is favourable to the animals. We have never tolerated violence but we have never said anything because I think it was not seen as necessary.  Now, however, we see more and more the ill treatment of animals and it is true, it is time that we in the Church said something.  Before there did not seem the need but it is different now and this is why I am giving you this interview.

As Christians many of us have pets or had pets and many of us know the work of the groups who protect animals, some even helped in these groups. In the context of Cyprus we can do more and we should do more. That is why I am ready to do something. Now, when we see these instances of violence or people bring us information, we must do something about it.

I understand that there has been a lack of communication and I am happy to deal with this.  I believe that when we have gatherings or go to Christian societies and talk to people, we should mention things that are troubling people in their everyday lives, like the treatment of animals.  I am very disturbed to hear that some priests have misused animals and whilst this is not every priest, even if it is one priest – it is a priest and one bad priest can easily become two priests and so we must take care.

It is true that many of our teachings do not get through to the people but this is true for many other things as well as the animals.  It has to do with the nature of the individual person, some will listen and understand whilst others will go their own way, against the teachings. It has to do with their character and their own weaknesses. If you are a good Christian you will love the animals and they will love you back and there are many books showing this through the lives of the early saints as I said before. You cannot find a Holy man who has mistreated animals.

In this country we have the Green party and they have spoken of the need to protect the environment and I agree with them. Some people have asked if it is possible to have a place where they can protect the animals in my district and I have said yes but I have told them that they must take care of them, not just put them there and leave them.

Now let me talk of the practical problems.  We see now that there is more mistreatment of animals this is because of the moral crisis and of the economic crisis. Again it is a spiritual thing.  It is covered in the teachings of the virtues. If there is any weakness in the person, evil will enter and this will be shown against the little children, the defenceless women and also against the animals.  I understand that there is research that shows this to be so.

Specifically on the subject of communication I would propose that there is a reservation from some Christian Orthodox groups to discuss with people from these welfare groups because some of these people are not Christians and some are seen as difficult.

Presbytera Christina: But father all this reticence does is reinforce the belief that the Orthodox Church is not interested or concerned about the suffering of animals and is therefore counterproductive.

Bishop Isaias: Well I believe that a good way to show this is not true and I have been thinking of this for some time, is to open a dialogue by establishing an Orthodox Church group within my Diocese for the protection of animals and I think we should have some training sessions for our priests on this theme and some talks for our Christian groups.

Presbytera Christina: Well I have to say that this would be a wonderful initiative for it would to my knowledge, be the first in the Orthodox World.  The Catholics have one, the Anglicans have one and the Muslims have one but as yet not the Orthodox Church and so this would be a very positive move. I will add that it is remarkable that this move would come from Cyprus who will now be seen as a leader in this field just as the Ecumenical Patriarch has been for his role in the environment.

Bishop Isaias: Many of my parishioners have cats and dogs and they love them and I am sure they will be happy to begin such a project.

Presbytera Christina: Well I expect they do have cats and dogs and I would like to bring up one related point Father and this is the need for clarity in Cyprus on the position of the Orthodox Church on the neutering of animals.  It is suggested that the Church forbids this practice or that as it is against the animal’s nature so we must not interfere with that nature. If this is not the position of the Church can you give us the correct Orthodox position on neutering?

Bishop Isaias: There is no such statement. There has of course never been any need before to make such a statement but I am prepared to say quite clearly that the Orthodox Church has no such teaching.  We do not forbid the neutering of animals.  We shall make a statement and we shall publish it to ensure people understand our position and not as you rightly say, use this as an excuse for not having their animals neutered.

Presbytera Christina: Father this is an excellent idea but before we continue, I would like to ask you something further on the research.  It is suggested that the Church has a representative or indeed representatives who are teaching in schools, that because an animal does not have a soul it does not matter how they treat it or, that because an animal does not have a soul it doesn’t matter if you are cruel to it or, that animals don’t feel pain. Can you make a clear statement on the Orthodox Church’s position on these ‘teachings’?  Should we use the criteria of an animal’s soul as the criteria for the way we treat it?

Bishop Isaias: This is certainly not the case – this is not Orthodoxy and I would like the name of that person if you can find it.  All creatures have a soul – this is the teaching from the earliest time.  We need to define what is meant by soul.  You mention Plato and Aristotle but these are philosophers not theologians.  Aristotle said that there were three kinds of souls but what he meant was ‘life-force’ and this is true. You mention Metropolitan Kallistos’ statements on this and he is right when he says there is no dogma in the church on this and so yes it is a matter of opinion but in general, we do differentiate between a human soul and an animal soul.  He is also right when he says that the issue of the soul in relation to how we treat animals only confuses the matter.  What we seem to have is some people taking a bit of philosophy and a bit of theology and they mix them up and come up with something which is not Orthodox.

Let me be clear – animals are the creation of God and we should treat them with respect and not be cruel to them and what kind of soul they have has no part of that discussion.  We should not be involved in this type of argument; it should not be used, as it only serves to confuse what should be very clear. We should not be cruel to animals – it is that simple. We should not be cruel, we should love.

Presbytera Christina: The next topic I would like to talk with you about Father is the matter of education, particularly theological education.  Met. Kallistos has said that often, all too often in fact, theologians meet at conferences and agreements are made but that this information or teaching rarely gets to the people on the streets or to the village priest.  He mentioned also that he had spoken with President Makarios and had asked him what he thought his biggest task was and his reply was that he wanted above all, to improve the education for the village priest.  That was forty years ago.  How do you think we can get these Orthodox teachings to the priests and their parishioners?

Bishop Isaias: President Makarios was correct. Now all of our priests who have chosen the priesthood as their vocation attend Seminary College but there are some who become priests later in life after a career elsewhere and these do not have that level of education, though we do have training courses for them.

Presbytera Christina: Are the priest taught anything on the environment or on the ethical treatment of animals?

Bishop Isaias: I do not think so, though I do know the Ecumenical Patriarch wants this. Perhaps he has something but let me say this, why do we not start this? We can make a programme for our priests here in Cyprus.

Presbytera Christina: Ok, but who has the knowledge on both Orthodox theology and the ethical treatment of animals and the environment?  Who will do this?

Bishop Isaias: This is a good question and again this is something I have been thinking of for a while. I think it is time that we had someone from here, one of my students to do a Masters in this subject – Orthodoxy and the Animal Kingdom, I think this would be a very good start.  We would then have the research available to us in Greek from which to write a programme for our priests, based on our research and in one year or two at the most, we can make a proposal to our Synod that this programme be taught in our seminaries. This would be for the new priests but we could also have training programmes for the existing Priests.

Presbytera Christina:  Well Bishop Isaias may I say firstly that I thank you for the large amount of time you have spent discussing this subject with me as I know you are a very busy man.  Can I also say that I am extremely encouraged by what you have said and feel that your comments, together with those by Metropolitan Kallistos, have enabled me to give a clear teaching of the Orthodox Church’s position on the welfare and treatment of animals in the 21st Century than would otherwise not have been the case.

At the Orthodox Mission Conference at Oxford, in the UK,  we learnt of Alexios’ trip to Fr. Themi’s orphanage and of the work of the Tacugama Chimpanzee Santuary.  The sanctuary were supporting not only orphaned/rescued chimpanzees but also the human victims of the recent mudslide.  This is an edited article of his experience.

 Scene of the August 14^th mudslide.

By going on a tour of the sanctuary I learnt so much from the guides, one of which, Moses, lost 7 members of his family during the August 14^th mudslide. The illegal deforestation and house building in the area significantly increased the instability of the soil which led to the devastating mudslide and loss of life.

Essentially, the roots of trees weave into the soil to hold it together and prevent erosion.

The Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary

Compassion for Humans. The prime objective of the Sanctuary is the rehabilitation of confiscated, orphaned and abandoned chimpanzees. After the recent mudslide the sanctuary initially supported the children left without parents by providing meals. It now sponsors their education but on a long term basis. Chatting to a woman at the airport, I found out that she works 7 days a week and earns $70 per month. She is a single mother supporting her 1 year old child, mother and cousin. Her cousin’s education, including books and uniform is $150 per year. So you can imagine the financial strain this must be putting on the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.

Compassion for Non-Humans. The orphaned chimpanzees problem started with the demand for bush meat. Adult chimps are killed for meat and the baby chimps are taken as an extra item to sell.

Despite the decrease in the price of bush meat, the price and demand for baby chimps has increased making them more valuable than the adults. Chimps are extremely protective of their young, so a hunter might have to kill at least 6 adults in order to capture one child. Chimps are now listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

Chimpanzees (and many other species) are recognised by the scientific community as sentient creatures. They are highly intelligent beings who share the same range of emotions as humans; which includes suffering from mental trauma and grief at the loss of family members. A trained member of staff acts as a surrogate mother to these orphaned chimps.

The chimps’ rehabilitation begins with 90 day quarantine. This is to prevent any diseases being spread amongst the group. This period is also used to introduce them to their new diet and home. Medical data is also collated and the chimps are immunised against diseases such as tetanus and polio.

Sharing 98.6% of our DNA, chimps are susceptible to any common ailments that we might have. Once the vet gives the all clear, the chimps are introduced to other members of their new ‘family’. Younger chimps find it easier to fit it and adapt with their new siblings. The role of the surrogate mother gradually decreases at this stage.

Orphaned chimps socialising through play in the sanctuary

Young adults learning to forage for food

.Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary is located in the Western Area Peninsula National Park by the Regent area of Freetown, S.L.

The sanctuary has several eco-lodges for an overnight stay. It can provide meals and breakfast. The isolation is perfect for anyone wishing to escape the hustle and bustle of Freetown, down below. I managed to record the sounds of the night and early morning whilst I slept. This will be used during the presentation of my photos. For more information on the work of the Sanctuary please visit their website:

http://www.tacugama.com/home

Congo Dam

The Congo Dam is situated 100 metres up the mountain from the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Their tours usually need to be pre-booked and follow a specific route used by tourists. I was taken on the unofficial tour with a running commentary from my two guides. They spoke of the importance of conservation in the rainforest and the importance of all animals. Deforestation and poachers are the main areas of concern.

Food for the animals is picked up from beneath the trees and stored under rocks

This helps the guides to spot if hunters have been in the forest

The older of the two men,  Sa,

was very knowledgeable when it came to the wildlife

John knew a great deal about conservation.

The view from the Congo Dam

The lesson they gave me was worthy of any secondary/high school class. Both men spoke of their job with passion and pride.

.

This is a copy of the open letter from leading marine scientists to EU representatives regarding improving legal protection.

Reducing marine mammal & turtle bycatch in EU fisheries through an effective new regulation on Technical Conservation Measures

Dear MEP, EU Member State Representative, European Commission,

In the European Union all marine mammals and turtles are protected under the EU Habitats Directive. Yet, for decades, incidental catches of these species in fisheries have been a major conservation and welfare concern with high numbers continuing to die in this way each year. Despite existing EU legal requirements to monitor and reduce bycatch, monitoring has been insufficient in most fisheries and areas and has thus frequently impeded the application of effective mitigation measures ¹ .

The Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the Conservation of Fishery Resources and the Protection of Marine Ecosystems through Technical Measures (2016/0074(COD)) (hereafter referred to as the Technical Conservation Measures Regulation) currently under scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council provides an opportunity to build upon the EU measures that are currently in place, to more effectively monitor and reduce bycatch of sensitive species such as marine mammals and turtles.

As experts on cetaceans and fisheries management, we are concerned by what appears to be an unambitious tone being set during the negotiations on this proposed legislation. For example, proposals have been made in the European Parliament to (a) remove the ban on driftnets in the Baltic Sea (where recent scientific assessments cite evidence that bycatch in gillnets continues to adversely affect the critically endangered population of Baltic Sea harbour porpoises estimated to number less than 500 individuals) ² and (b) remove all bycatch monitoring and mitigation measures in South Western Waters (ICES sub-areas VIII, IX & X – Union waters of the Bay of Biscay, Spain, Portugal and offshore, including waters around the Azores) and CECAF zones 35 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2.0 (Union waters around Madeira and the Canary islands).

Once adopted, the Technical Conservation Measures Regulation is expected to be fundamental for ensuring Union-wide action to minimize, and where possible, eliminate incidental catches of marine mammals and turtles through effective monitoring and mitigation, in accordance with the strict protection required under the Habitats Directive.

We therefore urge you to ensure that the Technical Conservation Measures Regulation includes requirements to:

• more effectively monitor incidental catches of marine mammals and turtles, irrespective of vessel size, and report data annually to the EU;
• progressively minimize and, where possible, eliminate incidental catches of sensitive species;
• ensure that monitoring and mitigation are based on the best available science with credible assessment of their effectiveness;
• ensure that EU standards and compliance measures are set in every sea basin; and
• maintain the driftnet ban in the Baltic.

We call on you to guarantee that EU legislation is not weakened and that protection and conservation measures for sensitive species threatened by fishing operations are duly implemented and improved to minimise impacts on these species.

Sincerely,

The undersigned cetacean and fisheries experts:

Name  & Affiliation

Professor Àlex Aguilar,Universitat de Barcelona, Spain;Dr Matthieu Authier,                    Observatoire Pelagis,Université de La Rochelle-CNRS, France; Dr Simon Berrow,          Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, Ireland Galway-Mayo Institute ofTechnology, Ireland; Dr Arne Bjørge,Institute of Marine Research,Norway Co-chair,International Whaling Commission (IWC) Bycatch Mitigation Initiative Chair Norwegian Marine Mammal Scientific Advisory Board Member, ICES Working Group Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME) Member, IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas (MMMPA) Task Force, Norwegian delegate for IWC Scientific Committee; Patricia Brtnik, Deutsches Meeresmusem, Germany, German delegate for Agreement on the  Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS); Dr Kees (C.J.) Camphuysen, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea    Research, The Netherlands Utrecht University,The Netherlands; Ida Carlen, Chair, Jastarnia Group Coalition Clean Baltic, Sweden; Dr Julia Carlström, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Sweden Member, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) Member, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) Swedish delegate for ASCOBANS; Professor Boris Culik, F³: Forschung. Fakten. Fantasie, Germany; Rob Deaville, Cetacean Investigation Stranding Programme, Zoological Society of London (ZSL),UK; Dr Geneviève Desportes, Former Coordinator for the ASCOBANS North Sea Harbour Porpoise Action Plan (2011-2015); Dr Peter Evans, Chair, ASCOBANS Bycatch Working Group University of Bangor, UK Sea   Watch Foundation, UK; Professor Antonio Fernandez, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,Spain; Dr Caterina Fortuna, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research,Italy; Dr Alexandros Frantzis; Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute, Greece; Luís Freitas,Head of the Science Unit, Madeira Whale Museum, Madeira, Portugal Portuguese delegate for IWC Scientific Committee;Tilen Genov, President, Morigenos – Slovenian Marine Mammal Society, Slovenia; Jan Haelters,Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium Belgian delegate for ASCOBANS;Sami Hassani, Océanopolis, France; Dr Helena Herr, Germany; Erich Hoyt,Co-Chair, IUCN MMMPA Task Force;Lonneke IJsseldijk,Utrecht University, The Netherlands; Dr Paul Jepson,Cetacean InvestigationStranding  Programme, ZSL,UK; Sara Königson Swedish University of Agriculture Science,  Sweden Member, ICES Working Group for  Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) Member, Jastarnia Group Swedish delegate for ASCOBANS; Sven Koschinski, Meereszoologie, Germany; Dr Russell Leaper, UK delegate for IWC Scientific Committee; Dr Ana Marçalo, University of the Algarve, Portugal Member,ICES WGBYC; Dr Sandro Mazzariol, University of Padua, Italy Cetaceans Strandings Emergency Response Team, Italy Chair, IWC Expert Panel on Strandings Italian delgate for IWC Scientific Committee; Dr Sinead Murphy, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Ireland;Dr Simon Northridge, Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St Andrews, UK Member, ICES WGBYC; Dr Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, Co-Chair, IUCN MMMPA Task Force Deputy Chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission,Cetacean Specialist Group Name Affiliation; Dr Simone Panigada, Tethys Research Institute, Italy; Dr Iwona Pawliczka, Prof.Krzysztof Skóra Hel Marine Station, University of Gdańsk, Poland; Dr Helene Peltier, Observatoire Pelagis, Université de La Rochelle- CNRS, France Member, ICES WGBYC; Dr Graham Pierce, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC), Spain Spanish delegate for IWC Scientific Committee Member, IWC Standing Working Group of the Bycatch Mitigation Initiative, Co- chair, ICES WGMME; Dimitar Popov, Green Balkans, Bulgaria; Dr Lindsay Porter, Co-Convener, Small Cetaceans IWC Scientific Committee SMRU (Hong Kong), University of St.Andrews, UK; Dr Violin, St.Raykov BlackSea4FishProject GFCM FAO Coordinator,Institute of Oceanology- BAS,Bulgaria; Dr Fiona Read, University of Aberdeen, UK Whale and Dolphin Conservation,UK Member, ICES WGMME; Dr Randy Reeves, Chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cetacean Specialist Group; Professor Vincent Ridoux  Observatoire Pelagis, Université de La Rochelle-CNRS, France; Dr Meike Scheidat,Wageningen Marine Research, The Netherlands   Dutch delegate for IWC Scientific Committee; Mark Simmonds, OBE,Humane Society International; Dr Renaud de Stephanis, Conservation Information and Research on Cetaceans (CIRCE), Spain; Dr Nick Tregenza, Chelonia Limited University of Exeter, UK; Dr Adriana Vella,Conservation Biology Research Group, University of Malta, Malta; Dr Els Vermeulen,Mammal Research Institute Whale Unit, University   of Pretoria, South Africa Belgian delegate for IWC Scientific Committee.                                          

1 ASCOBANS. 2015. Report on the Expert Workshop on the Requirements of Legislation to Address Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch. Bonn, Germany, 21-23rd January 2015. 37 pp.

2.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/Baltic_Sea_Ecoregion_Fisheries_Overview.pdf

We are thrilled to announce that Bishop Isaias is to join Metropolitan Kallistos as Patron of the charity Pan Orthodox Concern For Animals.  Below is a brief bio which will be translated into other languages due to the efforts of our friends Luda, Anka and our latest volunteer Ingrid.

Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos

His Eminence, the Most Reverend Isaias (Kykkotis) of Tamassos and Orinis is the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Tamassos and Orinis of the Church of Cyprus.

Metr. Isaias was born in 1971 in Strovolos, Cyprus of parents who had been  displaced from their home during the 1974 Turkeys  invasion in Cyprus. He attended and graduated from the Acropolis Lyceum. After his graduation he served in the army of Cyprus before enrolling in the Seminary of Apostle Barnabas in 1990 and, at the same time, joined the Kykkos Monastery as a novice.

In 1992, Isaias began his theological studies at the Moscow Theological Academy in Russia at the direction of Abbot Nikiforos of Kykkos Monastery, and graduated with Honors in 1997. He continued studies at the Moscow Theological Academy , completing his post-graduate work with a paper, “The Life and Works of St. Neophtos the Confined”. He then continued his post graduate education at the Theological Faculty of the Aristotle University of Thessalonica, completing a three year program in Ecclesiastical Archaeology. Isaias then returned to Russia as a nominee for Doctor of Theology at the Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary . After acceptance of his dissertation, “The History and the Theological Content of the kolivades dispute  ( spiritual Renaissance 19th century  )  in Ayion Oros” he was granted, in 2003, the degree of Doctor of Theology by the Council of the Moscow Academy. In 2016 he completed a new master degree in church history at the theological faculty of Nicosia university in Cyprus!

In 1993, on a break from the seminary in Russia, Isaias was ordained a deacon. In 2000, he was ordained priest and elevated to the dignity of archimandrite by Archbishop Chrysostomos I.

Archim. Isaias was active as a representative of the Monastery of Kykkos. He participated in many theological, cultural, and humanitarian conferences in Cyprus and abroad as a member of the “World forum of Religions and Cultures.” He also participated in programs in the United States of America on the role of the Church in a modern multicultural society. Serving under Bishop Nikiforos, Isaias founded and supervised, for Kykkos Monastery, the Department of Direct Granting of Humanitarian Help and Spiritual Support of the disabled. This involved visiting and organizing help programs in countries that were affected by wars, hunger, or disasters. Archim. Isaias also served with the blessing of Abp. Chrysostomos I as confessor of non-Cyprian Orthodox prisoners in the Central Prisons.

After election by the clergy and people on June 9, 2007, Archim. Isaias was consecrated and enthroned Metropolitan of Tamassos and Orinis on June 11, 2007.

During his service us a bishop he founded the first Orthodox Christian environment and animal protection department of the Cyprus church in his diocese.

Μητροπολίτης

ἡ Α.Π. ὁ Μητροπολίτης Ταμασοῦ καὶ Ὀρεινῆς

κ. Ἠσαΐας

Ὁ Πανιερώτατος Μητροπολίτης Ταμασοῦ καὶ Ὀρεινῆς κ. Ἠσαΐας ἐγεννήθη εἰς τὸν Στρόβολον τὸ 1971, ἀπὸ ἐκτοπισθέντας γονεῖς. Μετὰ τὸ πέρας τῆς φοιτήσεώς του εἰς τὸ Λύκειον Ἀκροπόλεως, κατατάσσεται εἰς τὴν Ἐθνικὴν Φρουρὰν καί, ἀκολούθως, τὸ 1990 ἐγγράφεται εἰς τὴν Ἱερατικὴν Σχολὴν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Κύπρου «Ἀπόστολος Βαρνάβας». Τὸν ἴδιον χρόνον ἐντάσσεται ὡς δόκιμος μοναχὸς εἰς τὴν Ἱερὰν Μονὴν Κύκκου, ὅπου ὑπηρετεῖ εἰς διάφορα διακονήματα. Τὸ 1992 ὁ τότε Ἡγούμενος τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Κύκκου καὶ νῦν Μητροπολίτης Κύκκου καὶ Τηλλυρίας κ. Νικηφόρος τὸν στέλλει εἰς τὴν Ρωσίαν διὰ θεολογικὰς σπουδάς. Τὸ 1993 χειροτονεῖται διάκονος εἰς τὴν Ἱερὰν Μονὴν Κύκκου καὶ τὸ 1997 ἀποπερατώνει τὰς σπουδάς του εἰς τὴν Θεολογικὴν Σχολὴν Μόσχας. Τὸ ἴδιον ἔτος συνεχίζει καὶ τὸ 1998 ὁλοκληρώνει μεταπτυχιακὸν κύκλον σπουδῶν εἰς τὴν Μόσχαν, μὲ θέμα: «Ὁ βίος καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἁγίου Νεοφύτου τοῦ Ἐγκλείστου». Ἀκολούθως μεταβαίνει καὶ φοιτᾶ εἰς τὴν Θεολογικὴν Σχολὴν τοῦ Ἀριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, ὅπου παρακολουθεῖ μὲ ἐπιτυχίαν διὰ δύο ἔτη δεύτερον κύκλον μεταπτυχιακῶν σπουδῶν εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴν Ἀρχαιολογίαν. Τὸ ἔτος 2000 χειροτονεῖται Πρεσβύτερος καὶ προχειρίζεται εἰς Ἀρχιμανδρίτην ὑπὸ τοῦ τότε Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου Χρυσοστόμου Α΄. Ἐν συνεχείᾳ ἐγγράφεται εἰς τὴν Θεολογικὴν Ἀκαδημίαν Μόσχας ὡς ὑποψήφιος διδάκτωρ Θεολογίας καὶ ἐκπονεῖ διδακτορικὴν διατριβὴν μὲ θέμα: «Ἡ ἱστορία καὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν περιεχόμενον τῆς Κολλυβαδικῆς ἔριδος εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Ὅρος». Μετὰ ἀπὸ ἐπιτυχῆ ὑποστήριξιν τῆς διατριβῆς του, τὸ 2003 ἀνακηρύσσεται Διδάκτωρ Θεολογίας ἀπὸ τὸ Ἐπιστημονικὸν Συμβούλιον τῆς Θεολογικῆς Ἀκαδημίας Μόσχας. Τὸ 2015 ὁλοκληρώνει μεταπτυχιακὸν κύκλον σπουδῶν εἰς τὸ Πανεπιστήμιον Νεάπολις Πάφου καὶ ἐκπονεῖ διατριβὴν ὑπὸ τὸν τίτλον «Ἡ ἱστορία τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μητροπόλεως Ταμασοῦ καὶ Ὀρεινῆς μέσα ἀπὸ τὶς πηγές».

Ὡς μέλος τῆς Ἀδελφότητος τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Κύκκου, μὲ τὴν καθοδήγησιν τοῦ Ἡγουμένου αὐτῆς, προΐσταται τοῦ Τμήματος Ἀμέσου Παροχῆς Ἀνθρωπιστικῆς Βοηθείας καὶ Πνευματικῆς Στηρίξεως εἰς ἀναξιοπαθοῦντας ἐκ μέρους τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Κύκκου. Τῇ εὐλογίᾳ τοῦ Μακαριωτάτου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου πρώην Κύπρου Χρυσοστόμου Α΄, ὑπηρετεῖ ἐπὶ ἀρκετὸν διάστημα ὡς πνευματικὸς τῶν ἀλλοδαπῶν ὀρθοδόξων εἰς τὰς Κεντρικὰς Φυλακὰς Κύπρου. Ὑπηρετεῖ, ὡσαύτως, ὡς Ἐκτελεστικὸς Πρόεδρος τοῦ Γραφείου Εὐρωπαϊκῶν χρηματοδοτήσεων τῆς Ἱερᾶς Συνόδου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Κύπρου.

Τὴν 9ην Ἰουνίου 2007, ἐκλέγεται παμψηφεὶ ὑπὸ τῆς Κληρικολαϊκῆς Συνελεύσεως ὡς Μητροπολίτης Ταμασοῦ καὶ Ὀρεινῆς καὶ τὴν 11ην Ἰουνίου τοῦ ἰδίου ἔτους χειροτονεῖται καὶ ἐνθρονίζεται ὡς Μητροπολίτης Ταμασοῦ καὶ Ὀρεινῆς.

This article is part of an interview with Bishop Isaias of |Tamasou & Orinis, Cyprus in response to social science research which indicated a lack of engagement/clarity by the Church on animal cruelty and suffering.

Presbytera Christina: Firstly I would like to thank you for this interview which will be part of my research for my PhD entitled: – Ancient Voices in Modern Theology: Orthodox Teaching and Practice in Animal Suffering and Welfare.[1]

Bishop Isaias: Let me give a general statement of our approach to animals and the Creation. From the time we realise that everything is from God, the animals, the plants, the earth, the planets, we are humbled before God and thankful for His Creation because of all this was created for us, for the service of mankind. Of course the main creation is the human life and everything else is to help the preservation of the human life.  This means that we must be thankful for this creation which is created for our well-being.

Presbytera Christina: Father if I may point out one problem here. The danger with that one approach or perspective is that this view alone leads to the situation we have today where the rest of creation is seen purely for our use and not there for us to protect and prosper as stewards or priests of God’s creation, which is now a common theme within Orthodoxy.

Bishop Isaias: Yes you are right they are connected. It is a combination of these together with a spiritual connection – you cannot separate them.  For example, sheep are used for my food but it is a creation of God that is now given for me to eat so that I survive.  I should protect it, firstly because it is a creation of God and secondly it is for my benefit.  I cannot mistreat animals that are used in the food-chains just because they are for that purpose.

Presbytera Christina: So to clarify what you are saying is that we need to protect them for three reasons:-

• They are part of God’s Creation and we should love them for themselves.
• We should protect them because some of them are also for our food.
• We should protect them because if we abuse them this is bad for us in the spiritual context.

Bishop Isaias: Yes, there are several threads. We have a spiritual connection and how we treat animals is a spiritual matter. There is a special connection with the animals and plants because we are all part of the Holy providence.  God did not make anything by mistake, all things were made with perfection and as created beings we are all connected.  Yes there is a discrimination of levels.  We use hierarchical levels in tradition, so I cannot put the rest of the animal kingdom or planets in the same level as humans but this does not mean that humans should be disrespectful of the rest of the Creation. We must be proud that it is given for us and all of us must protect it. Otherwise we are not good curators and do not respect the Creation of God.

It is a spiritual thing because our intentions and our actions define who we are.  If you are violent to an animal you can easily be violent to human beings. If you are disrespectful to nature and to forests this too means that you will easily be disrespectful to humans because we are all connected.  Everything is connected.

Animals are our companions and they also give us food and they make the world more beautiful so we can see the beauty of God through the Creation. People feel comfortable near to animals and this is why they have pets and this is a good thing on many levels. It is important that people should try to stop the cruelty to animals and try to protect them, this is a good thing. It is also good that the people protect the nature, the forests – the green kingdom shall we say.

So whilst we say that humans are the main creation this is not to denigrate the rest of creation.  They are God’s Creation and we must respect that and treat them respectfully.

If you express negative thoughts or actions to the Creation this means that you are a bad person, a bad human being. Because man was created with a conscience of virtue – perfect and clear- you cannot or should not do bad things.  We have circumstances in the way we are brought up and this will affect us but our aim is to keep our conscience clear and to have a good heart.  This is why Jesus Christ said that if you want to inherit the kingdom of God you must become like the children.  Children have clear hearts and clear consciences – without destructions.  They have not learnt bad things, they have no hatred and they have no vested interests.  We can easily identify bad people because we see how they act – they will disrespect creation and also the people.  God gave man a conscience and this must be kept clear of bad actions, it must be without hatred and free of vested interests.

We have a tradition in the Church of Staretz – Holy people who have had a very good relationship with animals, even the wild animals.  These Fathers had a pure heart, a good heart and a good conscience.  They have shown us how we should behave and have given us clear examples of how to live our lives.  Not one of them did anything wrong to the animals or to nature – they understood their place and were connected to all of nature. Some examples are St. Mammas and St. Gerasimus, or Daniel in the cave with the lions and lately, Holy Father Paisius who used to talk to the animals. This shows us that people who have a clear conscience can become more approachable to animals, can have a closer relationship with animals because the animals recognise the love that is reflected in their life.  They have no fear of these men.

Of course the devil interferes with the animals and as we are tempted, so animals are tempted. You can see bad behaviour in animals as you do in humans. We see some people making bad use of animals and making them bad as they are bad and so we have to be careful of some animals but this is another subject.

Presbytera Christina: Yes father, this is one of the subjects the animal welfarists have to deal with.  The research would show that it is not the animal that was bad but the bad person who owned that animal that made it bad, they brutalise them and we can give for example the way animals are made to fight each other for the profit of some bad people.

Bishop Isaias:  Yes exactly. So temptation is everywhere, where there are bad actions and thoughts, there too is the devil. So we have to take care of our own actions to safeguard our own souls.

Presbytera Christina: From this you would seem to suggest that animals have their own consciousness.  Is that what you mean?

Bishop Isaias: Well yes, in a way. They have their instincts and they have their genes. We can bring up a lion with a kind heart from the time it is born but at all times we must understand that it is a lion and if it is provoked or it is hungry it may turn against us.  It is true that there is research which shows that many animals have intelligence and understanding and now we cannot say they do not but still we need to be aware of their innate character in this fallen world.

We can say that the animals have their justice and that is different from the justice in the humans.  We have a consciousness that is different.  For example an animal that is hungry will eat what is before it but a man who is hungry and needs to survive, must be tolerant. He must not mistreat other people and also he must not harm the environment because he has some needs. We have been given all by God but we must not misuse them.

We have been given our reason and our freedom and we are free to choose what we do, this is not so easily said for the animals that have strong instincts to act as they do.  This does not detract from what I said before, in fact it is more so.  We must choose to act for the benefit of all of the Creation not just for our own selfish will.  We must act for the good of all Creation. Unfortunately, we are mistreating this free will – or misusing this free will because everywhere we can see how we are misusing the Creation.

Now there are animals that have excellent reason and instincts and have very similar abilities to human beings, like the chimpanzees for example.  I have done my own research and I know that there are many studies now that show how close many species are to us and this is a good thing because it helps us to see how connected we are to the other animals in the kingdom of God.  This should help us to understand our connectedness and to treat them well.

So we must not idolize animals but at the same time we must take measures to protect them.  I think it is important to say that we understand the people who try to stop the cruelty to the animals do not idolize them but instead, they see that connection that many others do not see.

We have to be kind to all creatures.  Kindness should show no discrimination.  We must not discriminate against the animals. We must not have a selfish kindness; I mean here that we should not be kind to animals just because it benefits us, like for our food, or for our companions or that they decorate the world; we need to be kind to animals because it is who we are, we are made in the image of God and we must reflect the love of God in his kindness to all things and because they belong to God.

We have a conscience given to us by love, initiated by God who is love and we must use it to love all things. So human beings who are not kind and thoughtful, who are not protective of animals, are bad human beings. They are bad people because their violence and mistreatment of animals means that they have complexes – they have problems.  It is not the animals that are the problem but the people and the problems are inside their hearts.

1.] This was the original title of the thesis.

CHRIST’S BIRTH, PATRISTIC COMMENTARY AND ANIMAL PROTECTION.

Firstly, we send our love and blessings to all our friends and supporters.  We extend this to those across the world who show concern and compassion for animals, even if they do not know of His, or our, existence.  We do so because we believe they carry out God’s will for His Creation.

This is the classic representation of Christ’s birth:

From the earliest times, Eastern Orthodox Christianity has had a tradition which promotes God’s love and compassion for all created beings.  Church history informs us that the early Fathers wrote much of their work in order to dispute the various heresies of their time; two of which were the false teachings that God neither knew, nor cared for Man or the world he inhabited. Understandably, with so many heresies the non-human creation was not the primary focus of the early Church however, this does not mean that they failed to recognize the need to care and protect the non-human world. St. Irenaeus was one of the earliest to acknowledge the heresy of separating God from His Creation:

… among the “all things” our world must be embraced.  It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis.[1]

There is also a tradition of recognizing that through Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection all creation is sanctified [2]

               and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.[3]

 The Fathers also recognized that only the human portion of creation had sinned and that only humans were in need of instruction and repentance:

While all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered,  and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them.[4]

nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. ^[5]

The Fathers also taught that Christ sanctified creation through everything He touched. [6]

For no part of creation is left void of him: He has filled all things everywhere.[7]

Basil of Seleucia states that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth [8] and recounts all the benefits of salvation including ‘a principle of purification for the world, a renewing of nature’. [9]

We find many examples of similar teachings in ecclesial texts:

The earth was sanctified, O Word, at Thy holy birth, and the heavens with a star declared Thy glory; and now the nature of waters is blessed by Thy baptism in the flesh, and mankind is restored to its former nobility.[10]

This tradition continues until today and is evidenced here in His All Holiness Bartholomew’s Patriarchal Proclamation of Christmas 2017 ( Prot. no. 1123)

This is the supreme truth about salvation. That we belong to Christ. That everything is united in Christ. That our corruptible nature is refashioned in Christ, the image is restored and the road toward likeness is opened for all people. By assuming human nature, the divine Word establishes the unity of humanity through a common divine predestination and salvation. And it is not only humanity that is saved, but all of creation. Just as the fall of Adam and Eve impacts all of creation, so too the Incarnation of the Son and Word of God affects all of creation. “Creation is recognized as free when those who were once in darkness become children of light.^”[11] Basil the Great calls us to celebrate the holy Nativity of Christ as the “common feast of all creation,” as “the salvation of the world—humanity’s day of birth.”[12]  …

 In the Church, we experience freedom through Christ, in Christ and with Christ. And the  very summit of this freedom is the place of love, which “does not seek its own” [13] but “derives from a pure heart.” [14] Whoever depends on himself, seeks his own will, and is self-sufficient—whoever pursues deification by himself and congratulates himself—only revolves around himself and his individual self-love and self-gratification; such a person only sees others as a suppression of individual freedom. Whereas freedom in Christ is always oriented to one’s neighbor, always directed toward the other, always speaks the truth in love. The aim of the believer is not to assert his or her rights, but rather “to follow and fulfill the rights of Christ”[15] in a spirit of humility and thanksgiving.

It is important therefore for us to remember that in addition to the traditional focus on Christ’s Incarnation for humans, there is another Eastern Orthodox tradition which links Christ’s Incarnation to the relief of suffering of the non-human creation. One example of that recognition is given here by St Ephrem the Syrian:

The lamb bleated as it was offered before the First-born. It praised the Lamb, that had come to set free the flocks and the oxen from sacrifices…O Babe, that art older than Noah and younger than Noah, that reconciled all within the ark amid the billows![16]

This Icon reminds us that Christ is the light which breaks through the darkness of the fallen world.

For those involved in animal protection or conservation, this darkness is witnessed each and every day.  Out of compassion for our readers it is impossible for us and groups like us, to share the many manifestations of evil which come across our desks but we can give you a glimpse into that world. In this past week alone we have had examples of animals being skinned alive; animals being beaten, burnt, killed and filmed and animals being hunted for fun and pleasure. It is often stated that those who care for animals are sentimentalists.  Such statements could not be further from the truth.

How then are we as Christians to stand against such manifestations of evil?  Those Christians involved in animal protection profess one voice on this and it may surprise some to find that it is the traditional teaching of the Christian Church. It is not through rights, philosophy or separatist theologies that will bring about the oft called for metanoia in the heart of man, but through our role as Icon – our reflection of the Image of a loving and compassionate God. That Image guides us to live virtuously and lovingly – in a godly way, within a process of perpetual striving (επéκτaσις) to regain our original nature. We are to be at peace and forego violence,[17] to exercise loving-kindness and the virtues. We are to acquire a contrite heart through repentance; to listen and follow God’s Word and to pour out compassion and love on ‘all things’, rather than indulging our passions in evil, violent acts which serve only to destroy other created beings, their environments and eventually ourselves – be that as individuals or collectively as a species. Bartholomew echoes that early wisdom:

This truth about the life in Christ, about freedom as love and love as freedom, is the cornerstone and assurance for the future of humankind. When we build on this inspired ethos, we are able to confront the great challenges of our world, which threaten not only our well-being but our very survival…[18]

We send our love in Christ and Christmas blessings to all those involved in the compassionate care and protection of all God’s created beings.

[1] St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.2:5.

[2] Ibid 4.18.6.

[3] Ibid 3.9.1.

[4] Ibid 2.18.7; see also 3.9:1 ‘all flesh shall see the salvation of God’.

[5] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. On the Incarnation of the Word.  Inc. 43.

[6] St Gregory Nazianzen, 37.2, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2^nd Series. Schaff, P. and Wace, H. (Eds) Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. (1994:338)

[7] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, op. cit., S8:1.

[8] Basil of Seleucia SC187:209.

[9] Ibid, 3rd Homily on Pascha, SC187:215.

[10] 5^th January, Matins; Kanon 9.2; Menaion, p. 302.

[11] Iambic Katavasia on the Feast of Theophany, Ode VIII.

[12] St. Basil the Great, Homily on the Nativity of Christ, PG 31, 1472-73.

[13] 1 Cor. 13:5.

[14] 1 Tim. 1:5.

[15] Theotokion, Aposticha of the Ainoi, October 12.

[16] St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymn 5, Hymns on the Nativity

[17] St. Irenaeus, op. cit., 4.18.3.

[18] Bartholomew’s Patriarchal Proclamation of Christmas 2017. (Prot. No. 1123)

We thank our friend Luda for arranging permission for us to use the article from  Foma magazine – info@foma.ru An English translation will be available soon.

5 историй о святых и их животных

Presbytera Christina: Would you agree that if the Church does have compassionate views towards animals within the created order, then there appears to be a need for the Church to ensure that its teachings are both taught and practiced at grass roots, priestly level?  How could this be achieved, particularly in relation to Cyprus, where many people become priests after they retire without any formal theological education? Should all clergy attend courses on the environment/animal welfare and / or should we include such training in our seminary courses?

Met. Kallistos: There is need for education here at every level and we should start not with the people in theological seminaries but we should start much earlier with the children.  That the normal catechism teaching given in our Church Sunday School classes should include teaching about the Creation and about compassionate and Christian treatment of animals.  We should start with people when they are young.

The Orthodox Church should include such topics in the manuals that it puts out – the Church of Greece puts out plenty of books for teaching children and I know the Greek Archdiocese in North America has a programme with a lot of literature.  I think we should struggle to see that this literature includes as one of its themes, part of the essential Christian teaching of respect for the animal creation.

Then certainly later on when priests are given training, the courses the clergy are given should include teaching on the environment. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been saying this about the environment in general but this should also include teaching on the animals and how they should be treated.

In general then, we should be working on every level to educate people.  We should bring this before them as a point that they ought to think about.  We should encourage those who have this area of responsibility to educate the children and educate the priests so that they in turn can educate their people.

Presbytera Christina: Is anyone doing this – writing this material?

Met. Kallistos: I don’t know of anyone doing this at the moment. But we must encourage them.  What you are doing is important but the trouble is most people do not give priority to this issue and they don’t think it matters – but it does matter very deeply.

Presbytera Christina: Let me ask a question on this theme but from a different perspective. Isn’t the treatment of animals important not simply for the animals and to reduce their suffering but also for our sake also? What does it say about the heart of someone who is cruel to other creatures or indifferent to suffering of any kind?

Met. Kallistos: I think so.  If we misuse the animals, this will have a negative effect on our own character.  It will coarsen us and it will reduce our spiritual sensitivity. Misuse of the animals means that there is some ‘blind spot’ in our own understanding of God and our standing of our place in the world. So, yes we are harming the animals and this is very serious but we are harming ourselves as well.

Presbytera Christina: You are familiar with St Isaac the Syrian’s famous comment on ‘The Compassionate Heart.’  What is your interpretation of this passage, with specific relevance for Orthodox Christianity’s engagement and treatment of animals?

Met. Kallistos: Now I have here ‘What is a Merciful Heart’.

Presbytera Christina: Now that is interesting because I wrote to Dr Sebastian Broke about this title for I have seen both Compassionate and Charitable for the same text and these two meanings are quite different. As a specialist in Syriac I asked him for his opinion.  He was quite sure the correct translation was Compassionate.  I also wrote regarding the use of the phrase ‘irrational animals’ in this text and he said that the Syriac did say ‘irrationals’ and it was he who chose to put animals.  My response was to say that depending upon when this was composed and interpreted ‘irrationals’ may well have included women and slaves. What it does do is highlight the importance of having expert translators.

Met. Kallistos: Well yes.  Merciful Heart is not so different to Compassionate and yes, there have been Christians who have said that women are not made in God’s image but in my view that is a definite error. Women are in the image of God as much as man and women are baptised just as men are.

The translation I have here follow the standard translation and I quote:-

What is a merciful heart? ….. It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons and for all that exists…. As a result of His deep mercy or compassion the heart shrinks and cannot bear to look upon any injury of the slightest suffering of anything in creation. That is why he constantly offers up prayers full of tears even for the irrational animals….. He even prays for the reptiles as a result of great compassion that is poured out beyond measure in his heart after the likeness of God.[1]

Well here we are challenged, for it is perhaps not so difficult to feel affection for squirrels but most of us perhaps do not like snakes.

Here is another example by a twentieth-century saint, the Russian monk St Silouan the Athonite:-

“One day I saw a dead snake on my path that had been chopped into pieces.”

So obviously somebody had deliberately cut it up.

“Each piece writhed convulsively and I was filled with pity for every living creature, every suffering thing in Creation and I wept bitterly before God.” ^[2]

So here in Orthodox teaching across the centuries, is certainly a sense that the animals suffer and that we should mind about that; And not just the domestic animals but also the wild animals – not just the furry attractive creatures but also the animals we don’t like so much. 

Presbytera Christina: It is a subject fraught with difficulties for if you love the fox, what about the fleas or ticks on the fox?

Met. Kallistos: Yes what do we do with the wasps?  I find that if you sit still the wasps will usually go away – don’t pursue it, just let it be and it will go in due course. But yes, this is all part of our rich Christian inheritance – Biblical and in the Tradition both Eastern and Western and the thing is we are all too ignorant of this but we must go on emphasising these teachings to other people and to ourselves.

Presbytera Christina: Part of your answer to an earlier question touched upon the Church’s engagement – Christianity’s engagement and treatment of animals and my research in Cyprus shows there to be a complete lack of communication between the Church and the Animal welfarists.  They are ignorant of each other’s views and yet when you analyse what is said – and you have earlier ratified what the priest said to me – they are when analysed, saying the same thing. Yet I have evidence though I have not brought it out into the public discussions, of hostility between the two groups and definite fear of the Church. Fear by some that the Church will try to shut them down, stop them functioning, if they say anything negative about the Church.

Now I know through personal experience that some animal welfare workers can be extremely difficult to work with.  I have myself been insulted during my research in Cyprus as I was perceived by some of being from the Church. They can be very difficult to work with because of their passion and because of the daily reality of dealing with animal cruelty, poisoning and abandonment and I understand that completely, but any group would have to be carefully chosen to include those willing to work together and the same would be true for the Church.

I am seeing Bishop Isaias of Tamassos and Orinis in Cyprus on the third of March to talk about my research findings and I have no idea what he will say but one of the questions I asked the priest was whether the Orthodox Church might consider having a liaison officer to work with the animal welfarists.  In other faiths they have a Christian animal welfare group – the Catholics have one, the Anglicans have one, I am not sure if the Baptists would have one but certainly there are examples.

Is there any way that the Church can have an animal welfare group?  Do we have one voice for Orthodoxy here or would there be a need to set up ‘nationalist’ groups – a Cypriot group, a Serbian group etc. Would the Ecumenical Patriarch be open to the suggestion that there could be such a group – an Orthodox Christian Welfare group? How do you view that?  Where is the way forward here?

Met. Kallistos: Well there are several points here so let me try to answer them. Yes I would certainly say that one step forward would be to try and set up a group in the Orthodox Church similar to the Anglican and Roman Catholic groups you mention who are concerned with animal welfare. Possibly Cyprus would not be the best place to start but I may be proven wrong.  I feel that you are more likely to get a response to this from Orthodox in the western world, who have been more exposed to these sorts of ideas.

I think something could be done to try to interest Patriarch Bartholemew on this since he has written and said so much.  He is known as the ‘Green Patriarch’ because of his statements and actions concerning the misuse of the environment. He is concerned about the pollution of the water and the air but the whole problem of course is a single one and misuse of the animals goes hand in hand with misuse of the rest of the environment – it is all a single issue. So if there is going to be leadership it might come from him.

A possibility here is to contact Archdeacon John Chryssavgis who works with Patriarch Bartholemew on environmental matters. He has edited the different collections of Patriarchal essays. He was my pupil at one stage and I think he has been involved in the Patriarch’s statements. He would be worth contacting I feel and you have my blessing to do so.

Another possibility is this.  The Patriarch every year organises an ‘ecological cruise’. The delegates are Orthodox and non-Orthodox, from the worlds of economy, theologians and environmental scientists; because the question of the environment is not so much in having to persuade theologians as persuading the politicians and the large international businesses and they are much more difficult to reach.  He tries in these conferences on the high seas to bring people of influence together and to impress on each other, the urgency of these questions.  Perhaps they could devote one of these floating symposiums specifically to the question of animals. It has been in the past that as they are travelling in a boat they have concentrated on the seas but why not the animals, though it is a little difficult perhaps to relate to the fishes.

Presbytera Christina: Not if you dive Father, then it is easy to relate to marine life.  The myriad of species, forms and colour is a sensory delight and I can tell of the inquisitiveness of cuttle-fish and octopi from my swimming so regularly in the various countries I have lived.  I have wonderful video footage of the inquisitiveness of one particular octopus who lived in one specific coral just off my home in the Seychelles and cuttle-fish and squid are equally fascinating.  They will line up and watch you, signalling to each other the whole time and if you swim slowly towards them they will retreat to the same extent that you come forward.  If you retreat they will come forward and you can repeat this process several times – I usually then swim away as I do not wish them to become used to being around humans who are generally a danger to them.  I have frequently turned around from examining or observing the behaviour of some creature only to find myself the object of inspection by another creature, not I must add a shark but certainly barracuda, squid and many varieties of fish.

To come back to Fr. Chryssavgis, I was asked by the organiser of the forthcoming international conference on religion and animals that I am to present at later this year, if he would be worth inviting.  My reply was certainly do so because he has written extremely well in general  terms on creation as they all do, but nothing yet specifically on animals.

Met. Kallistos: Yes, it is curious how they have not carried that a step further because it is not a very big step.

Presbytera Christina: Well, sadly he could not come because his schedule is already full but he did respond by saying that he had wanted to write something for a long time and would like to be invited on another occasion.

Met. Kallistos: Well I am glad he is in touch with Professor Linzey because he I think [Fr. Chryssavgis] is a key person in that he is advising the Patriarch on such matters. So if you could contact him, you may be able to encourage him to discuss the issue of animals, their treatment and their place in the created order with the Patriarch that would be an excellent way forward. I am not aware of any Orthodox group that is concerned with this at the moment but like all things we have to start somewhere and this would seem to me a useful place to start.

I would certainly encourage you and bless you and when I next see John, I don’t know when that will be but then I will take this matter up with him, as a new step that the Patriarch might take.  The Patriarch has said plenty about the non-animate environment but what about the animate environment as well.

Presbytera Christina: Lastly Father, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you at length on this matter and to thank you for discussing what some will see as sensitive, even political issues, though I do not see that they have to be. From my research I can prove that the treatment of animals has been the subject of discussion in the Orthodox Church, though not a priority, from the earliest times.  My research however identifies a distinct gap between the teachings and the practice.  I do feel that the Orthodox Church has the wisdom and I would like to think the courage to lead the other religious groups as the Ecumenical Patriarch has done with the issue of the environment, if only they would focus their attention on the particular creature within, rather than the general overview of the environment. Certainly, your contribution today has started the conversation and I hope a wider and informed debate in Orthodoxy will follow.

[1] Homily 74, Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh  Wensinck, A. J. (trans) Amsterdam, (1923:386); also Lossky, V.  The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church Crestwood: NY, SVSP, (1976:111)

[2] Sakharov, Archimandrite Sophrony  Saint Silouan the Athonite  Tolleshunt Knights, (1991:367,469).

2. A LOVING AND COMPASSIONATE GOD pt 2

Whilst I acknowledge that it is possible to have differences in the interpretation of biblical texts in this brief commentary, I follow the interpretation of the Fathers who express a theology grounded in the concept of an inclusive and all loving God.

I attempt to give a glimpse – an anamnesis – of an earlier theological understanding of the inter-connectedness of all creation which is loved and protected by God.

As previously stated the early Church Fathers had no reason to offer a systematic theological view on the position of animal suffering.  This does not mean that they were indifferent to the rest of Creation as Irenaeus’s teaching here indicates:

Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced.  It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis.^[1]

Whilst the non-human creation was not their primary focus importantly, the Fathers did recognise that only humans had sinned and that only humans were in need of instruction and repentance.  Irenaeus is clear:

While all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them.^[2]

Athanasius affirms this recognition:

Nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. ^[3]

There is also a Patristic tradition of recognising that through Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection and via the Eucharistic offering, creation is sanctified. ^[4]  Cyril of Jerusalem elucidates:

And do not wonder that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf.^[5]

The Fathers taught that Christ sanctified the Creation through everything He touched. For example we are taught that Christ ‘sleeps in order to bless sleep’, ‘weeps in order to make tears blessed’ ^[6] and explicitly, the Fathers link Christ’s baptism with the sanctification of the baptismal waters.^[7]

Basil of Seleucia for example, taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth^[8] and recounts all the benefits of salvation including ‘a principle of purification for the world’ and a ‘renewing of nature’. ^[9]  Importantly, modern commentators like Theokritoff (2001, 2009) and Gschwandtner (2012) inform us that we may find similar teachings in many ecclesial texts.^[10]

In summary, I have presented some evidence of an Orthodox tradition which is sympathetic to the notion of animal suffering and salvation.

[1] Irenaeus, op. cit., Against Heresies, 2.2:5 p. 9.

[2] Ibid 2.18.7, p. 81; See also 3.9:1, p. 19 ‘all flesh shall see the salvation of God’ and 4.4.3, p. 14

[3] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 43:3, CANNPNF2-04.

[4] Irenaeus, op. cit., 4.18.6, p. 50.

[5] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homily 13:2; See also 13:35 & 15:3.

[6] Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 37.2 On the Words of the Gospel CANNPNF2-07.

[7] Ibid, Oration 29.10 The Third Theological Oration. On The Son; also Oration 39.15-16 Theophany On the Holy Lights.

[8] Basil of Seleucia, Third Homily on Pascha, SC. 187:209 [online] available at: http://www.sourceschretiennes.mom.fr/index.php?pageid=volume_paru&id=155&longueursource=50&trisource=auteur_anciens&selection2source=203&sourcepg=volumes_parus.

[9] Ibid, SC. 187:215.

[10]  E.g. 5 January, Matins, Canon 9.2, Menaion, p. 302 cited in Theokritoff, E. ‘Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship’ Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment January 2001, Vol. 5, Issue 10. pp. 97-108.

Presbytera Christina: Several of my questions relate to the suggestions that because an animal does not have a soul, it doesn’t feel pain or that they are irrelevant or that we should not concern ourselves with them.  Would you like to take each point in turn or would you like to cover them in a more general statement?

Met. Kallistos: I shall cover these points as I make my statements.   The idea that animals do not suffer pain – I find that quite extraordinary.  The evidence is so clear. Indeed we cannot see inside the animal’s minds but all the symptoms that humans display when pain is inflicted on them are displayed also by animals. So we have every reason to believe that animals experience pain as we do and to suggest therefore, that to inflict pain on animals is something morally neutral, I find abhorrent – it is a sin.

Presbytera Christina: How do we deal with this sin in the Church?

Met. Kallistos: Quiet, persistent teaching; but the difficulty is that all too many of the clergy in country districts, in Mediterranean countries particularly, don’t see that. Here as Orthodox Christians we have a marvellous theology for the Creation but the priests may be afraid to preach about this because such a message would perhaps be unwelcome to the farmers who are their parishioners. They may be afraid to incur in this way hostility but, and there is an important point to make here, the Church has always been called to take an unpopular line.

On the subject of souls, I will refer to a book in which I have previously written on the subject of souls and I did have a specific section on the souls of animals.  This is entitled From Soul to Self edited by James Crabbe, published by Routledge in 1999. On this question of course it is true, that in much of Christianity eastern and western, there has been a tendency to make a very sharp distinction between human and animals.  It is said that animals do not possess reason, more specifically, that they do not have immortal souls. The result of this approach has been that we are in danger of treating animals as objects and not subjects.

Now part of the question here, do animals have souls, depends on what you mean by the word soul. The Greek word psyche has a broader understanding perhaps than our modern understanding of the word soul. Aristotle said there are three types of soul – the vegetable soul, the animal soul and the rational soul i.e. the human soul. Now to speak of vegetable’s having souls would strike some people as facetious and they will make jokes about talking to your tomatoes. Well in fact there may well be subtle connections between humans and plants. After all, we do describe some people as having green fingers – these people seem to have a natural empathy with growing things and seem to be skilful in making them grow; however, the soul used in this way by Aristotle means ‘life force’. So from that point of view animals certainly do have a soul because they undoubtedly have a ‘life force’.  But do they have the same soul as humans?

Now many of the characteristics we think of as distinctively human are also found in the animals. In fact any attempt to make a very sharp delineation in light of modern research into animal behaviour and intelligence, doesn’t entirely work.

Do animals have the power of speech, well not exactly as we humans do but animals do make cries and sounds which communicate messages to the other animals, so they do communicate. There has been much research in this area, I can think specifically of dolphins and they have quite subtle ways of communicating to each other. Indeed, there is so much research now that we cannot say animals are inarticulate for they have all kinds of ways of communicating and this has implications for our view on thought.

To say animals don’t have reason is also questionable.  Again there is much research in this field.  For example if you put a banana behind a door with a rather complex handle to open the door, if the monkey is interested in it, he will test  and experiment with the handle and surely he is doing something very similar to what we do when we try to think and solve a problem. So it seems to me that you cannot make a sharp distinction here either.

Again, animals show deep attachment to one another.  Many animals are in fact monogamous and form unions throughout the whole of their life and we could say that they are better at this than some humans.

When an animal loses its partner it will show signs of bereavement and grief as humans do.  Here we can use as an example the research into elephant family groups. So it is much harder to make a sharp distinction between animals and humans than it once was.  Just to say animals have no souls is inadequate, in fact so many of the characteristics that are human are now found to some extent among the animals.

If we look at the Greek Euchologian, the Greek book of prayers, used officially in the contemporary Greek Orthodox Church we have prayers for animals. Here is one of them:

Lord Jesus Christ, moved by your own tender mercy, pity the suffering animals….            For if a righteous man shows pity to the souls of his animals (Pr 12:10), how should you oh God not take pity on them, for you created them and you provide for them? In your compassion you did not forget the animals in the ark….Through the good health and the plentiful numbers of oxen and other four -footed creatures, the earth is cultivated and its fruits increase; And your servants who call upon your name enjoy full abundance of the products of their farming.[1]

Well that prayer definitely shows compassion for animals and for their suffering and there are prayers specifically for sick animals.

Well you may say if you are a farmer it is very important that your animals shouldn’t die.  The death of your horse would have been a severe blow to peasant farmers in earlier ages. So, if we pray for animals and we say they have souls, we cannot say simply that they have no human characteristics at all – the line of demarcation is not so clear.

Now the normal view is that the animal soul is formed from the earth and therefore it is dissolved at death and doesn’t survive, yet the accounts in the Bible of the age to come make it quite clear that there will be animals there. The ox and the ass – the lion and the lamb will go together. The usual view is to say that they won’t be the same animals, but how do we know?

Do we have any right to say that animals do not possess immortality?  I think this is a subject where we can simply say, we do not have a clear revelation on this point in Scripture. I cannot recall anywhere where it says animals cannot survive into a future life, so why shouldn’t we leave that to God’s mercy and say that we don’t understand about this?

So perhaps the animals do survive. So in all of this, simply to say that animals have no souls is – inadequate. It is a matter of opinion as opposed to any dogmatic statement from the Orthodox Church. It is a subject in which we have not been given clear revelation or guidance in revelation.

Now it is true, that in the Orthodox Church, meat eating is allowed. It is considered that this only happened after the fall. In an unfallen world in paradise humans did not kill the animals. The eating of meat is seen to some extent as a falling away from original perfection. But we have never then been vegetarian as a matter of principle but it is interesting that monks and nuns usually abstain from meat. They do eat fish so it isn’t a vegetarian issue in itself.

But coming back to the question from which we started, to me it is unsatisfactory to say animals have no souls and we should avoid making such an assertion.

Presbytera Christina: Can I press for a specific answer to a point from my research. For example in my research it is suggested that because an animal doesn’t have a soul it doesn’t matter if they are treated cruelly or again, that because animals do not have a soul they cannot feel pain or suffer.  Should it matter if an animal has a soul or not – should that be our rationale to the way we treat it?

Met. Kallistos: I reject those kinds of statements. I think the whole discussion on whether animals have souls or not is in the end probably a ‘red-herring’.

The point is that animals are living creatures, all life is from God, and therefore we should treat the animals with respect and reverence.  They have their own characteristic dignity and we should respect that.

Now we can use animals for our service, use horses for ploughing though we do not do that so much now, but we should nonetheless with our domestic animals, give them enough to eat, we should not over-work them, we should keep them warm and clean. So in other words, in treating animals we should let them be themselves.

They should be as far as possible healthy without pain or discomfort and if we do kill animals for our food we should kill them in a humane way.  I know in some religious traditions you ask forgiveness from the animal before you kill it well, there is no such teaching in the Orthodox Church that you have to do this but surely it expresses something that we should respect and reverence the animals for what they are – as God has made them – for they are God’s Creation and we should not show contempt for God’s Creation.  They have feelings and we should not hurt those feelings.

Presbytera Christina: If I can stay with this subject for a moment, it seems that we have what I call a disconnect between the theory and the practice. If there is a perceived connection between what is thought to be Church teaching that animals do not have souls; that they are irrelevant and therefore it doesn’t matter if they are cruelly treated – how can we disseminate the true opinion of the Church as you have expressed it today in this interview? How do we make people aware of these teachings/ proclamations of the Orthodox Church’s view?

Met. Kallistos: We have to patient but persistent.  It often takes a long time for a message to percolate through to people in general but people’s attitudes can be changed and we have to work on that.

Clearly there are vested interests that will want to go on treating animals in the inhumane way that happens now, through battery hens or whatever, but we should quietly but persistently, combat those views. Opinions can be changed. There is in any rate, in our western society in countries like Britain and America, a greater sensitivity to the harm we are doing to the Creation and the need to change our ways of attitude.

We have a very long way to go and we are faced by certain very strong financial interests but if we hold fast to our message and go on preaching it, in season and out of season, about the value of the animal creation, this may result in a change gradually.

To quote a quite different situation, I can recall in my youth and I am thinking back to the 1950s, being told by a doctor friend of my family that there was a definite connection between smoking and lung cancer; But, she said, the tobacco companies are so powerful and they have such financial resources behind them, they will fight to suppress the evidence. Yes this did happen but nonetheless, in the last few decades there has been a fundamental change of attitude towards smoking and people’s opinions have been changed.  The anti-smoking lobby did not have big resources behind it and yet it has won.  There are increasing restrictions on where one can smoke and the cigarette packets have on them the message that smoking kills.  If you can change our attitude over smoking, can we not change our attitude over animals?

Presbytera Christina: Would you give us your opinion on why there is an apparent lack of debate from Orthodox academics, on the theme of animal suffering and related issues? 

Met. Kallistos: There ought to be, for it should be seen as a direct consequence that respect for the Creation, for the environment, carries with it more particularly respect for the animals; so we have a basis to work on there because a lot has been written by Orthodox.

It may not have permeated through to all the faithful but plenty has been said about the responsibility of humans for the environment, about the ecological crisis about the tragedy of what we are doing to the material creation.  The present Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has said many things and several volumes have been issued of his addresses and sermons on this matter. So we have a good basis there to work from.

This theology of creation that the Orthodox Church is deeply committed to – the deepness and beauty of Creation – has as a direct consequence, reverence for the animals.  Why we haven’t so far made the connection, I am not really sure but it is high time we did so.

Ref:

1.  Prayer of St Modestos in Mikron Euchologion i Hagiasmatarion Apostoliki Diakonia: Athens, (1984:297).  The prayer is attributed to Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain.

Hi Everyone,

Our bank account has been established.  All donations, no matter how small, will be gratefully received. Please see our donate page.

With love,

Dr. Chris