June 10, 2006
Dr. Amy Brisendine
U.S. CITES Management Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700
Arlington, VA 22203
Re: Yerkes request for amendment to Permit MA837068-0
Dear Dr. Brisendine:
I am writing to you with regard the application made by Yerkes
National Primate Research Center, Emory University, to amend their
permit, as delimited by the Endangered Species Act, in such manner as
would allow for experimental procedures to be conducted on members of
a species officially listed as "near threatened" (under severe
stress). Specifically, I speak of Yerkes' desire to conduct such
procedures on members of the sooty mangabey population currently housed
on their property. It is my belief that the proposed amendment would set
a dangerous precedent and that it should, therefore, be denied.
In exchange for the right to conduct AIDS-related research studies on the
sooties, Yerkes proposes donating $30,000 a year towards conservation
of mangabeys in the wild. In essence, their donation is simply
a means of buying members of a threatened species for research purposes.
That Yerkes' offer is as transparent, and as unsavory, as I have
here suggested is made obvious by the fact that were conservation of
the species their primary concern, Yerkes would use the proffered
money to address problems associated with their captive population in
a more immediately effective manner: that is, they would use it
to expand and improve their own animal facilities. Or,
alternatively, they might offer a more reasonable amount of money to
support the work of conservation in the wild. A $30,000 per
year donation is barely enough to pay the salary and expenses of a
single wildlife researcher; a $300,000 donation per year would not
make the offer any more palatable in my view, but it would at least
make its aim less blatantly obvious. Moreover, should the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service agree to the proposed amendment, one can
foresee a time when Yerkes or other like-minded institutions make
relatively small contributions to the preservation of various species
of animals in order to lobby at a future date for the right to remove
individual animals from the wild for their own purposes. Or
they may argue for the right to raise colonies of near threatened,
threatened, or endangered species at their facilities on the grounds
that they are working for the purpose of conservation – but only
on condition that they be allowed to use a portion of that population
for their own benefit. Yerkes' promise of monetary support for
the conservation of sooty mangabeys in the wild already takes a step
in that direction, it being contingent upon their ability to make use
of those mangabeys now in captivity. No genuine concern for species
preservation is thereby expressed, and the fact that the proposed amendment
would allow not only for twenty animals per year to be taken for research
studies "that may be terminal or lead to disease" but would
also authorize them to euthanize older animals who are "of no
value for breeding" only highlights that fact. Yerkes is
not concerned with animals as individuals. Yerkes is not
concerned with species preservation. Yerkes is concerned solely
with creating and maintaining a viable, exploitable commodity.
This approach to the management of species whose survival is threatened
represents, in my opinion, a backwards step. If the relationship
between human and nonhuman animals is to remain mutually beneficial,
priority must be given to valuing animals for their own sake; their
usefulness as a commodity must be placed second, lest our urge towards
exploitation bring about even more disastrous consequences than those
which have already occurred. I fear, however, that the concerns I and
others of like mind have about this will, at this point in time, make
little difference to your decision. Stuart M. Zola, Director of
Yerkes Primate Research Center, has already expressed to you his
"enthusiasm" for the "productive dialog" you have
been engaged in, and has expressed as well his
"appreciation" for the "constructive approach
proposed" – an approach which you, presumably, plan to endorse.
Though I am led to believe that your decision regarding the amendment
to MA837068-0 has already been finalized, I maintain the hope that
you will reconsider while there is still time. Failing
that, I would ask that you be clear in your understanding that some
members of the public view this amendment with considerable dismay,
partly on behalf of those sooties who will be relegated to the
abysmal experiences life as a laboratory tool will bring, partly on
behalf of those who are destined to die because they are no longer
able to contribute to the mangabey colony in a manner that
benefits Yerkes, and partly because of deep-seated concerns regarding
the ramifications that a change in protocol as to the exploitive use
of species under threat of extinction will bring in future.
Yours sincerely & etc. . . .
|