What I am going to be discussing through this entry is the fact that tigers are being heavily poached in the wild just to be used in this so called medicinal techniques, some believe that hanging tiger nose leather above your bed will increase fertility, so you are more likely to have a baby…

At the present time, the trade in tiger parts and the use of them in TCM is banned but the problem is that the demand is still incredibly high and tiger farms are not banned. I am not however proposing that tiger farms be banned as well. There are some farms in china that keep the tigers in good condition with good quality housing. The positive side to these farms is that the fact they can be used as gene banks, at least one farm in china  has around 500 pure bred siberian tigers which could potentially keep the genes going for future reintroductions when the habitiat has been re-established! I know it sounds controversial, but we haven’t even got into the depths of it yet!

Not only are these banks a good gene pool but maybe (like we discussed with the Rhino-horn trade) by making it legal to trade in tiger parts then more people are likely to go into tiger farming, make lots of money meaning that living conditions for the tigers are much better (of course policing it would be a big issue) and then everyone benefits, the people who want to parts would get what they want, breeding programmes for sub-species would spread like wild fire, there might be less poaching in the wild because it would more freely available on the market and more reintroductions would happen, better still if the people wanting the tiger parts were educated then they may be more inclined to look after the tigers habitat if they know they will benefit from more tigers in the wild. It would be a big step and of course it is no where near happening yet but it is something to think about. Unfortunately with these kind of problems we can’t just think about a single animal, we must think about the survival of the species and if killing means saving, then that is what must be done, it must be done with culling to keep populations down such as the antelope and elephants which also been discussed as well as with incidences like this.

The way the problem is going at the moment is that the tiger is going to become extinct in the next 15-20 years unless something drastic is done, that has been mentioned by the media plenty of times and was raised early this year with this year being the year of the tiger. Lets re-cap on the 4 sub-species that have already been lost to hunting of some kind. First we have the Balinese tiger, this tiger was the smallest of all the sub-species. The Javan tiger originally from the island of Java in Indonesia. The Caspian tiger, a much larger beast but still not as big as the Siberian tiger or Amur tiger which is the largest of all the sub-species, and now the South-Chinese Tiger which is newest of the extinct species, it has only recently been declared as extinct but the last one was seen around 30-40 years ago. We now have the Amur Tiger, the Sumatran Tiger (the smallest of surviving sub-species), Bengal or Indian Tiger, Indo-chinese tiger and the newly discovered Mayalan tiger (they now realise that this is a seperate sub-species when it originally believed to be part of another sub-species). All these are critically endangered. The Bengal and Amur tiger are doing considerably better than the other sub-species due to significant breeding programmes but now the Sumatran tiger will be focused on.

So the question is can we still save them, do we have the time and resources and the passion? TCM is just a small part of the problem, poaching and habitat destruction are the main threats to the survival of this key species.

Lesley Roger’s (1998) definition: ‘To most people, to be conscious means to be aware of oneself as well as to be aware of others,…to be able to think about things not present in the immediate environment is also to be considered to be an aspect of consciousness and so is the ability to feel and express human-like emotions.’

Donald R. Griffin (2001) in his book ‘Animal Minds’ provides the definition of animal consciousness from Immelmann and Beer’s book (1989): Dictionary of Ethology; ‘immediate awareness of things, events, and relations’

With these definitions in mind, how is consciousness measured without depending too much on the human experience of consciousness?

If it is believed that human consciousness is what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom then isn’t it fair to say that if animals are conscious, that their degree of consciousness is very different to humans and therefore even harder to measure? It may not be the case that we must measure on a ‘there or not’ basis but measuring consciousness should be focused on what level of consciousness does the animal have? Taking into account Occum’s shaving brush theory; do not reject the more complex explanation as it may be nearest the reality.

The debate on animal consciousness may have started with a philosopher called Jeremy Bentham who challenged the theory of ‘Cartesian Dualism’ A behaviouristic theory created by Descartes. Cartesian Dualism states that an animal’s mind and body are separate entities therefore the physical reaction that an animal displays when it comes in contact with a stimulus that a human may normally deem dangerous and painful is not painful to them and the reaction is just innate, a reaction that is not related to the animal actually feeling pain. This theory provided the necessary acceptance to vivisection and other practices that may be seen as inappropriate and cause suffering today. (Hawthorn, 2006)

Bentham said ‘the question is not can they reason but can they suffer?’ Bentham was not against vivisection which gave light to anatomical research but this revolutionary thinking, viewing animals in a different way may have been the starting point to the idea of animals having the ability to think, or have complex cognitive abilities leading to the theory of the animal consciousness.

One study has provided evidence to support the Cartesian dualism theory which shows scientists that they cannot rely on the aspect that animals can feel pain as evidence to whether is conscious or not (Lund, 2002).

A dog had its spinal cord severed from its brain and when one of its limbs came into contact with a dangerous stimulus, the limb reacted in the same way as if the spinal cord was still connected to the brain (which was the immediate withdrawal from the dangerous stimuli) but the scientists knew that the animal could feel no pain. What if there are animals whose reaction is the same, but they cannot feel pain and the reaction is an innate behaviour? This shows that an animal’s reaction to what is perceived to be pain, cannot be used as evidence to prove consciousness exists in animals (Lund, 2002).

Clive D. L. Wynne (2001) describes theory of mind through the use of a human experience example which states how somebody could give directions (to their house) to another individual by placing themselves in the other person’s shoes, imagining the other person’s perspective and explaining how to get to the house from that position.  The individual has a theory of the other person’s mind. Scientists believe that by observing an animal’s behaviour this could be a measure for consciousness if an animal can display in some way that they have ‘theory of mind’.

An animal may be displaying theory of mind when it runs, when another member of its species shouts an alarm call for a specific predator; the animal may understand the perspective of the animal alarm calling by imagining what that animal is seeing which would be the predator which is perceived as a threat to the animal’s survival. This could be seen as evidence to suggest that some animals have a degree of consciousness (Wynne, 2001).

There are times when the human does perform actions that some may see as an auto-pilot response because they unconsciously act in some way due to a routine being established, sometimes a person will find themselves driving down a familiar route, and realise they don’t remember how they got to a destination because they haven’t paid attention, and their subconscious learnt behaviour has taken over, what if this is what it is like for animals all the time, a subconscious that they themselves are unaware of take control of their body, making their decisions as such without the input of a conscious mind (Rettner, 2010).

Communication among animals has always been an interest among scientists from many fields, communication in many forms appears across the spectrum in the wild community, in the forms of sounds, movements, colours, smells, as well as many more (Gron, 2008). Most people would see vocal responses as the main form of communication among humans, a defined language has developed over thousands of years for our speaking abilities, vocal communication has been observed in other species such as Gelada Baboons and birds, although as far as human scientists are concerned these noises do not form a language, but the lack of a language does not seem to limit communicative skills. Some birds use visual colourings on their body to demonstrate their readiness for breeding, pheromones in a lionesses urine demonstrate her coming into season, lip flipping in Geladas show that they are being aggressive and are threatening another individual (Gron, 2008).

These signals in some way or another communicate intentions or what humans believe are feelings, this could be applied to the animal kingdom as well, observations in many species have shown that these signals can be interpreted and the same or similar behaviours are performed after these displays have occurred which suggests that these animals understand each other and to do this, isn’t a high cognitive ability needed leading to the idea, once again, that the animal must be conscious of these communicative signals to interpret and reply. The same communicative skills can be seen when a baby learns from its mother through observing her (Griffin, 2001).

Orangutans build nests and teach their young how to do this, without their mother’s guidance over the years that they stay together; the offspring will not know how to perform this behaviour, which may be vital to their survival. This learning and applying behaviour could also be seen as evidence for a conscious mind.

The bees dancing communicative behaviour although, provides reason against the use of communication to suggest the presence of a conscious mind because the dancing behaviour is an innate response that a bee uses to communicate the location of nectar. James L. Gould (2002) in his scientific investigation ‘Can Honey Bees Create Cognitive Maps?’ describes the dancing as ‘the best example of intricate innate programming to be seen in nature’ he says that the language is only second to that used of the human being. This influences the rise to more questions on whether any evidence that has been explored can really provide us with a clue to animals being conscious or not (Gould, 2002).

Capuchin monkeys have shown that they will deceive their own family members by alarm calling to preoccupy them while the individual will sneak away to feed, meaning that the animal will not have to share its food with the other family members. Deception is also known as a measure of consciousness (Rogers, 1997). Primate species among of species have shown a cognitive learning ability to enhance their own benefit through deceiving other animals whether they be of their own species or another, a prey species may use deception as a way to survive a predatory attack. Deception itself requires the ability to predict what another animal is going to do for the deception to work, therefore the Capuchin monkey who falsely alarm called for a predator which was not actually there must have the ability to predict the other animals’ response (Rogers, 1997).

Primate species have shown amazing abilities in learning to use tools, Chimpanzees have been observed using rocks to crack open hard shells of nuts, this has happened repeatedly in the same individuals which may display application of memory, which can be key in providing evidence of a level of consciousness in the primate species. The animal obviously has an intention and through the use of the tool from previously trial and error has successfully used the tool to achieve his goal (Bell, 2008).

Emotion is something that humans display and respond to throughout everyday life, we respond to our own emotions and interpret others’ emotions through their body language and other communications (Mendl et al, 2010).  Whether animals experience emotion is yet another question falling under the same category as consciousness, it is believed to be part of what consciousness is, so if we are to believe that animals are conscious, then we must understand that animals feel emotion as well to some degree, whether they are the same or similar emotions to humans has not been studied enough, but without experiencing ourselves animal emotion (if it exists) then we may never understand it (Mendl et al, 2010).

As humans it seems that having emotions has helped us to survive in some way, helping us make decisions and problem solve, emotional responses are linked with physiological responses for example fear causes the release of adrenaline to ready us for a fight or flight response, this could also have the same affect on animals, they may experience fear, helping to release the necessary chemicals or stimulate another response to help in situations such as a predatory threat (Koch and Crick, 1999).  It is believed that some animals do feel pain and as a result emotions may arise from this pain, emotions triggering the learnt response not to connect with the painful stimuli again, this fear could be key to survival. Fear may not be the only emotion that animals could have developed, sadness could have developed which influences animals to want to establish bonds with each other, in social animals, animals may feel sad when one of its kin dies, supposed emotional responses in Elephants have been observed and some anthropomorphic observations suggest that they mourn in a similar way that people do (Lorenzi, 2005).

If the evidence for animal emotion was to be somehow backed up by neurophysiological research indefinitely, then it is likely that animal welfare efforts would increase dramatically due to the ever shortening distance between animal and human differences, which originally seemed very large. With animal minds being explored further every day, the proof for or against the animal conscious may come to a definite end nearer than what is believed.

Along with behavioural evidence for the existence of consciousness in animals or non-human organisms, the brain structure has been explored for more clues into the consciousness argument (Eccles, 1992). Darwin proposed the theory that consciousness developed in a primitive form around 200 million years ago when mammals started to evolve out of the reptilian phase. This theory is backed up by the change in the brain structure that mammals went through; the development of the neocortex provided a structure difference between reptiles and mammals. This has given an evolutionary advantage to mammals over the reptiles (Eccles, 1992).

Humans also possess a large neocortex, which is larger than any mammal in relation to their bodies. This could provide us with the structural difference between other mammals and ourselves to suggest that all mammals have a degree of consciousness because of the presence of a neocortex but not a level that matches the human consciousness, because humans have the largest and the most folds (Krubitzer, 1995).  As shown in Figure 3. The amount of folds on the neocortex provides a larger surface area and therefore more room for more cognitive information to be passed across the brain and at higher speed, maybe relating to how quick an organism can learn in situations unfamiliar to them, for example experiencing the threat of an unknown predator (Krubitzer, 1995).

(Figure 3, Folding differences in mammal brains, Bownds, 2010)

It is even believed that with a larger brain, and therefore a higher number of neurons links with more detailed memories an organism may have, this may increase its learning capacity, causing an organism only to experience something once before learning how to do something like using a tool, or how to react to a certain situation for example escaping from a specific predator. Studies in rats have also shown that the amount of experience an animal has affects the size of the brain; rats kept in a highly enriched environment had much larger brains than of dull, ‘impoverished’ environments (Rogers, 1997).

Unfortunately there is little evidence beyond this to suggest the exact cells within the neocortex,  which makes up 40% of the full brain, that control the conscious mind, consequently there is no real test available to prove that the existence of the neocortex means that all mammal species are conscious in one way or another. Francis Crick and Christof Koch have worked together over many years to try and link the primary visual cortex (located in the neocortex) and association with visual experience in reality for an animal. They believe that not all the cells of the neocortex contribute directly to consciousness and are active all at the same time; further research must be carried out. (Macphail, 1998)

In Conclusion, there is evidence to support both sides, although it is widely understood that it is hard to comprehend that the versatility of some animal behaviour can all be seen as genetically programmed responses because of the huge amount of novel challenges that animals face every day, new situations that they must adapt too, without conscious learning and application of learning how can they adapt to these new environments furthermore how can humans rule out the possibility of an animal consciousness when humans have evolved to have one, humans must have developed a consciousness because it is useful in some way for our survival, therefore how can it not be evolutionary useful to other animals who have similar functions and dangers in their lifestyle? (Macphail, 1998).

The dancing behaviour in bees is an innate behaviour and this evidence that the animal can survive with this innate response shows that maybe conscious living is not needed in all animals but humans are conscious, this could be because we have adapted to a lifestyle that requires large amounts of cognitive problem solving, when other species do not need this, although this does not mean we can dismiss the idea that some species are conscious also but in a different format because they may have needed to adapt to have a conscious mind but at a lower level (Gould, 2002).

Much of the evidence presented in this paper is from the observations of mammals which suggests that maybe only mammal species are conscious, or that not enough observational work has been done on non-mammals to prove that they have a conscious mind or not.

Griffin, 2001 quoted a man named Terrace, 1987 stating that he once ended a discussion with ‘now that there are strong grounds to dispute Descartes’ contention that animals lack the ability to think, we have to ask just how animals do think’

75% of the profit is from hunting, only 15% is from tourism and 10% from game capture. It is estimated that more than 100 tourists makes up the same amount of money that one hunter will bring in. The hunters would take the horns or the tusks and the pelt of the animal as a trophy and the rest would be sold on for meat, which would bring in further profit.

Culling is a separate issue but of course it involves killing animals. In an ideal world, the animals would roam the open lands, with no restrictions and would naturally die off because of predators, diseases and lack of water or food during the dry season months. This is no longer possible with the animal and human conflict becoming more exaggerated the animals must be fenced in, isolating them for their own protection, although this has caused problems within itself, due to these unnatural circumstances, the land must be continuously managed and man has to play god, which means culling.

Due to the animals being fenced in, the man made waterholes, and the lack of predators in some of the reserves, the animals breed rapidly, swallowing up the land, they begin to overgraze and therefore the land cannot support the number of animals, the animals begin to suffer due to the lack of resources. The two options are move the animals to other reserves or cull them, when it comes to animals like impala, selling them isn’t really an option because they are the most common antelope in South Africa, most to all reserves have them and do not want any more, so they must be culled.

Rangers would be given a quota of how many they must kill, for example if they are told to kill 100 impala, then the first 100 impala they see whether it be a large handsome male, or a tiny new born baby, it will be shot, there is no picking and choosing. The meat would be sold off and the conservation benefits once again. I would like to add that I have eaten Impala and it is actually very tasty. These native animals are what people eat out there, and it is better to eat native animals because then they are more likely to keep these reserves going rather than opting for cattle farming which would further reduce the land needed for conservation.

Hunting and culling isn’t the best scenario but unfortunately man has made the land change in such a way that we have to look after it now, where as it didn’t need to before, isolating the animals and the land brings problems which we must deal with.

The Elephant Issues

Loxodonta Africana This brings me onto the problem that South Africa are having with its elephants, many of you will know Kruger have a slight elephant overload. Originally they believed that Kruger could sustain the life of around 7-8,000 elephants, right now there is close to 15,000 elephants.  Elephants are under the Appendix 1, the first category in CITES this stops hunting and culling of the species but culling is needed. They are unable to translocate the animals because the animals display stressful behaviour because they are removed from family members, also the animals have been known to walk straight back to their home land.

They tried contraception but the females get jealous of the mothers and display stressful behaviour, and try to steal babies from other mothers. Some argue that culling is the only option, and if culling was reintroduced they would have to kill whole families from the mothers, the youngsters and the matriarchs to stop the animals from suffering with stress, it is well known that elephants display mourning type behaviour when a member of their family dies.

There is evidence to suggest that the large numbers of elephants are causing problems for the other animals within the park because as I mentioned earlier when there are too many animals in an enclosed space even an enclosed space the size of Wales, there are going to be problems like over grazing, the elephants tend to rip down trees, the trees are not only food for the other mammals but are normally home to other organisms that get forgotten about such as tree ants that make their home there, foam nest frogs nests that are made in the trees just above the water.

Kruger has started to realise the problem and are trying to influence natural deaths by removing some of the man made water holes from the park. The fully grown elephants of course have no real natural predators except for man, on the odd occasion a large pack of lions may be able to bring down a young elephant but not a fully grown bull. Removing the some of the man made water holes are not really doing much good though because if they remove too many, other species (some being rare species) are going to suffer. Culling may be the only option left.

What they don’t tell you is the fact that because of poachers-indirectly are causing the wipe out of the species. The reserves need to make money, the conservation is a secondary thing, that is the only way that conservation will survive-through making a profit from wildlife, if a profit couldn’t be made then conservation in Africa would cease to exist, the reserve owners and managers would turn to another form of income such as orange plantations. The rhino are being killed rapidly and more and more money is being spent on fences and security procautions just so the rhino can be kept safe from poachers but in many cases the expenditure for keeping rhino is too much and therefore, reserves are turning their backs on the rhino as they are bad for business, as soon as they buy a rhino for their reserve which would be great as a hunting oppotunity (which they can’t do because of the laws in place-so they lose money on hunting) and as a tourism aspect, the poachers come in and relieve the reserve of the rhino, so much money is wasted on buying the rhino and the extra security.

Hunting is a major part of the profit market for reserves, 75% of the money created in reserves is through hunting, this is normally policed well and only surplus animals are killed, the hunters would keep the skin and horns of the animal as a trophy and the rest of the animal would be sold on the meat market, so even more profit is created just from one animal. Around 100 tourists would bring in the same amount of money that one hunter would bring into the business. 15% of the profit is from tourists money, the other 10% is from live game capture, or the transfer of livestock to other reserves.

When I was in South Africa, I spoke to the experts on the problems with changing the law when it came to rhino horn. One of them said the problem meant that the rhino that were still in reserved needed to be protected and the horns sawn off and this made public so that the poachers would not come and kill them for a horn they did not have, I was present when de-horning of the rhino commenced, they safely tranquilise the animal and remove most of the horn that is not near blood vessels. The animals could live easily without the horn, but it is not as nice for tourists because it is like seeing half the animal. The horn is then locked away in a vault. Sometimes poachers would still come and kill the rhino even for the small bit that is left.

If rhino horn trade was legalised the reserves could make more money by sawing off the horn safely before the poachers would come, sell the horn themselves making more profit which would go back into conservation plus the rhinos themselves will carry on living a healthy wild life, and more money can be made through tourism.

There are some places in china that have created a file structure in their zoos that house rhino, and the rhino naturally rub their horns up against it, gently filing down the horn as they would on trees in the wild, the flakes are then collected and sold, this is a perfect but time consuming effort because the rhinos, keep their horn, tourists get to see the rhinos alive and well with their horn and the zoo gets the money from the horn flakes, everybody is satisfied.

This is why legalising rhino horn trade, needs to be done, because the rhino will become more valuable to the reserve owners and more reserves will buy them, conserving the species.