Fourth Assignment: Expository Bridge Essay
Emily Sohn ‘s ” Every Living Thing”
Wildlife rescue continues to be a subject that sparks numerous debates and arguments between animal love and environmentalists. Biologist, politicians, wildlife conservatives, politicians, and non-governmental organizations have diverging opinions on the issue of wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. Animals lovers and supports of wildlife rescue believe that it is an excellent activity to rescue and rehabilitate wild animals to give them another chance towards life. However, critics and other environmentalist believe that wild animals should be left to die in their terms without interference. Critics argue that efforts to rescue, treat, and rehabilitate wild animals is hypocritical and does not serve the interest of the entire animal kingdom but their selfish ambitions and gains. Emily Sohn, in his publication Every Living thing, weighs into the matter. Sohn analyses the view of the different scholar, environmentalist, and biologists to put up a solid argument that questions human morality and sincere objectives when rescuing, treating, and rehabilitating world animals. According to Sohn, the numerous rehab facilities that are across the continent do very little to save wild animals from extinction by rescuing and treating them. Instead, the many world conservation facilities should concentrate on the root factor of protecting wildlife existence, the wildlife habitat. Only then will wildlife conservation organizations show genuine concerns for the fauna. Sohn ‘s Every Living Thing” seek to demonstrate that wildlife rescue is nothing but a waste of precious time and resources that could have been put into genuine wild animals’ protection.
Sohn first starts her argument with the story of the tiny rufous hummingbird which showed up in front of a yard in St. Paul, Minnesota. The bird was weak and frail, and it was out in the snow. A concerned homeowner took the bird’s picture and posted online, attracting both empathy and sympathy for the hummingbird. People were quick to donate towards the rescue of the bird. Local wildlife rehabilitation took the birds ( pg 1). The Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota treated the bird, and finally, a donor with a private jet offered the bird a ride to Texas, where it was set free. Even though people were moved with the bird’s condition and used a considerable amount of money towards its rehabilitation, nobody knows whether it survived afterwards or where it went. The irony is that nobody bothered to ask why it flew from Texas to Minnesota. Neither did anyone ponder on the state of its habitat. World animals’ facilities and organizations are often too quick to identify problems that might warrant animal rescue such as disease outbreak, pollution or poaching but too slow to realize the underlying problem, the animals ‘natural habitats.
Secondly, Sohn’s argue that profit and greed for money have blinded wildlife conservation organizations. The Wildlife rescue effort is a multibillion-dollar industry, and no one wants to waste time striving to conserve the animals’ habitat. In contrast, they can make more money just caring for one animal. For example, in October 1988, when three young grey whales were trapped in the ice off Alaska’s coast, the United States’ government spent over $6 million on the rescue effort. Also, there is the famous emperor penguin which was s swallowed by a whale after a lot of money was spend to conduct multiple surgeries on it (pg. 3). Animals rescue missions have turn out to be a cash trap that has no contribution to the overall existence of wild animals. Organizations rush to the rescue only to secure the share of donations that the government and animals lovers donors put in the rescue effort. The efforts to rescue world animals compares to fighting the laws of nature, which always have a disastrous ending.
Thirdly, Wildlife rehabilitation centres tamper with the laws of nature when they rescue wild animals. Louise Shimmel, the executive director of Raptor center argues,” Despite the vast overpopulation of humans these days, any of us would stop to help a child injured on the road, why not the raccoon, squirrel, or eagle?”. Shimmel’s statement is in support of the wildlife rescue efforts around the world. Also, Jenni of the WRC believes that animal rescue efforts are the best way for humans to connect with nature. Both statements might seem harmless and correct, but in reality, they kill the same environment they strive to protect. Shimmel, Jenni, and other supporters of animals’ rescue need to understand that death among the weak and survival among the strong in the animal kingdom is what shapes nature. Human efforts to rescue animals that are about to die only serves to alter the cause of environment and cause an imbalance. Rehabilitated animals, who are injured or sick are always still at risk of death when released back to nature. Therefore, it is not our responsibility to rescue animals that are near the end but to protect their environment and natural habitats so that they can die in peace and according to the law of nature.
However, Sohn believes that human can still protect the environment by shifting their attention from wild animals’ rescue and rehabilitation to wild animal habitat conservation and protection. The non-effectiveness of wild animals’ rescue and restoration as a method of wild animals’ conservation is demonstrated with the Exxon Valdez oil spillage of 1989, which poured over 11 million gallons of into the pristine marine environment. Wildlife conservationist cleaned over 800 oiled bird s and returned them to the wild. However, their rescue efforts were futile. According to a 1996 research study, most of the birds died within six days after their release, and only 10% survived a month before their death (p5). Another research established that two-third of sea otters treated at the cost of 80,000 dollars each died within two years of their release. The findings are indications that a swift shift of from animals’ rescue to habitat protection and conservation is necessary to protect the world’s wildlife genuinely. Instead of spending treating affected wildlife, the legislative arm of government can enact stringent laws against environmental pollution.
We need the environment, but the wildlife and nature can survive and regenerate without humans. Therefore, the over 100 animal protections and rescue facilities in the United States should shift their focus from wild animals rehabilitation because it is vice that encourages money greed and capitalization of environmental protection effort, it causes an imbalance in the laws of nature. It results in the ignoring of the real problem, which is the protection of the natural habitat. Thus, wildlife organizations should address the protection of the animals’ habitats through advocating for laws that prohibit pollution, inhibit rescue permits, and game hunting to let nature take its course. We should stop focusing on an individual animal and invest in the entire population.