I received this book from a Goodreads First Reads giveaway.
I gave three stars because, to me, it was ok (and depressing), but it discussed an important topic. It took me awhile to get through it, and it certainly had me thinking. The book discussed animal welfare, and stated that welfare is not enough, that we humans must focus on animal well-being, both individual and groups. The authors talk about the problems and ethical issues surrounding animals raised for food, lab animals, 'entertainment' animals (zoos, aquariums), and wild animals.
I learned some things I wish were not true and that stunned me. For example, being from a rural area, I've heard the rationale behind hunting deer: population control, because it is better to be hunted than to starve to death. I was also already aware of people killing wolves for eating livestock. What I learned was that killing for population control is more common than I ever knew. One owl species was being killed to try to save another owl species. The first owl species was invading the territory of the latter because humans drove them our of their natural territory. To save one species, we kill the other, even though they are just trying to live and we forced them out in the first place, causing the problem.
I've heard the "once a nuisance bear, always a nuisance bear," which is used to justify the three-strikes-and-you're-dead rule against bears coming into human areas and rummaging through garbage. What I didn't know was that the once a nuisance, always a nuisance is not true. Bears come into human areas because food is lacking in their territory and human garbage is tantalizing. However, according to the authors, when food is adequate in their territory, bears do not enter human areas. So bears are being killed because they are dangerous to humans by coming into close contact with them because they are hungry.
To me, when reading, I saw too many problems that humans have caused animals, which was the point of the book. Some population problems between various species exist because humans encroach on their territory, forcing them to move (either the animals flee themselves, or we relocate them, which is harmful to them, I did not realize that). When the animals are in a new location, they have to compete with other species and other animals of their own species, so predation occurs, such as with the owls. I have often wondered what would happen if hunting deer was outlawed, and, yes, the deer population would explode. I believe it would eventually rebalance, if natural predators, like wolves, were permitted to live and eat and if humans were hands-off. The suffering until nature rebalances breaks my heart, and humans have never been very good at being hands-off. And how can we, when our own population continues to grow? People must have shelter and food, etc. The book raises the questions of why are we more important than other species, and what gives us the right to exploit and dispose of animals because it is convenient and suits our purposes? The book is all about questioning why human needs trump those of nonhumans.
I have never liked labeling a species "problem species" or "nuisance species." They are not a problem or a nuisance, they are just trying to live their lives. But in our interpretation and for our purposes, they may be both. The book mentioned Chernobyl, the site of a tragic nuclear accident in Ukraine in 1986. I noted this myself when reading about the accident and its aftermath, and greatly appreciated the authors stating that it would seem that animals fare better in a radioactive area because it has been abandoned by humans than to suffer the effects of living near humans.
The book is a call for compassion and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals.