Oostvaardersplassen: the setting for "Good times, bad times", an animal welfare balance

There is no such thing as a life without suffering, without pain, without decay. Not for humans, and not in nature!

Reading the reactions on news paper weblogs and in the daily newspapers about what people think of nature in the Netherlands, and in particular about the large, cuddly (or not) animals, you see a lot of love for the individual animal, but are struck by the fact that so few contributors talk about animals at population level, and about their role in the ecosystem, the landscape. This is understandable; after all, it is complicated.

Of course, one should - especially from the moral point of view - try to prevent unnecessary suffering and unacceptable pain, and ensure that an animal can lead a "happy" life. But can this be done without death, and how can you make dying a process free of suffering, pain, decay? This is not possible, not for people and not for animals.

Ethical questions, "Good times, bad times"

Several years ago, the University of Wageningen (WUR) conducted a study on the ethical question of how to deal with animals in the larger nature reserves. Areas such as the Oostvaardersplassen, the Veluwe, etc. are, fortunately, (once more) large enough to be able to speak of areas in which ecological/natural processes of some size can take place, there's no need to be modest about it. And it makes no difference whether or not humans have had a creative role in this, nature will go its own way.

WUR's ethicists compared the animals in such areas with animals in contemporary agriculture. The title of the report is "Good times, bad times" (a good description of the problem); among other things, it examines the "animal welfare balance": you should look at the entire course of the animal's life, from birth to (inevitable) death. There is a considerable difference between talking about farm animals or zoo animals, fenced or caged in a relatively tiny space of at most a few dozen hectares, and talking about real animal populations in an area thousands of hectares in size. And if that turns out to be too small, then these areas can even be increased by means of the national ecological network, as is being done in Flevoland with the robust ecological corridor Oostvaarderswold (Oostvaardersplassen - het Horsterwold): the Oostvaardersland is a project covering 15,000 ha with an option for a connection to the Veluwe and the "dream" of a connection to Germany (Dutch Spatial Planning Memorandum). Construction of this part of the national ecological network is partly due to the urgent advice of the International Committee on the Management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO), 2006.

"Look through hunter's eyes as if you were a wolf"

Background articles in various newspapers clearly describe the effects of early intervention. It is quite difficult to "look through hunter's eyes as if you were a wolf". In the autumn WUR's ethicists tried to estimate which animals would die, and which wouldn't. It's a good thing they didn't bet money on it; the apparently weak animals managed to get through the winter quite well, and the animals that seemed to be in good condition didn't make it to spring. Indeed, animals can lose about 25% of their body weight in order to make it through the bad times. That, after all, is what their fat is for.

Is there an alternative?

Supplemental feeding leads to intense competition, with the strong beating the weak, who need the food most. It leads to more animals being born in the following year, and not only in the spring according to the natural cycle, but also later in the year. This again leads to a welfare problem in subsequent years. Shooting healthy populations in the autumn leads to stress in the herd, etc. From the point of view of animal welfare, this is not what we want.

Large grazers were (and of course potentially still are) our most important landscape creators. They provide open spaces, both in vegetation and on the ground, and so provide numerous niches for all sorts of plants and animals.

For example, in the absence of large grazers, an area like the Oostvaardersplassen would be completely overgrown with thick patches of reed. Other areas, such as the dunes or riverbanks, would become overgrown with uniform scrub, leaving no room for the species that we would like to have. The alternative is large-scale mowing using large machinery, with all the (environmental) consequences that would entail.

And then we may ask if the Serengeti and other really large reserves are actually so animal friendly. Recently beautiful, spectacular scenes were to be seen of gnus trying to cross the canyon-like Mara rivier in the Masai Mara region. It was a massacre, mainly because of the trampling and drowning, in addition to what the crocodiles do to these animals.

(Natural) bonus

While typing, you come back to the question: are we talking about unnecessary suffering and acceptable pain, or is this the bad part of the "good times, bad times" story? I agree with the conclusions of the ICMO report. With its ethical guidelines, determined in consultation with Parliament, the Dutch State Forest Service is attempting to prevent unnecessary suffering and unacceptable pain as far as possible. In town and countryside we must realize that nature is beautiful, but sometimes harsh, for both animals and humans.

And the (natural) bonus is - among numerous other examples - the Great egret in the polder and the White-tailed eagle, breeding in the Netherlands for the first time in centuries. So be it!

Hans Kampf