Interview with Tere Rodríguez, president of the Association for the Protection of Exotic Animals of Catalonia - Through 10 key points, the expert explains the importance of ethical population management of these birds and rejects the extermination plan of the Madrid City Council, which will be allocated almost 3 million euros.
( Translated from the original Spanish)
The controversial plan for the mass extermination of parrots approved by the Madrid City Council, which plans to kill 10,800 of these birds, is "an erroneous, cruel, expensive and ineffective decision in the face of a complex problem that requires a respectful and effective approach," says Tere Rodríguez, President of the Exotic Animal Protection Association of Catalonia (APAECatalunya) with concern. With this interview, structured in the form of 10 key points to demonstrate the importance of opting for non-lethal methods, this expert aims to contribute to a rigorous analysis, stressing the great importance of carrying out "a real and ethical control of these highly intelligent animals", at the level of a 21st century world.
1. Extermination is cruelty to birds that were released en masse and for which we are responsible.
We introduced the Argentine and Kramer's parrots to our country as part of a terrible environmental policy that still doesn't address the causes of the problem, "much broader than the simplicity of resorting to the lethal method," explains Tere Rodríguez. It is in this context that we must understand the arrival of the parrots as an exotic pet and their current presence in urban green spaces. Many of them ended up being abandoned to their fate in the form of mass releases, and they became naturalized, adapting to the environment. "The invasion is due to the macro-imports of animals carried out in the 1980s, wild animals captured in constituted groups that have not found a buyer and which have been released en masse to empty warehouses", to which have been added abandonments and losses. It is untenable to think that these domesticated animals "have found their way into the wild" and have successfully colonized. The origin of the problem is more scandalous and was "allowed and shared" by the authorities, while individuals can only be held responsible for having fallen into consumerism.
Because things were done wrong from the start, the situation got out of control and in 2011 the species was declared an invader, "without addressing the problem comprehensively, based on a foresight that is key" and giving the green light to lethal measures, even though the expression "control" included in the regulations does not mean "kill" or "anything goes". In the case of Madrid, a city of more than six and a half million inhabitants, it is unacceptable that the City Council bases the killing "on supposed studies that are not shown, as well as on 200 neighborhood complaints, when PACMA, for example, has handed in 32,000 signatures to save the life" of these animals.
2. The money for the management of these animals comes from the pockets of anti-slaughterers.
Ecology without ethics generates a logical social rejection, says the expert, and opting for the killing of parrots is an unpopular measure, all the more so considering the disproportionate and useless budget allocated. "The sensitivity factor is really very important, especially in relation to the economy. Let's not forget that the money for the management of these animals comes from the pockets of people who are against the killings," she explains. A sensitivity that, far from obeying the goodness of a few, is very widespread, means coherence and commitment to a better society: "We have been working for many years on citizen sensitivity from many sectors. Despite the fact that some people still claim that respect for animals is the result of four madmen and two Disney films, the reality is that it is everywhere: in ordinary people; in great professionals, such as veterinarians, judges, lawyers; in politics; in communicators and journalists; in police forces; even in biologists and professors. We cannot go back to the years of laceros and massive sacrifices for the sake of money, today this is not an argument of receipt. Science should never be tied to economic interests or applied on the basis of assumptions or haste, but should take us into the future and be the reflection of a society that does not consider it acceptable to kill 11,000 parrots in a municipality belonging to an autonomous community that has approved the 'zero sacrifice' of family animals. The parrots are in our parks because some of them wanted them to be as much family animals as dogs and cats. If citizens could choose how to invest their money, they would surely choose ethical methods.
Faced with these tired accusations of goodwill against animal defenders, Tere Rodriguez responds: "It's not true, we are betting on a more peaceful society and we do it through respect for animals; fortunately, we are a growing number. "We animal defenders want violence not to be a normalized thing among people, that is not being good, it is being coherent.
We must remember that the approved method involves capturing birds, which causes them pain and anxiety, and then gassing them, an obviously cruel method that generates suffering.
3. Inefficiency is expensive, a waste of three million euros and prolonging the problem.
If the lethal method is applied, in addition to cruelty, it will mean a waste of almost three million euros that the people of Madrid will have paid with their taxes. The ineffectiveness is a consequence of the empty niche left by the killing, which will soon be occupied by other parrots. "Although we speak of Zaragoza as a success story, we must not forget that there a relatively small number of animals were exterminated by shooting (a method that cannot be used in overcrowded areas), 1,400 animals, and today, when we ask for information on whether the eradication has been total, we are not given any data.
Environmentalism and animalism are doomed to converge, he says, and good evidence of this is that "environmentalists can hardly agree on which lethal method to apply, because lethal methods are either not applicable in the areas where those considered invasive live, or there are no conclusive reports demonstrating the success of the method. "All this leads us to agree, once and for all, on control by methods acceptable to the majority".
Contrary to what is often claimed by those who opt for lethal methods, ethical control is effective. In the words of Tere Rodríguez, this "is possible and effective, and it is said that it is not because the results are long term; but let us be realistic, we have been failing for six years with the proposals of cruel methods, and in these six years, with an ethical and constant method, we would have achieved much better results and with the approval of administrations, environmental groups and animalist groups. At the end of the day, the challenge posed by those considered to be invaders requires us all to be united and work together, and not what is happening today: scares, chest blows, demagoguery, races against the clock and project stoppages.
4. It is false that science advises extermination.
The studies carried out are varied and can address the possible impact of naturalized parrots in different parts of the world, review alternatives for population control, whether ethical or lethal, or monitor the results, once applied. Others propose new ethical methods or ingenious solutions to avoid their placement on light poles, for example. Thus, "it is false to say that science advises their extermination and much more than just killing them is effective, since it is generally ineffective in the long term," as we have already explained. In any case, getting to the root of the problem requires addressing the issue within good urban environmental management and ideally also at the national and international level.
Killing "is a political decision that is not based on transparent and rigorous science. It is a measure that is approved and even supported by certain environmental organizations" and authorized voices, such as that of Miguel del Pino, biologist and professor of Natural Sciences, state: "The Spanish Ornithological Society is endorsing with its studies the causes that would justify this tremendous slaughter of birds whose capacity to adapt to the environment and their empathy with humans when they are pets is extraordinary. Currently, ornithologists recognize in them an 'intelligence' superior even to that of primates, and certainly to that of a dog or cat. These words show, in the opinion of Tere Rodríguez, that science does not agree globally on lethal methods. "Epidemiological-zoonotic studies, for example, are typical of the veterinary field, something that SEO/BirdLife does not seem to take into account," she says.
In addition, Rodríguez points out that SEO/Birdlife requested the collaboration of the public to carry out the count of Argentine parrots, so that this count "may not be reliable, because it was carried out by people who are not involved in the field. "After much searching, we have not found an annual census either that tells us how the population has fluctuated in the territories where they are concentrated", which adds to the "suspicious secrecy" and "lack of collaboration" of the Madrid City Council denounced by PACMA, which has not provided reports on the parrot population or on the alleged citizen complaints.
5. There are viable, cheaper and more effective ethical alternatives.
Control and ethics "must come together if both the life of these intelligent creatures and the sensitivity of the citizenry are to be respected. Tere Rodriguez warns that with the extermination everyone loses, even those who propose it, due to the "deterioration of image at a political level for not providing real and ethical solutions", at the level of public managers who are aware of the demands of the new times.
In reality, says Tere Rodríguez, these populations should be considered "a valuable opportunity to learn more and better about these fascinating birds," expanding ethological and scientific studies on them. In fact, she recalls, in Catalonia they continue to be captured and released, without harming them, for non-bloody scientific purposes.
For the ethical control of these populations, Tere Rodríguez advocates developing a global strategy with a variety of flexible methods: "For exactly six years we have been talking about birth control through the removal of eggs, cutting down on dangerous nests and controlling agricultural areas. In Valencia, for example, pigeons are controlled through an ethical plan that also raises awareness of the environmental richness of a controlled population. And in India, the birthplace of Kramer's parrots, they have protected their cucumber crops by surrounding them with sunflowers, so that the parrots stay to eat sunflower and leave the cucumber alone. If India has been able to, why can't Spain? Now, in addition, there is the possibility of surgically sterilizing parrots by endoscopy, to prevent reproduction and thus contain the populations in a stable manner "and let natural predators, time, and other vicissitudes of life in the wild, do what they have to do".
6. The great lie of the 'green devil' in a campaign of harassment and demolition.
Parrots are often defined in the media as "voracious, dirty and very noisy", and the effects they cause are described as "ruinous". They are pointed out among the "havoc" caused by the "elimination of native species" and the "mutilation of trees that do not serve them to build colossal nests weighing up to 100 kilos," even threatening passers-by. All of this, in Tere Rodríguez's opinion, is part of a "campaign to harass and destroy the parrots in order to foment an alarm that seeks to justify their slaughter in the eyes of the public.
Each of these hoaxes can be easily dismantled with information. "It is not proven, for example, that they are a danger to other native species such as the sparrow, nor do they really care about the sparrow" to those who advocate the extermination of parrots. In general, moreover, it has not been proven that they pose a threat to biodiversity, in this case in the urban ecosystem. With respect to the Argentine parrots "there are no scientific reports that assure the loss of biodiversity due to their presence". "Much has been said about Kramer's parrot in Seville and the competition it has presented to the Greater noctule bat for nesting sites, although never about the massive logging of the Alcazar of Seville and how the bat was banished from there, nor about how this species of bat migrates from one place to another". Along the same lines, "there was even talk of aggressiveness on the part of Kramer's parrots, when, in fact, we should be talking about defensive behaviour of the nest".
The supposed disturbance they cause the neighbors is another of the issues that are exaggerated, says Tere Rodríguez. "What we have to be aware of is that noise in the city exists and that parrots are not animals that make noise outside of normal hours. On the danger of the nests, she acknowledges that "we can find some case of a huge nest that needs to be controlled", but that is something that is already done in other cities and "it is not something so terrible”.
7. The challenge of abandoning demagogy and considering them an environmental asset.
The concept of invasive species is often associated with the use of this term for alarmist purposes, to "scare public opinion and create a sense of danger," says Tere Rodríguez. We have already explained that the problem with killing is that, in addition to being unethical, it is ineffective, not only with parrots, but as has been demonstrated with Florida turtles elsewhere. "What we have to do is find ethical and scientific formulas adapted to each species, territory and number of animals to be treated if we want the effort and time invested to be worthwhile".
Within this "lack of rigor and demagogy", there is also inappropriate talk of diseases, he says. "It is risky to talk about zoonoses when this branch is specific to the veterinary sector, but it is true that all animals are potential transmitters of diseases, and I insist on the word potential. Let's not forget H5N1 (the famous bird flu), and yet nobody said that we shoot all migratory birds, fortunately. In the case of the Argentine parrots, "we can list as possible damages: damage to agriculture in agricultural areas, noise at acceptable times for humans (they are not nocturnal) and construction of huge nests, which can be cut down by the tree maintenance services themselves, without this generating greater expense for the municipalities".
These are possibilities, she points out, not problems that will necessarily arise, and in any case must be assessed scientifically in each case. She denounces, for example, that parrots have been accused of "preying" on other birds with which they live, as if they were carnivores. They are accused of the decline of the sparrow, a problem that persists in Zaragoza, she stresses, a city that claims to have been spared the parrots.
"Parrots sometimes seem to be the scapegoat for global environmental mismanagement," but the reality is that they can be controlled ethically and considered an environmental asset. "They are intelligent, gregarious animals, which form their family nuclei and live together without conflict. Parrots, by nature, do not seek confrontation, and although it is true that they defend their nests in groups, their chicks and the chicks of their neighbors, they are animals capable of coexisting with other species.
Regarding the supposed diseases that they can spread, specifically chlamydia psittacosis, Tere Rodríguez explains that it is not detected in these animals when they live in the wild, but is common in other parrots raised in captivity and available for sale. "We don't usually talk about this, because Spain has decided that this disease is not obligatory to declare and can harm the business of buying and selling, but yes, surely more than one citizen has lived with a bird that is sick with chlamydia, duly bought in a pet shop”.
8. Irresponsibility, misinformation, economic interests and a deficient regulatory framework.
Deciphering the approach to extermination requires an analysis of factors such as the lack of institutional ethics and responsibility, the manipulation of information to create social alarm, and the deficient and inadequate regulatory framework for species considered invasive. "It is true that the law indicates that all possible means must be put in place to end the problem of invasive species, and we agree," says Tere Rodríguez. "However, it does not mention the obligation to sacrifice, nor does it mention the prohibition of selling species that could clearly be considered invasive in the not too distant future," so the law lacks foresight.
The media often forget the institutional responsibility to prevent situations of species overpopulation from the outset. "Society in this area is manipulable, because we believe what some scientists tell us, and nobody talks about scientific fraud; for example, the scientific fraud on the prevalence of chlamydia in parrots living in the wild in Barcelona. However, this hoax continues to be used as an argument to create social alarm and try to justify the killing.
In addition to this deficient environmental policy, there are economic interests. "On the one hand, no one wants to talk about the future invaders who are currently subject to trade, as this would blow up the market, and, on the other hand, there are the current invaders who are directly dependent on public tenders and bids where whoever presents himself, promises and assures that his lethal method is the best, when in reality it is the cheapest and the one that provides the most benefits to the winner. We would all like to have three million euros to carry out our projects, who wouldn't? But, in reality, the losses to the town councils are enormous if we talk about citizens who do not understand why it has not been stopped in time, and why now we have to kill and not carry out another system.
9. The effective and civilized solution is constant measures and protection of native species.
"The most effective solution, as it stands right now, is to combine methods according to the specific damage these animals may cause. Lethal methods do not eradicate the problem, they can lead to displacement of populations to other more compromised places and, of course, they are going to come up against a civil society that no longer wants to see us go back in time," she says.
As an alternative to killing, "we can calmly say that population reduction can be done with non-bloody methods, such as sterilization of males and females and release.
Tere Rodríguez responds to the Head of the Biodiversity Service of the Madrid City Council, Santiago Soria Carreras: "It seems that you want to paint us as crazy about the invaders, when, in reality, what we want is to propose constant, non-harmful measures adapted to each species or for each harm that they may cause and, above all, to promote the protection of those native species that could be harmed by the colonization of the non-native ones".
10. Beyond parrots, their ethical control helps to build a better society.
"Ecology without ethics generates a social rejection" linked to the safeguard of universal values of great importance in evolved societies, says Tere Rodríguez, such as "empathy, a sign of both personal and social intelligence; democratic principles; justice; knowledge; the importance of informing citizens; the right to life and, in short, respect for others in order to achieve better coexistence in urban environments". On the other hand, the globalization that currently prevails, as well as the consequences of climate change, force us to give intelligent responses at the environmental level, facing conflicts in the best possible way so that populated cities are places "more livable and supportive". And this implies "understanding that ethics is not an expendable option, but our lifeline as a society. It constitutes the nucleus of aspects that we must take care of in order to increase the social capital of the city, among them social commitment, community intelligence and learning to live together, just as José Antonio Marina Torres, a renowned expert in intelligence, so wisely maintains".
In the case of urban birds, the challenge is to take action, "work to prevent and integrate them in a balanced way into the city's ecosystem, giving an ethical response also to the populations of species considered invasive. All the more reason, since we are responsible for their presence in our environment". Deciding whether to kill them or respect their lives, therefore, is also a decision on what values are transmitted by these actions. Leaving ethics aside, "we do not promote coexistence, respect, compassion or truthfulness".
"There are many ways to advance towards a more just world, and taking the side of those without a voice at the institutional level is key to creating a social pedagogy based on much-needed education in values, demonstrating that there must be a commitment on the part of the legitimate representatives of the citizenry, whose feelings would be heard". Opting for an ethical solution in a matter of great public exposure would also be "a demonstration of social intelligence, as well as a tremendously important step with a powerful message of support for the so often violated rights of animals, and also humans".
Translated from the Spanish, article appeared on
El caballo de Nietzsche; Published on July 10, 2020 - 10:09 pm