An interview with veterinarian, Amanda Buchanan-Gambill; a recent graduate of North Carolina State University School of Veterinary Medicine, she currently works at Andrews Veterinarian Hospital, a mixed animal practice located in Western North Carolina. Questions were posed by fellows from the Environment and Sustainability group: Mina (Turkey), Goncalo (Portugal), William (France), Catalina (Spain), David (Spain), Faika (Cyprus), Baptiste (Switzerland), Bersant (Kosovo), Ingrid (Norway), and Megi (Albania)
How do you feel about hunting in over populated areas, or for the use of food or fur?
The trends of species populations spans over a spectrum from too few numbers of a population- to the point of extinction- to overpopulation. When populations are burdened with too high of numbers many animals are at risk of suffering too due to few resources, parasitism, increased risk of disease, etc. In these scenarios there is a need for thinning out populations via controlled hunting programs. It is important that these programs are regulated and allow reasonable decreases in populations. Hunting is just a sport for many who participate however, there are hunters who do utilize this as a source of meat for their families which can be a great option to support low income diets.
A veterinarian has to be present in the lab during animal testing, what would be your regulations/boundaries in laboratory animal testing? What do you feel like is too much or too harsh for the animals?
As a veterinarian we take an oath that is instilled with advancing scientific knowledge and protecting animals from unnecessary suffering. There is a fine line between these two goals when it comes to lab animal medicine and often the boundaries overlap. In many cases we have to consider the potential outcome from each study and question the value of the knowledge gained versus the value of the lives sacrificed. There are options to limit suffering and performing painful procedures without the use of these options is unacceptable to me. On another note, many of our lab animal species are bred and entire populations are created just for specific studies. This brings forth the question that “would it be best for the animal to not exist at all or to be ‘produced’ and live a life even if it’s sacrificed for human advancement?” Regardless, each lab is responsible for their own standards that is typically developed with the aid of a veterinarian which determine appropriate protocols for husbandry, plans for the animals following study termination, and if needed, euthanasia. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is commonly referred to for these protocols (www.iacuc.org).
What is your opinion on zoos and the idea that most of the animals go clinically insane?
Zoos have their benefit as they offer an insight to animals that many people would have no other opportunity to witness first hand. Zoos also provide invaluable resources and conservation efforts to maintain endangered species populations. However, there are many indications that captive or institutionalized animals do develop tendencies that are not witnessed in their natural environment. Some of these tendencies include pacing, self-mutilation, circling, excessive sleeping, etc. Many of these actions are referred to as stereotypes and are thought to be a result of poor environment (too small, not enough stimulation, no interaction with others of the same species). These behaviors truly do exist and are capable of causing physical and emotional harm to the animal. The alternative is to provide environmental enrichment or remove the animal from the situation if possible. This isn’t to say that all animals in zoos develop an “insanity” or do poorly. Many animals are capable of thriving in zoo settings and are capable of having all of their environmental and social needs met.
Do you feel as though animals are intelligent, if so in what ways?
Certainly they are not the same as humans, but animals do have some level of intelligence that is comparable to our own. If you take a litter of kittens or puppies they will each develop a unique personality or collection of behavioral tendencies that are consistent for them and can help differentiate them from their littermates. Animals are capable of learning a variety of tricks; the main difference between animals and humans is that each is motivated by different means. They may not be able to understand English exactly but they are able to pick up and respond to a variety of cues (i.e. a tractor engine for cattle, a can opener for cats, etc.). They have interactions with one another within their population via their own means of communication. They are capable of feeling pain and sorrow like humans. I would have a difficult time being motivated to do my job if I didn’t feel that the animals I serve were capable of thoughts and emotion.
Are you for or against animal testing? Why?
Regrettably, I am for animal testing for medical knowledge. I respond with regret because I wish there were a perfect world where animal suffering did not exist and I understand that testing inflicts pain and death. In many cases, I know that there truly is no other way without risking the lives of many humans (and thus eliciting suffering on mankind). Though I love animals and have devoted my life to caring for them, I understand the magnitude of medical advancements we are capable of benefiting from, simply due to the sacrifice of animal lives. However, I think in many cases testing on animals for domestic products can be avoided.
In your opinion should Spanish bull fights continue in order to keep tradition and culture, or should they be stopped because it is harmful to bulls?
Bull fighting is a risky sport and in some cases the bulls win out; however, I know that this is rarely the case. The sport is brutal, inflicting prolonged suffering on the animals and I personally would not attend or support this sport. However, I do understand the importance of culture and tradition and would never want to aid in withholding the right that this culture has to continue these practices.
What do you think of the phrase: “cows are born to be meat”?
In many cultures cows serve a sole purpose to provide meat and/or milk for human consumption; in others, they are worshiped. Cows are intelligent animals that are very hardy and capable of surviving in a variety of environments; they are due more respect than they get. In the American culture they are mass produced and slaughtered because practices and facilities have been developed to do this efficiently and cost effectively. The industry produces food for a large population of people that may not have the same opportunity via other means. If we desire to treat cattle in a more respectable way, the cultural perspective has to shift in order to place pressure on producers to change.
Are you for using animal “parts” to help in human surgeries, such as pig valves?
I think this is incredible. Porcine and human genetics are reportedly 98% similar and this advantage makes such procedures possible. Of course, the animals have to be produced and harvested for these purposes and that is a sensitive subject due to the consideration of animal rights. However, this science saves human lives and if myself or one of my loved ones needed a procedure like this I would gladly pursue it.
What is the most extreme type of stress that human-environment interactions have placed on animals?
The most extreme stress would be the extinction of an entire species. This has occurred most commonly from over hunting and a removal of resources (such as food sources or encroaching on their environment). Consider the near extinction of buffalo from the American plains or the over hunting and environmental destruction of the dodo bird and passenger pigeons. The removal of one species from an environment has many implications on other plants and animals within the environment.
Do you support PETA extremists? Do you think good things can come out of their extreme actions, like spray painting fur coats or freeing test animals?
PETA extremists are exactly that: extreme. I commend their motivation and the immense passion they have for animal rights, but sometimes I have to ask what outcomes are their actions truly bringing? The lives of the animals whose fur is being worn has already been taken and spraying paint on it doesn’t bring the animal back or keep the wearer from purchasing another. Laboratories that use lab animal species for testing will likely procure new animals if needed. Actions of extremists certainly open eyes and make others angry- and that alone brings awareness and makes others think about the issues at hand. The problem I have is when their beliefs are pushed onto other people and they condemn others for thinking differently. We each have the right to think for ourselves freely without conviction from others.
How do you feel about the domestication of animals? Does it hurt the animal when people treat them like their son/daughter?
Humans have domesticated many animal species for food, entertainment, and utility. The level of domestication that our companion animal pets have undergone has taken hundreds of years to achieve. In 2007, it was estimated that 37.2% of American households had a canine pet (http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp). Pet ownership is a growing demographic. A multitude of these pets are bred (or stem from pet overpopulation) for the purpose of human companionship and otherwise may not exist in the natural environment. Wild species that are held captive are at the greatest risk of suffering from human ownership due to improper care. In many ways, the trend of moving animals into the home as “family members” creates a higher standard of care for the animal.
How many hours of work do you average a week? What is the predominant animal/animal problems that you treat?
Currently I work on average 50 hours per week at a mixed animal practice in rural western North Carolina. Because we are a mixed animal practice, we predominately work with companion animals like dogs and cats as well as a small percentage of production animals and horses. Aside from providing routine care to these animals, one of the most common problems we deal with is the diagnosis and treatment of disease (most commonly parvovirus, pancreatitis, diabetes, heart disease etc). We focus on providing preventative care such as vaccinations, parasite treatments and education for proper animal husbandry.
Are you for “free range” treatment of animals that will eventually go on to be slaughtered?
I am always for improved conditions for animals, especially production animals. “Free range” is often a label that producers take advantage of in order to sale a product. The term “free range” only implies that the animals have “access to the outside” (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/meat_&_poultry_labeling_terms/index.asp#4). This is open for loose interpretation and often isn’t carried out in the manner that you might consider. I think that anything we can do to treat production animals better is wonderful (however I know many of these desires are not practical) and our desire for this is often taken advantage of in order for producers to create a niche market or charge a higher price. There are practices out there that are legitimate and I encourage you to educate yourself on these labels.
What do you feel like is the best action we should take to help the fight for animal rights? Whether that is from an environmentalist stand point or just a concerned citizen?
Education is the best action you can take; learn as much as you can about issues for yourself. Don’t just take the word of another individual for granted or allow simple labels or imagery to conjure up false concepts in your mind. Awareness is vital and little steps truly to make an impact. Start simple by purchasing meat/products from respectable and valid sources, have open-minded conversations with others regarding their cultural and personal thoughts on animal rights, visiting animal care facilities (farms, labs, slaughterhouses) to witness these issues first-hand, donate your time and/or money to valid charities (research these charities as well, there are untrustworthy people that will take advantage of your kindness), and reduce your negative environmental impact (recycle! It’s their planet too!).
