“It’s important to make sure that the orphans that are raised in captivity do not become imprinted upon or habituated to humans,” the post said. “To prevent that, we minimize human sounds, create visual barriers, reduce handling, reduce multiple transfers amongst different facilities, and wear masks for the species.”
Here’s the video:
Funny, I don’t recall Joy and George Adamson dressing up in lions suits to take care of Elsa in “Born Free.”
Before I throw the challenge over to you, panel, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, what he thinks of the video.
“Thank-you, Wink. Let’s just say I’m dubious. On my ethics blog, Ethics Alarms, I would call this an example of the “Awww!” Factor, which is described this way: “The “Awww!” Factor occurs when particular conduct seems loving, caring and nice, but is in fact unethical in one or more respects. Such conduct creates such a positive emotion-based sentimental response that valid ethical analysis becomes difficult or impossible.
“I’m not an expert in animal imprinting, but I question whether any real science is behind this stunt. We are supposed to believe that that tiny baby fox is paying attention to that giant fox-human Minotaur-like monster looming over it? I think some one on the Richmond Wildlife Center staff had the brianstorm that this would be a wonderful way to get publicity with a viral video, making millions of saps raise a loud chorus of “AWWW!” and spark a fundraising bonanza. And that’s unethical: dishonest, and manipulative.
“The last part of the “Awww!” Factor description that I left out just now is this: “It is frequently accompanied by the rationalization known as “The Saint’s Excuse,” which endorses unethical conduct that is the result of good intentions.” That is exactly the justification the center, if called on it, will use: “Hey, if it raises money to help animals, what’s the harm?” The harm is that the stunt is also a scam, using false representation to raise money.”
Gee, what do you really think, Jack? OK, panel, now its up to you! What’s your assessment of the adorable little fox being fed by the nice lady in the fox suit? Is it “Cute, Silly,or Wrong?”
Ethics Alarms 
The first question would be whether this is a real practice.
If the practice is fake on the part of the rehabilitators, then it is unethical. It falsely misrepresents their work.
Another possibility we have to admit is that the newscasters are lying. They might be taking footage from children’s outreach event, where the staff are dressing up for the amusement of children, and misrepresenting it as for done the care of the wildlife. This would be unethical on the part of the news (for hopefully obvious reasons).
If the rehabilitation center did, in fact, routinely where masks while caring for the wild pups or kits, I cannot see how such a practice would be unethical. Maybe if there were *zero* evidence that kits imprint or otherwise habituate on humans, it could be considered unethical to subject the staff to such conditions. If, however, they found that kits did poorly in the wild having been openly cared for by humans while young, and found that the maladaptive behaviors were reduced by limiting exposure to human caretakers, then the practice would certainly be ethical (or at least not be unethical). Like any process, it would be subject to informed criticism by experts in the field or others fairly concerned. They’d need to be prepared to defend such decision with evidence, lest they be dismissed as fools and hurt their cause.
Such costuming by rehabilitators of animals is not uncommon…similar action is taken in the care and feeding of Whooping Cranes. Wildlife often becomes acclimated to humans if fed by them, thereby putting released wildlife in danger of getting too close to people at other times. The idea is to help wildlife stay wild.
But are foxes like whooping cranes? I suspect not.
Foxes, deer, bears……many critters cease to be wild and become intrusive if they learn to rely on humans for food. I have a friend who thought it was cute to feed a raccoon on her deck until she had about 8 raccoons seeking food there- destroying her screened porch and trying to get into the house. Of course, not all rehabbers stealthily feed the wildlife in their care, but it doesn’t hurt to try to minimize human interaction.
I have no idea whether this kind of tactic works or not, but it has been a standard part of dealing with the young of various species for decades.
When we lived in Iowa (we left over 30 years ago), we vacationed a couple of times in the Wisconsin Dells, where the International Crane Foundation is located. When we visited the site. we watched as volunteers dressed as adult cranes fed the baby birds and even taught them how to fly. I have no reason to doubt the organization’s claim that some of the young birds thus raised ultimately joined the migrations of their particular species. I’d call that a win.
If the strategy works for birds, why not for mammals? (I have a former student who worked at a zoo for a couple of years and said that variations on the theme are not uncommon.) The only question in my mind is whether such a practice is necessary, but I’m going to yield to the ornithologists, zoologists, et al., on that score.
I see no problem with filming the process and releasing the footage to media outlets or online. Wildlife centers are almost universally under-funded, and if the attention created gets a few more people to open their wallets, so be it.
“Cute” and “silly” may be in the eye of the beholder. But “wrong”? Definitely not.
I’ve looked for confirmation that this is necessary for non-birds and non-lizards, and the best I can find are “everybody does it” type arguments. My guess is that the attendant benefits of the practice that have nothing to do with the animal’s welfare are enough to make it common…which is, you’ll admit, a bias.
I’m not a certified expert, but I do know that birds have the instinct to imprint on the first moving thing they see when they hatch, even if it’s a lifeless object being dragged around. I’ve never read anything indicating newborn mammals have a similar instinct. Also, do they cover up the human scent as well? Minimizing human contact, not treating them like domestic puppies is all well and good, but the mask seems superfluous.
Bingo.
So now I wonder…
What if the director were to feed a baby fox wearing a rabbit head or a squirrel head? Would the fox be more or less likely to be confused about possible sources of prey? Would it see the rabbit as a kindly, motherly provider rather than dinner’s main course?
Hopefully, the director is never faced with raising or rehabbing baby copperheads…that’s going to get weird in a hurry.
IMHO, the biggest and most beneficial aspect of this is that the wildlife _don’t_ acclimate to humans. They could probably wear one of those inflatable T-Rex suits and get the same result.
As to value… Joe Hutto had no problem raising a clutch of wild turkeys without any fancy costumes. Look up his documentary, a really good watch if you’d rather not see athletes subject themselves to concussion this next Thanksgiving.