The ethical considerations that emerge in Abrell’s work on animal rescue and care, particularly with regard to the question of which animal species should be saved and which should be euthanized, are complex and nuanced. Such a question elicits a range of ethical dilemmas, including how to measure the worth of different animal species and the subjective nature of assessments of an animal’s quality of life. Animal welfare organizations may prioritize the rescue of domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats, over wild animals, or may concentrate on saving animals that are endangered or threatened. Furthermore, the decision to euthanize an animal is frequently based on subjective evaluations of the animal’s suffering and overall quality of life, which may differ widely across various cultural and social norms.
The questions which animals to prioritize will always be at the forefront of this discourse simply because of the finite resources allocated to animals. In an ideal world with limitless funding it wouldn’t have to be a discussion, but I personally don’t know how I would allocate resources. At every turn there is a new dilemma; what is more important: a cultural symbol like the bengal tiger or an ecological cornerstone like some type of beetle?
Your response reminds me of the case study of Flower the calf. According to Ebrell, she was passed around by many people before ending up at a sanctuary that would actually care for her because of the extensive injuries she had. However, the sanctuary and caregivers that ended up taking her prioritized her welfare and life regardless of the costs that go into maintaining these things. I appreciate your question about the differences between different animals and how we as humans view them and allocate resources toward them. Cows, for example, contribute to a large amount of pollution in our planet; however, we still care for them and some even keep them as pets. Is this a proper allocation of our resources if it could mean the sacrifice of other fauna and species impacted by climate change? I don’t know.
Additionally, in his multispecies ethnography, Ebrell addresses rights vs. welfare, arguing that we often think in terms of animal rights when we should think in terms of welfare. To me, this means going beyond the typical needs we deem to be a right, such as food, shelter, and water, and actually considering the animal’s happiness and overall well-being.