DEAR DR. FOX: I am having a debate with a friend, who says that my partner and I going out to rejuvenate our spirits in nature disturbs the wildlife. We are always quiet, we avoid early mornings and evenings, and our dogs never run free.

I feel that the physical and mental health benefits of viewing wildlife are important, and so is protecting that same wildlife. We can strike a balance for the benefit of all. -- P.S., San Francisco

DEAR P.S.: I appreciate your concern about this important issue. There is much to consider, from parents not teaching their children to quietly respect wild places to the "democratic" multiple-use concept for public spaces. The latter leads to littering, fire-setting and the use of noisy, polluting all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes and snowmobiles in wildlife-inhabited areas. Nationally, almost 85% of wildfires are started by humans, according to the National Park Service.

The appeals by hikers, naturalists, wildlife photographers and other lovers of nature to prohibit such vehicular traffic and other harmful human incursions -- including trapping and hunting -- are generally ignored by state wildlife management authorities. But an "eco-cratic" stewardship of wildlands would be just. It would also be in our enlightened self-interest, because our ultimate well-being is dependent upon restoring and protecting natural biodiversity.

A new study has found that human hikers create a "landscape of fear" that chases other animals into hiding. Even when hikers are unarmed and using the landscape peacefully, they can cause disruption on par with that of apex predators, according to the study published in January in Scientific Reports (A.K. Anderson, et al: "Partial COVID-19 closure of a national park reveals negative influence of low-impact recreation on wildlife spatiotemporal ecology").

Limiting the numbers of visitors to wildlife habitats during certain seasons and times of day will help reduce wildlife disturbances, which can include disruptions in feeding, breeding and care of young. The associated stress from these disruptions can increase animals' susceptibility to disease. Core areas should be strictly off-limits, allowing trail cameras, at most, for noninvasive wildlife research and monitoring.

IN MEMORIAM: ROGER PAYNE, ETHOLOGIST

I mourn with others the passing of Dr. Roger Payne, who electrified me and other scientists at an international ethology conference where he first played his recordings of the humpback whale. His "Songs of the Humpback Whale," released in 1970 as an LP, helped turn the world against whaling, making him one of my heroes in the fight for animal rights and conservation.

INSIGHTFUL INTERVIEW WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS PHILOSOPHER

On the June 15 episode of the BBC program "HARDtalk," hosted by Stephen Sackur, philosopher Peter Singer gave a memorable interview. Singer was promoting his updated book "Animal Liberation," originally published in 1975. While the book helped launch a worldwide movement, it did not stop the proliferation of cruel farmed animal factories or the numbers of animals exploited for research and other purposes, as Sackur pointed out. Ethical arguments and reason alone rarely change public opinion, especially over such matters as culturally and religiously condoned animal consumption and exploitation.

Singer is now emphasizing the harmful environmental consequences of meat consumption and of raising animals for food -- a major contributing factor to the climate crisis. As I have written, we need to go beyond concepts of animal rights and degrees of animal sentience (including their capacity to feel pain) and emphasize that it is ultimately in our own self-interest -- economically, ecologically and from a One Health perspective -- to immediately reduce our consumption of animal-derived foods. We must adopt vegan/vegetarian diets to support environmentally regenerative, low- to zero-emission, organic agriculture, and restore natural biodiversity to help prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases.

The multiple drivers of government-subsidized farmed animal factories include the livestock feed, agri-petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries and their high-paid lobbyists, all of which must become something of the past. But progress in bioethics will continue to be minimal so long as basic human rights continue to be violated worldwide.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: If you have been reading this column for any length of time, you know that I oppose the widespread practice of TNVR -- trap, neuter, vaccinate and release -- of unadopted cats. I oppose it on the basis of its inhumane nature, its ineffective track record in managing cat populations, its harm to wildlife and its risks to public health.

The position statement below from the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP), which amounts to an unqualified endorsement of TNVR, is a response to me calling for all concerned citizens to contact the AAFP and request that the group support the proper feeding, sheltering and medical care of these cats.

Here is a large excerpt from the statement, as posted on the group's website, catvets.com:

"The AAFP supports the humane management of free-roaming cats with the overarching goals of: sustained reductions of unowned free-roaming cat populations over time; improved cat health and well-being; mitigating negative impacts on the environment, wildlife, public health and neighborhoods; and supporting free-roaming cat caregivers and their human-animal bond.

"The AAFP supports reducing the number of free-roaming cats through humane capture, sterilization and appropriate homing ... The AAFP supports nonlethal programs for controlling free-roaming populations. Outdoor access for companion cats should focus on methods that address the goals listed above, including leash-walking and fenced yards or other enclosures when possible.

"The AAFP recognizes that the management of free-roaming cats is complex. The AAFP encourages collaboration between humane groups, conservationists, animal control authorities, caregivers and other stakeholders. The AAFP encourages more interdisciplinary research to increase evidence-based management practices."

Upon reading this statement, I sent an email to Jeff Pane, marketing and communications manager at AAFP.

DR. FOX'S EMAIL TO JEFF PANE: I have looked over the new statement that condones TNVR of feral and unadoptable cats, but find no details as to how such colonies should be cared for by those involved. Should the cats be fed? Should they be restricted to contained areas to protect wildlife? What reference citations support the implicit belief of the AAFP that TNVR reduces overall cat numbers in various communities? I would like answers at your earliest convenience to post in my nationally syndicated column.

J.P. REPLIES: The AAFP does not currently have a position statement developed on how cat colonies should be cared for; as noted in the statement, "The AAFP recognizes that the management of free-roaming cats is complex." However, in the position statement, there is a link to a resource from International Cat Care entitled "Cat Friendly Decision-Making" (icatcare.org/international-cat-care-introduces-new-cat-friendly-decision-making-documents).

DR. FOX'S REPLY, FOR READERS: All involved and concerned should consider the excellent advice and initiatives posted by International Cat Care (website above). We should also seek to involve the AAFP in making TNVR something other than a slow death sentence and life of suffering for unadopted cats, who, being released into communities across the U.S., harm wildlife and put public health at risk. It is surely incumbent upon the AAFP to develop a statement on how cat colonies should be cared for.

There is no freedom for the domestic cat in having to live as a predator, killing in order to survive.

GENE THERAPY FOR CAT POPULATION CONTROL

A single injection of an experimental gene therapy that spurs production of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) prevented pregnancy in six female cats in a study published in Nature Communications (Nature.com, June 6).

If proven safe and effective in larger studies, the gene therapy could offer a nonsurgical alternative for controlling feral cat and dog populations, particularly in under-resourced regions. Reproductive biologist David Pepin is also studying AMH as a possible human contraceptive.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: The recent clamorous concern over the possibility of artificial intelligence leading to our extinction reflects our innate fear of the revolutionary discoveries and creations we humans have wrought -- beginning with fire! In contrast to this fear, some are seeking ways AI can serve the planet and all its creatures.

For example, AI can help in our conservation efforts and perhaps help prevent animal extinctions. According to a paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, AI is being used to link and analyze disparate datasets, creating an internet of animals (IoA) that scientists can use to detect disease outbreaks and manage endangered species. The IoA is already being used to predict migratory bird patterns via "lights-out" initiatives and to predict the location of whales so shipping vessels don't hit them. Future uses could include monitoring diseases, tracking weather and ensuring animals endangered by climate change find suitable habitat, says co-author Roland Kays of North Carolina State University. (Full story: news.ncsu.edu, May 30)

INDIA'S CHEETAH REINTRODUCTION FAILURE

The future of the world's first intercontinental cheetah-introduction program is under question when news broke that three relocated adult cheetahs, plus three of their cubs, had died within eight months.

Last September, the ambitious Project Cheetah was launched, with great fanfare, with the aim of introducing the South African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus jubatus) into Kuno National Park and bolstering the vulnerable species. Critics say the park is too small for the intended number of animals, and that local farmers had not been properly prepared. "The fact that we had multiple [adult] deaths occurring in a short space of time is not unusual in the sense that it's the high-risk period," says veterinarian Adrian Tordiffe, a consultant for the project. However, "I wasn't expecting these cubs to succumb," he says. While a subspecies of cheetah once lived in India, the cats have long been extinct there. (Full story: Nature.com, June 7)

BAFFLING NEW EDUCATION POLICIES IN INDIA

Schoolchildren in India will no longer be taught about evolution, the periodic table of elements, sustainability or pollution, nor about energy sources such as fossil fuels. Chapters on all of these topics have been cut from the textbooks and curricula for students aged 11–18. India's National Council of Educational Research and Training, which is behind the changes, has not yet explained its rationale to teachers and parents. Experts are baffled, and more than 4,500 have signed an appeal to reinstate the axed content. (Full story: Nature.com, May 31)

In my opinion, this action is intended to quell any student unrest and protests while India continues mining and burning coal, plus cutting down trees to burn for cremating the dead.

DEAR DR. FOX: I appreciate your sharing some philosophy in your column when it comes to human nature and how we treat nature, as well as each other. One of my heroes is the Russian Pyotr Kropotkin, who documented the importance of mutual aid between animals -- even of different species -- in contrast with Charles Darwin's view of competition and survival of the fittest. You and your readers may enjoy learning more about him. -- R.E., Washington, D.C.

DEAR R.E.: I appreciate your interest in this area of natural philosophy, exploring the roots of human nature and evolutionary processes of survival. In my view, both Darwin and Kropotkin are half right, as I discuss in this post: drfoxonehealth.com/post/the-importance-of-natural-biodiversity-for-human-health-and-well-being.

I see this essential duality in nature -- predation, competition, mutual aid and symbiosis -- reflected in human nature. Natural ecosystems are in a constant, dynamic state of flux and tension wherein predators, parasites and pathogens help sustain biodiversity and control destructive overpopulation by herbivores and invasive species. For our own survival, and that of our planet, we need to err on the side of empathy and mutual aid. We cannot continue to act as a global infestation, both predatorial and parasitic.

Another great Russian, Leo Tolstoy, declared, "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."

Considering our world population is now around 8 billion, we must acknowledge the contribution of animal agriculture to the loss of biodiversity -- mass extinctions of species and ecosystems -- and the climate crisis. While the crisis itself is irreversible, we can slow its momentum, beginning by reducing all carbon emissions.

Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky put into words what I have always felt: "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)