Release me not...

Once, a group of Tibetan monks visited Singapore. Their local followers wanted to earn some merit and thought it would be a good idea to release a whole lot of animals into the forests and reservoirs with the monks' blessings. Together, they amassed enough finned and feathered critters to fill an entire lorry, and headed for Lower Peirce Reservoir Park. Their spiritual goals were unfortunately not achieved, owing to the unenlightened meddling of some birdwatchers who happened to be in the same area.

More recently, over a hundred quails (you know, those button-like things from which cholesterol-laden little eggs emerge) were found dead or dying by park rangers, and are thought to be the work of Buddhist devotees who purchased the birds from farms and shipped them (presumably by the bagload in hot car boots) to the forest's edge towards a merciful end. One can also frequently encounter by the shores of local reservoirs the rotting carcasses of turtles and flowerhorn cichlids who have outgrown their owners' affections and failed to fend for themselves after their release into nature's harsh embrace.

Many parents are known to have difficulty in letting their children go and grow up, even when their brood have spawned a grand-generation. With shorter-lived pets and captive animals, however, the gift of liberty is much easier to bestow, especially when one can just free and forget. What better way is there to feel charitable and earn some interest in one's spiritual accounts by dishing out life beyond the slaughterhouse and square cage to cute little creatures who would rejoice at their reborn status as wild animals, unfettered and unfended?   

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, some say. Living hell, however, can sometimes be found on earth, thanks to the hopes of men who impose heavenly expectations on their brethren (as well as other species) or crave saintly approval for themselves. In the business of being good, form and features too often take precedence over substance and spirit, and this is just the case with the practice of "fang sheng" as practiced by some people, especially around Vesak Day.

Why fuss about an act of good faith, wonder some? Those who care enough to speak out or commit themselves have good reason, for the practice of "fang sheng" results in immensely unwarranted and unnecessary suffering for both the animal released as well as the ecosystem in which it is set free.

For one, domestic breeds of species such as hamsters, mice, goldfish and rabbits lack the instincts and means to find food for themselves, and will quickly succumb to exposure, starvation, parasites or predators without the care and protection of human handlers. Sadly, those who discover the remains of such pets are usually not the same individuals who abandoned the animals.

The local nature reserves are also not suitable habitats for many released species. Munias, a small bird, are often sold for release, but these birds thrive only in open grasslands, not the thick jungles of the central reserves. Without their preferred habitat and food source, the birds will eventually starve. The National Parks Board estimates that about 90% of animals released into the wild simply die within a day.

And even if the reserves can prove to be suitable habitats for a released animal, our local waters and forests are already home to an incredible diversity of native animals who would face competition from the survivors. Some types of animals that are frequently released include aggressive and domineering species such as the American Bullfrog, the Red-eared Slider, African Walking Catfish, Chinese Softshell Turtles and the White-crested Laughing Thrush, all of which have been observed to thrive in local habitats, at the expense (through predation, competition for food or transmission of diseases to which local species have no immunity) of local species such as the Malayan Box Turtle, local softshell turtles, local frogs and birds. Already, native species once common to Singapore, such as rasboras and barbs (two groups of native fishes) and the delightful magpie robin (a pretty black-and-white songbird) have suffered heavy declines to their population and survive only in less accessible and pristine areas following the introduction of guppies, tilapia and mynahs to the island in the early 20th century.

Even plants can be a threat Some may remember the case of water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes) and floating ferns (Salvinia molesta) which were 'released' into the reservoirs in the 1970s and spread like wildfire, clogging waterways and contributing to a deterioration of the catchment water quality. Elsewhere, animal introductions have seen results that range from the comic to tragic. Several bird species in Guam became extinct after the inadvertent introduction of the American Australian (thanks Hai-Ren!) brown tree snake. Rabbits were once a continental menace in Australia, proliferating like bunnies until an viral control agents were employed, and even then, survivors rebounded as they acquired immunity. Cane toads, introduced to Queensland to feed on pests, turned their culinary attention rather to native Australian fare, and with their toxic skins fatal to native predators, are now spreading south, killing every fair-dinkum creature in its wake. Is this payback for ecological carelessness?    

The question also remains as to why well-meaning people should support the trade of trapping native wild animals (e.g. small birds, fish and reptiles) for sale to devotees who would release the creatures which would thereafter be recaptured for further sale. Besides the utter meaninglessness of this vicious cycle, the fact that a large portion of the animals trapped fail to survive their stressful period of captivity should engage the consciences of faithful folk.

And last but not least, it's worth bearing in mind that unauthorised animal or plant release into local waters, parks and reserves is an offence that renders one liable to a maximum fine of S$10,000 and 6 months behind bars. Well, freedom surely comes at a price, and even though the Parks Board prefers the soft option of moral suasion, why should one seek to be the first test-case or spankmonkey for the heavy hand of law in this arena, where a little thoughtfulness and understanding could do much to allay the suffering of beasts, men and the land?

What alternatives are there for those who seek to exercise compassion on non-human animals or pet-owners weary of their charges? Here, doing nothing can really mean doing something. As
this little pamphlet tells it, simply refusing to play the game of buy-and-release sends a strong and silent message that such 'merit-bestowing' services are unwanted. Pet animals in turn deserve a life-long commitment, and should personal circumstances render their upkeep impossible, it does well to turn to friends who might be willing to take on a burden of love, or return a favour to one's favourite petshop, which could pass on the pet to new admirers.

Do spare a thought this Vesak Day for the welfare of God's creatures and the value of going beyond a single guilt-releasing act to a lifelong appreciation of true compassion.   

Comments

[Hai~Ren]

The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is Australian. And it is distressing how people release their pets into the wild this way. If anything, one can only hope that the predators, disease, or starvation were quick to eliminate them. God forbid that any more species establish themselves. Our most common species are almost all non-native already. (Still traumatised by the American bullfrog I spotted in the Botanic Gardens. I know about how much damage they cause to native amphibians, and my first reaction was: Holy f***, they're here?)

[budak]

The bullfrogs are established in some parts locally, though as long as the Central Reserves are kept pristine, they should have difficulty establishing themselves in the acidic waters. Elsewhere (http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=34424), people are still seeing these frogs as a money bag without regard for the native treasures in their midst.

[J Lim]

The irony between Ethics of intention and Ethics of consequence.

Perhaps it would be better for these devotees not to do all these "fang sheng" and I guess it is better that these animals remain in the cage better. at least there is food/water and shelter for them