The ethics of pigeon racing

ABSTRACT

There is a dearth of academic research on the ethics of pigeon racing. We argue that pigeon racing is associated with significant benefits and disadvantages, but that the benefits that have been associated with it can be provided by alternative practices. Disadvantages include the competitive element associated with racing, which creates a strong incentive to kill birds where this is not in their best interests, as well as the welfare issues related to transportation, the widowhood system, the races themselves, and the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Whilst some of these disadvantages can be diminished, we argue that an ethical form of pigeon racing is not possible, and that it therefore ought to be prohibited. In the final part of this article, we question whether the moral problems associated with pigeon racing include the keeping of pigeons per se. On this issue, we argue that keeping pigeons does pose moral problems, but that more research is needed to explore whether these might be relatively minor compared to the problems associated with de-domesticating pigeons. The moral implications of our research extend beyond the world of pigeon racing as similar arguments should be used to question the racing and keeping of many other animals.

KEYWORDS:

• Animal
• ethics
• pigeons
• racing

Introduction

This article is on the ethics of pigeon racing, a topic that has hardly featured in academic research (Deckers 2013; MacKenzie 1973). In Belgium, the place of birth of one of us, pigeon racing used to be quite popular. Whilst pigeon racing is in decline in many Western countries, it is growing in other places, for example in some Asian countries, including China. As not many people are involved in the practice and since the practice is in sharp decline in many countries, not many readers may know about it, which is why we set out briefly what it involves. We proceed by talking about the benefits and disadvantages. Having considered these, we argue that some of these disadvantages can be diminished, but that an ethical form of pigeon racing is not possible, and that it therefore ought to be prohibited. In the final part, we question whether the moral problems associated with pigeon racing include the keeping of pigeons per se. On this issue, we argue that keeping pigeons does pose moral problems, but that more research is needed to explore whether these might be relatively minor compared to the problems associated with de-domesticating pigeons.

What is pigeon racing?

One of us (Jan Deckers) was involved in pigeon racing from a very young age, and carried on doing it until he was in his twenties. In the area where he was born, in the North of Belgium, pigeon racing used to be quite popular. A pigeon racer is also known as a pigeon fancier. Each fancier has a loft, which is not necessarily literally a loft or an attic. A loft or coop can also be a garden shed. Fanciers meet every week in the club, the place where fanciers take their pigeons to, one or more days before the race starts. Pigeons are put into baskets here, together with other pigeons. Baskets are then collected by trucks, which take the pigeons away to locations that are quite a distance away from their lofts. Sometimes, they also use railway transport for this, especially for more distant locations. On the day that the race has been planned to take place, pigeons are released from their baskets if the weather is good. If the weather is not so good, the race is delayed, resulting in the birds being kept in the baskets for significantly longer periods of time, sometimes for several more days, which may add to the stress associated with confinement and competition for food and water (Cooper 1984). After their release, pigeons will try to fly back to their lofts as they have very strong homing instincts. When they arrive there, there will be an electronic system that records their arrival times. The use of such electronic systems is relatively recent. Until recently, fanciers would need to remove a rubber ring from the leg of each pigeon, put this ring into a sealed clock, and press a button to record the arrival time. Electronic systems or clocks are then taken into the club where a ranking list is compiled that includes a certain percentage of pigeons who were entered into the race.

Social benefits of pigeon racing

Through being involved in pigeon racing, pigeon fanciers have contact with nonhuman animals on a daily basis. This provides health benefits, including the health benefits derived from biophilia (Wilson 1993), the innate human tendency to affiliate with living organisms. The clubs where pigeon fanciers meet each other on a weekly basis can also be hives of social contact. If they did not race pigeons and if we assume that at least some fanciers would not replace the pigeon fanciers’ club by some other club or organisation that would provide similar social benefits, some fanciers might experience much more impoverished social lives. For some, pigeon racing can be a great source of prestige. As Jerolmack (2013) has highlighted, pigeon racing can even foster solidarity among people from different ethnicities and reinforce positive identity for migrants. Other people, including those who may have little understanding of this activity, may praise fanciers who do well. Some pigeon fanciers, for example the Janssen brothers from Arendonk, were even renowned internationally. Fanciers can also earn monetary benefits, either through selling birds or through betting on them in the races. Whilst in some locations bets can be placed by anyone, in other places only fanciers get to bet on their own birds. Those who have good, that is fast, birds, can make a lot of money in the races. This raises the prices of any birds whom they may wish to sell.

Social disadvantages of pigeon racing

Those fanciers who do not do so well in the races may also lose social status, particularly if they repeatedly make fools of themselves by placing large bets on birds who do not perform well. Whilst sports betting has been associated with benefits ‘such as fun and excitement’, it has also been associated with ‘madness’ (Evans and McNamee 2021, 210). Losing money through betting is particularly problematic if bets are placed on pigeons out of social pressure in situations where fanciers may not actually be able to afford it. Financial pressure also comes from the fact that many clubs are havens of social contact where people spend large sums of money on the purchase of beverages. As these might be of an alcoholic nature, pigeon racing also contributes to the problems related to alcohol consumption. Pigeon racing is also a significant time investment. The time that people spend in their clubs is time that is taken away from doing other things, for example spending time with one’s family.

Disadvantages for pigeons

Pigeon fanciers compete with each other. In order to do well in this competition, pigeon fanciers will try to breed the best possible pigeons. With this breeding comes killing. Pigeons that do not do so well in the races are usually killed, thus creating space for newly bred pigeons who might be faster. Some pigeon fanciers associate killing pigeons with masculinity, maintaining and reinforcing stereotypes about what men ought (not) to be (Adams 1990). The reason they eliminate those who do not perform stems from nobody wanting to look after those pigeons and there not being the option of releasing them in the wild. As mentioned, pigeons have a strong homing instinct and will therefore always seek to return back to their lofts.

Another disadvantage is that pigeons have almost no control over their lives (Broom 2011; Dawkins 2021) and may depend greatly on fanciers. Many fanciers decide many things for them, for example with whom they have the opportunity to mate, when they can fly out, and how long they will live. Whilst this lack of control poses a moral problem even if pigeons are looked after well, their dependency also means a significant risk of being neglected. Fanciers must let pigeons fly at regular times to keep up their fitness, close the lofts on time to avoid intrusion by predators such as cats and weasels, and feed and water them. Some fanciers can be neglectful in these areas, a problem that is not unique to the world of pigeon racing but that might be enhanced by the fact that some or perhaps even many fanciers might keep pigeons not because they are fond of them, but because they like racing. Some fanciers also prevent birds who are very valuable or birds who are kept for breeding purposes from flying out, either because they do not wish to risk them getting injured, lost, or predated upon, or because they cannot find the time or be bothered to let them fly out.

A further problem is separation from one’s partner, one’s eggs, or one’s young. One might say that it is unnatural for male and female pigeons to be separated for prolonged periods of time. It certainly impairs their drift towards mating and breeding. Pigeons appear to attach great importance to spending time together with their partners and their offspring as they form ‘strong pair-bonds’ (Cooper 1984, 506), are monogamic, and jointly raise their offspring (Patel and Siegel 2005; Shehzad, Hameed, and Raqeebullah 2016). The widowhood system is a system whereby sexes are separated for most times of the week, apart from just before and after the race. One partner is then entered into the race, and the other remains at home, awaiting their partner’s arrival. This provides an added incentive for racing pigeons to return home as they learn quickly that, upon arrival, they can spend some time together with their partners. Pigeons who are not kept in the widowhood system are also frequently separated from their partners, eggs, and young for prolonged periods of time, during transportation and the race itself. This is highly likely to be stressful as pigeons are not inclined to leave their partners, eggs, or young for long (Cooper 1984). This stress derives from the frustration of pigeons’ natural behaviour. Animal welfare science provides evidence for some species of animals about how preventing animals from expressing natural behaviour and separating animals from partners and offspring results in negative animal welfare (Bracke and Hopster 2006; Orihuela and Galina 2019), which is why the ‘five freedoms’ framework includes the freedom to express natural behaviour (Mellor 2016). Whilst we are not aware of specific studies on the negative welfare impacts of separation from partners and offspring in pigeons, if prolonged separation from partners and offspring is unnatural and stressful for pigeons, it might be problematic to race pigeons.

Whilst little researched, the transportation of pigeons in itself is likely to present significant welfare issues (Cooper 1984). During transportation, males are put together in baskets with other males, whilst females are put together with other females. Males tend to be more aggressive, resulting in, for example, their pecking at each other. Sometimes, birds return from races with swollen eyelids because of this. This problem is not so significant for young birds, but can manifest itself particularly for yearlings who are more mature sexually and who, compared to older pigeons, are not as used to being cooped up in baskets with many other birds.

The training and races themselves present significant welfare concerns as pigeons may not be able to return home, for example through injury (e.g. collisions with fences and power lines) as well as through exhaustion. Exhaustion presents particular problems in bad weather and in races over large distances (Cooper 1984), particularly for young birds who may be less good at navigating. Lost pigeons may integrate in flocks of feral pigeons, but their chances of survival are low because they are raised in complete dependence on humans. Even if the training and races go well, they are likely to be highly stressful (Kastelic et al. 2021). Studies show that feral pigeons, who belong to the same species as racing pigeons, fly between 0.3 kilometres to 5.29 kilometres from their nesting places (Rose, Nagel, and Haag-Wackernagel 2006). Racing pigeons, by contrast, are forced to fly from locations that typically range from around 100 kilometres up to 1000 kilometres from their lofts.

Some fanciers also use performance-enhancing drugs. Negative health effects have been associated with these as some can block the moult, some can stimulate the central nervous system, and some can reduce pain sensitivity (Basselier 2016). Corticosteroids, for example, are known to block the moult and may impair the immune system (Dhondt et al. 1993). Not only the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but also the use of medication in general presents problems. Fanciers usually medicate their pigeons on their own, where many lack veterinary expertise. In addition, when pigeons contract contagious diseases, such as Newcastle disease, they usually kill the pigeons instead of relying on veterinarians to provide care, including euthanasia, where appropriate.

Is an ethical form of pigeon racing possible?

We must ask the question whether an ethical form of pigeon racing is possible, or whether the practice should be abandoned altogether. The reason for this is that all the social benefits that we mentioned can be provided without racing pigeons. The good of having some contact with other animals can be fulfilled in many ways. Pigeons can be kept without their being raced. We might also question whether the contact that pigeon fanciers have with domesticated pigeons could be replaced through contacts with wild, feral, or other domesticated animals. Whilst pigeon racing may facilitate social contacts and provide monetary benefits for some fanciers, people can maintain social contacts and exchange money in other ways. Only the disadvantages seem to remain.

Those who want to cling on to pigeon racing might therefore contemplate whether it might be possible to remove or to reduce some or all of these disadvantages to allow the practice to continue. In relation to the social disadvantages, one might race birds for fun, rather than for prize money. In addition, it might be argued that the problems related to the consumption of alcohol and some opportunity costs associated with pigeon racing, for example neglecting family commitments, are not necessarily linked to the activity itself. Indeed, it is important to distinguish between inherent problems with pigeon racing and problems that have been associated with it, but that are not intrinsically related to the activity. Some might argue that one should tackle betting, alcohol consumption, and overindulgence in the activity, rather than the activity itself.

Whilst the social disadvantages that we have outlined may not be sufficient to justify a prohibition on pigeon racing, the balance tilts significantly in the other direction when we think about the disadvantages for pigeons. In relation to the moral issue posed by killing, one might prohibit killing, unless it might be better for pigeons to be dead than to be alive, say if they are very badly injured or very ill. In the current situation, pigeons usually are no longer capable of doing well in races when they are about 6 years old, but they could go on to live for another 20 years or so. To reduce the possibility that some fanciers might give in to the temptation to kill old birds in order to make space for new birds, bred from those who have performed the best in races or from birds who are known to produce fast offspring, one could set up separate age categories for races. If veteran pigeons would still be raced, the probability of fanciers killing pigeons in spite of it being prohibited might be reduced.

The problems posed by a lack of control, human dependency, and the associated risk of neglect might not necessarily wither if pigeons are no longer being raced. If pigeon racing is stopped, pigeons would not necessarily gain independence. Pigeon fanciers might simply kill them. If they would allow them to continue living, the risk of neglect might even grow. The reason for this is that fanciers no longer have an incentive to ensure that pigeons are in top condition, a necessary condition for good racing performance. Whilst these are legitimate concerns, we do not think that they provide persuasive arguments for pigeon racing to continue. Many companion animals are kept by people without being raced. In spite of this, many people do look after their companion animals very well. We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that pigeons who are no longer being raced are more likely to be neglected compared to other companion animals.

With regard to the problem posed by the separation of the sexes, one might allow sexes to mingle instead. The problem with this is that a pair of pigeons will produce around twelve offspring every year, where some of these young will reproduce themselves within the same year, as it only takes around five months for pigeons to reach sexual maturity. A possible way around this is to replace eggs by dud eggs, but this is not free from concerns either, partly because it still results in killing pigeons, even if very young, embryonic ones, and partly because pigeons may be affected negatively by repeated cycles where they incubate eggs without chicks being born. If we assume that the moral significance of a pigeon increases during embryonic development, it would be more problematic to replace eggs by dud eggs the longer one allows pigeons to brood on them. Replacing eggs with dud eggs would therefore become more problematic if fanciers are not being sufficiently diligent in replacing eggs promptly after they had been laid. If pigeons could be sterilised, however, this problem might be addressed. However, even if the widowhood system were abandoned and pigeons were sterilised, pigeons would continue to suffer from being separated from their partners and their eggs during races.

In relation to the transportation issue, we are not quite sure how this could be addressed satisfactorily. One might perhaps think of a system to reduce pecking injuries by reducing the number of birds per basket, perhaps by transporting each bird in an individual cell. However, this would be likely to be a very expensive option, and would not eliminate stress during transportation altogether. With regard to the races themselves, one might reduce the distance to reduce losses, for example by demanding that there should be no races over 250 km. Even then, it is not possible to avoid the welfare issue presented by the loss of pigeons in races. Losses may still occur, for example due to sudden changes in weather conditions. A reduction in distance also does not tackle the fact that young pigeons frequently get lost, even in short distance races. A final consideration that may be entertained by those who seek to make pigeon racing more ethical is to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs, at least of those that are likely to undermine the health of pigeons. This is already prohibited in some countries, for example in Argentina, where law 14,346 criminalizes providing drugs to animals with the only aim of enhancing performance (Congreso de la Nación Argentina 1954, art. 5 par. 2).

It is time to take stock. Whilst we have sketched some suggestions to make pigeon racing more ethical, we remain unconvinced that these are sufficiently far-reaching. The main reasons for this are the problems that remain with the destruction of pigeon eggs, as well as with the transportation and the loss of pigeons in races. We cannot think of any further changes that could be made to the practice to render it ethically acceptable. If pigeon racing were prohibited, it is quite possible that some pigeon fanciers would no longer wish to keep pigeons. Whilst this also raises ethical concerns, if the killing of hatched pigeons were prohibited, either they would be forced to continue keeping pigeons or others would need to ensure that these pigeons were looked after. Whilst this is not free from ethical problems, the message conveyed by such a prohibition is likely to lead to an ethical sensitisation that would stimulate more people to value pigeons for reasons that are no longer related to their instrumental usefulness as racers.

Should pigeons be de-domesticated?

In relation to the ethical issue posed by our instrumental usage of pigeons, which we have largely ignored so far, we should more generally question whether the domestication of pigeons might be a problem per se. Descending from Columbia livia or the rock pigeon, racing pigeons have been domesticated for at least 7000 years. Whilst they have been used in recent wars to transport messages, they have also been used to provide flesh for human consumption, as well as manure. There is no good moral case to justify any of these forms of usage today. We now have different technologies to transport messages quickly. There is also no need to use their flesh as good technologies to produce nutritious plants are available to many people. Where these are not available and people need to eat animals in order to be able to thrive, a case might be made that pigeons should be kept for this purpose. However, we are not confident that a good case can be made as we are not aware of any scholars who have argued in favour of keeping pigeons to stave off human food insecurity. Whilst pigeon manure can be used as a fertiliser, the plants that pigeons eat can be turned into fertilisers that people can use instead.

In light of this situation, we should ask whether pigeons should be de-domesticated. If such a project were realised, pigeons would not only no longer be raced, but no longer be kept by human beings. Whilst we appreciate that some people might like the idea of keeping pigeons as companion animals, and that this might be beneficial, we believe that similar benefits could be enjoyed without keeping pigeons. However, we must also address the question how pigeons might fare if they were liberated from this dependency by being turned from domesticated into feral birds. On this issue, it is clear that they would not necessarily be better off. It is useful to consider the case of feral pigeons as many racing pigeons who would survive a de-domestication process might become urban feral pigeons. Feral pigeons are descendants of domesticated pigeons. Neither properly wild nor domesticated animals, they are de-domesticated animals who have shown a great ability to adapt to living freely in human environments. Feral pigeons are among us because we domesticated their ancestors, for a variety of purposes. Some escaped, were abandoned, or became lost, and then flourished in our urban environments. The adaptation of feral pigeons to cities is the result of their past wild habits. Their wild ancestors used to nest on cliffs. As human buildings look like cliffs, many feral pigeons are now adapted to nest on them. They have also adapted to eating human refuse, despite their original granivorous diet. Most importantly, domestication made them more docile to humans, allowed them to reproduce under poor conditions, and made them less hostile towards us. This, in turn, allowed the generation of big flocks.

Despite the reproductive success of feral pigeons in the human environment, their individual lives are very hard. Much of the food they find is not nutritious, much water that they drink is polluted, cars are dangerous for them, strings and human hair cause toe and leg losses, and stressful conditions make them prone to contracting diseases (Adinehbeigi et al. 2018; Haag-Wackernagel 1995; Jiguet et al. 2019; Tanaka et al. 2005; Torres-Mejía et al. 2018; Vázquez et al. 2010). It might be argued that, if the pigeon had remained wild, we may not have owed them anything in terms of positive assistance. However, since (the ancestors of) feral pigeons have been domesticated, their de-domesticated state is compromised by our actions and by the fact that they can no longer live in the socio-ecological context in which their wild ancestors might have evolved. As we have compromised the well-being of feral pigeons, we must care for them.

If we de-domesticated racing pigeons, it would lead to an increase in feral pigeons, where those who are injured or diseased may not be able to fend for themselves. As they would depend on human beings for their existence, their dependency might at least need to be restored at some times, and it might be best for racing pigeons who are currently ill or injured to remain dependent. It is unclear whether we should favour a different conclusion for birds who are not currently ill or injured, but who might become ill or injured through such a process of liberation. Many people like feral pigeons, but many loath them as well, where the latter may lead to actions that harm pigeons. Even when people do not inflict pain or suffering on feral pigeons intentionally, they may nevertheless experience significant harm from human civilisation, for example from eating the wrong things and from being injured by cars, cables, and strings. In addition, while many pigeons who are domesticated may not necessarily end up in cities in the process of being de-domesticated, it is far from clear whether they would be able to find the right ecological niche in the areas that surround the places where they are currently kept, which is where they might stay if pigeon fanciers were to close down their lofts.

De-domestication would entail a transition process. Whilst de-domestication may not necessarily require the closure of lofts, as lofts could be left open without being attended by fanciers, allowing pigeons the freedom to fly in and out as they please, it is important to recognise that the permanent opening of lofts may not be appropriate. It would increase the risk of predation from cats, weasels, and so on, unless lofts could be altered to reduce or eliminate this risk. The alternative option of locking the birds out of their lofts is not free from ethical problems either, exposing the birds to a significant risk of predation. This is so because birds can be expected, at least initially, to linger around their lofts, rather than to try to find new niches to live. Regardless of whether the open or the closed loft option would be preferable, fanciers would need to keep on feeding their birds outside their lofts for a while to prevent them from starving, as pigeons might lose their dependency and start fending for themselves only gradually. It would be worth setting up small-scale experiments to see which of these approaches might work best.

Whilst the answer is likely to be influenced by adaptive differences in birds and the different ecological contexts in which lofts are situated, if it turns out that de-domesticating pigeons is not a good option, an alternative option would be to adopt a strict ‘no breeding’ policy. Perhaps this would be the better option. Others have entertained this policy in relation to other animals. An example is Francione (2008, 164), who adopts the policy in relation to ‘dogs, cats, and other animals used as companions’. His motivation seems to lie in his discomfort with domesticated animals remaining dependent on us, which is supported by Muller (2017, 602) where she argues that Francione, being ‘stuck in a traditional hegemonic worldview that separates nature from culture … denounces the presence of animals in human spaces, seemingly upset by direct human relationships with animals’.

Whilst we believe this to be a correct evaluation of his position, some scholars in the animal ethics literature adopt the view that some aspects of domestication should be allowed to continue in the long term. An example is the position of Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011), who think that domestication need not necessarily lead to exploitation or abuse and, describing many currently existing respectful relations with domesticated animals, propose that domestication might work if we agree to relational rights for domesticated animals. These relational rights include feeding them and assisting them in other ways, for example by protecting them against predators. If we grant such relational rights to domesticated animals, we might imagine that living with racing pigeons, without using them to race, is an ethical possibility. Establishing non-harming and non-exploitative relationships with domesticated animals such as pigeons requires a balance between controlling to protect them (from starvation, diseases, predators, car accidents, overpopulation, etc.) and granting them the freedom they need to have good lives. In the case of pigeons, this is not easy as they fly and spend time without human supervision and, consequently, are exposed to many dangers. Keeping them inside the loft all the time would be a problematic option, perhaps similar, at least to some extent, to keeping cats indoors permanently. Of course, as we have mentioned, keeping these animals would generate ethical questions about reproduction. Do we have a right to control it? We believe that this is prima facie wrong, but that it may be right if pigeons and people would be worse off if they were de-domesticated. Research is needed to consider whether the benefits of de-domestication might outweigh the benefits of continuing the domestication of pigeons whilst limiting their breeding.

Logically, three options remain. We can continue to domesticate pigeons in the long-term by adopting a limited breeding policy, continue to domesticate them until there are no birds left by adopting a strict no breeding policy, or de-domesticate them. Whilst we believe that domestication need not necessarily lead to abuse, we regard human control as such as a prima facie wrong. To release our control, we can therefore choose either to continue domestication with a no breeding policy or to de-domesticate pigeons. The plight of many feral pigeons around the world shows that the option to de-domesticate may not necessarily be better than the alternative option. If research would lead to a preference for the former option, it is important to recognise that the same research might support the re-domestication of feral pigeons. The current plight of feral pigeons in many parts of the world shows that it is not permissible to simply let domesticated pigeons go if pigeon racing is prohibited. Fanciers should keep caring for them, even if de-domestication turns out to be better than continued domestication. The answer as to which is better is likely to vary between different socio-ecological contexts. We must also consider the interests of feral pigeons when planning our urban spaces and provide our assistance at times, for example, when they are sick, injured, or starving. If our cities would embrace feral animals and provide for their needs, the de-domestication of pigeons would be an ethical option. Without such a societal shift, it may be preferable for pigeon fanciers to adopt a no breeding policy. Importantly, this would not result in the extinction of Columba livia as there are many feral pigeons around the world.

Conclusion

We have argued that pigeon racing is associated with significant benefits and disadvantages, and that the social benefits that pigeon racing provides for human beings can be substituted by other activities. That being so, we have argued that pigeon racing should be prohibited because of its disadvantages for human and nonhuman animals. The disadvantages of pigeon racing for people stem from the fact that racing pigeons maintains and reinforces a problematic relationship with pigeons as they are used as instruments to fulfil the human desire to compete in races. Through racing pigeons, we make them do what we want them to do, where racing is not something that they are inclined to do autonomously. This behaviour is not conducive for holistic human well-being. The same argument should be applied to other animals who are used for racing.

Pigeon racing is not conducive to the well-being of pigeons either. Pigeons are affected negatively by transportation and by being separated from their lofts, where they may lack the navigational skills or the strength to return. As currently practised, pigeon racing also results in many pigeons who do not perform well being killed and in the suffering that may be caused by social separation. Whilst we have not explored the moral issues of other animals being used in races, it is clear that other forms of racing animals should also be questioned as some of these harms are present also in other species that are being used for races, for example in dog and horse racing (see e.g. Bergmann 2019; Markwell, Firth, and Hing 2017). In the final part of this article, we questioned whether it is appropriate for people to keep pigeons at all. Whilst arguing that it is appropriate for us to keep ill or injured birds, we also argued that research is needed to explore different methods by which one might de-domesticate pigeons, particularly as it may be hard to do so without imposing significantly negative impacts on their well-being. If de-domestication turns out not to be an ethical option, the best alternative may be to adopt a programme of continued domestication for a short time, with a strict no breeding policy.

Acknowledgments

Jan Deckers thanks the organisers of the ‘Sport, Animals, and Ethics Conference’ (25-29 May 2021), Sam Morris and Gabriela Tymowski-Gionet, for granting him the opportunity to present an earlier version of this paper, and the participants for their constructive feedback. Silvina Pezzetta thanks Nuria Kojusner for her useful and thoughtful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.