Advocating Otters - Nemo & His Relatives Part VII

Advocating otters:
An attempt to awake Social Responsibility for Nature as a whole

Respectfully submitted and written by Béatrice Dumiche

Nemo’s example paradoxically reveals that his behavior is not simply due to his exceptional living conditions. On the contrary, he raises awareness for how deeply the depreciation of public opinion of zoos for their perceived inhumanity is related to a conception of animals which on one hand idealizes the wildness associated with an anthropomorphic feeling of “natural” happiness while on the other, views pet animals of all kinds as somehow better and treats them as if they were beloved humans. This is an exhortation to people to come to an understanding of what an animal truly is, which reminds us what love means biologically as the simple development of life for its own conservation. So, what Gettmann tries to transmit through his own behavior is that what is important is a return to what is truly natural behavior rather than what we imagine as such led by the nostalgia of our own very complex psychology. Nemo’s humorous behavior, through which he underlines how basic the needs of an otter and therefore his communication are, allows us to laugh about our own feelings we project onto our relation to him while simultaneously letting us realize how deeply bonded we are through our instincts and evolutional intelligence. Gettmann built his Nemo presentations on the otter’s special affinity with children thanks to playfulness. However, he showed that this quality is also the condition for his independence and mischief which, while letting him appear almost human and appealingly cute, also imposes those who love him to be generous enough to respect his nature and allow for him find his own way to live in contact with humans through a process of interactive socialization giving them the opportunity to get to know more about his antics through direct experience. This has nothing to do with traditional experimentation in which the animal is viewed as an object: it is an encounter which affects both parties and is based on instinctive stimuli like curiosity and pleasure which prompt truly natural reactions.

The Asian Short-Clawed otter has a socially structured mind due to its life in clans, and Gettmann used this natural disposition to integrate Nemo first into his own family, as they had to replace his parents. When he opened his eyes, he first saw him instead of a fellow otter, Gettmann generally reminisces to his audience. This meant that when he introduced visitors to Nemo it simply enlarged the circle of his human relatives while he was trusting in his innate curiosity. There, borders were crossed consciously, based on his zoological knowledge, in order to experience what kind of inter-species communication would be possible and what could be learned about Nemo’s adaptation aptitudes, his reactivity, and to what extent this knowledge might be significant for his species and all otters in general. In doing this he demonstrated that there was no better way to prove that research and education should not be disjointed in zoology because it makes sense only when a unilateral relationship does not exist between humans and animals, opposing a belief established through millenniums of domestication. He highlights that his discipline is at the base of a change which had not yet been realized because habitual thinking is the toughest resistance against evolution. It gives the wild animal a place back in human society, spreading the revolutionary conviction that mankind must adapt their behavior and living conditions to meet the needs of wildlife too, not only for abstract ecological arguments for saving the planet. Of course, that matters, but what has a chance create a lasting impression and spur motivation for this change is our own instinctive affinity with the animal otters are at their best, and this is fun.

What makes meeting Nemo a unique experience is that one immediately feels that they are a member of his family. This even extends to dogs! First, ‘Laika’, a German Shepherd, then five years later the huge and playful Hovawart ‘Balou’, whose relationship with this strange squeaky little animal who still fascinates him is worth observing. One cannot resist this enticing being which concentrates his interest on every newcomer. He is so obviously considering each one from the perspective of what he could do with them that they cannot remain indifferent and in response seem to transform a bit into an otter, learning to think like him and trying to guess what he would enjoy. One can realize how he pulls one over in his world and cannot help but admit how much fun it is to rediscover this kind of primitive and deeply sensorial intelligence for which one gives up some fantasies of human superiority, though that does not mean to abandon the realism of the survival instinct! This instinct is indispensable in order to challenge the charm and the cleverness of an otter, which would have no difficulty to trick out a human believing in his selfless cuteness. Thus, Gettmann’s choice to let those interested in otters spend some quality time with Nemo and allow them to document it through their different means created its own dynamism. It generated a mosaic of impressions, expressed in many personal testimonies of all kinds, whether from a high school biology class or simply from people who had been drawn to him when they saw him on television and wanted to meet him 'for real’.
This spontaneity, in order to not allow the otter’s stardom to bother either the otter’s or the family’s privacy, needed a great clairvoyance and some character especially as his popularity increased. Gettmann has always been wise enough to canalize the media and the public’s requests to avoid his otter becoming part of a marketing concept and what makes this attitude more sympathetic is that it seems as if he mostly trusted his own intuition of what Nemo would love to do. He is so familiar with him that he is able to instantly guess his reactions and it is a pleasure for any witness to see their reciprocal anticipations which highlight the instincts men and predators share, both originally being hunters and conquerors. Thus, he made sure not to show any complacency that might encourage a creation of the image of an otter as a pet, as it would falsify the reasons for his own interest in Nemo, to learn more about the evolutionary links between playfulness, intelligence, and predation. This has been easier for him as he has always been able to preserve independence through belonging to a public service which holds all of the rights on the little otter. Through this system, all profits from Nemo’s appearances on television programs have been donated to charities caring for otters, even after Gettmann’s retirement from the Aquazoo, after which he alone has been responsible for the animal’s expensive food and insurance.

This authenticity appeared in the exhibited pictures taken by private visitors showing lovely scenes of individual encounters, while a Morris column gave a survey of the events Nemo has attended over the years, and their write-ups in the newspapers. These pictures revealed the spontaneity most of the visitors experienced and the curiosity Nemo has never ceased to display, even toward Gettmann himself. Both the pictures and the articles showed how fond he is of sharing his love and his enthusiasm with those who care and that he still enjoys discovering how  Nemo reacts to new situations. They gave a good overview of how personal and specific any meeting with the otter is is as he remarkably adapts to his public. They are therefore a subtle invitation to change our own minds and our relations to animals as the little otter and his ability to stand for himself in the midst of a group of humans reveals that he strives to play an active role defined by communication and socialization just as with humans. He is, although it may not appear at the first glance, a form of advocacy in favor of zoos no longer being considered just as animal exhibits, but as places where through our understanding of wildlife and their independent organization, we can learn more about ourselves, which at the degree we have actually lost the contact with it requires ambassadors who are able to remind us that they exist and who they are!

From the beginning, charity events were not a social obligation or a tribute to Nemo’s cuteness as one could believe, they were part of his diversified experiences with humans, stimulating his curiosity and knowledge about them. Gettmann did not focus on charity because it was not Nemo’s mission and he avoided anything that might have given him the status of a mascot endowed with human feelings. However, his interest in Nemo’s reactions to new challenges when coming into contact with other humans allowed him to bet on their bond that he would overcome his predatory instinct for a while to live these experiences in curiosity and playfulness as he was accustomed to socialization by nature and by education. Publicity was never made of it as Gettmann feels that such ideas as an ‘otter-therapy’ are undermined by the anthropomorphism he fights because they are an obstacle to the naturally equilibrated coexistence between men and animals. Nevertheless, he did have a good feeling for the psychological support Nemo’s carefree and playful being could provide since it was part of his species’ natural behavior to strengthen their bonds by close physical contact. So, many times he was ‘just’ a love ambassador, but through being an animal getting in sensorial touch with a fellow animal he was leading humans back to primitive feelings of contentment which some of them may have been able to express or even reflect upon. The testimony the animal lover Helga Sophia Kranz wrote in one of her locally edited books about her occasional meetings with the little otter while walking in the Nordpark is a good example of the comfort he spreads because of Gettmann’s generosity in always letting Nemo choose his friends, as though he were a person.

Again, Gettmann has never focused upon the exceptionality of these activities, but they hint at an amazing change that has been initiated as the logical consequence of the way in which he conceives the way men and animals could live together in a highly complex and individualized society with the mediation of professionals. He consciously canalizes the unspoken nostalgia of contact with primitive nature, which has led to unqualified behaviors towards exotic animals and even domestic pets, revealing that fantasies have replaced the elementary knowledge of wildlife and its otherness, hindering our socialization. As this knowledge is fundamental to modern education, it is not an activity that should be put in the hands of dilettantes. For this reason, while his actions seem simple, he is refocusing attention to the core mission of zoos, which has become to mediate between animals and humans who believe they already know their behaviors through a mixture of wishful thinking and unconscious anthropocentric superiority built on an absence of contact and of egomaniac ignorance.
For Gettmann it is natural that Nemo plays a social role as long as it aligns with his own mental and evolutional structures and he has only to follow his instincts. It is, however, a reminder of the responsibility of humanity to overcome the indifference to otherness in order for our own survival. The predators’ instinctive behavior in communities – so far not idealized as morally better, but as the fittest ‒ gives an example of organization, serving as a reminder of how essential these qualities were and are for our own evolution. Of course, Nemo meeting regularly with refugee children over many years, long before they were in the headlines, was a charitable action with the goal of bringing some joy and distraction, but it was also a concrete sign of the threat of their de-socialization loss of their identity as his visit could remind them that despite all they went through, they are capable of rediscovering their inner child. The advantage of the little otter is that he is naturally playful and creates spontaneous connections beyond language barriers. He stimulates existing, often forgotten instincts for the sake of life and he spreads hope simply by being himself. That is why his actions and the events he is involved in have a large effect which, from my viewpoint, is in part supported by the subconscious mind. It is less a political statement than the expression of practical humanism. They participate in a natural way of living, noticed subconsciously by any evolved individual who is anxious for the care and the preservation of his community and the development of his species. The efficiency may be amplified as Gettmann relies instinctively more on small gestures, which may create change individually by becoming symbols, than on spectacular discourses which cannot provoke the necessary deeper reconnection of personal intelligence to the sensorial experience without losing the message when in a group who generate imaginary fantasies of belonging only temporarily in a moment of collective exaltation. His trust in animals and in their autonomous effect needing no words may be the wisdom and the cautious reaction of a zoologist who grew up in the immediate post-national socialistic German society and who had to separate himself from the irrational abuses of this ideology which travestied experimental reality in a dimension which had never existed before. Whatever the case, it is his merit – and probably one which comes with maturity – that he crossed paths with Nemo at the right moment. He delivers his own humanistic credo with deep modesty and practical experience as the representative of a discipline which has had to redefine itself and its ethical standards after the breakdown of those who perverted culture and socialization to the service of radical destruction and self-destruction under the pretext of the fulfillment of natural rights.

Gettmann’s actions may not have been as deliberate and reflected as it appears in retrospect, as they were connected in real time to the experience he was gaining from his work with Nemo when he answered different invitations or requests. The view the exhibition presented gave the impression that he likely acted by intuition according to what was suitable and pedagogically appropriate for the otter while he noting his own feelings and responses. It is my opinion that it was very instructive because it tracked the way in which Gettmann gradually became conscious of what made Nemo so appealing and any adjustments he thought were necessary when faced with the public’s expectations in order to preserve his original educative goal. His open mind and ability for self-criticism led him more and more to raise awareness for the contradictions the cuteness of his otter awakens in everyone who loves him. He has continuously tried to bring everyone to acknowledge their feelings in relation to Nemo in order to highlight the unnatural state humanity has reached with animals often being considered companions and endowed with qualities related to childhood, for example, innocence and harmlessness, in the collective subconscious of our highly evolved society. While he did use Nemo’s childlike qualities to provoke an initial connection for people with him, helping to advocate the cause of his fellows, more and more focus was brought on Nemo’s independence and the necessity of understanding his behavior in order to communicate with him, stressing the role of the zoologist as a specialist indispensable for both the animal’s well-being and the security of those who want to be in contact with him. He never allowed for any doubt that one cannot improvise being an otter keeper and that taking care of wild animals is a profession with important responsibilities and long term choices requiring consultation with the partner. That is why he never stopped focussing on the distinction that while Nemo did belong to his family, that he was not a pet and reminded visitors and friends who were tempted to, not to kiss him. So, although he did clearly recognize the deep sentimental bonds he had tied with the otter, he highlighted his educative mission as an animal ambassador, which could not be conceived without the frame of a zoo.

As a director of a zoo, he underlined that hand-tamed animal representatives have become necessary in changing the mentalities of a society that does not create the best conditions for the coexistence between men and wildlife. These animal representatives re-initiate a dialogue in which sensorial experience stimulates the curiosity to learn more about unknown animals and in turn about ourselves in the way we relate to them. He did not hide either the pleasure or the work it meant for him to live with Nemo so that it was clear that their situation is an exception bordering between a zoological and a communication experience where love and fun play an undeniable role. He revealed how determining such unique personal examples are in mobilizing people in favor of conserving endangered species like otters while appealing to their affective identification. This is indispensable in making future generations aware that their own survival is at stake while showing that the conditions of wildlife’s existence have been sacrificed to the greed of mankind using intelligence against ourselves. The exhibition revealed that this is man’s permanent temptation, sadly with increased means since global industrialization. Its presentation and the discussion of Nemo’s role caused one to question more philosophically, beyond the concrete work of animal conservation, humanity’s contradiction that from the moment they tried to define their relation to wildlife they were fascinated by as well as scared. He highlighted at the same time that, included in the perspective of this contradictory history, zoos represent huge progress and help to save many species but that they cannot change economic interests who may try to use them as alibis. He left no doubt that without the conservational work of the zoos his otter represents, many of the species would be even more threatened.

While Gettmann did not dwell on it, the documentation of his success made it clear that he has very little space in which to present meaningful and efficient action respecting his little otter’s animal dignity while the present society is searching for a phantasm of exotic wild pets based on the exaltation of their cuteness, and accusing zoos of animal cruelty depriving these animals of their natural freedom. With his example, Gettmann strives to find a way to make the public aware of this ambiguity which depreciates the work of zoos by projecting a subconscious feeling of guilt caused by man’s objective predation on nature they do not want to take responsibility for and to cause an impulse to make necessary changes for their own survival. Nemo is a reminder of the chance humanity still has to protect the biodiversity, thanks to the zoos. If humans will, at last, recognize our own impact on the wildlife’s living conditions, which has led to necessary ex situ conservation efforts to palliate the environmental threats and which may now be used as an excuse to continue business as usual. That is why Gettmann never forgets to mention that loving his little otter is just a first step back to recognizing the sense for nature’s beauty; the protection of it also expresses the respect mankind, who owes part of it to themselves. Nemo is a little messenger set into this world to paradoxically make it a bit more human while inviting everyone to not just let themselves be submerged by his cuteness into a nostalgic feeling and to realise that the affection he generates is a call for action as is suitable for a superior animal whose power results in his capacity to evolve. Together with the exhibition, he invites one to combine intelligence and sensibility in an appropriate balance for our present times through a consequent behavior rather than cultivating nostalgia for ancient times and their pretended natural existence. The cultural history of the otter, as it was shown there, proves how unconsidered it was and that resorting to repeating history in an effort for its protection would be useless and counterproductive as it would be a return to nothing but mythical beliefs and the reintroduction of obsolete prejudices which are a serious obstacle to even the desire to know the truth.

So, at its end, the presentation encouraged the evolution of a self-reflection, shedding light on the difficulty of defending the case of a predator who cannot help but be in concurrence with man. It seemed as though it was a short conclusion relating Gettmann’s lifelong interest in this category of animals which are the nearest to us and for the reintroduction of which he has advocated steadily not only since he has been Nemo’s owner. He is also an official wolf ambassador of the German Association for Nature Conservation (NABU). This clearly reveals his conviction that natural sciences should be included in the personal development of an evolved society at the same level as humanities, the aim of which is to both cooperate with and counterbalance the economic lobbies when they threaten the fragile equity on earth, for which the well-being of wildlife is an important indicator for. The team he has formed with his otter is the way he has found to demonstrate this necessity for himself and to send a sign as a scientist who is conscious that otters’ conservation cannot succeed without a change in the mentalities, requiring striking examples to encourage personal reflection on what matters in life both at an individual and a global level. He owes his success to the conscience of his limits he voluntarily acknowledges, as he believes in examples and the role they played in evolution.

Thus, he considers a key-experience to be the freedom given for people to react spontaneously when confronted with Nemo as he is confident in the unique impression the encounter will leave in everyone, even if they may have spent only a short moment together. He gambles on the unconscious impulses of love Nemo incites and their multiplicative effect to open not only hearts but also minds. He places much trust in children, whom he hopes will become advocates for otters to their parents. Moreover, he expects that otter lovers speaking of their encounter with Nemo will not just act in favor of his publicity but feel involved, thanks to him, in a critical awareness of the threats upon the Earth which are due to our general carelessness and lack of civil concern.

The summary of Gettmann’s activities with Nemo presented in the exhibition revealed how far a modern zoological approach can reach through a truly lived example that is not dogmatic or vindictive as it relies on human sensibility and intelligence. He trusts in the proven evolution of mankind which represents our innate quality for survival enabling us to answer the challenges we set for ourselves. He is wise enough not to believe in it blindly but he showed, with documents in favor of otter education and the personal achievement of his work with Nemo, that zoology, especially when dealing with predators, must react to ethical and etiological questions because the conflicts they raise are founded upon deep unconscious existential and even metaphysical interrogations. To answer these questions scientists who are prepared to endorse a global social responsibility and advocate their case with credible and understandable arguments are necessary. At no time did the exhibition turn either to self-celebration or claims for unconditional adhesion and this marked its superiority in the present situation where debates about environmental questions and our relation to animals have become more and more undermined by ideological considerations dissociated from serious critical examination and rational evaluation. The reason it was so successful in this message is that it featured an experience with outreach, suggesting that anybody can act at his own level to awaken sympathy for a cause as long as it is concrete and adapts to what it is possible to transmit according to each specific circumstance. This allowed the exhibit to appear lush as it spread a sort of joyous atmosphere in which the visitor felt as though they were participating in an exceptional otter life, and for some, reviving some of the memories he himself had been shared with him.

That Nemo is the only otter to be awarded as an honorary citizen (and probably the first animal in the world to be awarded in this way) is plainly justified, although he should share it with Gettmann who keeps him fit and happy for all of his activities while providing him a home where he can live an equilibrated life under professional care! It was particularly thoughtful and hopefully more than just respect of his cheeky cuteness that the exhibition ended with his inscription in the golden book of the city, a stamp of his footprint made in the presence of the town mayor, Birgit Alkenings, who was kind enough to bring one of Nemo's favorite treats to the occasion, a boiled egg. The little otter demonstrated once again during the many guided visits of which he was the permanently solicited star, that he is good-minded, kind, and understanding, actually able to adapt to his diversified public. The distinction was well deserved and hopefully meant seriously as an effort of involvement by the city of Hilden in favor of the Eurasian otters’ return and the educational challenge it represents, although it is evident that they cannot do much more than morally and institutionally support their little ambassador. That he had been honored surrounded by so many friends taking interest in him, which he obviously enjoyed, reveals again how precious he is as a great animal personality, giving his mission its incomparable savor and credibility. He accomplishes it with so much fun and joy because he loves it as his curiosity and interest in humans seems to be endless as long as he is accompanied by someone he loves and to whom he is accustomed, upon whose shoulder he can retire when he needs a break. Recognizing the work of Nemo and Gettmann officially in a public ceremony signifies a real breakthrough by the representatives of Hilden who may not have even been conscious of it to that extent. They stated the difference between prominent zoo animals, for example, Knut, who attract phantasms and sometimes, sadly, become commercial products when the situation runs out of control and animal ambassadors such as Nemo who participate in the social life of a town, community, or a region under the responsibility of professionals who take care of their rights and protect their health.

Contrary to encounters with many star animals, one can really meet Nemo and have the opportunity for contact with him matching his instinctive aptitudes. This allows one to feel in touch in a small way with an otter’s behavior. Moreover, while a visitor appreciates these traits, he can truly get an idea of nature’s power and its self-healing evolutional qualities, not as in the fashion trend of the moment through mostly pre-planned experiences. Visiting Nemo is a rare inter-species encounter hinting at an original global unity of life and allowing one to become addicted to the incredible feeling of self-enjoyment and love he spreads because maintains his freedom to just be an otter. Gettmann’s elegance is that he always took a backseat to the animal he socialized in order not to interrupt this affection he gives so innocently and naturally because he did not experience anything but the caring inclusion he received from his human family. So, this exhibition can be seen as an extension of that as Gettmann’s thoughtful way of thanking Nemo for the experience he has allowed him to live and which has transformed him so deeply that he did not at any moment conceive its presentation as though it should be an assessment. Instead, one gets the impression that he is still so enthusiastically involved in their common adventure that he cannot imagine there will not be new developments to come and that this curiosity of life they share spreads confidence and happiness. Relating Nemo to children, as he did from the start, is revealed definitively to have been the smartest choice, as though following that natural logic has helped them both stay young.

It is significant that the exhibition ended as it began: as a large family meeting during which the visitors could enjoy Gettmann’s wife’s homemade otter cookies and watch the German copy of the movie The Ring of Bright Water’. It would not have been the enormous success that it was without the couple’s familial teamwork. Edeltraud “Traudl” Gettmann, who had just retired from teaching biology and chemistry at a secondary school, contributed with her caring assistance and talent for practical organization. The directors of the Wilhelm-Fabry-Museum also supported their common effort by offering more than the usual service such an institution typically provides. The visitors were welcomed heartily as all of the staff knew what they were coming for, to be enchanted by an otter’s world and they could not help but think that this had actually happened to them before! Despite the modest budget, which sadly forced them to restrict the opening hours, the communication efforts were great, leading to approximately 2,000 visitors.

The several very positive reports in the local press played a role in the success too, but the organizers’ great merit was that they did not wait until people found their way to the museum. They gave a huge offer to schools, especially primary schools and to art classes and courses, which attracted quite a young audience, often with their parents, who discovered otters alongside them. The cooperation with art teachers appeared to be particularly successful because they were able to easily raise concrete awareness of the way in which the image of the animal evolved according to human feelings in relation to it and inspired the children to draw and paint their own images after having met Nemo. What was particularly interesting, although not very surprising, was that the adults seemed more prejudiced and cautious than the children because they knew that as a wild animal, he could be dangerous. While most of the children enjoyed touching Nemo and would even have liked to bear him on their shoulders, the parents often needed to be convinced by their children’s enthusiasm to overcome their inhibitions. It was a great pleasure to witness these precious moments which will no doubt generate lasting memories and make it easier for the adults to allow their children to become familiar with wildlife while remaining aware that this must take place under the responsibility of professionals.

Although these encounters happened under monitored conditions outside of a zoo, they are a reasoned argument in favor of structures providing opportunities to learn about living nature as it is unjustified to imagine that in our times – or probably ever – that it could or should be left alone. From the moment men came to live on Earth our society became a cultural concept evolving by interactive experiences, our relationship with animals has always been a part of this structure and this should not be reinvented as though there have never been existential conflicts between our species as well as love and respect. With Nemo, Gettmann proposes an example, which, while not directly transferable, underlines that living with predators is a challenge. That it stimulates our own creativity while urging us to take into account the world’s reality. It exhorts us to learn about them concretely and use this knowledge to form our own opinions while creating a culture where sciences and humanities including fine arts and crafts pursue the same goal: to perpetuate life through evolution grounded in imagination and self-reflection, not in the illusory idealization of a paradisiac nature in which one is in denial of humanity’s biological dispositions and what has been born from them. What is so exceptional is that this small but extremely dense exhibit, which had to surmount what could be considered many logistical problems, was able to captivate its visitors while providing food for thought without being pedantic or even didactic. It was presented as an offering of which one could feel free to enjoy only the parts he loved or found interesting as parts of a whole, which may not escape his attention.

In fact, upon entering the exhibit, one realized that it was based on inspiration. Its philosophy spread intuitively and became inspirational at each turn, because Gettmann as a zoologist has not forgotten the animal surviving inside all of us and knows that children and humans, in general, learn better when they are encouraged with treats. Those who were open to it could stumble upon lovely humoristic details, an appeal to create distance from our own controversies instead of dwelling on them. The stuffed otters trapped in horrible iron traps or lying on a frying pan alongside fake vegetables struck the visitors’ sensibility, especially that of the children, but the grotesqueness of this improbable composition also encouraged irresistible laughter as it showed that, at least in Europe, the protection of the species has worked in changing mentalities, giving some hope for other parts of the world where the animals remain less fortunate. It did not deny the barbaric process but showed its inappropriateness and its anachronism without introducing moral judgment which might imply an irrational feeling of superiority rather than consciousness of the actual evolution of our understanding of nature and our love for animals through experience and auto-criticism. It suggested that being able to laugh about our ability to overcome our own cruelty as a reflection of our subconscious fears is part of evolution which helps us pardon ourselves and restore in us the innocence we need to preserve in our culture the ability to enjoy life instantaneously, as animals do by instinct.

Otter News would like to sincerely thank Clare Laughran for her editing of the review.