savoring their natural habitat and not seeing them at all; if there is any difference between the two types of loss, the former would seem more acute. Our own cases have indicated a recognition of people’s interest in seeing animals free from inhumane treatment. In Animal Welfare Institute we expressly noted the plaintiff organizations’ allegation that their members asserted an interest in seeing the seals “alive in their natural habitat under conditions in which the animals are not subject to ... inhumane treatment”, 561 F.2d at 1007, and then identified their aesthetic interests as among those protected, id., presumably thereby embracing the interest in seeing animals free from inhumane treatment. See also Humane Society of the United States v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 52 (D.C.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Although in both those cases it appears that
recognizing the individuals interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters holding that an inmate had no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a more restrictive facility recognizing interest in avoiding exposure to animals killed by hunters recognizing a right to privacy in avoiding disclosure of personal matters