In order to further elucidate the role of animal welfare issues in environmentalism, let us examine mission statements from some of the top environmental organizations in the world.
Let's start with the first line of the mission statement from the World Wildlife Fund:
"Protecting natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species."
Notice that WWF talks about protecting wild animals independently of whether they are endangered (only later do they go on to discuss the sustainability of resources).
Here's the first sentence from the mission statement for the Defenders of Wildlife:
"Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities."
The statement goes onto to discuss sustainability and ecosystem protection, but the protection of all wild animals is front and center.
Here's the mission statement from the Natural Resources Defense Council:
"The Natural Resources Defense Council's purpose is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends."
The statement also goes on to mention sustainability, but only after safeguarding all life on Earth. (Notice also that NRDC does not make the same distinction between animals and wild animals as the other two.)
Those of you who argue for the strict separation of animal welfare issues, ask yourself if what you are proposing is consistent with these mission statements. For example, could they meaningfully be interpreted to make room for the following:
The treatment of animals by human hands is part of our mission only to the extent that entire species or ecosystems are concerned; we take no position on how non-endangered animals are treated.
Not only is it clear that the answer is no, but if any of these groups were ever to include such a statement, there would be a huge outcry by their members and other members of the environmental community. And for good reason: there are no other organizations with the international scope capable of addressing these issues in a systematic fashion. Protecting animals from abusive exploitation is implicitly a part of their core mission, regardless of whether those animals are on the brink of extinction or not. These organizations do not explicitly refer to "animal welfare" in their mission statements, but it is clear that they stand for the protection of animals in a much broader sense than simple sustainability.
So let's stop kidding ourselves.
While I do not doubt the sincerity of those who wish to separate environmentalism from animal welfare issues, they are simply ignoring reality. Environmentalists are not somehow putting on a new "hat" when they express concern about the brutality of whale or dolphin slaughter, or the clubbing of baby seals for fur coats. They are expressing legitimate environmental concerns, which are just as significant as buying a Prius or recycling.
And for those who think the risk of being associated with animal rights extremists is serious, my response is that we need to carve out a sensible and moderate position or else that vacuum will be filled by the fringe. I would prefer that the public look to respected environmental organizations for guidance on animal welfare issues instead of groups like PETA (despite the fact that much of what PETA does is entirely reasonable); this would be good for both people and the animals.
In order for this to happen we need to drop the false dichotomy that some here on Grist continue to subscribe to and work on articulating more precisely what "protecting" animals and life on earth means. It's not as hard as it may seem.
Coming soon: A statement of principles for environmentalists regarding animal welfare.
This Halloween, cut flesh for the climate
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
atreyger Posted 1:56 am
05 Dec 2006
There is once again a difference between continued torture, a la CAFO environments, and killing of a domestic or wild animal or plant (for that matter) for food.
Second, how peculiar that you chose two wildlife organizations, who will obviously care about animals and a vague statement about protecting everything on Earth from NRDC. If I were you, in order to maintain a relationship with the people who care about the same things minus the veganism, I would also include statements from Ducks Unlimited:
mission statement:'The vision of Ducks Unlimited is to have sufficient wetlands to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever.'
and ethics: 'We act to uphold the reputation of DU, treating people and wildlife with respect.'
Trout Unlimited: Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds.
Sierra Club:
Explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth.
Practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.
Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.
Permalink
Stentor Posted 2:20 am
05 Dec 2006
Argumentum ad popularum -- just because a lot of enviros think animal rights are important doesn't mean that they're right.
Permalink
Stentor Posted 2:26 am
05 Dec 2006
Anthropocentric -- concerned with the welfare and interests of humans,
Sentience-centric -- cocnerned with the welfare and interests of individual sentient beings, including both humans and animals, or
Ecocentric -- concerned with the preservation of ecosystems and natural processes as intrinsically valuable.
There is a big difference between ecocentrism and sentience-centrism despite the fact that they both oppose anthropocentrism. The mission statements quoted above seem to be most reasonably interpreted as ecocentric, not sentience-centric (though of course, being mission statements, they're intentionally vague, so as not to scare off sentience-centrists and anthropocentrists whose concerns overlap).
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 2:47 am
05 Dec 2006
In addition to other ways, including supporting some of these eco-orgs, I protect animals and the environment everyday, every meal, by eating vegetarian.
Another Inconvenient Truth
http://www.eatkind.net/inconvenient.htm
[Animals] were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.
Alice Walker
The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of people.
Leonardo da Vinci
The average meat eater is responsible for the deaths of some 2,400 animals during his or her lifetime. Animals raised for food endure great suffering in their housing, transport, feeding and slaughter.
J Motavalli, So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?
I feel very deeply about vegetarianism and the animal kingdom. It was my dog Boycott who led me to question the right of humans to eat other sentient beings.
Cesar Chavez, United Farm Workers
I encourage the Tibetan people and all people to move toward a vegetarian diet that doesn't cause suffering.
Dalai Lama
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mohandas Gandhi
The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.
World Watch
Nothing will benefit health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
Albert Einstein
There is a direct relationship between eating meat and the environment.
Andrea Gordon, If You Recycle, Why Are You Eating Meat?
If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you could do.
Paul McCartney
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:36 am
05 Dec 2006
Atreyger, your phoney appeal to "plant rights" is a red herring, and your terror of "evangelical veganists" is founded in nothing. It would indeed be good to establish solid, bona-fide communications with people in Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited. But we need to be clear, they can hardly be said to be mainstream environmentalist organizations. I am not even sure they deserve to be considered mainstream gun-and-hook organizations. I.e., hunters and fishers who hunt to sustain themselves and their families must be radically distinguished from hunters and fishers who do so for sport. Where do the memberships of Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited fall?
Stentor, "argumentum ad popularum" is not Latin. Presumably you meant to say "argumentum ad populum." I do not know the history of rhetoric, so cannot say if such an argumentum really exists, and if you are applying the term correctly.
Anyway, you correctly apply the Platonic observation, that a majority of voices in favor of any proposition does not make the proposition right. The Aristotelian response is, there are many cases that are difficult to determine simply, and in those cases, the sense of the majority is usually the best guide. I am with Jason, and the major wildlife organizations, that advocacy for endangered species, for the preservation of ecosystems, and for the welfare of individual wild animals, is all one thing; and the consistent support of their members is in this case the best guide.
As much as I admire the logic of your tri-partite distinction of centrisms, I disagree with its exclusiveness. There exists as well an approach that I call humanistic environmentalism, which emphasizes our awareness of our responsibilities to living things at all three of the levels of concern that you identify, and which exhorts us to carry out those responsibilities, as best we personally can determine them, for the sake of our humanity. Jason's mission statements are not so much "intentionally vague," a rather cynical interpretation, as they are striving towards that humanistic broadness of vision.
CyberBrook, I love your array of quotes! Thanks very much for sending them. I look forward to following your links, in a bit. The quote by Leonardo da Vinci surprised me, but pleased me too: we share the same birthday, and I am personally interested in figuring out his curious personality. Also, I wonder what Cesar Chavez meant, about the lesson that his dog taught him.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:46 am
05 Dec 2006
So what? Have all these arguments been about the actually-existing environmental movement? If so, I wish I hadn't participated, 'cause I could care less.
I'm interested in the conceptual relationship between the two issues, and pragmatic strategy for advancing the ball on environmental issues. The existence of animal-loving enviros says very little about either. It's certainly not some sort of argument-ending proof of anything, as Jason's triumphant tone would indicate.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:50 am
05 Dec 2006
"You eat plants!"
When will this idiotic 'argument' die?
It's only value is in telling me that the rest of the comment is not worth the time to read.
Permalink
lah Posted 4:51 am
05 Dec 2006
Scorse oddly goes on to opine that the public should look to respected environmental organizations for guidance on animal welfare issues instead of groups like PETA, even though he acknowledges that "much of what PETA does is entirely reasonable." He offers no explanation for this opinion other than saying that "this would be good for both people and the animals." It appears that Scorse underestimates PETA's influence; for instance, it has been instrumental in persuading McDonald's and Denny's to agree to implement humane chicken slaughtering practices. PETA is seen by many as "fringe" simply because it advocates veganism and focuses exclusively on animal rights.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:00 am
05 Dec 2006
Tsk tsk tsk.
I was merely pointing out that the appeal to those mission statements is ridiculous, because they include plants. By suggesting that we focus on one (plants) instead of the other (animals), you use your own value judgement in reading the statement, thereby misrepresenting the intention of the statement. If the mission statements did not include plants, then you can use these quotes.
By the way, 'protection' can be read in several different ways, including protection of the species, considering that you can never protect a wild individual. If you could, then they would be domesticated or caged.
Those organizations (Ducks and Trout Unlimited) did a hell of a lot more to conserve streams and wetlands than the majority of other organizations. To suggest that they are not doing good work is tantamount to saying that the Allies should have tried to fight World War II without Russia. Gun'n'hook crowd are different from survival hunting, agreed, but the amount of meat that these hunters and fishers have brought in reduced CAFO meat consumption by an equal amount, all the while being organic, maintaining the ecosystem and teaching their own children about the necessity of conservation. Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous how city people (and I said this before) use their own agenda and criteria for dealing with ecosystems and pushing their own values onto others, despite the fact that so many are too far removed from it and do not understand its workings.
I am not against vegans, and I am pro-reduced meat consumption, it just seems a bit ridiculous to me to try to gerry-rig our ecosystems and social systems to conform to morals of a select few individuals. No one that I have heard from on this website has suggested that we should retain our levels of meat consumption, so there.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:02 am
05 Dec 2006
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:15 am
05 Dec 2006
The most prominent feature I remember about these functions was the attitude of elitism. These people were definitely not hunting due to a need to sustain their familites. It was clearly a sport.
I never considered DU an environmental group, despite their goal of preserving wetlands. They're a conservationist group.
Ok, at this point I just looked at the rest of atreyger's comment; I confess. Now I see that it indeed was junk.
"mission statement:'The vision of Ducks Unlimited is to have sufficient wetlands to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever.'
and ethics: 'We act to uphold the reputation of DU, treating people and wildlife with respect.'"
The Mission Statement should rightly end with, "so we can shoot them." And the ethics? Again, this is idiotic. "We treat them with respect so we can shoot them easier." Is that what passes for ethics these days?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:55 am
05 Dec 2006
On plants: I think many wildlife environmentalists are definitely interested in preserving, say, old-growth forests, and kelp forests, rainforests, and the delicate flora of tundras and Alpine regions. And they may become specifically opposed to the felling of particular trees. But there is a relative scale of recognizable moral responsibiity, and usually plants tend to fall further away from the center than animals. and human beings.
On the guns-and-hooks crowd: I am happy to agree that their conservation efforts have borne much fruit. And it is certainly not my intention to vilify any of them. Only, everyone needs to be clear on what everyone else's basic interests are.
It is certainly not fair to suggest that "city people" have one monolithic set of agenda and criteria. It should always be remembered that huge numbers of us in NYC -- and probably the same can be said of Toronto, Chicago, LA, Seattle, etc. -- came here from somewhere else, and very many of us did not have urban roots. It is a Limbaugh-oid calumny that city dwellers all look down on people in rural districts and small towns. I for my part, having lived in a number of different kinds of communities in the East and in the Rocky Mountain states, take pains to try to understand different viewpoints.
Congratulations, for your views on lowering meat consumption! Perhaps I was hasty, to accuse you of anti-vegan paranoia. Maybe Jason should handle that, when he is ready.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:04 am
05 Dec 2006
When it's preceeded by "First," it doesn't inspire me to find out what comes second.
"Those organizations (Ducks and Trout Unlimited) did a hell of a lot more to conserve streams and wetlands than the majority of other organizations."
I know they've done a lot to protect wetlands, promote healthy stream ecology, reduce factory farming, etc. I appreciate that. However, there is a categorical difference between a person whose conscience compels him to protect an ecosystem from harm, and one who protects the same so that he can hopefully kill the animals who live there.
In college, I was taught that the first group were environmentalists and the second were conservationists.
Permalink
konklarii Posted 6:08 am
05 Dec 2006
It's easy to rag on Ducks Unlimited (not my org, but I'm familiar with them), but conscientous hunters can be some of the most committed conservationists out there. You protect what you love, even and especially if you occasionally eat what you love. And when was the last time any of us spent a Saturday standing knee deep in a frozen marsh?
Permalink
konklarii Posted 6:14 am
05 Dec 2006
Not to go on and on about hunting (I don't even hunt), but I'll respectfully disagree with you here. It's possible to protect an ecosystem while hunting within well-managed limits, set by good wildlife research. Sometimes hunting/fishing can even help restore balance to an ecosystem (hunting/fishing non-native animals, or animals whose populations have greatly increased due to human presence).
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:16 am
05 Dec 2006
Pity, that the term "conservationist" should be limited to the gun-bearing Teddy Roosevelt type.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:37 am
05 Dec 2006
Therefore, the question that I have for J.S. and everyone else here regarding this is not per se regarding animal welfare, but the question of 'preservation v. conservation', which side of it do we stand on? I am personally on the side of conservation, because we will use our natural resources, gifts from our land essentially, which can be either abused or managed. I have a feeling that from the relatively liberatarian position of Jason Scorse, he would say that he is more of a conservationist unless talking about animal welfare. Thid brings up a whole another bag of issues regarding personal ethics, but which points us to the very clear summation by Dave Roberts:
'As a matter of historical fact, lots of mainstream environmental organizations have spent time and energy on animal welfare issues, and have included lots of people who care about those issues.'
Does it mean that they are the same? I would argue that CAFOs are, yet hunting and pasture-raised meat (depending on the intelligence of the practitioner of either) are entirely separate.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:47 am
05 Dec 2006
Specific example for everyone to try addressing... and don't label it a straw man or insignificant to escape giving an opinion...
In parts of Wisconsin high deer populations are actually threatening endangered plants by excessive grazing. We do not know the downstream effects of removing these plants from the ecosystem. There could be other organisms... pollinators, larvae, et cetera dependent on specifc threatened plants. I WISH I could find the original article from Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine. I have tried, but cannot.
QUESTION: Should the deer be removed?
QUESTION: If so, how? Birth control, though they might continue doing damage until they die out? Trapping and relocation? Where?
QUESTION: If not, how do you justify saving a few members of one species at the expense of a large number of other species or an entire ecological community?
This is just one example of when an environmental organization must decide how important animal welfare is in the grand scheme of things. Someone else brought up an example of removing goats from the Galapogos Islands.
What about removing feral pigs, cats, exotic snakes, et cetera from various islands where native birds and entire ecological communities are vanishing? (For more info on this, please consider reading "Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion" by Alan Burdick.)
I do not think I would want an environmental organization that includes PETA-like values responsible for saving ecosystems from human-caused imbalance.
FYI: I don't hunt. I don't want to hunt. I'm looking at this from an ecological perspective.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:13 am
05 Dec 2006
Just some "food" for thought, as we do grow and consume trees like agricultural products. It's unfortunate that people have this paradoxical feeling about "natural" and "unnatural" ecosystems.
Of course, forests that do, or can, support endangered species should be managed accordingly, to promote sustainable or thriving populations. A one-size-fits-all preservationist policy for our forests goes against most of those eco-group mantras, if you honestly think about it.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
jscorse Posted 10:25 am
05 Dec 2006
I just want to be on record as saying that I am not trying to deem which organizations are on the environmentalist list versus not- I don't see it as a black and white issue- just as I only believe in moral or immoral acts, not immoral or moral people, I think there is a spectrum here- is someone who owns an SUV but works to preserve open space an environmentalist? Is someone who bikes everywhere but loves McDonald's? You can't answer this is a simple yes and no manner- what I am trying to underline is basic principles that underly the movement as a whole, even if not every group and every individual will have a perfect record on every detail- I will post on this further soon
Perhaps I need to rephrase my general position: while I don't think that everyone who is an environmentalist must accept basic principles of animal welfare, I do think that animal welfare is as integral to environmentalism as many other issues and that environmentalists SHOULD accept some minimal ethical standards with regards to animals
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:27 am
05 Dec 2006
Victual Reality
Permalink
stealthdog Posted 10:34 am
05 Dec 2006
Conservation biologists are finally realizing how important habitat conservation is in efforts to restore animal species. The most recent "Conservation in Practice" journal has a great article about the failed attempt to save the Hawaiian crow, in which researchers attempted to breed birds in captivity and release them into the wild without bothering to restore the habitat that endangered the birds in the first place.
Environmental-type movements have long used the concepts of flagship species (save the tigers! save the whales!) to gain publicity and raise funds to protect certain habitats. Nothing wrong with appealing to animal lovers with the "big sexies", because restoring habitat for a single tiger also restores habitat for the birds and bugs and plant species that live there as well. If we can encourage more people to support habitat conservation, does the specific impetus matter?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:53 am
05 Dec 2006
Jason wrote:
<<
Perhaps I need to rephrase my general position: while I don't think that everyone who is an environmentalist must accept basic principles of animal welfare, ...
>>
Right, fair enough.
<<
... I do think that animal welfare is as integral to environmentalism as many other issues ...
>>
Yes, excellent. That is a very important observation.
<<
... and that environmentalists SHOULD accept some minimal ethical standards with regards to animals.
>>
Umm, well, that would be nice, but it seems hard to figure out. There are all kinds of environmentalists, after all. And those who are busy inventing alternative energy sources, or measuring the effect of clouds on climate, or designing vehicles that run on the good vibes produced by celery stalks at 23 degrees Celsius, probably do not cross paths with animals very often. It would be lovely if they all became vegetarian, but far be it from me to insist that they do so.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 2:35 pm
05 Dec 2006
Let us also not forget that most environmentalist/conservationist groups that take an interest in animals at all take the kind of interest that supports wholesale slaughter of nonnative species, usually without a lot of regard for the current role that species may be playing, and always without regard for the suffering of the nonnative critters. In cases where, for example, populations of feral cats can be trapped, kittens placed for adoption and adults spayed/neutered and released, eventually reducing their numbers without harming the existing cats, these groups never choose that option. Where feral animals are spreading diseases to native wildlife, vaccination programs are often passed over in favor of, again, total slaughter. Wild horses, who you'd think had become an acceptable part of "nature" by now, aren't even considered worthwhile, although of course the few remaining wild horses are totally inconsequential compared to the cattle being grazed on the same ranges by permit (and in fact, the horses are even drastically outnumbered by the elk, about whom few people complain, except to say they should be allowed to hunt them).
So conservationist and wildlife-oriented environmentalist groups are not, in my book, animal-welfare groups, much less animal-rights groups.
Permalink
stealthdog Posted 9:43 pm
05 Dec 2006
So, uh, those non-hunters who conserve habitat do it altruistically? They don't want to hike, boat, canoe, look at the habitat they worked to conserve? Good luck getting people to protect and conserve things that they have no intention to ever use. Good luck getting people to protect and conserve the things they DO use! I simply can't see how telling hunters that they shouldn't be allowed to restore and conserve the wetlands that are their hunting grounds would benefit conservaton efforts? Never mind all the species that aren't hunted that benefit from the conservation programs...
"In cases where, for example, populations of feral cats can be trapped, kittens placed for adoption and adults spayed/neutered and released, eventually reducing their numbers without harming the existing cats, these groups never choose that option. Where feral animals are spreading diseases to native wildlife, vaccination programs are often passed over in favor of, again, total slaughter."
Will the TNR programs stop the deaths of millions of birds caused by feral cats? Not until the TNR cats are dead of natural causes, which can take years. And if you miss one tom and one queen, you still have however many kittens a year flowing into the colony... Vaccination programs are hard as well, because it's hard enough to find these animals in order to count them, much less to dart them, find them once they're down, and then vaccinate.
I would argue that conservationist and wildlife-oriented groups are certainly animal welfare groups- it's just that they tend to act for the good of the many, not just the good of the few. The feral cat colony may be euthanized for the good of the plant and animal species native to that area. Animal rights groups would almost certainly put the needs of the individual over the needs of the community, so no, their ideas rarely correspond to those of conservationist groups.
Permalink
willa Posted 11:26 pm
05 Dec 2006
Hunting and hiking have virtually nothing in common as "uses". One may certainly wish to benefit in some way from one's conservation efforts, in the form of having wild areas to explore, but when what you want from your effort is to continue to be able to kill things.... It's like the royal game preserves of England--sure, they were great for wildlife, but they weren't there for wildlife, they were there so the king could go kill things, and I don't see how that really counts. Preventing others from killing animals because you want to kill them yourself seems, you know, a bit morally suspect.
Also, I never said that neutering or vaccinating wild/feral populations was always easy, or even always the right choice. Rather, I said that conservation and environmental groups prefer lethal methods, regardless of logistics. I find it distasteful that they should, as a matter of policy, prefer to kill animals when there may be other good options. Also, they don't always "euthanize" the animals; shooting and other inhumane methods are sometimes used, which I think detracts even further from their credibility as organizations concerned about animals. They are concerned about animals only from their own point of view, never from the animals' point of view, never considering what the animals would choose if they could.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:28 pm
05 Dec 2006
Do Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife have a stated position regarding feral cats and horses? If so, I do not remember encountering it.
As for such invasive "cold-blooded" critters as lampreys in the Great Lakes, snakehead fish in the Susquehanna and Ohio valleys, and the brown tree snake on Guam and perhaps other Pacific islands, it seems that no one has any sympathy for them, and everyone just wishes for their elimination. These are indeed highly destructive animals, killing lots of other animals which are relatively defenseless. But we ought to register their deaths as deaths; and death, needless to say, is a very serious event in any organism's life.
Audubon is not exactly a birds-first organization, but they obviously have a special concern for birds, and pay close attention to threats to the welfare of wild birds, including cats. They are firmly opposed to cats being allowed to roam free outdoors (and that is in the cats' best interest, too: they get into all kinds of trouble, often enough lethal, outdoors, which they would not if they were kept indoors). I do not know if they have any definite position on feral cats. In connexion with the notorious feral cats of San Francisco, I recall that the magazine criticized the enablers of those cats, for not taking into consideration all the birds, and other small vertebrates, that those cats were killing. And rightly so, IMHO.
I strongly dislike the sense that capture/neuter/release programs are obviously an excellent way to go, and definitely the answer. That is not at all true. Such programs may be the best option among a number of bad alternatives, but they are most definitely not good in themselves. Releasing adult cats, however non-productive, is bad news for birds, rodents, reptiles and amphibians. And I am very happy that I got an editor at Best Friends magazine, the organ of the animal rescue organization in Kanab, Utah, who did such wonderful work after Hurricane Katrina, to admit as much.
On horses: I have never heard of any naturalist or environmentalist of any kind complaining about populations of feral horses in Western states. That series in the PBS show Nature, done by that marvelously dedicated woman from Denver who followed a horse and his family and friends in Montana, pretty much establishes wild horses in the popular imagination as definitely part of the fauna, with full rights, who need to cope with the elements, and to find things to eat, and to defend their foals from cougars and coyotes and bears.
On the destruction of animals, on account of introduced disease: Most notoriously, there is the annual slaughter of Yellowstone bison by gun-wielding agents operating in the interests of Montana ranchers. Cattle is king. I have nothing against the cows themselves, of course, but their owners definitely need to be slapped down from their sense of entitlement.
Willa, I know that you know so much more than I know. So please supply where my poor knowledge is deficient.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:53 pm
05 Dec 2006
No need to insist. I would be happy if we could just level the playing field by getting rid of agricultural subsidies so that the price of meat would be somewhat closer to its actual cost. $10 hamburgers @ McD's would do a lot to advance the vegetarian solution.
Permalink
stealthdog Posted 12:55 am
06 Dec 2006
*first, full disclosure- I have no problem with hunting, although am not a hunter myself. Would much rather people hunt truely organic, free-range, grass-fed, antibiotic-free critters than go buy some from the local co-op*
I feel that it counts because "they were great for wildlife"... I (and believe that animals) would rather that wild places exist, even if it means they are hunted sometimes. Again I ask, who will conserve these places if you were to forbid hunting groups to do so? I don't see any conservation groups rolling in so much money that they could fill the funding void that these groups would leave. Would you rather have hunting-funded conservation, or no conservation at all?
"They are concerned about animals only from their own point of view, never from the animals' point of view, never considering what the animals would choose if they could."
But what about when the right of one type of animal to exist (i.e. birds) conflicts with the right of another animal to exist (i.e. feral cats)? Do we choose the welfare of the nonnative or the native species? Do we force the birds to deal with TNR-ed cats for however many years those colonies exist? Don't get me wrong, I think TNR can be a great program if you have someone willing to impliment it and take responsibility of the colonies. It's just not feasible for most colonies.
It is easy to say "all animals have an equal right to exist"... but then how does one make decisions when animal species come into conflict? Do we let the animals work things out themselves? And where do you draw distinctions? Are mammals worth more than birds, and birds more than fish, and fish more than insects, and all more than plants?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:18 am
06 Dec 2006
(1) Rounding them up for euthanasia.
(2) Sentencing a semi-domesticated animal to death in the wilderness.
I read that most feral cats don't last more than a year or two in the real world... most are killed and eaten by coytotes. Does not sound like a pleasant way to go, but I suppose it is natural. Could explain some of the horrible screams I hear at night.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:33 am
06 Dec 2006
Any enviromental organization that includes an animal welfare clause in its mission statement will have to include some policy for resolving conflicts when preservation of one animal (or entire ecological community) requires elimination of some members of a relatively common animal species.
If Jason can address this problem -- perhaps he has and I missed it -- I would be much more supportive of his effort here. Such an organization might want to focus on finding humane solutions to conflicts between native species and introduced species (or native species no longer held in check by natural mechanisms).
The alternative, in my opinion, is to accept that we have thoroughly messed up the world and let nature sort it out, even if it means much more damage will be done and many more species -- who were minding their own business until, say, we introduced goats into their world -- will be lost over the next century. We would also have to be prepared to accept all of the downstream effects of letting nature sort it out.
I prefer taking action to stop and, hopefully, reverse the damage.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:04 am
06 Dec 2006
J.S. wrote:
environmentalists SHOULD accept some minimal ethical standards with regards to animals
Absolutely, just like the rest of humanity who are not environmentalists should too.
I think the question then becomes what should these standards be?
Quick death? No abuse in CAFOs or any other kind of abuse? Eating what you kill and killing only what you plan on eating? Sharing of the flesh among your family and friends, whether farm-raised or hunted? Fair pricing of meat to reduce consumption? Closer connection to the ecological web that sustained us for millenia and will hopefully sustain us for many more?
There are lots of these ethical standards that I personally adhere to. Personally, I do not view being vegan as necessary. But if someone else does, good for them and better for all of us. I do not think that it is necessary for them to 'forcefully', words-wise at least, try to make this the single most important rallying point behind environmentalism, which encompasses a very diverse group of people with very different backgrounds and usually narrow focus.
May I suggest global climate change, habitat conservation and restoration, and prevention of species extinction as the three most important rallying points? For all the fanatical energy fans, I agree that it's important, but I am not quite sure that it's as integral as the state of the environment in which we live in, although obviously it's all connected.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:54 am
06 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:09 am
06 Dec 2006
PS Now that we've "saved" spotted owls from the evil loggers (smirk), how are we going to save them from the goshawks and barred owls?
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:39 am
06 Dec 2006
1. Check out this paper on what caused the decline in logging in the Pacific Northwest
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0731-1214(1998)41%3A1%3C1%3AFYOSOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5
the charge against environmentalists is completely bogus. They still might die at the hands of other predators but so what- everything needs something to eat to live. The point is that most animals don't have a choice what to kill; WE DO!
2. Both you and atreyger trivialize the animal welfare arguments by confusing it with how other animals treat each other- ANIMAL WELFARE IS ABOUT HOW HUMANS TREAT ANIMALS- PERIOD. Saying that a dolphin might harm another dolphin or a coyote might kill a bird is irrelevant. So please drop the straw men.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:57 am
06 Dec 2006
I'm all for old growth protections, as this truly IS the basis for goshawks and owls on the Endangered Species List. Unsustainable and destructive logging caused a loss of nesting habitat and I think we can all agree with that. (Although the birds continue to survive, even in second and third growth forests.)
The arrival of the barred owl in the PNW has been enabled by preservationism and fire suppression. Of course, these activities have been undertaken with only good intentions but, the barred owl has migrated all across Canada to find areas to push the spotted owls out. Either we're stuck with this fowl fued, or we attempt to remove the invaders.
Since spotted owls ARE territorial, there can only be a finite amount of "owl circles" denoting nesting areas.
Spotted owl nesting areas are currently at EXTREME risk due to unhealthy and unnatural conditions in their ranges. These birds PREFER managed stands of big trees, with an open understory that facilitates their hunting practices. Ditto for the goshawks.
Yes, goshawks have been hunting owls for ages and they seem to have been in balance, as long as their habitat was intact. Adding the barred owl just might be the nail in the coffin of our spotted owls, though.
Either we can accept the new order of things in our western forests OR, we can use our scientific knowledge to restore these ecosystems, especially in ways that benefit us humans, as well. Yes, we CAN get everything we need from our forests while enhancing ecosystem function and providing spiritual regeneration of humans on this big blue ball in space.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:09 am
06 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:07 am
06 Dec 2006
From...
http://nuthatch.typepad.com/ba/2005/06/sunday_times_.html...
Please go to the original website, where you will find informative links to additional information about this topic at the bottom of the article.
26 June 2005
sunday times: problematic charisma
"... Ted Williams points out what is obvious to most wildlife ecologists: that deer populations are allowed to grow until they destroy the ecosystems they depend on. Research is overwhelming and unequivocal: when deer are present in high densities, they alter the landscape so severely that plants disappear, some never to recover, setting off a chain reaction that echoes through the system, resulting in drastic reductions in biodiversity...."
"... In Warren, Pennsylvania, a 10-year study by the U.S. Forest Service determined that at more than 20 deer per square mile, there is complete loss of cerulean warblers (on the Audubon WatchList as a species of global concern), yellow-billed cuckoos, indigo buntings, eastern wood pewees, and least flycatchers. ... In heavily settled parts of Pennsylvania, where hunting pressure is light or nonexistent, it's not unusual to have more than 75 deer per square mile.
The only realistic way to control deer populations is with guns. Like it or not. Contraceptives are expensive and ineffective for the management that needs to take place. Trap-and-transfer is inhumanely stressful, and often fatal, to deer, and only transplants the problem somewhere else. The problem with killing deer -- either through increased bag limits or, in populated areas, with sharpshooters -- is that a segment of the public does not want to or will not comprehend the ecological damage deer inflict and does not want them hunted..."
"...This illustrates what I consider one of the most frustrating conservation dilemmas ecologists face, especially in urban areas: how to convince people that some species that are nice to look at must be controlled and managed, usually by killing some, so they do not do incredible damage to already strained ecosystem. In addition to deer, I encounter the same type of resistance to lethal management of Mute Swans and resident giant Canada Geese..."
"Just a few resources on the overall impact of deer on ecosystems.
Proceedings of the conference on the impact of deer on the biodiversity and economy of the state of Pennsylvania.
Deer dilemma: Too much of a good thing? Chicago Wilderness Magazine, fall 2003.
Managing White-tailed Deer in forest habitat from an ecosystem perspective.
Ecological impacts of high deer densities. Teaching issues and experiments in ecology, volume 2.
Deer impacts on vegetation: bibliography.
Cote, S. D., T. P. Rooney, J.-P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:113-147.
Jones, Edwin J., S. Reidel, L.M. Houser eds. 1997. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Special Issue - Deer Overabundance Vol 25, No. 2, Summer 1997."
Permalink
willa Posted 10:58 am
06 Dec 2006
This is a false dichotomy and you know it.
Oh, and WiscIdea, I fail to see how "lethal management" is superior to sterilization in the long run, except from our selfish perspective that sterilization is "too hard" and doesn't give guys a chance to go out in the woods and drink beer. The best solution would be to reintroduce large predators, but we all know that ain't gonna happen, so it seems to me like sterilization is a decent second.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:55 pm
06 Dec 2006
I think perhaps I paint with too broad a brush because I don't actually know what all the specific groups like the Sierra Club think about these things (trying to find out about the Sierra Club's record on this stuff, I started looking through articles at animalpeoplenews.org, a very informative if occasionally annoyingly biased publication, and quickly got sidetracked by lots of other interesting stuff...). What I do know is that not one representative of an environmentalist group showed when we picketed the Forest Service headquarters in Albuquerque to get them to call off a helicopter roundup of mustangs during foaling season. The feral-cat rescuers I know also do not think highly of environmental groups, although I can't say specifically what's happened there because I'm not them. My sense is that it's comparatively rare for environmental groups to actively seek the deaths of ferals, but that it happens; more usually, it's just that they consider the issue none of their business, even in cases where it quite specifically is their business.
For instance, the helicopter roundup concerned a herd of about 200 horses, max. In the same range, there are several times that many deer and elk, and something like 17,000 grazing permits for cattle. So, it seems to me that environmentalists would jump at the chance to make an issue of the fact that the Forest Service puts the value of cattle at 20-30 times that of native or near-native species (horses are natural inhabitants of this area, just not modern horses, since the evidence is pretty good that all prehistoric horses were gone from North America when the Conquistadors came).
As far as cats go, there's a severe lack of understanding between the neuter-return people and the songbird people. Good rescuers are not returning every cat; most places aren't good for feral cats. Some feral cats can be made adoptable with some effort; the ones who can't, and can't be returned, are either euthanized or placed as barn cats, at least by the Santa Fe chapter of Felines & Friends. Barn cats don't live forever, of course, but it's better than euthanasia, and a whole lot better than getting hit by a car. In any case, cat rescuers (well, the non-insane ones) don't want feral cat populations to grow or become problematic for other wildlife, and their aims aren't antithetical to environmentalists' aims, but somehow the environmentalists have become convinced that cat rescuers are against them, which is really too bad.
This article, though slightly out of date, indicates that neutered feral cats often live a relatively long time, and are healthier and less of a nuisance than non-neutered cats, since they're not trying to find mates or feed kittens and are therefore less agressive. It also claims that "their most frequent prey by an overwhelming margin is the English house sparrow, a non-native species in North America which competes with scarcer native species for food and habitat. Since most of the fast-declining neotropical migratory songbirds are not ground-feeders, it may be that homeless cats have much less to do with their decline than is often postulated, and may even be helping them by knocking off some of their competition."
According to Animal People, "the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the California Coastal Conservancy, among many others ... oppose the presence of feral cats in wildlife habitat."
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:12 pm
06 Dec 2006
I appreciate your story about your protest of the mustang round-up, and am (or, would have been) entirely on your side. But, being acquainted with the people at Audubon New Mexico's Randall Davies center east of Santa Fe, I am surprised and disappointed by their unwillingness to show support. My guess is, they do not lack regard or compassion for mustangs; but they are in a delicate political relationship with ranchers, and therefore they consistently refuse to do certain principled things which might complicate their negotiated agreements.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:59 pm
06 Dec 2006
Clearly, as pretty much every poster has shown, it is not as easy as it would seem to be, J.S.! What about the house sparrows? It seems that willa cares more about cats than non-native birds, and I think that throws a cog into any argument...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:57 pm
06 Dec 2006
Is there time to use steriliztion and wait for populations of an animal like white-tail deer to decline?
Please scan this section of the Audobon Pennsylvnaia report...
http://pa.audubon.org/docs/deer_report/Part2_Ch.5_Ch.6_Ch...
Given the enormous impact of high deer populations, are we supposed to accept the loss of numerous species, food webs, and unpredictable consequences while wait for deer decline?
This is similar to the view that though global warming is happening, we must take time to slowly reduce our CO2 emissions, else there might be unpleasant economic problems.
Human have pushed certain animal populations way of balance... by removing predators and creating excess forest edge habitat in the case of deer... and there are ways to correct some of the damage.
Good luck reintroducing large predators in the midwest and eastern U.S., as well as convincing people to re-establish large tracts of solid forest or grassland in populated areas. In the mean time another species will be disappearing, another ecological community will collapse. There are times when immediate action is necessary... it is the rational and emotional path and for the greater good... unless you care only about deer and not the many animals they affect.
The full report is available at...
http://pa.audubon.org/deer_report.html#sections
Permalink
stealthdog Posted 11:30 pm
06 Dec 2006
Okay, so what are the other options? You would rather groups like Ducks Unlimited not fund conservation efforts... so who will take their place?
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:50 pm
06 Dec 2006
"...that human populations are allowed to grow until they destroy the ecosystems they depend on. Research is overwhelming and unequivocal: when humans are present in high densities, they alter the landscape so severely that plants disappear, some never to recover, setting off a chain reaction that echoes through the system, resulting in drastic reductions in biodiversity..."
Oh, wait. It said deer.
Permalink
willa Posted 11:57 pm
06 Dec 2006
I do not find it suspect for environmental groups to advocate removal, by euthanasia or responsible hunting (and I think that's a big caveat, because I don't trust the average person with a gun), in some cases. I find it suspect when they do not indicate regret in these cases, or ever try to find other solutions. I find the idea of mass-slaughter-as-policy extremely suspect.
We can do better than this. I don't have to support Ducks Unlimited or groups that advocate the slaughter of entire populations of feral animals (dogs, cats, some horses on islands off southern California I forget the name of, etc) just because they're doing some good things, even though they're also doing some bad things. There are people who are doing the right things for the right reasons, it just takes a little more effort and thought to find them, and it takes additional effort to try to bring together groups that think they're opposed but really aren't, like feral cat rescuers and environmental groups. I refuse to support a group just because it's large and powerful and seems like the lesser of the various large, powerful evils.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:11 am
07 Dec 2006
Every deer is sacred? And to hell with all the other organisms and ecological webs that disappear as a result of the large deer population?
Perhaps we should not bother changing any human behavior or correcting any damage what-so-ever. Just like the deer population will come down when starvation and disease becomes a problem, our own population will go down when we've done enough damage to the environment.
And just as nature will eventually replace the organisms that go extinct because of a large population of deer, nature will replace what goes extinct because of us. It might take 100 million years, but it will happen. So... nothing more to worry about.
Just let deer be deer and let humans be human. And nature will solve the problem.
Permalink
stealthdog Posted 1:12 am
07 Dec 2006
The point is not that you don't support Ducks Unlimited... You can put your money towards whichever group you want. The point is that hunters do support DU, and many hunters are not interested in supporting the Nature Conservancy, etc. Without that financial support, where will the money for conservation come from? Or is the money from hunters so dirty that you don't want it going towards conservation at all?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:21 am
07 Dec 2006
Sure, humans are out of control. Efforts are under way to reduce population growth and perhaps stabilize it. And we have to find ways to reduce and repair the damage done.
Pointing out that there are too many of us in repsonse to discussing ways to save the natural world seems irrelevant at this time. We know there are too many of us.
Do you seriously advocate reducing the human population and by what means?
Starvation?
Genocide?
Disease?
And who would you prefer to eliminate?
Are you going to focus on aging European populations, which are already decreasing?
Or are you going to go after groups with a higher birth rate?
Do you applaud every moment you see the death of a human on television? Do you smile when you see one more person die in a war or one more child die of starvation?
Killing people or letting then die or just permitting poverty to solve the problem IS NOT AN OPTION.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:42 am
07 Dec 2006
reducing poverty
improving education
improving health
family planning
If only we could educate and discuss family planning options with deer, feral cats, et cetera...
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:51 am
07 Dec 2006
Sure, humans are out of control. Only the lamest of lip-service efforts are under way to reduce population growth and perhaps stabilize it, which is to say that nothing is actually being done but occasionally someone mentions the idea and then ducks. And then adds that "we have to find ways to reduce and repair the damage done," as if you can both put out a fire and feed it fuel and gasoline at the same time.
Discussing ways to save the natural world without pointing out that there are way too many of us in repsonse seems irrelevant at this time. We know that there is no way to save the natural world as long as there are too many of us and as long as the average person in the richest places uses as much resources as 50 or 100 of the average folks in the poorest places.
Of course I seriously advocate reducing the human population. By what means?
Starvation?
Genocide?
Disease?
No, those are the methods chosen by those who refuse to turn talk about "efforts" to reduce pop growth into aggressive, solid programs and policies to REDUCE human population and footprint. Such as
(1) Complete forgiveness of third-world debt, dollar for dollar, for every dollar that the countries spend on effective population control efforts such as
(a) guaranteed family incomes for one-child followed by sterilization of both parents(no increases in the guaranteed wage above that)
(b) education, especially education for young women
(c) family planning services and public health measures to ensure that more of the children born survive, reducing the pressure to have addl. kids.
(d) efforts to improve the legal and social status of women (microcredit, domestic violence prevention, end to genital mutilation, etc. etc.)
(2) In the first world, abolish tax incentives that reward fertility: That is, three personal deductions per family; i.e., no federal tax incentive for larger families. etc.
(3) Throughout the world, shift taxes OFF of labor and investment and ONTO consumption of non-renewable resources (and onto unsustainable consumption of renewable ones) and ONTO production of toxic wastes. Stop TAXING what we want an economy to provide (jobs/incomes) and START taxing what we DON'T want: more people using more resources to produce more pollution.
And who would you prefer to eliminate?
The children not conceived.
Are you going to focus on aging European populations, which are already decreasing?
Why would we focus on the populations already going in the right direction? The thing to do with first-world countries is to concentrate on reducing the per-person environmental footprint.
Or are you going to go after groups with a higher birth rate?
We should abjure loaded terms like "going after." We should act where the need is most critical. The people who suffer most from high birth rates are those people in the countries with high birth rates. They should be targeted for the maximum amount of assistance needed to drastically reduce fertility. Then we must reduce the consumption of the rest so that there are enough resources to provide for a decent life for the folks in the poorest countries.
Do you applaud every moment you see the death of a human on television? Do you smile when you see one more person die in a war or one more child die of starvation?
No, I feel terrible when I see needless suffering, which is why I want aggressive steps to radically reduce fertility, rather than waiting for nature's methods to take care of the problem.
Killing people or letting then die or just permitting poverty to solve the problem IS NOT AN OPTION.
We both kill people and allow poverty to kill them so long as we refuse to treat population control like a threat to public health. As you say, this should NOT BE AN OPTION.
But it is, today, in part because many environmentalists are terrified of the shitstorm that erupts when you talk about the root cause of our collapsing global life support systems: too many people in total, with far too many of the richest using far too many resources.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:33 am
07 Dec 2006
My comments were intended for Pandu, who apparently sees parallels between excess deer and excess people that suggest solutions for one of the problem cannot be applied unless the solutions are acceptable for both problems.
I think there are distinct differences that must be taken into consideration. Hunting can be used in the case of deer. All of your suggestions can and should be used in the case of people.
Individuals wishing for more humane methods for controlling deer and other wildlife (large numbers resulting from our own poor decisions, I fully realize) must bring those methods to our attention.
It does not help to simply say... oh yea... well humans are also bad.
Everyone knows we are doing damage. This discussion thread, however, is about environmentalism and animal wlefare. How might the two combined and still provide a means for reducing wildlife populations that are harming what is left of native ecosystems (resulting from our own poor decisions, I fully realize)?
If there will be no hunting and there are no EFFECTIVE humane means to reduce very specific wildlife populations where they are clearly reducing local biodiversity, we have to accept that things will get much worse, more species will be lost, before nature restores some balance. I'm not ready to accept this.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:46 am
07 Dec 2006
ATreyger got minorly knocked off track when he misunderstood Willa to be saying that she favors the welfare of cats to the welfare of house sparrows. She never said anything like that. She just referred us to an Animal People publication that suggested to conservationists concerned about endangered migratory songbirds, that feral cats probably kill many more house sparrows than songbirds; the interesting implication is, not only are feral cats not a major danger to songbirds, but their predation on house sparrows might actually be benefiting songbirds, by reducing the numbers of one of their principal, and very successful, competitors. I am not altogether persuaded that the cats' predation on migratory songbirds is inconsequential, but still, I find this an interesting suggestion. Anyway, no one is talking about weighing the worth of one individual animal against another.
WiscIdea got majorly knocked off track when he misunderstood Pandu to be advocating some strategy to reduce human populations. Not at all! His very brief message comes across plainly enough as sarcastic: If the principle that a species ought to be violently reduced, once its numbers reach environmentally destructive levels, then why stop with deer? Why does the same principle not apply to humans? But that is so obviously outrageous, that it should be plain what his serious interest is: in sparing the deer, and not at all in dooming the humans.
I am not deceived, WiscIdea, that the overpopulation of deer in your part of the country and mine has been terrificly destructive, adversely affecting many species of plants and animals, and many ecosystems that are now out of balance. And I know that Audubon's excellent reporter and writer, Ted Williams, has been an advocate of improving relations between environmentalists and the gun-and-hook crowd, and he has followed the situation regarding deer hunting in Pennsylvania especially closely. And I trust him, when he advocates the controlled killing of deer.
But, by the same token, it remains true that that is a very serious moral decision. As Willa suggests, it is only perhaps the least bad of a number of very bad options; and it should always be a source of regret, when we decide that animals must be killed, even as in an ideally just war, it should always be an act of regret and sorrow when a soldier must kill a hostile assailant.
Ted Williams understands that. Also, he anticipates Willa's cautions about who to entrust with the job of killing the deer. She rightly does not like at all the prospect of many clueless people stomping off into the woods, blasting away. And Williams too mistrusts gravely a large part of the gun-toting crowd in Pennsylvania, who lack either woodland knowledge, or the discipline to explore deeply enough into the woods and the mountains to find the places where the killing of deer would be most effective.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Nuthatch Posted 6:46 am
07 Dec 2006
"..some of the data most strongly indicting cats for killing birds also indicates that they kill primarily small ground-feeding species, and that their most frequent prey by an overwhelming margin is the English house sparrow, a non-native species in North America which competes with scarcer native species for food and habitat. Since most of the fast-declining neotropical migratory songbirds are not ground-feeders, it may be that homeless cats have much less to do with their decline than is often postulated, and may even be helping them by knocking off some of their competition."
Many species of Neotropical migrants feed (or roost) mostly or frequently on the ground, including all the thrushes, most sparrows, nightjars, and meadowlarks. Any birder who has experienced a "fallout" of birds knows that during poor weather or after a long flight, ANY species of migratory songbird, including canopy species, are often found on or near the ground. Neotropical migrants also include shorebirds, terns, seabirds, and marsh birds, all of which are victims of feral cats. Cats are capable jumpers and climbers, as well.
I know of no peer-reviewed published studies (I am an ornithologist) that show House Sparrows to be the most frequent prey for feral cats, and am generally suspicious of a statement like that without a citation.
Because they occupy completely different habitats and ecological niches, House Sparrows and most (all?) Neotropical migrant songbirds are rarely in any sort of competition. My area of research deals with migratory songbirds, and in my 15 years in the field, I have never read or heard anybody propose that competition with House Sparrows had anything to do with declines of Neotropical migratory songbirds, except perhaps in a peripheral way or some very specific circumstance. The idea that feral cats may be helping migrant birds is beyond laughable, it is dead wrong, and irresponsible.
On the other hand, studies on the stunning negative impact of feral cats are well documented and backed by scientific studies. The most comprehensive web site with a wealth of information is the American Bird Conservancy's Cats Indoors campaign: http://www.abcbirds.org/cats/
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:13 am
07 Dec 2006
This is summary of my opinion at this time:
The word "environmentalist" is already a pejorative in communities that would benefit greatly if they would listen to the environmentalists. I fear that enhancing the mission statement with an animal welfare clause will only alienate more people and make the job of preserving the natural ecological communities we all depend on more difficult. There is also the issue of resolving moral conundrums created by conflicting goals of preserving habitat/endangered species and preserving individual animals. (I will bring up another example of this some other time.)
Environmentalist should advocate behavior that reduces the human impact on the world... promote organic agriculture, vegetarianism, energy conservation, an so on. But the animal welfare issue must be handled separately. I guess I'm looking at this from a purely cold practical perspective.
This certainly does not mean an environmentalist cannot care about animal and try to find was of restoring and presereving habitat that are humane. I HOPE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE THINKS ABOUT THESE THINGS. If there is a humane way to cope with the deer problem (created by poor human judgement) for example, someone please let conservation folks know about it!
And this certainly does not mean environmentalist and those especially interested in animal welfare should not form alliances. There are sound ecological and moral reasons for not hunting wales. There very sound moral reasons for not slaughtering horses. There are sound ecological and moral reasons for not hunting seals. In such cases, there should be joint effort. And environmentalist should always ask themselves, is this the most humane approach to solving the problem we face.
I wish we had the time to always employ the most humane methods imaginable, but I feel time is running out very quickly. Repairing damage done to an ecological community can be severely set back if action is delayed by even a few months, let alone the time to find a more appropriate -- morally better -- approach.
In a previous post I confessed that I cannot personally kill an animal and I would be a vegetarian if I had to. (This is probably one of those comments that will divert people from the main issue, but I think it is important to point out.) My comments do not originate from a desire to hunt. I do not view killing animals as an activity to engage in for pleasure. Those who hunt should hunt only if they are consuming the meat. My view is, in my opinion, the only practical approach available at this time.
Permalink
willa Posted 9:16 am
07 Dec 2006
Nuthatch,
I believe you that cats kill songbirds, but I think the main point of the Animal People story was that among the specific cats observed by the specific people involved, it appeared not to be a problem. I certainly am all for indoor pet cats, but that's not what this is about.
Oh, and one last thing, WiscIdea, if you personally couldn't kill an animal, eating meat and supporting hunting is a little ironic, don't you think? Viscerally, you know it's wrong, but our culture has told you it's right often enough that you just believe it?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:51 pm
07 Dec 2006
I especially appreciate the appearance of experts such as the fellow who replied regarding his own article about righteousness and the bird expert who replied above. I think it is very easy for each of us to get caught up in or own small world, isolated from people with very different experiences. It can, at times, shake the foundations of firmly held views. But I'm trying to avoid rejecting unsettling information.
I am not glad that you lack the energy to reply point-by-point. We probably agree far more than we disagree. I have the distinct impression that people skim through some of these posts looking for a point of contention, some weakness, and attack. I've been guilty of this and will try to be more responsible. I ask others to please read each of my comments as a whole, and perhaps glance at preceding comments, before launching an attack. I will try to do so as well.
Regarding the fact that I cannot kill an animal, but still eat meat and do not object to hunting, I'm not sure it is ironic. I find the term "ironic" difficult to define. I'm sure someone will clear this up. What I find more ironic, is that there are people so focused on preserving individual animals or particular species that they lose sight of the larger picture; and that while their actions might save certain animals right now, it will lead to greater suffering and loss of biodiversity in the long run.
When I say I cannot kill an animal, but still eat meat and do not object to hunting, it is probably closer to hypocrisy. But I'm not convince that really applies. It would be hypocritical for me to eat meat and hunt, but tell everyone else to stop.
I think your last sentence was correct... at least regarding eating meat... viscerally, I know it's wrong, but our culture has told me it's right often enough that I believe it is acceptable. There might be some genetic factors as well... surely humans craving meat had a slight advantage when protein and fat were relatively difficult to acquire.
But Jason is correct when he points out that now we know better. We know animals suffer. And we have alternative sources of protein and fat. Our minds should be able to override the desire to consume our fellow beings. And I am struggling with this every day.
I keep calling it an addiction. Is that appropriate? Maybe there is a twelve-step program out there for carnivores who want to be vegetarians.
Ultimately, I'm a person who is comfortable with someone else doing his dirty work for him. (Don't pick up that stone quite yet.) There are folks willing to kill and present the product to us in neat little impersonal packages. Fortunately there are also people -- like Jason -- who are willing to tell us what is really going on. We need to know the truth so that our minds can override the craving.
You can tell me to stop eating meat because animals suffer. I am open to learning more about this.
You can tell me to stop eating meat because I harm the environment. I am open to learning more about this.
But... I don't think it is unusual for people to let others do their dirty work for them. So criticizing me on this issue won't be very effective. Just consider most computers... I do not know about yours specifically... plastic, even recycled, from petroleum (oil spills, corporations, wars, abused workers), rare metals (depotic governments, corporations, genocide, bush meat), electricity (mountain top removal, poisoning water, carbon dioxide, nuclear waste, blocking rivers with hydroelectric dams, rare metals for photovoltaics).
I have to wonder how many animals, including people, suffered so I could type this silly message and send it to a group of people I've never met, never will meet, and probably won't influence the slightest. Was it worth letting somone else do my dirty work for this? Will it foster understanding between us? Will it help us find a way to save the planet and reduce suffering? Or is it all a waste of time, energy, and lives?
Why is it worse to eat meat than to use a computer? Is it because when we eat meat we are closer to the death we caused? Is it because we can quickly leap from thinking about the ground up beef on the plate to the cow in the neighbor's field? There is much greater distance between this computer and the suffering it emerged from. But it is still a product of environmental destruction and suffering, and not really essential. Does the distance and distribution of the suffering make it more acceptable? Or is it less acceptable? Perhaps it would be more humane to kill an animal swiftly for food, than to kill it via all the processes that went into this device.
Vicerally, I know it is wrong to kill an animal so that I can eat it. Should that extend to INDIRECTLY killing animals for other items we do not really need?
Thank you for allowing me to ramble.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:35 am
08 Dec 2006
However, because they don't, it is completely out of their mind, and to them meat might not even come from an animal in an everyday interaction with their food. I know when I was young, I didn't care where it came from, as long as it tasted good. As I became older, I started thinking about the subject, became a vegetarian (for many reasons, including health, envi, and ethical), but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made to remove myself from my ecological roots.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:42 am
08 Dec 2006
But I am more surprised at your minimization of the competition offered by House Sparrows. No doubt you are right; but I had been led to believe that their rural populations were indeed expanding, at the expense of native songbirds. Probably, though, those birds that I am thinking of are year-round residents (e.g., the nuthatches!), not migrants. And that the competition is not so much for food as for nesting spots. On aesthetic grounds at least, as a city dweller, I find House Sparrows fun to watch, and I am happy they are just about the most visible and readily found of all wildlife.
WiscIdea, you wrote these curiously poignant words:
<<
I have to wonder how many animals, including people, suffered so I could type this silly message and send it to a group of people I've never met, never will meet, and probably won't influence the slightest. Was it worth letting somone else do my dirty work for this?
>>
These are good moral questions, and difficult to answer. Your account of the environmental and social injuries caused by our computer use is quite a tour-de-force, and I have often considered the matter myself, though never with such brilliant thoroughness. On the other hand, I do not think that writing to Gristmill is quite the equivalent of tossing a message in a bottle out into the waves. Probably, you are right, we will never meet; and you are right, we do not know each other, beyond some sketchy details. But all the same, we are still part of a community. We recognize one another's personalities, and manners of thought and feeling, from the kinds of things we say and the way we say them. And we do influence one another, in many subtle ways. I gladly acknowledge that I have learned a great deal from reading Grist and Gristmill. And so far as persuasion goes, I can also testify that I have indeed changed my mind on a few matters. So, that sort of thing is not impossible.
It is sweet and touching, the faith you have in Jason! I agree that his project is admirable, to make it more straightforward to accept animal welfare as a mainstream environmental cause. And inasmuch as that coincides with the Michael Pollan-ish perspective, that our food choices must be examined and questioned, so popular among many Grist readers and writers, his project has some hope of getting somewhere. So, we shall see. But I am rather less hopeful than you. There are some (e.g. ATreyger?) who push back hard at any suggestion that carnivory should be restricted; and there are others (e.g. Robert Delfs?) who dislike any attempt to confuse animal welfare with the conservation of biodiversity. And as well constructed as Jason's threads have been, they are still not an ideal forum for negotiating.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:33 am
08 Dec 2006
My personal ethics do not find it wrong to kill for food. There should be regret for killing, no question about it. I think it would be very wrong not to feel remorse, but the act itself is not wrong. Why do I think there should be remorse? Because one: the animal is beautiful, and two: the day that someone stops feeling remorse after killing is probably a day that a potential serial killer (of humans) is born. Of course, I believe that if one cannot bear the thought of an animal being killed, one should not eat its flesh. However, I do not think that the way that many others view this has any influence on the way that I do, because I have reached my own ethical conclusions after a period of consideration. I also don't think that I need to have their opinions imposed on me, as I have already considered them for a long period of time, while actually 'walking the walk'.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:32 am
08 Dec 2006
I am a herbivore, and I object!
Why herbivores? Because there are more of them? Is eating plants a crime warranting execution?
It seems like going to war and only shooting unarmed civilians, the most innocent and defenseless. It is the way of the wild, and the mark of a society that has not yet become civilized to the point of condemning unnecessary killing.
He continues, "There should be regret for killing, no question about it. I think it would be very wrong not to feel remorse, but the act itself is not wrong."
Regret and remorse indicate feelings that one has done something wrong. I do not regret doing my duty, even though it may sometimes be unpleasant. Also, if I believe that after doing something, I will regret it or be remorseful, that is clear indication that I should not do it. If I do something I later regret, I think I have made a mistake. If I have done the right thing, what is there to regret?
I don't know how one can feel certain about a philosophy that allows one to engage in regrettable activities. It sounds more like a justification that enables one to maintain an attachment to a certain kind of sense gratification.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:06 am
08 Dec 2006
On regret and remorse: This is the sort of subject that we ought to be discussing in Jason's balcony/dining room in Monterey, overlooking the sea otters and the sea lions and the kelp forests and the Leon Panetta voters, with margaritas on call.
That is: Knowing we are "doing something wrong" if we commit ourselves to one activity, e.g. the killing of a certain kind of animal in a certain place, must be understood, morally, in the context of what would happen if we did not do that thing, or, if we did that thing differently.
It is not simple at all. And, more important, it is the morally responsible attitude, to recognize that it is not simple.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 10:26 am
09 Dec 2006
I personally do not skim, at least not threads I care much about. I certainly don't skim if I intend to comment; often by the time I get done reading, though, I feel either so exhausted or so attacked that I just can't get it together to reply to what's been said. I think that's entirely to the good; one of the things I've always admired about my horses, for instance, is that they tell me only as much as I need to know, that they don't waste their expressive powers (and yes, they are very expressive and able to communicate complex attitudes about our interactions) trying to put their finger (so to speak) on things when they can't quite explain themselves.
You can tell me to stop eating meat because animals suffer. I am open to learning more about this.
You can tell me to stop eating meat because I harm the environment. I am open to learning more about this.
I personally find that the availability of yummy nonmeat things to eat makes or breaks the whole thing; without Gardenburger riblets and Quorn chicken and Morningstar bacon, I'm not sure how well I'd do, so I still get to experience the packaged-food guilt. :)
(Don't pick up that stone quite yet.) There are folks willing to kill and present the product to us in neat little impersonal packages. Fortunately there are also people -- like Jason -- who are willing to tell us what is really going on. We need to know the truth so that our minds can override the craving.
...
But... I don't think it is unusual for people to let others do their dirty work for them. So criticizing me on this issue won't be very effective. Just consider most computers... I do not know about yours specifically... plastic, even recycled, from petroleum (oil spills, corporations, wars, abused workers), rare metals (depotic governments, corporations, genocide, bush meat), electricity (mountain top removal, poisoning water, carbon dioxide, nuclear waste, blocking rivers with hydroelectric dams, rare metals for photovoltaics).
See, and this may just be me, but the people-like-Jason-informing-us thing totally trumps the computer-manufacture-causing-bad-stuff thing. I personally need to have my consciousness continually raised because it's so easy to slide back into thinking it's okay to do whatever everyone else thinks it's okay to do, and without the internet.... I find myself thinking much more about what I'm doing, whether I'm shopping or eating or preparing to drive somewhere, if I've been reading a steady diet of environmentally-conscious stuff, so the pollution and suffering caused by manufacturing my computer seems almost certain to have been cancelled out many times over now by the number of bad things I have avoided doing because I have internet access.
Like I said, though, could just be me. :)
Wow, I just typed "like I said". My mother is spinning in her little cardboard box of ashes.... ("It's 'as you said,' dear")
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:21 am
10 Dec 2006
I regret going to work, because I do not want to do it, but I still do it. It's something that is worthwhile from many perspectives. There are things that we all do because we have to do them, not because it is the 'right' thing to do. You should explain to me the difference between feeling regret for doing something that is worthwhile doing, yet is not something that you feel 'right' about. For example: driving a car around the country to promote wind power.
Before you jump on me for the examples not being the same, think about removing deer without killing them. How do you do it? And how do you feel about having the taxpayers paying thousands of dollars for sterilizing one deer or having hunters pay good money for the opportunity to kill it and eat it?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:27 am
10 Dec 2006
Permalink
willa Posted 12:16 pm
10 Dec 2006
If your mind is already made up, and you can't present any more logical reasons than what you've given us already, then you might as well save your breath, because you're obviously not here to learn. Based on your lack of effort to be persuasive or informative (or, really, anything but insulting) I have to infer that you're not here to even attempt to teach, either, so it seems to me that you're just here to listen to the sound of your own voice and feel superior to those of us who disagree with you. So far, I'm not impressed.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:33 am
11 Dec 2006
Atreyar,
So you're using 'regret' to refer to something unpleasant that you feel you should do because of some other reason. Like, "I regret that I cannot attend your party because I have jury duty that day." That's a valid definition.
When used in conjunction with remorse, I think it points to the usage I was emphasizing. From wikipedia, "Remorse is an emotion experienced by one who feels they have committed an action contrary to their moral code. It is characterised by feelings of regret, self-hatred and a desire to make the wrong thing right."
As I was saying, if I know I am going to regret something in a remorseful way, then it means I should not do it because it contradicts my ethical values.
However, I'm not going to fight over definitions. I think we both understand what each other means.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:53 am
11 Dec 2006
I don't know how the value of a young rat weighs against the environmental cost of driving a 1996 geo metro five miles. It may well be a question without a definite answer. I considered 'giving' it to one of our cats, whose job it is to eat mice and small rats, but I thought that would be a recipe for trouble.
If the cat would've caught the rat, I would've felt that I helped too much and would have to accept blame for killing. (Opening the cage with a cat standing at the door just isn't fair to the rat, and the cats only meat is what they catch.) However, there would've also been a good chance that the cat would miss the rat because it didn't initiate the hunt. (The nearest cat was interested, but also fairly distracted.) So then the rat would get away, probaly to the house.
I feel pretty good about capturing rats by my house and driving them to the woods.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:38 am
11 Dec 2006
go to hell
you do nothing but curse at me, so go to hell
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:13 am
11 Dec 2006
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:46 am
11 Dec 2006
Once removed from their home territory such animals become very stressed and have to quickly locate resources they depend on. If they are transported to an area already occupied by the same species, they will probably find themselves immediately in conflict with someone else who has already established a territory and one or the other will lose its life -- if not in a fight over territory, perhaps by being marginalized and further stressed or unable to acquire food and shelter.
Perhaps this is better for the rat... at least he has a fightening chance. And I guess one might care little about any rats already in the state forest. They probably don't belong there and spend their summers eating bird eggs. Let them work out their differences.
But there are other effects as well. I'm not sure rats naturally live in forests, or have become naturalized to forests if they are European or Asian. This means that a few natives will likely suffer before the rat's time in the forest ends. He might be feeding on scraps found around your home, but have to resort to other food in the forest... say small birds, mammals, and reptiles that were minding their own business until the rat showed up (like Native Americans before the Europeans showed up). The local wildlife might not be used to coping with rats.
The state government might even severerly punish someone caught dumping pests in a state forest if there are endangered species in the area.
Just food for thought. Please do not take it personally.
I live in a rural area and am not fond of people taking their problems to "the country" for someone else to deal with. Ther person moving the animal might feel good, but it is generally not good for the animals or the those who meet them when they are dropped out of the blue.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:28 am
11 Dec 2006
He probably figured nobody would care if he dumped a bunch of weeds in the middle of what he considered nowhere. Well, it happens to be somwhere, somewhere I care about and have invested time and money into restoring for the benefit of native wildlife.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:51 am
11 Dec 2006
I appreciate hearing your views on this (and anyone else should feel free to offer theirs).
I probably should say that rats move into the walls of our house (which is more than 100 years old) every winter, where they do things like eat holes in walls, chew wires, and really make a nasty mess. Mice too, with their droppings in every hidden place. I've woken up in the night several times to the sound of rats loudly chewing on the other side of the wall near my head, or my wife pounding on the wall to get them to go away. Once we awoke to the sound of a rat dragging a dry cocont shell down the wooden staircase. It's a little much, IMHO.
Outside, it's quite rural, and we have a NWF certified backyard wildlife habitat on just under 5 acres. I have no problem with mice or rats in the barn. Sometimes I drop a handful of the sheep's grain on the floor for them. However, the shed is ony about 10 meters away from the house, and there seems to be several rats still living there.
I think it's reasonable to do something to limit the rats coming into the house each winter. Most people poison them, I presume. To me, rats behavior does not justify poison.
Perhaps there are ideas that haven't occurred to me. Any suggestions?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:25 am
11 Dec 2006
Given that you home is over 100 years old, my advice is will be quite amusing for you but might be helpful for someone else. When we found mice in our house, I started by live trapping and releasing them about a thousand feet away. Someone told me to put a red dot on each of them so I could see how quickly they returned. I did not bother. Instead, I ripped out all the insulation from the basment and found the hole they were coming in through. Then I searched the entire outside of the foundation and house and filled every gap. Then I lived trapped and released them outside, never to be seen again. I tried the same in the garage, but freaked out a bit when I learned a live trap designed for mice also catches shrews... once baited with a mouse! Not a pleasant site.
Definitely PLEASE DON'T USE POISON. Owls and other predators are killed when they catch rodents that are poisoned but wander outside before dying. This only helps rodent populations grow in the long run.
Why do I think this is one of those moral conundrums? It might be time to put your family's welfare and the environment's welfare ahead of the individual rats and find a lethal solution. Letting them have free run of your house is not an option. And I don't think relocation is necessarily good -- though I could be wrong.
Aren't YOU more valuable to the environment than the rats are? Perhaps you can balance the moral equation by feeding the rats -- as long as they are not poisoned -- to some other organism. Set up a feeding station for scavengers? Never heard of it before, but there is always a first.
Wish I could help.
I encourage everyone interested in humane treatment of animals to provide suggestions for solving this sort of problem. (It is akin to the deer problem I've been trying to get opinions on.)
At the risk of sounding sarcastic, I wonder if anyone is working on birth control for rats. There was a report today... the Scots are trying birth control as a means for reducing the grey squirrel population. I missed the details as to how they are going about this. But if something could be fed to rats that prevented them from breeding it would reduce their population AND avoid harming predators who consume the rats.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:10 am
11 Dec 2006
I will try to think of a better option than releasing them in the woods. I used to simply take mice to the other side of the creek that passes through our backyard, but gave that up when I watched a mouse jump into the rushing, icy cold water, swim across in about 1 second, and run straight back to the house.
I'll be checking back in case anyone has more ideas.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:59 am
11 Dec 2006
Pandu remarkably wrote:
<<
If the cat would've caught the rat, I would've felt that I helped too much and would have to accept blame for killing.
>>
"If the cat HAD caught the rat." Condition past contrary to fact. Read your grammar!
"would've": very very weak. Do not write contractions, unless you are representing actual speech.
<<
(Opening the cage with a cat standing at the door just isn't fair to the rat, and the cats only meat is what they catch.)
>>
Gevalt. "Is not." And, "the cats'."
<< However, there would've also been a good chance that the cat would miss the rat because it didn't initiate the hunt.
>>?
Yuck. "Would have." Take your time. Also, "did not."
Paciencia, queridito. How about, "(If the Rat had sung the first bars of "Ridi Pagliaccio" distractingly just at that moment,) there would have been a good chance that the Cat might have missed the Rat, for precisely that reason ... "
The point is, "would" is way over-used in modern English. To be sure, we need it, we require it absolutely, sometimes. But we need to think about those situations.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:23 am
11 Dec 2006
It is difficult enough to present a coherent defense of one's views in minimal time and space (especially when one should be doing something else). I'm not sure watching every aspect of our grammar is necessary. The blogging thing is a new element and tends to follow different rules.
More specifically, let us look at the term ""would've". While you indicate, correctly, that it is very very weak, it could be considered appropriate here. Pandu probably is representing actual speech when he types.
That said, I understand the need for clear communication and will try to watch my own use of words and spelling more carefully. I hope you have undestood most of what I have tried to communicate. Poor grammar can certainly destroy an otherwise persuasive message.
And, once again -- if it is acceptable to start a sentence with "and" -- I apologize for the numerous misspellings appearing in my comments. It is not intended to irritate. It is a reflection of laziness and lack of attention to detail.
caniscandida, take care. I always look forward to reading your comments.
P.S. When someone selects a user name that begins with a lower case letter, should I avoid using it at the start of a sentence, leave it lower case at the start of a sentence, or capitalize it when it seems appropriate? This has bothered me for a long time.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:46 am
11 Dec 2006
As Patsy Cline would say: "Imagine that; ain't that a laugh."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:09 am
11 Dec 2006
Here is a link to an article about grey squirrels in Scotland. I'll have to learn more about this. If someone is not seriously studying this as a means of controlling pests like Eurasian rats they should be. I wonder whether bait and whatever hormone is necessary can be targeted to specific rodents so as to not threaten the local species.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16157523/
Permalink
benjamin2012 Posted 8:19 am
11 Dec 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:43 am
11 Dec 2006
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/8/93823/5936
Atreyger,
Go to Hell.
"Free range" as a term slapped on product labels is completely meaningless...
I was using the same phrasing because I found it funny to use that format. It was not directed at you, and I do not see a need for you to respond to a personal communication.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:22 am
11 Dec 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:37 am
11 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:37 pm
11 Dec 2006
Luckily, more and more people are seeing value in thinning understory trees. However, hardcore animal rights activists are also very vocal in fighting against forest management.
Any thoughts on how we can come to some solution that will satisfy everyone?
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:44 pm
11 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:53 pm
11 Dec 2006
Pandu:
We have had good luck with those sonic rodent repellers. They're electric, but you haven't mentioned being off the grid? That's the main problem I can see with them. Some of them work and some don't; I'm guessing you probably get what you pay for, because some of them seem so cheap it's hard to imagine there would be a rural house without them if they worked at that price. I don't remember the brand we used that worked, though. As far as I know they never bothered the cats or dogs in the house.
Caniscandida:
Totally with you on the grammar police thing, but I do wonder if it's necessary to worry about that here. That said, I have plenty of outlets for my grammar-police-ness (see: "Papers don't write themselves."), although you presumably do too--don't you have grading you should be doing? :)
Atreyger: Depending on one's belief system, it may not take your urging for me to end up among the damned. That said, you are welcome to wish me all the ill you are able; I certainly should be the last to restrict anyone's right to offend others. But if you want to participate in a conversation while offering nothing but offensive, belittling comments and statements of your own moral thoroughness, you can certainly expect me to continue to call you on it.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:15 am
13 Dec 2006
I'll have to look into the rodent repellers.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:15 am
13 Dec 2006
Adding to that preservationist mindset is the idea that bark beetles and fire, being parts of the natural world, are both "natural and beneficial". Yes, in a "natural" forest, they are but, today's forests are very, very far from the "natural" states found by our white man pioneers.
It's going to take money and hard work to diligently right the wrongs of the last millenium. We certainly don't have BILLIONS of dollars to spare to do these necessary tasks. We also don't have BILLIONS of dollars to waste on needless fire suppression. Why not aggressively pursue the concept behind "Healthy Forests" and use excess trees to fund the non-commercial work so desperately needed? Stop the frivilous lawsuits that target rules and procedures. Rely on sound science to direct how we proceed.
If you love animals, you need to save their habitat instead of "preserving" it into oblivion.
Scenic pics at http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:51 am
15 Dec 2006
Obviously, if ecosystems are gone so are the animals. But, where I disagree with many Grist readers is with the bizarre notion that once ecosystems are preserved somehow environmentalists disappear and have nothing to say about how the animals are actually treated who are now saved (e.g. it's ok to kill whales if they're not endanegered to make whale soup or to kill dolphins because they might or might not eat a few tuna.)
Also, I don't distinguish as much between "wild" nature and a factory farm- it's all the environment to me, and factory farms involve billions of sentient animals whose welfare we should consider.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:59 am
16 Dec 2006
I meant to comment on this and just didn't get around to it the other day, but as far as I know thinning does not enjoy a particularly good reputation among environmentalists, be they animal folks or not. Somehow the people doing the "thinning" always stand to gain the most financially from taking the biggest, healthiest trees, and leaving a lot of sickly, flammable undergrowth. Besides, thinning requires orders of magnitude more logging roads than does even plain old clearcutting.
If I'm misinformed on this, please correct me, but it's never been my impression that scientists really thought natural fires couldn't do the job on their own.
Permalink