Hunting in the name of conservation - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-28T10:37:18Zhttps://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/hunting-in-the-name-of-conservation?commentId=4715978%3AComment%3A81092&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHere's a recent article on th…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-02-01:4715978:Comment:810922012-02-01T15:41:05.849ZTim Gierhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>Here's a recent article on this same topic: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/big-game-can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/big-game-can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/</a></p>
<p>Here's a recent article on this same topic: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/big-game-can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/big-game-can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/</a></p> Thanks for posting this. I s…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-01-25:4715978:Comment:804742012-01-25T10:46:13.500ZKerry Bakerhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/KerryBaker
<p>Thanks for posting this. I suggest the next logical step for wildlife is land rights. If we consider for example the history of white settlement in countries like Australia (where I live) and Africa and the U.S.A., it was based on disenfranchising the indigenous peoples of those countries. As we move forward on animal rights I believe we need to place animals on a par with these rights that once we denied other humans. These indigenous peoples were driven off their land based on an…</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this. I suggest the next logical step for wildlife is land rights. If we consider for example the history of white settlement in countries like Australia (where I live) and Africa and the U.S.A., it was based on disenfranchising the indigenous peoples of those countries. As we move forward on animal rights I believe we need to place animals on a par with these rights that once we denied other humans. These indigenous peoples were driven off their land based on an assumption of inferiority, and I see many parallels with these struggles. With respect to the article, to me there seems something rather suspicious about what this person is claiming to be the case. I question the name 'game' warden which, and please correct me if I am wrong, seems to imply that he is managing a place where animals are intended to be hunted. Not very well written which also suggests that this is not a person with much of an education. Highly dubious defence all up.</p> Thanks Carolyn and Tim for yo…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-01-25:4715978:Comment:805512012-01-25T10:08:50.146ZSiddharth Iyerhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/SiddharthIyer
<p>Thanks Carolyn and Tim for your replies. </p>
<p>I completely agree that our population is at the root of all our problems. I remember Learie Keith mentioning that the ideal human population the Earth can sustain with our present lifestyle is 4 million (which was about the only thing worth acknowledging in her entire book). I agree with Tim that controlling population is a slow process and cannot be looked at as an immediate solution to the problem. Realistically, population will continue to…</p>
<p>Thanks Carolyn and Tim for your replies. </p>
<p>I completely agree that our population is at the root of all our problems. I remember Learie Keith mentioning that the ideal human population the Earth can sustain with our present lifestyle is 4 million (which was about the only thing worth acknowledging in her entire book). I agree with Tim that controlling population is a slow process and cannot be looked at as an immediate solution to the problem. Realistically, population will continue to increase in the near future and, keeping our greater goal to detach ourselves from the lives of other animals and allow them to live life in freedom and on their own terms, we should maybe accept the fact that all our actions right now and our present lifestyle are contributing to the destruction of life and habitats and look to do what's in the best interest of the planet and all its species in the moment? Like domestication, our greater goal is to end enslavement and the use of all animals for our benefit, but the animals that are already here need our protection. We are obligated to act in the their self interest because, we like it or not, it's a human world out there. I am not being a human supremeist, I'm only acknowledging the fact that we are controlling the planet, the environment and all life that depends on it. All the animals are bound by our rules, slaves to our reason and our acts kindness or violence. In a ideal world, we should leave the animals alone and let them live their lives on their own terms, but it isn't an ideal world. That being the case, can there be an argument against helping an injured animal in the wild? Willem Botha talks about killing lions infected with bovine tuberculosis. I agree that we have no right to take the life of another sentient being, but is it really wrong to intervene and treat them? I understand that these diseases exist in the frequency that they do as a direct result of human influence and a reduction in our population is again a long term solution to it. But since it exists now, shouldn't we take responsibility to the suffering we have caused and intervene to save lives, if that is the best thing to do for the animal? </p>
<p>I agree with you, Carolyn, that trying to influence the lives of free animals is an act of human supremacy and I doubt any of the "hunters for conservation" people have a noble agenda at all. I think wild animals are just as bound and just as dependent on our choices and actions. So, I find it hard to argue that we should completely detach ourselves from them right now and maybe help them in the best ways we can, possibly including intervening into their lives and, as Tim mentioned, control the number of animals through contraception, if that will protect them from the actions of our species right now.</p> I don't think there is any re…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-01-25:4715978:Comment:805482012-01-25T08:55:33.286ZCarolyn Baileyhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
<p>I don't think there is any reason for humans to interfere with free living individuals, as I believe that every attempt we have made to do so in the past has ended in tragedy. But, separate to that, I think it is a shocking position of arrogance and human supremacy to believe that we have a right or an obligation to interfere in the lives of other species or the ecosystems in order to somehow make things as humans believe they should be anyway. <br></br><br></br>I think hunters, as with all…</p>
<p>I don't think there is any reason for humans to interfere with free living individuals, as I believe that every attempt we have made to do so in the past has ended in tragedy. But, separate to that, I think it is a shocking position of arrogance and human supremacy to believe that we have a right or an obligation to interfere in the lives of other species or the ecosystems in order to somehow make things as humans believe they should be anyway. <br/><br/>I think hunters, as with all individuals who wish to defend their use of others, will continue to make excuses to justify their commodification and exploitation of other animals. Just like circus owners do, dog fighting organisers do and those who eat other animals do. <br/><br/> I think that human overpopulation is the root of all of the problems you have mentioned, and perhaps if we address that, rather than using other animals as the reason for the enormous habitat loss and over-use of resources on the planet, we may be able to work toward a solution. </p> 1) Considering that, with our…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-01-24:4715978:Comment:804372012-01-24T15:47:17.079ZTim Gierhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p><em>1) Considering that, with our population only increasing, animal-human conflict will be ever more frequent, how best are we to resolve the issue?</em></p>
<p>I know that many people who are deeply concerned with the lives of other animals think that the only way that we could ever resolve this issue would be for the human population to be radically reduced. I am sympathetic to that idea. It would make sense, on one level, for us, as a species, to limit our numbers in order to lessen our…</p>
<p><em>1) Considering that, with our population only increasing, animal-human conflict will be ever more frequent, how best are we to resolve the issue?</em></p>
<p>I know that many people who are deeply concerned with the lives of other animals think that the only way that we could ever resolve this issue would be for the human population to be radically reduced. I am sympathetic to that idea. It would make sense, on one level, for us, as a species, to limit our numbers in order to lessen our negative impact on the world. However, I think it's not a realistic solution to the problem and not one that could be achieved without draconian population control measures. We are going to have to figure out ways to live in the world, given the size that our population is likely to be. I think it's far less problematic to control populations of 'free-living animals' through contraceptive methods than it is to kill them. We ought not to substitute controlling other animals for controlling ourselves, but in the short run it seems better to me to prevent the "overpopulation" of other animals than would be to kill them or let them die agonizing deaths.</p>
<p><em><br/>2) Is it right to mercy kill an animal that is visibly suffering and cannot fend for itself? Do we have the right to intervene at all?</em></p>
<p>Is it right to euthanize a new born baby who is born with terrible physical maladies? Is it right to withhold extraordinary life-sustaining technologies when all that those technologies do is prolong suffering and delay death? I think it could be right to do those things, and I believe that parents, in consultation with their physicians currently do do those things. If it is sometimes right to do those things when it comes to human infants, then it sometimes must also be right to do those things when it comes to other animals.</p>
<p><em>3) We as a species have already unbalanced nature, predator pray ratio and things like that. Knowing that there is no changing that, is there any truth to the fact that hunting could indeed improve habitats and allow them to support more life? I know that it completely fails when looked through the animal rights perspective. I just want to know why so many conservationists believe in hunting and why they look at it as a solution.</em></p>
<p>I am opposed to killing other conscious beings, except in such extreme cases where death would be a reprieve as noted above in response to #2. There are better ways to deal with the problems which humans beings have, in large part, created. We stand a better chance of finding better solutions when we take the option of killing off the table. </p>