Jim Tantillo wrote
*****
Josh Winchell helpfully asked: "What does this say about our relationship
with the natural world?" I'm not sure immunocontraception is the perfectly
humane panacea the animal rights community so desperately wants it to be,
nor is it an environmentally sound foundation for a totalistic approach to
wildlife management, the views of Alan Rutberg and the late Cleveland Amory
notwithstanding.
*****
Jim,
Your points, Josh's as well are well-taken. Obviously, if we regulated with
birth control every single population of plant and animal in the food chain we
would have a mess. That said, remember, that hunting is not exactly hands off
either. The problem came of course, when we ran off the non-human preditors,
bisected greenways, and took most of the good areas for ourselves. So it
already was messed up and tampered with before we even started talking about
immunocontraception. Again, this exactl method may not be the absolute best.
Absolutely perfect humane hunting, wouldn't be bad, but same goes with
absolute side-effect free contraception. It is in the practice that it gets
messed up. The hunter never seems to cause immediate unconsciousness, and bow
hunters usually don't even come close. Overall, the idea of a hunter is not
intending to be kind, so it rightly raises our suspicions as to his concern
for the welfare of the animal. There may be some hunters who do care a great
deal about the feelings and suffering of the animals, and to those I
apologize. Thanks for you excellent comments Jim
Jamey
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|