A reply to Josh (Hi Josh!) after reading Jim Tantillo's response.
I think that both hunting (as management) and birth control are "after the
fact" ethical questions. Both require that you have previously answered the
question "Ought we control deer (read any species) population by direct
manipulation?" with an affirmative, then the ethical question(s) become on
how, when, who, what, how many, etc. The basic question of human/deer
interaction however is the same.
Immunocontracetion is the application of a modern technological fix, hunting
is an extension of a cultural norm which, as best we know, has always
existed between deer and humans. I realize that most modern hunting is
heavily technological and Aldo Leopold bemoaned that, but the relationship
remains the same regardless.
In a similar question, Holmes Rolston questioned the use of medicine to
stave off a die-off of Bighorn sheep in Yellowstone due to "red eye," (I
think). Rolston argued against this as and intrusion into a natural process.
If you take hunting at the cultural level, it is "natural" as any
predator/prey relationship. Immunocontraception is another issue altogether.
There is no "natural" precedence or equivalence that I can think of. So,
let's say we do neither, hunting or immunocontraception and allow "nature"
to control deer populations. Is that the most satisfactory approach
ethically? I would argue not, hunting, it's ethical conundrums remains an
acceptable relationship between human and animals, immunocontraception
cannot be viewed as anything other than a disruption of the beauty,
stability and integrity of the biotic community (sorry about that). I do
feel that immunocontraception in some populations will be necessary. But it
is difficult to argue that hunting can be eliminated because
immunocontraception is available.
sb
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
Paul Shepard
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of JOSH WINCHELL
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 8:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Ethics of immunocontraception?
I am curious if discussions regarding the ethics of immunocontraception for
wildlife management has occurred at some point on this list? If so, where
in the archives could this thread be found? If not, I would be very
interested in moving such a thread along.
There has already been a good deal of discussion between hunters and
anti-hunters about the RELATIVE merits and drawbacks of immunocontraception
and sport hunting as management tools. However, discussion about the ethics
of wildlife birth-control is very hard to find.
It seems such a discussion might focus on a few areas.
Practical matters:
- PZP, the most promising wildlife immunocontraceptive, is made from pig
ovaries. These ovaries are not obtained solely from those pigs who decided
to pursue family/litter planning.
- Live-trapping wild animals to hand-inject contraceptive is stressful to
the animal and can lead to stress-related mortality in some cases.
Wildlife rights:
- From an A-R perspective, how are wildlife reproductive rights handled? Do
such rights even exist?
- What about pursuit of happiness? (In reference to those deer and feral
horses & burros who are American citizens)
- Any different from a animal welfare perspective?
Cleveland Amory apparently wasn't too concerned about rights issues when he
stated, "Prey will be separated from predator, and there will be no
overpopulation or starvation because all will be controlled by sterilization
or implant."
Other angles:
In general, where do enviro-ethics thinkers (that's means you) fall out on
the use of biotechnology for long-term management of wildlife populations?
What does this say about our relationship with the natural world?
Looking forward to hearing to hearing your thoughts.
-Joshua
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
