So far the main discussion has been about shooting deer in some of the
green-belt areas around Boulder. There has been a bit of objections from
the local animal rights groups who want to "study" the problem before
any deer are killed. Mostly there is support for killing a certain
percentage of the deer, there is no way currently to tell if an animal
is CWD infected unless you kill it, and hope to reduce the infection
rate to near extinction. No-one really knows if this will work.
I find it interesting that "sharpshooters," whatever that may be, are
acceptable, but licensed hunters are not. That is clearly a value
judgment. Basically the option of using hunters meant that any deer/elk
killed would be tested, and if negative, the hunter could keep the meat.
I don't know what they intend to do with negative CWD animals with the
use of "sharpshooters." There is only a limited demand for game meat and
I believe it cannot be sold to restaurants.
I'll keep the list posted as things arise.
Steven
. . .in the last days he lost his appetite
and fed only on vegetables. He soon acquired
the forlorn look that one sees in vegetarians.
His skin became covered with a thin moss,
similar to that which flourished on the
antique vest that he never took off,
and his breath exhaled the odor of a
sleeping animal.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, 1967
One Hundred Years of Solitude
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [nature-net] Sharpshooting of deer reconsidered for north
part of county
Hello Steven B.,
You wrote, in part:
> It is, despite the tragedy, an interesting ethical question. What is
> the moral object; the individual or the species? Should diseases in
> wild animals be allowed to run a "natural" course? And so on.
For me, this is a most difficult question. I have an infestation of
southern pine beatle in my woods. I respond, up to now, by felling
those infected pines that might damage my animals or structures.
Otherinfected pines back in the property, I leave alone. My reasoning
is that there is some kind of *natural* cycle that humans should *try*
not to disrupt. That is, the cycle of pine beatle, pine death, the use
of those dead pines by other species (woodpeckers, other beetles, etc.)
is a normal and natural procession, leading to a regrowth of the native
pine... and so the cycle progresses. - I think, but don't know.
I seem to be contrary to the general wisdom of the "experts" here in
Florida. They seem to want not only to cut down the infected trees -
everywhere, I think - and remove and destroy them.
I also do not destroy rattle snakes, water mocassins, other venomous,
dangerous creatures; and, in fact, chastise those that I see doing that
in a gratuitous, indiscriminate manner. Again because I see that as
part of the natural cycle of which we are a part. Also, I don't think
that killing one creature or two, etc., does much to provide security to
humans, individually or collectively. On the other hand, I have no
compunction about killing an animal that might be threatening to me - a
rabid animal for example - including the human animal.
There are some different aspects concerning such diseases as CWD. Given
the limited level of knowledge that I have about such diseases, I am not
sure what the right approach might be, nor am I sure just what criteria
might be appropriate to making such a decision. My gut feeling is to be
negative (for reasons noted above), but as an ex-farmer/rancher, I have
conflicted perceptions.
For what it's worth.
Thanks Steven B. for initiating the discussions.
Ray
P.S. If necessary, I am fully in support of sharpshooting deer and
other animals that are clearly and unequivically a menace to the
environment and the several societies of planet earth... or more! :-) /R
|