Good morning everyone -
In response to the good people questioning the justication for removal of
introduced species -
We don't live in a vacuum - we affect our world and its animals with every
decision and action we make or don't make. For every action, suffering
results; e.g., if you avoid animal products, you rely more heavily on
manmade materials - energy expensive and full of toxins. Use of fossil
fuels and synthetic toxins cause tremendous suffering (acid rain, direct
poisoning, loss of prey base, birth defects, etc. etc.).
The choice in feral animal control is not dichotomous - it is not suffering
or no suffering. Rather, it is an effort to reduce suffering of native
species through control (yes, enforced suffering) of non-natives. Animals
don't go endangered or extinct without suffering themselves! Pigs were
introduced to Hawaii by humans- on purpose. We put them there; we are
responsible for the suffering of native species that they bring about and
we are responsible for controlling their impacts. Technology is not going
to help us out much on this one-- while we may like to believe we have
surgical control over nature, it's really a little messy out there.
Removal should be as humane as possible, but the pigs do need to be removed.
The struggle for a new society must include conservation based on both
sound biology and good, progressive sociology. Thanks for listening - -
Sue
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 3 08:11:38 1997
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:13:33 +0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Susan Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: animal suffering
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
one more thing (please be patient)-
Not all suffering is needless. The pain you feel getting an inoculation or
antibiotic is thought to be worth it, to avoid or end the suffering of
illness. You may hurt yourself saving someone else's life, but the pain is
worth it, because the suffering you experienced is less than that you
avoided.
We make all kinds of decisions based on what is the lesser suffering - and
in my opinion, the suffering of feral pigs caused by removing them is less
than the suffering that is the result of their presence. How do you
quantify the pain of extinction - to the species, the ecosystem, the planet?
Have a good day -
Sue
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 3 09:04:29 1997
From: Kimberly Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: animal suffering
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:03:56 -0700 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Susan Daniels" at
Nov 3, 97 10:13:33 am
My question is: Why were the feral pigs introduced in the first place?
>
> one more thing (please be patient)-
>
> Not all suffering is needless. The pain you feel getting an inoculation or
> antibiotic is thought to be worth it, to avoid or end the suffering of
> illness. You may hurt yourself saving someone else's life, but the pain is
> worth it, because the suffering you experienced is less than that you
> avoided.
>
> We make all kinds of decisions based on what is the lesser suffering - and
> in my opinion, the suffering of feral pigs caused by removing them is less
> than the suffering that is the result of their presence. How do you
> quantify the pain of extinction - to the species, the ecosystem, the planet?
>
> Have a good day -
>
> Sue
>
