At 09:46 AM 11/3/97 +0500, you wrote:
>Good morning everyone -
>
[snip]
>
>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 arguments for and against animal suffering always amaze me. With
the argument above, we (humans) must accept the responsibility for
introducing and, therefore, the devastation caused by feral pigs. The
argument is that, since humans brought the pigs to Hawaii, they much
therefore control their populations. How heroic of humans to decide to
protect native animals and kill those that were not originally born there.
Where, then, does the white man fall with regard to the United States?
In fact, where do African Americans fall? Why are we not removed from
this country to protect the American-Indian population? Or does such a
practice only fall in line with non-human populations?
And as for killing species to avoid suffering, how does such an argument
apply to the homeless and hungry in DC or other major cities in this
country?
Humane? I don't think so... it's just a word to justify profit-oriented
killing.
- Charlotte
>
>The struggle for a new society must include conservation based on both
>sound biology and good, progressive sociology. Thanks for listening - -
>
>Sue
>
>
