I am starting this thread to get peoples opinions on when animal rights and wildlife conservation come into conflict. What I am referring to is when one species has to be removed or its numbers drastically decreased to preserve another species.

There are countless examples if anyone needs some such as big horn sheep and mountain lions, feral cats and song birds, etc.

I frequently get into this debate with other biologists that animal rights activists impede species management. Although, I am not a card carrying ARA I do believe in the movement but I am also a firm believer in protecting/managing wild populations. People find my views to be conflicting but I find this to be a gray issue.

I want to know what you guys (ARA) think about this issue. Do you support management programs that entail killing one species to save another? If you do not what alternatives do you propose?

Is this an animal rights issue for you guys/gals?

Not that you claimed otherwise, but "wildlife management"* isn't of course limited to questions about helping one species at the expense of another, but also entails killing members of a species to help the same species as a whole, which is what people argue about e.g. deer hunting.

Broadly speaking, I'm more on the anti-"management" side. This is because AR often emphasizes individual animals. I also think our principled opposition to aggressive measures controlling the human population (despite all the overpopulation and catastrophic consequences to ecosystems) tells me something about "managing" other populations.

I don't think biodiversity has any relevance per se, it has value only to the extent that it affects the well-being of sentient populations.

*these kind of words abstract away from the killing that occurs, enforce the image of our dominion over other species and IMO generally downplay the fact that each sentient animal has his/her own individual life and view on the world.

On the issue of deer hunting I would use the word management with caution. Because I do not think deer populations are managed. Deer hunting does reduce deer numbers and mitigates many of the problems that an oversized population would have. Buts it is not management because the problem is never solved. A deer management program would entail reintroducing predators to many areas. But then again that will not completely solve the problem.

However, there are legitimate management programs. Tell me what you think of these examples.

Shooting Red Tailed Hawks that share the same habitat as the Puerto Rican Amazon
Shooting Mountain Lions that feed on Big Horned Sheep in the Sierra Nevadas

Is it our responsibility to correct the mistakes we have imposed on wild animals?

Sorry, for posting this three times I was a little zealous with the enter button. Hopefully someone will fix it.

Sorry, for posting this three times I was a little zealous with the enter button. Hopefully someone will fix it.

No sweat. :)

Animal People News has featured some excellent articles and editorials on the subject of killing one species to "save" another. Animal and conservation advocates and would do well to check them out.
Here are just a few articles. For more info, search the Animal People site.

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/02/11/editorial1102.html

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/7.8/eradicatingFox78.03.html

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/10/muteSwan10.03.html

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/99/2/war_on_ferals.html

Tough issue, if we're responsible for throwing nature out of balance, causing yet more suffering/killing doesn't seem right at all.

Deer hunting does reduce deer numbers and mitigates many of the problems that an oversized population would have.


I strongly disagree with this statement.

It is my belief that commercial hunting is the reason for most of these ‘problems’

I don't see the point in wildlife conservation. As if we can unf**k all the problems we've caused / are causing. Besides, we're not killing us, and what else does that much damage?

Thx for those links. Pretty neat site.

I really can't believe some of the things I am reading. What on earth is going on?
We are the reason for the destruction of ANY species here. Us humans are the reason for any kind of global warming & extinction of species.
Last time I checked a cow or lemur isn't driving a hummer or polluted the water by illegally dumping sewage. Don't even get me started on sprawl. :notvegan:

That Alpaca Guy,

Deer overpopulation is caused by a multitude of problems but mainly the removal of predators and the conversion of land to agriculture. Therefore, the deer live in habitat that has no predators (besides humans) and a huge food supply.

As I stated before I do not believe the term "management" is applicable to deer populations. A management program would entail a comprehensive attempt to restore deer habitat and maintain a complete food web.

I never thought I would hear the comment

"I don't see the point in wildlife conservation"

I do not know where to begin with that one.

I never thought I would hear the comment

"I don't see the point in wildlife conservation"

I do not know where to begin with that one.

DITTO. :sick:

An interesting corollary issue is that of humane management of pest species.
Here, the AUS possum is a terrible introduced pest that devours large areas of native forest. Some people have suggested that it's better to shoot and trap it, rather than drop poison baits despite the innefectiveness of these first measures. Our local science organizations are working on developing strains of virus which will render the possums sterile without causing them harm. I consider this by far the best solution from a humane perspective.

In saying this I'm not endorsing culling of native species - fishermen are always complaining locally about seal populations being too big, but this is obviously because fish stocks are kept so low by overfishing that seals compete for the same fish.

I never thought I would hear the comment

"I don't see the point in wildlife conservation"

I do not know where to begin with that one.

Well then, you go use resources on saving things we're just going to overrun, pollute and eliminate anyway, and I'll not.

That Alpaca Guy,

Deer overpopulation is caused by a multitude of problems but mainly the removal of predators and the conversion of land to agriculture. Therefore, the deer live in habitat that has no predators (besides humans) and a huge food supply.

As I stated before I do not believe the term "management" is applicable to deer populations. A management program would entail a comprehensive attempt to restore deer habitat and maintain a complete food web.

The removal of predators was a deliberate act, and White tailed Deer populations have been cultivated since they were nearly hunted to extinction early in the last century. I think you are using the term management to mean actions that have the interests of the Deer as there primary motivation, when I would use the term to mean anything that is deliberately executed with the intent of affecting the Deer, no matter what effect that is.

PS: call me TAG :)

I don't see the point in wildlife conservation. As if we can unf**k all the problems we've caused / are causing. Besides, we're not killing us, and what else does that much damage?


That's a pretty big point to not "get".

I don't see the point in wildlife conservation. As if we can unf**k all the problems we've caused / are causing. Besides, we're not killing us, and what else does that much damage?
Sometimes wildlife conservation efforts don't succeed in "unf**king all the problems we've caused," but sitting around on our arses doesn't seem to have much of a positive impact either.

No, but I really can't be bothered pretending to save the world just so people can screw it over with a clear conscience.

If they want to f**k it up, they can go ahead just like they have been. If they want to fix it, they can do it properly instead of dealing with all the tiny problems that are convenient, and making half assed attempts too late for everything else.

I don't see the point in wildlife conservation. As if we can unf**k all the problems we've caused / are causing. Besides, we're not killing us, and what else does that much damage?


There's some evidence we might be "killing us" in the not-too-distant future. Human fertility rates are dropping and not just in developed countries. Some people think this is a natural reaction to crowding and pollution. Also, destruction of our resource base is turning large sections of the Earth into desert, causing starvation and refugee populations, especially in parts of Africa.

Humans depend on ecosystems just like any other animal. We're just good at pretending we don't. If we destroy ecosystems and mess with the global climate on which we depend, we're making big problems for ourselves now and in the future.

I think you missed the point - nothing else does as much damage as humans, and yet we kill other animals because we want to 'save' the environment. I'm not sure if people believe that they're going to save the world like that, but the way I see it it just saves it from those animals so we can f**k it up instead.

Ok, yes, it's very likely I missed the point, I often do.

Humans have destroyed more ecosystems than other animals, certainly, even just by growing our food. The North American prairie ecosystem was destroyed by agriculture. Perhaps only 1% of this ecosystem remains. It was a very important carbon sink. No other animal has destroyed 99% of such an enormous ecosystem. The only thing remotely like it (but really nowhere near it in scale) is the destruction of ecosystems on some islands by introduction of goats, pigs, and rats.

No, but I really can't be bothered pretending to save the world just so people can screw it over with a clear conscience.

If they want to f**k it up, they can go ahead just like they have been. If they want to fix it, they can do it properly instead of dealing with all the tiny problems that are convenient, and making half assed attempts too late for everything else.
So helping the environment is everyone's job but yours? :stinkeye:

Everyone's job? Haha . . . don't kid yourself. Of the few people who do try to help the environment, I doubt many live in a way that they will not contribute to its ultimate destruction. The pitiful attempts we call helping are purely for peace of mind. Like most of our problems, we are very poorly equipped to deal with this.

But look on the bright side; new ecosystems and animals will evolve once we're gone.

Scratch,

Try looking at it from a broader perspective. Wildlife conservation has farther reaching implications then saving charismatic animals. There is a strong connection for maintaining ecological systems and the utilitarian needs of humans. Before you dismiss the entire field of applied ecology it might serve you well to crack few journals or books.

If you want to argue the effectiveness of individual campaigns you will have a much stronger argument. But to be completely apathetic to the "inevitable" I find quite disappointing.