Deer plague

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Mar 2013, 16:06

UndercoverElephant wrote:What's the benefit of contraception??

To bring the population down? I thought that was the problem.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Mar 2013, 16:20

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:What's the benefit of contraception??
To bring the population down? I thought that was the problem.

No. Why is contraception a better solution to culling? It makes no sense to me. The most painless death a deer can have is to be shot. How else do you think most deer die? Road traffic accidents? Disease? Old age?

Contraception is not as good a solution, for multiple reasons. First, it's a waste of food. Second, it increases rather than decreases overall suffering. Third, it's less natural - less like the missing predators.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 13 Mar 2013, 16:28

Where I am, seeing a deer is still a rare occasion. Sometimes I'll spy one in a farmer's field, or at night when driving. But unless I go actively looking, it's pure chance. I've never seen one in someone's garden. As for damage to farms, well farmers are always crying.

Why can't a species not be allowed to thrive. If they're causing problems, it's because England is far too developed as it is. It's like birds of prey; it's important for wild life to exist and be seen. Another species to be used as a way of making money for a very small number of people. Another species that exists for the sole purpose of satisfying humans.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:00

Snail wrote: Why can't a species not be allowed to thrive.

For pretty much the same reasons we spend so much time talking about with respect to human overpopulation. Without natural predators, their numbers multiply to the point where they are causing widespread ecological damage. That is the whole point. That's why this is being done.

If they're causing problems, it's because England is far too developed as it is.

No. The problem is that we've exterminated their natural predators.

Another species to be used as a way of making money for a very small number of people. Another species that exists for the sole purpose of satisfying humans.

Not really. We are mainly talking about deer on public land here, and the forest commission is owned by the government, so it is not really private people profiting from this. It isn't about money this time. This really is about ecological damage caused by too many deer.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:15

UndercoverElephant wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:What's the benefit of contraception??
To bring the population down? I thought that was the problem.
No.

No it's not the problem?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why is contraception a better solution to culling? It makes no sense to me. The most painless death a deer can have is to be shot. How else do you think most deer die? Road traffic accidents? Disease? Old age?

I hold that all animals, including humans, have a right not to have their lives shortened unnecessarily. So, taking your side, it means shooting people is better than giving them contraception. I know you don't mean that but to some it is dichotomous thinking.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:27

emordnilap wrote:
woodburner wrote:As KL hinted, get back on topic.
OK.

http://tinyurl.com/cg6nfo7

Sorry E.

Not signed.

We do not live in a natural environment, we live in a wholly artificially created one. More's the pity.

What the above means, though, is that we must manage our environment. Indeed we have a moral duty to do so. Killing Bambi might not be very nice, but it is a necessary part of that management.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:31

It's not as if the deer's would sign a petition if it was us wot was being shot by them...

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:33

emordnilap wrote: I hold that all animals, including humans, have a right not to have their lives shortened unnecessarily. So, taking your side, it means shooting people is better than giving them contraception. I know you don't mean that but to some it is dichotomous thinking.

Nobody is shortening their lives unnecessarily. I have just explained why it is necessary!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:33

stevecook172001 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
woodburner wrote:As KL hinted, get back on topic.
OK.

http://tinyurl.com/cg6nfo7
Sorry E.

Not signed.

We do not live in a natural environment, we live in a wholly artificially created one. More's the pity.

What the above means, though, is that we must manage our environment. Indeed we have a moral duty to do so. Killing Bambi might not be very nice, but it is a necessary part of that management.

Points taken about the unnatural world we've created, but I see no persuasive argument there for shortening lives.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:34

UndercoverElephant wrote:
emordnilap wrote: I hold that all animals, including humans, have a right not to have their lives shortened unnecessarily. So, taking your side, it means shooting people is better than giving them contraception. I know you don't mean that but to some it is dichotomous thinking.

Nobody is shortening their lives unnecessarily. I have just explained why it is necessary!

Because there are too many of them?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:38

emordnilap wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
emordnilap wrote: OK.

http://tinyurl.com/cg6nfo7
Sorry E.

Not signed.

We do not live in a natural environment, we live in a wholly artificially created one. More's the pity.

What the above means, though, is that we must manage our environment. Indeed we have a moral duty to do so. Killing Bambi might not be very nice, but it is a necessary part of that management.
Points taken about the unnatural world we've created, but I see no persuasive argument there for shortening lives.

I guess I just don't have the same attitude to death as you do. Death, for me, is just part of the natural cycle of things.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:40

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
emordnilap wrote: I hold that all animals, including humans, have a right not to have their lives shortened unnecessarily. So, taking your side, it means shooting people is better than giving them contraception. I know you don't mean that but to some it is dichotomous thinking.

Nobody is shortening their lives unnecessarily. I have just explained why it is necessary!
Because there are too many of them?

OK. So you are going to say that once we've administered contraception to millions of deer, then their numbers will naturally decline until we don't have to administer so much contraception.

All this just so there are old deer running around the countryside instead of young ones?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:46

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
emordnilap wrote: To bring the population down? I thought that was the problem.
No.
No it's not the problem?
UndercoverElephant wrote:Why is contraception a better solution to culling? It makes no sense to me. The most painless death a deer can have is to be shot. How else do you think most deer die? Road traffic accidents? Disease? Old age?
I hold that all animals, including humans, have a right not to have their lives shortened unnecessarily. So, taking your side, it means shooting people is better than giving them contraception. I know you don't mean that but to some it is dichotomous thinking.

If you are presenting an argument for giving an oversized deer population contraceptives to reduce suffering, then I would suggest that such a policy would have the opposite effect.

If left to live till they die of "natural" causes, deers will typically die of automobile collisions, starvation due to incapacity to feed, starvation due to injury and/or any number of slow and painful diseases. If a deer is shot, it will die more or less instantly.

Given all of the above and given we have too many deers such that there is suffering occurring right now in the rest of what remains of our degraded eco-system, any humane solution should try and minimise the suffering of those surplus deers. Shooting them, will cause them less suffering as compared to the suffering they would experience if they die of natural causes. You have to remember, they are not humans. They are not going to suffer as a consequence of "anticipating" their upcoming demise. They will just carry on being deers until the day they die, be that tomorrow or be it in five year's time. Basically, they live in the moment as all animals without language must do. To be honest, I envy them that. It is we humans that have a special capacity for suffering.

Finally, there is the utilitarian argument that it is simply ridiculous to allow all of that deer meat to go to waste just because, frankly, some people are too morally cowardly to face up to the fact that we must manage our man-made eco-system.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:49

UndercoverElephant wrote:So you are going to say that once we've administered contraception to millions of deer

I thought the proposed killing was of 750,000. It sounds too high to start with but please don't ignore that figure.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Mar 2013, 17:52

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:So you are going to say that once we've administered contraception to millions of deer
I thought the proposed killing was of 750,000. It sounds too high to start with but please don't ignore that figure.

As I understand it, population models have indicated that, given their fertility rate, the deer population needs to be cut in half just to stabilise it.