UndercoverElephant wrote:then their numbers will naturally decline until we don't have to administer so much contraception.
Contraception would probably have to be administered occasionally and, if the purpose is solely to control numbers, there's not much wrong with the method. Indeed, it seems to me far preferable to maintaining a 'killing culture', having yet more live ammunition in circulation. Not that I'd like to be accidentally hit by a dart - but even less so than a bullet.
UndercoverElephant wrote:All this just so there are old deer running around the countryside instead of young ones?
Again, the idea, on the surface at any rate, is to reduce population numbers of deer. Therefore please forgive me for finding that a very odd sentence.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
UndercoverElephant wrote:then their numbers will naturally decline until we don't have to administer so much contraception.
Contraception would probably have to be administered occasionally and, if the purpose is solely to control numbers, there's not much wrong with the method.
UndercoverElephant wrote:All this just so there are old deer running around the countryside instead of young ones?
Again, the idea, on the surface at any rate, is to reduce population numbers of deer. Therefore please forgive me for finding that a very odd sentence.
If we are agreed that the deer population needs to be significantly reduced in order to reduce the suffering that is occurring right now in the rest of the eco-system as a consequence of their current population size and if we further agree that this should be done in such a way as to minimise the suffering of deer, then explain why you think that contraceptives will cause less suffering to deer than killing a significant number of them over a short time frame and why the far longer time-scale of population reduction inherent in a program of contraception will cause less suffering to the rest of the eco-system than would a quick cull of a significant number of the deer right now.
Last edited by Little John on 13 Mar 2013, 19:55, edited 3 times in total.
Bloody stupid petition! I should start a petition to stop the petition.
As JSD said the wolf is its natural predator so we either re-introduce wolves or we shoot them ourselves. they are a natural source of high quality protein so I think it better that we shoot and eat them ourselves as we already do, but to a greater extent..
I don't eat a lot of meat as I think the whole farming system is a bit bonkers, when it come to meat production, but if there's venison on the menu I tend to go for it.
UndercoverElephant wrote:then their numbers will naturally decline until we don't have to administer so much contraception.
Contraception would probably have to be administered occasionally and, if the purpose is solely to control numbers, there's not much wrong with the method. Indeed, it seems to me far preferable to maintaining a 'killing culture', having yet more live ammunition in circulation. Not that I'd like to be accidentally hit by a dart - but even less so than a bullet.
I sort of understand where you are coming from, but I don't make the same connection as you between killing deer for food (especially if we have an overpopulation problem) and other sorts of killing (including killing of animals for pleasure (fox hunting) and obviously the killing of humans.) For me, these are two different things, and I see nothing wrong with killing deer for food. I'm against suffering, but I have no problem with killing in these circumstance.
Humans are naturally carnivorous.
UndercoverElephant wrote:All this just so there are old deer running around the countryside instead of young ones?
Again, the idea, on the surface at any rate, is to reduce population numbers of deer. Therefore please forgive me for finding that a very odd sentence.
What is odd about it?
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
You can get "sent down" from Uni here for eating the ducks/geese that cheerfully foul the footpaths...and that are all discreetly whisked away to places unknown whenever the Uni has an open day or graduation. Or the Synod.
But someone here once murdered a person, and they were (apparently) allowed to resume their degree studies after they'd served their sentence.
But if population control is necessary, shouldn’t all alternatives be exhausted before such drastic steps are taken - like contraception, for example?
Noooo!! We need them for food! They are thriving in upland areas with poor quality soil, where it is difficult to rear other livestock or grow crops. They are a useful way to make such land productive.
Land is never "unproductive" (or "derelict" while we're about it), it is just not making money or giving other benefit when exploited by humans.
The deer may be in such numbers that they are adversely affecting other wildlife, but something near a balance would be achieved by using, say, wolves. That approach is only a problem if humans want it all for themselves.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:Land is never "unproductive" (or "derelict" while we're about it), it is just not making money or giving other benefit when exploited by humans.
The deer may be in such numbers that they are adversely affecting other wildlife, but something near a balance would be achieved by using, say, wolves. That approach is only a problem if humans want it all for themselves.
Completely agree with this in principle.
However, since wolves are extremely unlikely in practice in the short to medium term to be re-introduced into the British countryside, we still have the problem of too many deers destroying to much of the pathetic remains of what used to be a self-sustaining eco system. That problem can only be addressed by reducing the population size. If not by wolves, then how?
kenneal - lagger wrote:Bloody stupid petition! I should start a petition to stop the petition.
As JSD said the wolf is its natural predator so we either re-introduce wolves or we shoot them ourselves. they are a natural source of high quality protein so I think it better that we shoot and eat them ourselves as we already do, but to a greater extent..
Yes.
Shooting should of course be only done by those who legally hold a suitable gun, and not by inexperienced persons.
The total amount of venison resulting would be very small if compared to the total amount of meat eaten at present, but every little helps.
Even a slight reduction in meat imports is to be welcomed for both animal welfare and balance of payments reasons.
I would rather eat free range venison than intensively produced meat.
Deer are a natural part of the landscape but present numbers are generally accepted to be excessive.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger wrote:Bloody stupid petition! I should start a petition to stop the petition.
As JSD said the wolf is its natural predator so we either re-introduce wolves or we shoot them ourselves. they are a natural source of high quality protein so I think it better that we shoot and eat them ourselves as we already do, but to a greater extent..
Yes.
Shooting should of course be only done by those who legally hold a suitable gun, and not by inexperienced persons.
The total amount of venison resulting would be very small if compared to the total amount of meat eaten at present, but every little helps.
Even a slight reduction in meat imports is to be welcomed for both animal welfare and balance of payments reasons.
I would rather eat free range venison than intensively produced meat.
Deer are a natural part of the landscape but present numbers are generally accepted to be excessive.
I think we should be careful here, guns notwithstanding, that we do not end up saying that only the "right" kinds of people should be allowed to take deer.
But if population control is necessary, shouldn’t all alternatives be exhausted before such drastic steps are taken - like contraception, for example?
Noooo!! We need them for food! They are thriving in upland areas with poor quality soil, where it is difficult to rear other livestock or grow crops. They are a useful way to make such land productive.
They are also thriving in lowland areas with good soil. Everywhere but Lincolnshire by the sound of it.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
UndercoverElephant wrote:All this just so there are old deer running around the countryside instead of young ones?
Again, the idea, on the surface at any rate, is to reduce population numbers of deer. Therefore please forgive me for finding that a very odd sentence.
What is odd about it?
Well, I don't understand it for one thing.
Not that it really matters, we're on opposite sides here. You and most others believe that deer/elephants/kangaroos/whatever-you're-having-yourself are a 'resource' to be exploited, commodified under that hideous term 'environmental services'; I see them as beings with an internal/external life which they want to prolong. In fact we're further apart than that, I believe they have a right to their life, just as nowadays we (well, most of us) believe Africans have.
I'm in agreement that humans have created a problem for themselves and feel they have to manage that problem.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I wrote:
Again, the idea, on the surface at any rate, is to reduce population numbers of deer. Therefore please forgive me for finding that a very odd sentence.
What is odd about it?
Well, I don't understand it for one thing.
Not that it really matters, we're on opposite sides here. You and most others believe that deer/elephants/kangaroos/whatever-you're-having-yourself are a 'resource' to be exploited, commodified under that hideous term 'environmental services'; I see them as beings with an internal/external life which they want to prolong. In fact we're further apart than that, I believe they have a right to their life, just as nowadays we (well, most of us) believe Africans have.
I'm in agreement that humans have created a problem for themselves and feel they have to manage that problem.
You can't morally absolve yourself like that of the hard choices that being a human forces on you. If the deer population is not controlled then other organisms suffer. Do not those other organisms have a right to life?
We have destroyed the natural equilibrium of eco-systems. What remains of them on this collection of islands must now be managed by us. We must take the place of Darwinian section with all of its brutal implications.
