Deer plague

[emordnilap]

You can't morally absolve yourself like that of the hard choices that being a human forces on you.

Gosh, where did I do that? Besides, Steve, I suggested a way of bringing down deer populations, which is the original thread.

[Little John]

You can't morally absolve yourself like that of the hard choices that being a human forces on you.

Steve, I suggested a way of bringing down deer populations.

And I believe I have shown in previous posts how that way causes more suffering to both deer and to the other organisms that share the same eco-system as the deer.

See specifically:

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, deer will typically die of auto-mobile 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 deer 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 deer. 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 deer 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.

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.

Since you have not directly contested the above, I am bound to ask why you would prefer a method of population control that causes more suffering than it otherwise needs to?

I'm sorry, but I just think you are simply being squeamish and that squeamishness is causing you to be morally cowardly about this. But, you are hiding that moral cowardice from yourself under the cover of anthropomorphising the psychology of deer. In particular, by making an erroneous assumption that they have the ability to existentially value their future existence in the same way that humans do via the capacity of, primarily, language.

[vtsnowedin]

You might find this paper interesting.
http://www.nps.gov/fiis/naturescience/u ... ashore.pdf
Results are on page 5 Cost of $64 per treatment excluding labor tells the tale.

[emordnilap]

And I believe I have shown in previous posts how that way causes more suffering to both deer and to the other organisms that share the same eco-system as the deer.

I wasn't convinced. I also found I had a life outside PS.

See specifically:

If left to live till they die of "natural" causes, deer will typically die of auto-mobile 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.

Steve, this last sentence seems to be saying, "Shooting them is better than contraception because, with contraception, the living ones will die of natural causes, some of which are not particularly nice." In fact, it's obvious that many are not dying of unnatural causes. Sorry if I've misunderstood.

Given all of the above and given we have too many deer 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 deer. 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 deer 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.

I do remember they are not humans, don't worry. And it's still not good enough to say they'll die a nasty death unless we shoot them. They're alive, apparently there's too many of them! So...

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.

But anyway, if the excess were shot and contraception were used from thereon, you'd be ok with that?

Since you have not directly contested the above

See above.

I'm sorry, but I just think you are simply being squeamish and that squeamishness is causing you to be morally cowardly about this. But, you are hiding that moral cowardice from yourself under the cover of anthropomorphising the psychology of deer. In particular, by making an erroneous assumption that they have the ability to existentially value their future existence in the same way that humans do via the capacity of, primarily, language.

One thing I don't do is anthropomorphise. Humans anthropomorphise themselves too much! We're no less nor no more than other animals, a view I hold in a minority. Tough.

As for animals 'valuing their future existence', I don't know - but their behaviour seems to suggest they value their current existence.

[Little John]

And I believe I have shown in previous posts how that way causes more suffering to both deer and to the other organisms that share the same eco-system as the deer.

I wasn't convinced. I also found I had a life outside PS.

See specifically:

If left to live till they die of "natural" causes, deer will typically die of auto-mobile 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.

Steve, this last sentence seems to be saying, "Shooting them is better than contraception because, with contraception, the living ones will die of natural causes, some of which are not particularly nice." In fact, it's obvious that many are not dying of unnatural causes. Sorry if I've misunderstood.

Given all of the above and given we have too many deer 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 deer. 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 deer 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.

I do remember they are not humans, don't worry. And it's still not good enough to say they'll die a nasty death unless we shoot them. They're alive, apparently there's too many of them! So...

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.

But anyway, if the excess were shot and contraception were used from thereon, you'd be ok with that?

Since you have not directly contested the above

See above.

I'm sorry, but I just think you are simply being squeamish and that squeamishness is causing you to be morally cowardly about this. But, you are hiding that moral cowardice from yourself under the cover of anthropomorphising the psychology of deer. In particular, by making an erroneous assumption that they have the ability to existentially value their future existence in the same way that humans do via the capacity of, primarily, language.

One thing I don't do is anthropomorphise. Humans anthropomorphise themselves too much! We're no less nor no more than other animals, a view I hold in a minority. Tough.

As for animals 'valuing their future existence', I don't know - but their behaviour seems to suggest they value their current existence.

The point you made about culling and then contraceptive has made me stop and think...

I guess I would still say that killing periodically would be better overall. Although I would probably prefer it to be on the basis of hunting with strict rules that limited the resources at the disposal of the hunter rather than the more indiscriminate mass shooting. The reason being that such limitations would allow the young, the bright and the healthy to survive leaving only the old, the sick and the stupid to die at the hands of the hunters. This would allow the deer population to remain healthy overall by mimicking what would happen to them in the presence of a "natural" predator.

The fundamental problem with blanket contraception is that it does not discriminate for fitness.

[kenneal - lagger]

How on earth are you going to know which animals you have darted? Are you suggesting catching and marking them all? And what about the cost of about £50 per throw as VT has suggested? And what about the unseen consequences that crop up with all unnatural human interventions? At least with shooting we have had several hundred years of experience.

If animals have a right to life, what about a right to procreate? It's one of our human rights so why should an animal be different? It's all just a load of vegetarian/vegan bunny hugging as far as I'm concerned. Squeamishness gone mad!

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, I have to say it has been an interesting discussion. I am surprised at the strength of disagreement. It's a highly-polarised discussion - more so than I had expected. I thought most people here would accept that culling them and using the meat was the most sensible response.

My priorities are sustainability and trying to restore the best ecological balance we can. And that means culling and eating, not faffing around with contraceptives on suspect ethical grounds.

[emordnilap]

If animals have a right to life, what about a right to procreate? It's one of our human rights so why should an animal be different?

Good point, ken.

[emordnilap]

And the cost...I knew that would be thrown up. Yes, the monetary aspect. Therein lies the problem.

I thought most people here would accept that culling them and using the meat was the most sensible response.

I could have told you it would be the most popular. But I agree, almost every post contributed something interesting...

I have to admit, you and Steve can be formidable argufyiers sometimes. Tell me, were either of you part of a debating society at any time?

[Little John]

And the cost...I knew that would be thrown up. Yes, the monetary aspect. Therein lies the problem.

I thought most people here would accept that culling them and using the meat was the most sensible response.

I could have told you it would be the most popular. But I agree, almost every post contributed something interesting...

I have to admit, you and Steve can be formidable argufyiers sometimes. Tell me, were either of you part of a debating society at any time?

Don't mind me E, I'm just an argumentative git. In other words, while I'm breathing, I quite like disputation for its own sake and so I suppose I'm quite practised at it. After all, the grave will provide plenty of time for silence.

[vtsnowedin]

If you don't come to an effective solution to the problem some disease will solve it for you. Bovine TB is a leading candidate which is present in the UK.
The state of Michigan had an out break of TB in their deer herd back in the late 90's. They solved it by banning the feeding and baiting of deer and having hunters cull the herd severely with as much as one tag per day allowed with no limit of tags you could get for free and fill. notice the number harvested
From Wiki'

United States of AmericaIn the United States, M. bovis is endemic in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the northeastern portion of Michigan and northern Minnesota, and sporadic import of the disease from Mexico. The white-tailed deer has been confirmed as the sole maintenance host in the Michigan outbreak of bovine tuberculosis, which remains a significant barrier to the US nationwide eradication of the disease in livestock. In 2008, 733,998 licensed deer hunters harvested approximately 489,922 white-tailed deer in attempts to control the disease spread. These hunters purchased more than 1.5 million deer harvest tags. The economic value of deer hunting to Michigan’s economy in the drive to eradicate TB is substantial. For example, in 2006, hunters spent US$507 million hunting white-tailed deer in Michigan

Also from the state website some history and legislation passed to stop the spread of the disease.
http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdisease ... --,00.html
This was not done without controversy and a lot of hand wringing but leaders felt it had to be done.

[woodburner]

If you don't come to an effective solution to the problem some disease will solve it for you. Bovine TB is a leading candidate which is present in the UK.
The state of Michigan had an out break of TB in their deer herd back in the late 90's.

It's been known in the UK since the 1970s to my knowledge, and may well have been before, that deer were a vector for BTB. There hasn't been the publicity that has been given to the wicked badger

[emordnilap]

I'm just an argumentative git.

At least you have arguments, as opposed to those who fart and run.

[peaceful_life]

Reintroduce the wolf and the lynx where enough habitat allows.

[UndercoverElephant]

Reintroduce the wolf and the lynx where enough habitat allows.

Very unlikely to happen.