South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
There is only so much area devoted to the conservation of these animals. You cannot be this unreasonable. There are situations and species which we simply cannot allow to proliferate in an uncontrolled manner. They would destroy the ecosystem. I understand that the reason it is like that is because we have tampered with that ecosystem but the fact remains that we're in this situation now and we need to do our best to preserve what we have left. Like it or not hippy that includes culling.
Morally I don't have an issue with hunting as long as it isn't causing environmental damage or undue stress to the animals being hunted. Killing an Impala for example puts about as much pressure on the Impala populations of the world as killing a single human being. Allowing those Impala to proliferate though and decimate the ecosystem because we're too squeamish to take responsibility for what we've done to this planet, now that would be a moral outrage.
They're often the same thing. Often we can do more for conservation by culling an animal that is in excess and using the money gained from that to help save something under more pressure as opposed to devoting equal resources to saving every individual animal regardless of the importance of that individual with regards to preserving the species. What you propose is idiocy and anti-conservation in the long term.
Then I don't understand the moral outrage. If you're fine with accepting that a cow can die to feed people then you shouldn't have an issue with excess Impala being killed to feed people. At least the Impala's death brings in money to further the conservation of more at threat species.
Again I say that some animals are so abundant and easy to maintain as a species that saving individuals simply isn't a good enough return on the investment. Instead take the money you would have spent saving that Impala and save an endangered animal instead.
but the guy I'm responding to doesn't think like that. He still eats meat. He still sees animals as products if they're domesticated but not if they're wild. He isn't consistent.
I disagree that culling is unnecessary if you want to efficiently use your money to save as many species as possible. The unfortunate reality is that we simply don't have enough money in conservation to save all of them. Worse is that saving every individual animal would long term just destroy the environment as we've driven apex predators into threatened statuses while their prey proliferates uncontrollably.
You clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Unfortunately as far as I can see we're largely responsible for the current state of the environment. Letting it fall apart now would be irresponsible. Saying that we don't want to kill things on principle, knowing that that could likely be a death sentence to many ecosystems and the multitude of species that reside in it, strikes me as irresponsible and a sherking of our duties. We must manage it to ensure it stays in at least the semblance of balance we have managed to achieve at this point, perhaps even improve it if we can practically achieve that.
I think if one is going to take the stance you're taking this is the logical conclusion. I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think we have the luxury of sticking to principles if we wish to preserve our ecosystems moving into the future.
