Feral hogs and goats are smarter than many humans. No, really (at least in terms of avoiding being taken by a hunter). They also reproduce quickly for larger animals (especially the pigs) and can go places humans can’t (at least easily). In many cases, they are also the offspring of many generations that have been hunted. We’ve selected for the wiliest prey for hundreds of years in some cases, and they are dang good at staying alive.
12 Likes
I’m afraid I can’t argue with that lol
5 Likes
…poses many ethical concerns, creates poor welfare
The right to live outweighs any other welfare considerations. As the right to live is paramount for any sentient being. The pest welfare concerns of non-lethal control may very well be irrelevant, since the alternative is death. Even when the welfare concerns include risk of death, this is preferable to certain death. Imagine if we could ask pests to choose between lethal and non-lethal control. And we explained how they are at risk of death with non-lethal control, and it’s bound to be more painful than the death they’d get with lethal control. I’m betting over 99.7% would choose non-lethal control.
No one ever argues that homeless humans should be killed as a solution to their suffering. They never use their suffering as a justification for imposing the ultimate harm. We’re not even willing to kill terminally-ill humans without their consent.
If abandoning stray/feral cats is wrong, then surely killing them is even worse. I’d even argue that it is a form of abandonment, just as much, if not even more so, as releasing them is. As it is abandoning our duty of care towards them.
We condemn parents who abandon their children. We condemn parents who kill their children even more. Apparently some people who killed themselves have killed their family too, possibly due to a desire not to abandon them. We call this “murder” for a good reason.
1 Like
It sounds like the ultimate question here is “does non-human animal life have the same inherent value as human life?”
This is ultimately a moral/philosophical question, and I think most would agree that the answer is no. If you go that route, where do you draw the line? Are you vegan? Do you kill mosquitoes and other parasites? Do you believe it is as tragic when you hit an animal with your car as if you had hit a person?
4 Likes
I think most people (myself included) give more moral weight to some species lives than others, Killing a colony full of red fire ants is generally considered less objectionable than killing one stray cat
4 Likes
And both are less objectionable than killing a human
3 Likes
I personally would agree with that, But I think the difference in moral value between a human and a cat is more controversial than that between an insect and a mammal
EDIT: I’m not condoning killing cats, I just don’t see it as the same as killing a person. Not everything less bad than murder is good
4 Likes
Not sure I fully understand what you mean, are you saying that more people agree that cats are more valuable than insects than believe humans are more valuable than cats? Because I would disagree there, I think most people would agree that human life has by far the most value compared to other animal life, and that the difference between human and cat is much more morally consequential than the difference between cat and insect. Possible exception being some of the most radical PETA members
Yes
I believe most people consider human life more valuable than any animal life, but that the number of people who consider a human life and a cat’s life to have similar value is much larger than the number who consider a cat’s life and an ant’s life to have similar value, though this is just a guess of course as I have not done any sort of poll
In geographically limited settings (mostly islands), hunting definitely is an effective component of invasive species eradications for larger animals in fairly open landscapes. Hunting was successfully used to eradicate feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island (California) and reindeer on South Georgia Island. As @cthawley mentioned, animals such as goats are pretty wily and eradication efforts have to combine shooting with other techniques such as Judas goats.
That still leaves the smaller invasive species (rabbits, rats, mice, feral cats), which cannot be effectively removed via hunting.
5 Likes
Adding to cthawley specific to our challenge with goats.
Currently the problem area whilst hard to get an exact figure on, is thought to be about 37,600km2 within the NZ mainland.
A very large portion of that area is extremly hard to access
Ignoring just normal dense bush, in many areas Supplejack is very common, I have spent many hours, getting almost nowhere crossing this stuff. (Using other peoples images because they better illustrate it than images Ive taken)
© Chris Close, some rights reserved (CC-BY-NC) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/149448435
Of course I much much preffer it to Bush/Swamp Lawyer
© Christopher Stephens, some rights reserved (CC-BY-SA)https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/173199089
Called laywers, because once they sink thier teeth into you, they will bleed you out. Often you dont see these thin vines until its too late and its cross your face/neck, around your legs etc. It can be very thick in places.
But at least its not Tree Nettle / Urtica Ferox
© Jenny Saito, some rights reserved (CC-BY)https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146099753
" A 2022 study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry found that two peptides: Δ-Uf1a and β/δ-Uf2a, are likely responsible for the painful sensations. Δ-Uf1a is suggested to create pain by disturbing cell membranes and β/δ-Uf2a the same by modulating voltage-gated sodium channels. Stings have a painful reaction which causes hives, numbness, and itchiness. In severe cases it can also cause: ataxia, blurred vision, confusion, polyneuropathy, respiratory distress, and hypersalivation. The reaction can potentially be fatal."
Personally, I find the several days long sting of just brushing past this, worse than Bullet ant stings I have had in Peru. It can range from bushes here and there, to large thickets.
On top of that, we have a lot of karst, with plenty of tomos/sinkholes. Many covered, surrounded by slippery stuff, and very hard to see in the bush. I know of several hunting dogs which have gone in them. Here is one that survied a 35m drop, and took a couple days for Cave Search and Rescue to get out. https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-national/lucky-dog-survives-two-nights-down-sinkhole
This is stuff to consider beyond all the normal ravines, rivers, cliffs, bluffs, and other places LANDsar constantly ends up rescuring people from.
Goats handle these areas much better than humans. Though I am sure there are countless ones at the bottom of tomos.
11 Likes
Another such scenario can be species that have been extirpated from their original, limited native range, but before that were introduced in other places and now continue to survive there.
7 Likes
I think part of the reason for TNR not working is that it uses the wrong means of sterilisation. A form of sterilisation that doesn’t inhibit sexual desire or reduce sexual attractiveness might be more effective in some cases. That way, sterilised animals continue their territorial behaviour and mate-guarding. And fertile animals mate with them, reducing their reproductive success.
Animals have a right to keep their gonads anyway, so a means of sterilisation that doesn’t involve gonad-removal is more humane.
That said, spaying may be justified in some cases, as females with ovaries may attract males to an area. It’s for males mostly that letting them keep their balls could be more effective for control. I don’t know if castration is ever justified. In some birds, it’s females who come to males rather than the other way around, but removing birds’ gonads is very dangerous.
One problem with sterilisation is the surgery involved. It’s easier to kill animals, so no wonder they do it so often, even though it is less humane. Perhaps animals could be given chemicals or pathogens to sterilise them, or at least reduce their reproductive capabilities. Poisoning and infection are already used to kill animals.
One thing I probably should have mentioned before but didn’t is that killing animals causes a lot of suffering. Potentially even the methods that are supposed to eliminate suffering actually don’t. As such, even if one believes that animals don’t have a right to live, but that it’s wrong to make them suffer, it’s still wrong to kill them due to the suffering involved.
1 Like
Hi All,
Just a reminder to please keep the conversation here focused on the original topic of the thread about hiding observations of harmful animals. There’s some reasonable expansion of this to discussing the challenges with invasive species control and what role iNat may play in that. However, a full fledged discussion of the ethics of killing animals and animal sentience is beyond the scope of the original topic.
Thanks.
7 Likes
So iNaturalist has been instrumental in detecting and tracking invasive species, which should not be news to anyone here. Locally to me, the first Canadian occurrences of Elm Zigzag Sawfly were noted on iNaturalist:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/59122142
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/54944998
…Which caught the attention of concerned naturalists in the Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club (OFNC), who found the first record of it spreading west into Ontario:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77748210
…with literally hundreds more records since. We can estimate rate of spread and increase in prevalence. At some of the earliest Ontario sites, full defoliation of some elms was recorded three years after the first detection of the species. Ecologically, this could be significant, compounding the effects of an invasive pathogen (Dutch Elm Disease). It’s important to limit, control, or eradicate invasive species where possible, and this starts with data from detection and monitoring, here.
I’ll just note that in this example, the OFNC is a volunteer-run charity, which did a lot of surveying for this species (look at the density of observations in Eastern Ontario). This was not an official agency’s effort - and I’ll circle back to that.
The first Canadian records of two other recent insect introductions were also made on iNaturalist. The Box Tree Moth, newly arrived to North America, here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/15879362
And the Spotted Lanternfly, well known but making its first independent jump north over the border, here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/183159595
So both of those have merited a response and control efforts from government agencies. The Box Tree Moth is a cosmetic threat to hedges and an economic threat to a horticulture industry (apparently a significant amount of Boxwood is grown in Ontario nurseries). The Spotted Lanternfly is a serious agricultural pest (producing economic impacts and threatening food security) but its preferred host plant, Ailanthus altissima, is itself an invasive species here. Of these three insects, Elm Zigzag Sawfly presents the greatest threat to native species and natural ecology. However, only the other two, with directly measurable economic impacts, have any official resources directed at control measures (on the Canadian side) to date.
I am not diminishing the importance of economic or agricultural threats, those matter too. However, an issue of trust has been raised in the thread in terms of how agencies might use the data on iNaturalist. I would counter that with concern over how those agencies fail to use the data on iNaturalist, and fail to act sufficiently. If a government for whatever reason fails to take appropriate conservation action, the need for conservation still exists. The accessibility of iNaturalist allows individuals and non-governmental organizations to fill in gaps and pick up the slack. At the very least, we can document the problem and use the data to motivate - or shame - official policy makers into taking appropriate action.
Now I know all of these examples are insects, which are not traditionally “cute” and do not purr when given an ear scratch. However the obligation to safeguard native species and ecosystems and be stewards of conservation is the same. To address associated ethical concerns, I offer an example for consideration.
I really like hognose snakes. I also really like toads. Perhaps you already see the problem. Those are not contradictory sentiments, but there is an unpleasant but necessary intersection between those two animals that I don’t particularly love.
In order for a place to have hognose snakes (at least Eastern Hognose, Heterodon platirhinos), it has to have (among other things) a decent population of toads. I will accept a certain level of risk to my personal safety to get a toad (or snake) off a road to prevent it from being squished by a car. However, I will not take action to rescue a toad that has been caught by a snake, even if I feel great sympathy for the toad, which I do. I want to mitigate road mortality, because it is an anthropogenic threat to native wildlife populations. I want the toads to be okay both for their own sake, and to be available to the (native, at-risk) hognose snakes.
An invasive species (or subsidized predator) is not different. Ignoring it is irresponsible. A feral or otherwise free-roaming housecat in this example is a threat to both snakes and toads. All of the animals involved have sentience - but that’s not the point. The snake and toad have ecological value, the cat doesn’t, so we come to another unpleasant but necessary intersection. Data and documentation absolutely matter before and after this and should not be hidden or restricted. Cats and parrots might have the same public perception advantage as “charismatic megafauna” without being “mega” fauna. Politics, limited public resources, and public bias already interfere with and limit conservation initiatives; to me this makes it even more important to be able to record and document these species and associated phenomena on an independent platform. We need data to overcome these challenges and support evidence-based decisions.
8 Likes
I relate very hard to this, as I love rats and mice but I also love snakes who usually include those rodents in their diet lol
I completely agree with you that it’s wrong to save a prey animal from a predator if that predator is native. Native organisms have a huge ecological value and we, as humans, must ensure they aren’t harmed by us, including mitigating road mortality and stopping invasive species from harming them.
I also share the same sentiment of lack of action being taken by centralized/official agencies to deal with ecological threats, specially given the existence of the data provided by iNaturalist. Taking action against species causing ecological damage is actually good as it means saving the ecosystem and all life that exists today. This data cannot ever be hidden, restricted, nor destroyed, as it’s vital in conservation efforts. Without it, there will be a lot less effort to deal with this kind of ecological threat, and we are already fighting a hard enough battle. I don’t think hiding or restricting that data is a stance that iNaturalist can take while also maintaining it’s focus on conservation.
There’s also an argument to be made about decentralizing and backing up the existing data to prevent data loss, intentional or not, but I don’t think I ever saw a threat to iNaturalist itself or it’s data.
2 Likes
Definitely. I have seen memes about cats, for instance, suggesting that cats should wear collars of the same shade of orange as prisoners’ jumpsuits because they deserve to be confined for their crimes. If the intention was to be inflammatory or to provide a rallying point for people who already oppose outside cats, it was likely to succeed; but if the intent was outreach or to convince cat lovers, it was likely to fail.
An unpopular view around here, but one that should nevertheless be expressed.
As @cthawley said, there is some room for discussion of these matters in the context of hiding observations. Suppose that someone who has seen the general climate of attitude here toward cats decides to hide their observations of cats? As Rupert pointed out,
Someone who is involved in caring for a TNR feral cat colony, for example, might decide that iNaturalist is not a suitable venue for sharing their observations.
2 Likes
To track and manage harmful species is a very useful feature of iNaturalist. I support conservation eradicating environmental weeds.
2 Likes
Harmful to the local ecosystem perhaps, but too often is is justified because there is a perceived harm for agriculture in which case, absolutely not
That is short-sighted. If introduced agricultural pests are not controlled, then yield per hectare is reduced and more land has to be cropped and/or more pesticides employed to make up for the losses.
5 Likes