Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[Montegriffo]

Lol I don’t support lions being held in captivity.

Don't let the strawmen distract you John, you're holding your own here.
Apologies if I've asked you this before, how do you feel about the Muntjak deer issue?
Here in Norfolk and Suffolk, they are becoming a real problem. They were first brought to England in 1958 to stock a few country estates as an ornamental species.
Unfortunately, they have thrived in the wild and are damaging the habitat and out-competing our indigenous deer species.
They do untold damage to young trees by stripping the bark.
Those few animals brought here 70 years ago now amount to an estimated population of 5 million and a study commissioned to look into the problem recommended an immediate cull of one and a half million Muntjak.

As a long time vegetarian, I can find no moral objection to humanely killing and eating
this invasive (and very healthy, organic and tasty) animal.

What say you?

Hmm, definitely a gray area, and of course it has nothing to do with the ethics of meat eating in general.

My two cents: Ecosystems don’t have any inherent subjective interests, though sentient animals do. Therefore, from an ethical point of view there needs to be some ethically relevant reason that we should go out of our way to kill these creatures. Are they going to over-eat themselves and other creatures to starvation, creating more suffering for more creatures, including themselves than if they were killed? I’m not saying I would then think it’s cool to kill these animals, but it would be a rationale for population control that would be difficult to argue against.

But I think there’s the assumption that killing deer is the only option for population control, when they might be given vasectomies so that they can continue to mate without creating more deer, which could even more effectively limit their populations. That would be ethically preferable to killing in my opinion.

In the end, I also have trouble with this idea, I don’t think humans are necessarily obligated to meddle with ecological problems, even the ones that “we” created, when it involves violating the lives of sentient creatures. I sometimes think we should stop trying to control ecosystems and instead limit our effects on them as much as practically possible.

Not only will they eventually over eat to starvation they will compete with all the indigenous species in the affected habitat.

Muntjak are particularly hard to cull as they don't group together in large herds. You rarely see more than two together and they are small, only 18'' tall.
Catching them alive and castrating them in large numbers would be very difficult and expensive.
It is very unlikely that the numbers to be killed recommended by the official study will ever be met.
If I had a firearms licence I'd shoot and butcher them myself.
I've even tasted a bit of heart when I cooked some for a mate.

[JohnDonne]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

wild deer vasectomies

This guy is trolling. I took the bait, and you won this one dude. I gotta say, you had me there for a minute.

I might be trolling you just a little,
but I’m a real vegan dude.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydail ... utType=amp

[JohnDonne]

Lol it doesn't. Especially since you are clearly fine with harming animals by using modern tech and living on land previously occupied by them. You are a half assed slacktavist at best. Making "sacrifices" and patting yourself on the back, while still enjoying the system that causes animals to die and not really taking your convoluted beliefs to their logical conclusion. And you are the only person being pie in the sky here. Explain to me in this magical world where we stop eating meat animals will stop competing with us and eachother for limited resources.


I eat meat every day, and to be honest, sometimes I throw out some of it, if I'm full. I can just go to the store and get more meat and I will keep doing that. The way I see it, the meat I'm wasting is your portion. From now on I'm gonna buy a little extra and continue this practice.

Lol Youre doubling down on the appeal to futility fallacy bro. There’s no “logical conclusion” of veganism, it’s simply a practical philosophy that if adopted by everyone would vastly improve the well-being of all sentient life. That’s the whole point, and notice the emphasis on practical. That’s something your little “run around the woods and eat lichen” scenario lacks, probably because you realize it’s a bullshit nirvana fallacy.

lol its "practical" to avoid eating meat, which is utterly woven into every human culture, human biology, religion, and human psychology for millions of years, but its impractical to live in a tent in the woods (even though humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, many humans live like that today). You could easily revert back to an earlier, less resource consuming state, but you choose not to, because its easier to ruin family dinners over crabs and scold people online, while still being part of the problem. If you view humans harming sentient animals as being immoral, then it should follow that you would want to avoid not only eating them, but reducing activities that cause them to die. Since modern civilization undoubtedly does this, why is it too much to ask for you to give up this modern immoral life? You lack convictions sir.

The entire point of veganism is that because we have technological advances we no longer need to use animal products, so you got it backwards lol, if we lived like early humans it would be impractical to get enough nutrients to be healthy, though with modern advancements it is easy to do so without animal products. Thats the whole argument. A vegan society is a technologically advanced society.

Also if your argument is that I’m a hypocrite and therefore veganism is wrong then you committed another fallacy: tu quoque

[JohnDonne]

Don't let the strawmen distract you John, you're holding your own here.
Apologies if I've asked you this before, how do you feel about the Muntjak deer issue?
Here in Norfolk and Suffolk, they are becoming a real problem. They were first brought to England in 1958 to stock a few country estates as an ornamental species.
Unfortunately, they have thrived in the wild and are damaging the habitat and out-competing our indigenous deer species.
They do untold damage to young trees by stripping the bark.
Those few animals brought here 70 years ago now amount to an estimated population of 5 million and a study commissioned to look into the problem recommended an immediate cull of one and a half million Muntjak.

As a long time vegetarian, I can find no moral objection to humanely killing and eating
this invasive (and very healthy, organic and tasty) animal.

What say you?

Hmm, definitely a gray area, and of course it has nothing to do with the ethics of meat eating in general.

My two cents: Ecosystems don’t have any inherent subjective interests, though sentient animals do. Therefore, from an ethical point of view there needs to be some ethically relevant reason that we should go out of our way to kill these creatures. Are they going to over-eat themselves and other creatures to starvation, creating more suffering for more creatures, including themselves than if they were killed? I’m not saying I would then think it’s cool to kill these animals, but it would be a rationale for population control that would be difficult to argue against.

But I think there’s the assumption that killing deer is the only option for population control, when they might be given vasectomies so that they can continue to mate without creating more deer, which could even more effectively limit their populations. That would be ethically preferable to killing in my opinion.

In the end, I also have trouble with this idea, I don’t think humans are necessarily obligated to meddle with ecological problems, even the ones that “we” created, when it involves violating the lives of sentient creatures. I sometimes think we should stop trying to control ecosystems and instead limit our effects on them as much as practically possible.

Not only will they eventually over eat to starvation they will compete with all the indigenous species in the affected habitat.

Muntjak are particularly hard to cull as they don't group together in large herds. You rarely see more than two together and they are small, only 18'' tall.
Catching them alive and castrating them in large numbers would be very difficult and expensive.
It is very unlikely that the numbers to be killed recommended by the official study will ever be met.
If I had a firearms licence I'd shoot and butcher them myself.
I've even tasted a bit of heart when I cooked some for a mate.

One point: I was talking about giving them vaesectomies, not castration, I think castration is brutal and doesn’t help population control that much because the dominant male just wanders off without balls and another male takes their place.

Catching them alive might be harder than shooting them, but it might also be more effective if sterile males mating with the females keeps them from becoming pregnant by other males. Also temporary population suppression through mass kill-offs can lead to population explosions later.

[Montegriffo]

One in eight UK subjects is now vegetarian or vegan. The movement is growing and will continue to grow.

Meat eaters are always going to be the majority though so part of the solution needs to be increased welfare standards which will outlaw the intensive methods currently used. This will result in higher quality but more expensive meat and reduce consumption and cruelty.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah people are choosing veganism, it’s been getting ridiculously popular and growing super fast. The entire movement is democratic and grassroots in nature, contrary to forcing weaker creatures to be your slaves.

Well, okay, great. Go eat a shitty diet, let your hair and teeth fall out, and die from a crashed endocrine system. Nobody is interested in your fucking diet here. That you made your diet into a religion is fucking stupid.

[Speaker to Animals]

Lol Youre doubling down on the appeal to futility fallacy bro. There’s no “logical conclusion” of veganism, it’s simply a practical philosophy that if adopted by everyone would vastly improve the well-being of all sentient life. That’s the whole point, and notice the emphasis on practical. That’s something your little “run around the woods and eat lichen” scenario lacks, probably because you realize it’s a bullshit nirvana fallacy.

lol its "practical" to avoid eating meat, which is utterly woven into every human culture, human biology, religion, and human psychology for millions of years, but its impractical to live in a tent in the woods (even though humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, many humans live like that today). You could easily revert back to an earlier, less resource consuming state, but you choose not to, because its easier to ruin family dinners over crabs and scold people online, while still being part of the problem. If you view humans harming sentient animals as being immoral, then it should follow that you would want to avoid not only eating them, but reducing activities that cause them to die. Since modern civilization undoubtedly does this, why is it too much to ask for you to give up this modern immoral life? You lack convictions sir.

The entire point of veganism is that because we have technological advances we no longer need to use animal products, so you got it backwards lol, if we lived like early humans it would be impractical to get enough nutrients to be healthy, though with modern advancements it is easy to do so without animal products. Thats the whole argument. A vegan society is a technologically advanced society.

Also if your argument is that I’m a hypocrite and therefore veganism is wrong then you committed another fallacy: tu quoque

We don't have the ability to re-engineer our genetics and human biology itself, dumbass. You are supposed to eat meat. You are a fucking homo sapiens. You are literally evolved to eat meat. What you are doing is unnatural and unhealthy.

[Montegriffo]

Hmm, definitely a gray area, and of course it has nothing to do with the ethics of meat eating in general.

My two cents: Ecosystems don’t have any inherent subjective interests, though sentient animals do. Therefore, from an ethical point of view there needs to be some ethically relevant reason that we should go out of our way to kill these creatures. Are they going to over-eat themselves and other creatures to starvation, creating more suffering for more creatures, including themselves than if they were killed? I’m not saying I would then think it’s cool to kill these animals, but it would be a rationale for population control that would be difficult to argue against.

But I think there’s the assumption that killing deer is the only option for population control, when they might be given vasectomies so that they can continue to mate without creating more deer, which could even more effectively limit their populations. That would be ethically preferable to killing in my opinion.

In the end, I also have trouble with this idea, I don’t think humans are necessarily obligated to meddle with ecological problems, even the ones that “we” created, when it involves violating the lives of sentient creatures. I sometimes think we should stop trying to control ecosystems and instead limit our effects on them as much as practically possible.

Not only will they eventually over eat to starvation they will compete with all the indigenous species in the affected habitat.

Muntjak are particularly hard to cull as they don't group together in large herds. You rarely see more than two together and they are small, only 18'' tall.
Catching them alive and castrating them in large numbers would be very difficult and expensive.
It is very unlikely that the numbers to be killed recommended by the official study will ever be met.
If I had a firearms licence I'd shoot and butcher them myself.
I've even tasted a bit of heart when I cooked some for a mate.

One point: I was talking about giving them vasectomies, not castration, I think castration is brutal and doesn’t help population control that much because the dominant male just wanders off without balls and another male takes their place.

Catching them alive might be harder than shooting them, but it might also be more effective if sterile males mating with the females keeps them from becoming pregnant by other males. Also temporary population suppression through mass kill-offs can lead to population explosions later.

No one is going to agree to the cost of vasectomies for millions of Muntjac. They don't live in herds with hierarchal structures so there are no dominant males. They live as breeding pairs or solitary animals and does can drop a calf every 7 months for up to 15 years.

Alongside such villains as the Chinese mitten crab, the Russian zebra mussel and South American creeping water primrose, the Asian muntjac has been named Britain's most dangerous and destructive deer. They devour native woodland plants at a terrifying rate, destroy vital bird habitats and can go berserk if unleashed on a suburban garden. They also breed like rabbits.

But are they really all bad? The muntjac is certainly one of the strangest deer, not just in Britain, but on Earth. It is also one of the most ancient, and may have been on the menu of primeval predators 35million years ago. Oddly for deer living in Britain, they have no breeding season and the doe can give birth to a solitary 'kid' at any time. The gestation period is only seven months and within days the doe is ready to mate again - enabling them to reproduce at breakneck speed.

And, while they are small, they can also look after themselves. The bucks have sharp antlers, as well as tusks, which can do serious damage to a fox, dog or human. On one occasion, a good Samaritan bent down to help an injured muntjac and received a wound to his hand that required hospital treatment.

They are also brave little deer and will attack anything that threatens their young.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... dlife.html

[JohnDonne]

Not only will they eventually over eat to starvation they will compete with all the indigenous species in the affected habitat.

Muntjak are particularly hard to cull as they don't group together in large herds. You rarely see more than two together and they are small, only 18'' tall.
Catching them alive and castrating them in large numbers would be very difficult and expensive.
It is very unlikely that the numbers to be killed recommended by the official study will ever be met.
If I had a firearms licence I'd shoot and butcher them myself.
I've even tasted a bit of heart when I cooked some for a mate.

One point: I was talking about giving them vasectomies, not castration, I think castration is brutal and doesn’t help population control that much because the dominant male just wanders off without balls and another male takes their place.

Catching them alive might be harder than shooting them, but it might also be more effective if sterile males mating with the females keeps them from becoming pregnant by other males. Also temporary population suppression through mass kill-offs can lead to population explosions later.

No one is going to agree to the cost of vasectomies for millions of Muntjac. They don't live in herds with hierarchal structures so there are no dominant males. They live as breeding pairs or solitary animals and does can drop a calf every 7 months for up to 15 years.

Alongside such villains as the Chinese mitten crab, the Russian zebra mussel and South American creeping water primrose, the Asian muntjac has been named Britain's most dangerous and destructive deer. They devour native woodland plants at a terrifying rate, destroy vital bird habitats and can go berserk if unleashed on a suburban garden. They also breed like rabbits.

But are they really all bad? The muntjac is certainly one of the strangest deer, not just in Britain, but on Earth. It is also one of the most ancient, and may have been on the menu of primeval predators 35million years ago. Oddly for deer living in Britain, they have no breeding season and the doe can give birth to a solitary 'kid' at any time. The gestation period is only seven months and within days the doe is ready to mate again - enabling them to reproduce at breakneck speed.

And, while they are small, they can also look after themselves. The bucks have sharp antlers, as well as tusks, which can do serious damage to a fox, dog or human. On one occasion, a good Samaritan bent down to help an injured muntjac and received a wound to his hand that required hospital treatment.

They are also brave little deer and will attack anything that threatens their young.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... dlife.html

If no one is willing to pay for the deer vasectomies it seems more a deficiency in political willpower than a lack of alternative options to killing. I don’t see it as justified to kill them at this point.

[heydaralon]

I'm not catching lyme disease because you want to fondle and clip a deer's testicles. I'm sorry JohnDonne but they need to be culled a bit. JD was played by Zach Braff, but you are far more a scrub then he will ever be...