Animal Population Control?

[dazara]

Do you think it is right to kill animals because there is a large population of them?

 

Do you think that it is right to kill them because humans think there is too many?

 

Personally, I think it isn't right. I'm not an animal protester, but I do not think we should play god by killing them, just because we think it is right.

 

Elephants, seals and wolves etc. are all hunted and killed to control the popluation. What do you think?

[dazedANDconfused]

I don't necessarily believe it's alright to control the population of animals through death.

However, some domestic animals, such as cats, dogs, etc. face a very difficult end when they're abandoned or without an owner.

If they're strays, then there's a good chance that they will die of starvation, getting hit by cars, shot by people who don't want them on their property.

Except, wild animals like the ones you listed shouldn't be killed without good reason. Personally, I would leave the natural life cycle alone leaving the animals to work it out.

Tampering with it, in my opinion, with overall leave us with more endangered species.

[dazara]

I don't necessarily believe it's alright to control the population of animals through death.

However, some domestic animals, such as cats, dogs, etc. face a very difficult end when they're abandoned or without an owner.

If they're strays, then there's a good chance that they will die of starvation, getting hit by cars, shot by people who don't want them on their property.

Except, wild animals like the ones you listed shouldn't be killed without good reason. Personally, I would leave the natural life cycle alone leaving the animals to work it out.

Tampering with it, in my opinion, with overall leave us with more endangered species.

 

I agree with your points, but domestic animals are often picked up and taken to the pound, or an adoption centre. I've never heard of any pets being shot.

[Macabre]

I agree with your points, but domestic animals are often picked up and taken to the pound, or an adoption centre. I've never heard of any pets being shot.

 

Sadly, it is common. They are also abused by being tied to the end of trucks and dragged, beaten and left in a ditch, etc.

 

I think when we mess around with the wild population control things tend to go wrong-why not let nature just take care of itself?

[dazedANDconfused]

It's quite uncommon, but every now and again I've come across some senile, absolutely nuts senior that just happens to own a gun.

My dog was killed in my old town by my neighbour who was tired of him crawling under my fence all the time and running loose in his backyard.

It was also a very large peice of property he owned, and I think his actions were provoked by my dogs very active... bowels. >_>

Anyways. Where I live, there are very few stray animals because of our volunteer run animal shelter, where people bring in stray animals they find.

However, in my travels I have noticed that there are still many places with a substantial amount of homeless animals.

It makes for an unnecessary and disturbing sight when you see former pets laying on the side of the road, but it's hard to say what a seemly alternative for it could be.

[Batman]

As far as domestic animals go I really don't see how someone could kill them. Other then if they are old and in pain and they need to be put down. That can be terrible on a family. But for other animals population control is more a matter of trying to keep other species that they eat to survive. Although i don't agree with killing them it can be necessary to keep another animal safe.

[Revenge]

You have to think of overpopulation. You mentioned wolves, for example. Wolves are known for eating many animal that we use for livestock. Now, if the population of wolves would increase, then there would be mouths to feed on our livestock and other animals. Plus with more population, there is more reproduction, which leads to a bigger population, ever expanding. If the wolves were left alone to grow, they would eventually, not consciously though, kill off our livesstock, and all of the other animals they eat. Now, you know wolves eat very common animals. After one common animal is extinct, what will all the other creatures that also feed on this animal, even depend on it, eat? They would die out. We would have no livestock, keeping in mind that a very large portion of our meat intake is from farm animals like cow and pig. That's fine, you'll say, we'll just go vegetarian! Though what if those other animals that went extinct? Coming from a wolf, their main diet were insects or small rodents, many of which feed on crops that we grow. Now that their predators are gone they are free to flourish, and their population grows, and just like the wolves their demand for food grows, eventually creating a cycle of destroying our crops and other resources. Keep in mind that in order for humans to have reached the top of the food chain, this had to happen to other creatures. We don't want it to happen to us. But it's not population were controlling, it's overpopulation. As far as nothing goes too far, we leave it alone. But precautions must be made sometimes, and death is just a part of life.

 

And no, were not going to start killing off humans when we get overcrowded. That is an issue the world is still trying to deal with now.

[dazedANDconfused]

^ Yeah, I've taken your point into consideration which is why I find it difficult to say I'm COMPLETELY against it.

I understand the consequences to letting animals over populate, however I'm having troubles thinking of a way to control it rather than using violence.

What alternative methods could they use?

[Unstream]

For one, seals and elephants are both protected by the law, and are illegal to hunt unless you have a special permit.

 

But it's true. There's no way to stop overpopulation other than killing off some of the animals. I mean, what are you going to do instead of killing them if there are too many? Move them to a new environment? (That'd be a horrible idea since there may be ways that wolves will affect the current ecosystem in that new environment, or the wolves would just die off). Really, killing them is the only realistic option.

 

And it's not us humans who think that there are too many of them. If there are too many of them, it's easy to see the effects on the current ecosystem and it doesn't take a genius to realize something's wrong. I mean, if the rodent population went from 1 million to 200 in a week, something is definitely not right.

 

What we're doing is killing animals to prevent them from unbalancing the ecosystem and keeping them from going extinct.

[Revenge]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't look at it as killing one animal per say, but as saving every other one.

[ΩCCΩ]

I have read this and I may say I agreewith Revenge, cuz it really unbalances the earth. But i do have a suggetion, maybe if they kill the animals which are SOO sick that there is 100% no hope of them survivng, cuz many animals are sick out there and they are living with pain that it is going to be with them all the there lifes so I think it may be better to just leave them out of there pain. :guiltysmiley:

[dazedANDconfused]

^ Don't you think it would be difficult sifting through tons of animals, trying to determine which are terminally ill and which aren't?

There are some that are obviously sick and dying, but I don't think anyone would have the time or patience to figure out the medical status of every animal!

[dazara]

You have to think of overpopulation. You mentioned wolves, for example. Wolves are known for eating many animal that we use for livestock. Now, if the population of wolves would increase, then there would be mouths to feed on our livestock and other animals. Plus with more population, there is more reproduction, which leads to a bigger population, ever expanding. If the wolves were left alone to grow, they would eventually, not consciously though, kill off our livesstock, and all of the other animals they eat. Now, you know wolves eat very common animals. After one common animal is extinct, what will all the other creatures that also feed on this animal, even depend on it, eat? They would die out. We would have no livestock, keeping in mind that a very large portion of our meat intake is from farm animals like cow and pig. That's fine, you'll say, we'll just go vegetarian! Though what if those other animals that went extinct? Coming from a wolf, their main diet were insects or small rodents, many of which feed on crops that we grow. Now that their predators are gone they are free to flourish, and their population grows, and just like the wolves their demand for food grows, eventually creating a cycle of destroying our crops and other resources. Keep in mind that in order for humans to have reached the top of the food chain, this had to happen to other creatures. We don't want it to happen to us. But it's not population were controlling, it's overpopulation. As far as nothing goes too far, we leave it alone. But precautions must be made sometimes, and death is just a part of life.

 

And no, were not going to start killing off humans when we get overcrowded. That is an issue the world is still trying to deal with now.

 

Why then, are we prepared to kill other animals? There are more humans in the world than wolves, but we do not kill each other to 'balance the ecosystem' as you say.

 

For one, seals and elephants are both protected by the law, and are illegal to hunt unless you have a special permit.

 

But it's true. There's no way to stop overpopulation other than killing off some of the animals. I mean, what are you going to do instead of killing them if there are too many? Move them to a new environment? (That'd be a horrible idea since there may be ways that wolves will affect the current ecosystem in that new environment, or the wolves would just die off). Really, killing them is the only realistic option.

 

And it's not us humans who think that there are too many of them. If there are too many of them, it's easy to see the effects on the current ecosystem and it doesn't take a genius to realize something's wrong. I mean, if the rodent population went from 1 million to 200 in a week, something is definitely not right.

 

What we're doing is killing animals to prevent them from unbalancing the ecosystem and keeping them from going extinct.

 

Why should us, humans, decide whether there are too many of a certain species in the world? I do not think it is fair.

[-Kai-]

I used to be a protestant in my country and we fought to the right of animals, I don't understand why humas kill animals just because they're growing and "invading our territory" if you think the human population grows very rapidly and its invading animals territory destroying entire ecosystems affecting not only animals but the world itself.

I'm totally against this and I hope people think about this and make something about it.

[dazara]

I used to be a protestant in my country and we fought to the right of animals, I don't understand why humas kill animals just because they're growing and "invading our territory" if you think the human population grows very rapidly and its invading animals territory destroying entire ecosystems affecting not only animals but the world itself.

I'm totally against this and I hope people think about this and make something about it.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Anime) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Make all posts at least 7 words long. Quotes do not count. Also, please contribute to the dicussion. "I agree" does not move the topic along.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[dazedANDconfused]

Humans are quite clearly the superior breed, and although it's not fair to kill off a certain animal, if it isn't controlled properly then that animal could kill us?

Not so literally, but it WOULD imbalance our ecosystem, as Revenge said, in the meantime tampering with the needs of humans.

Although I believe we should have incredible amounts of respect for whatever animals have been placed on this planet, it's illogical to put their needs above ours in most situations.

[dazara]

Humans are quite clearly the superior breed, and although it's not fair to kill off a certain animal, if it isn't controlled properly then that animal could kill us?

Not so literally, but it WOULD imbalance our ecosystem, as Revenge said, in the meantime tampering with the needs of humans.

Although I believe we should have incredible amounts of respect for whatever animals have been placed on this planet, it's illogical to put their needs above ours in most situations.

 

I think it is selfish and unfair to put our needs in front of the lives of other creatures.

[-Kai-]

I think if there is an imbalance between species, that happens because it has to happen, and we don't have to interfere, is a natural cycle and we don't form part of it. the things just happens because it has to be that way.

if the rodent population decreases dramatically because wolves cause this, we don't have to interfere, is just the natural cycle...

[dazedANDconfused]

xD It is. But thats the way our world tends to work...

It's hard to find a solution for this, seeing as I'm not for it but I'm also not against it, in the sense that in the meantime there's no other way to handle it.

The pro's and con's are quite heavy on both sides, for if we continue controlling an animals species in this sort of manner, it may be unfair but the damage that could be done to the world itself could be hazardous.

[dazara]

xD It is. But thats the way our world tends to work...

It's hard to find a solution for this, seeing as I'm not for it but I'm also not against it, in the sense that in the meantime there's no other way to handle it.

The pro's and con's are quite heavy on both sides, for if we continue controlling an animals species in this sort of manner, it may be unfair but the damage that could be done to the world itself could be hazardous.

 

:grrr: How can we say we are protecting the earth by doing this. If we weren't here there would be no global warming, polution etc. so we're not exactly making up for the fact that we are murdering defenceless animals anyway!!!

[-Kai-]

I think we could do something to make people think about this, I don't know what but if people are now saving energy and all this because the global warming thing was a topic constantly mentioned, I think we can make the same with animals :D

[dazara]

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be a very important issue to any superiors in society, but it deserves to be one.

[dazedANDconfused]

How can we say we are protecting the earth by doing this. If we weren't here there would be no global warming, polution etc. so we're not exactly making up for the fact that we are murdering defenceless animals anyway!!!

 

I see where you're coming from! Mankind has been a burden to earth. However, if we pour all our time and effort into saving animals then there's larger issues that are going to be undermined due to everyone scavenging in the forest looking for a pack of wolves.

These things need to be evenly balanced, just like the natural food chain. It's true that naturally, overpopulation should work itself out,

and I'm sure it did quite some time ago. However, when these animals were introduced onto land, I'm sure it was a little different than it is now.

Now we've been equipped with industrial sized crops, domestic pets, game animals, things like that.

If the animal does not pose a threat in whatever area it is in, then it should be left alone. If it's substantially becoming a problem, it's not like you can just shoo the animal away, and I suppose people see killing it as the easiest option.

[dazara]

If the animal does not pose a threat in whatever area it is in, then it should be left alone. If it's substantially becoming a problem, it's not like you can just shoo the animal away, and I suppose people see killing it as the easiest option.

 

If a wolf comes and kills a sheep, which is nearly overpopulated anyway, it will be shot, because it is seen as a nuisance. Why? Because we are overprotective. It was going to die anyway, so why couldn't it be to an animal that needs food. Wolves don't kill for fun, they kill to survive.

[Unstream]

I think if there is an imbalance between species, that happens because it has to happen, and we don't have to interfere, is a natural cycle and we don't form part of it. the things just happens because it has to be that way.

if the rodent population decreases dramatically because wolves cause this, we don't have to interfere, is just the natural cycle...

No, it wouldn't be a natural cycle. If the wolves prey were to die off because they were overpopulated, then the wolves would starve, and the wolf prey's prey will overpopulate. There could be a lot of bad effects if things like that happen.

 

:grrr: How can we say we are protecting the earth by doing this. If we weren't here there would be no global warming, polution etc. so we're not exactly making up for the fact that we are murdering defenceless animals anyway!!!

Trust me, global warming is a sham. It's fake. Not real. Seriously? 6 degrees? Are you telling me if it get's 6 degrees warmer we're in a crisis? The eruption at Mt St Helens gave off more green house gases than America ever has.

 

And for one, wolves aren't defenseless.

 

If a wolf comes and kills a sheep, which is nearly overpopulated anyway, it will be shot, because it is seen as a nuisance. Why? Because we are overprotective. It was going to die anyway, so why couldn't it be to an animal that needs food. Wolves don't kill for fun, they kill to survive.

So what? We're territorial, like all of the other predators in the world. If another bird enters a hawks territory, the hawk will kill it because it's intruding. Same with a wolf. A fox wanders into their territory, and BAM it get attacked and killed.

 

Why then, are we prepared to kill other animals? There are more humans in the world than wolves, but we do not kill each other to 'balance the ecosystem' as you say.

 

 

Why should us, humans, decide whether there are too many of a certain species in the world? I do not think it is fair.

Ha! Human's don't kill each other? Just look at the Middle East. There's enough of that for population control. And many countries have laws that prevent people from having more than one child. That's population control there.

 

And why should we decided that there are too many of a certain animal in the world? Well, we're really the only ones that can stop it. If there are too many wolves, it's not like their prey can sign a petition and ask not to be eaten. It's not like the wolves know that they'll starve themselves by killing too much. It's not like other animals can do anything.

 

Really, when we kill an animal, we're saving others.

 

I see where you're coming from! Mankind has been a burden to earth. However, if we pour all our time and effort into saving animals then there's larger issues that are going to be undermined due to everyone scavenging in the forest looking for a pack of wolves.

These things need to be evenly balanced, just like the natural food chain. It's true that naturally, overpopulation should work itself out,

and I'm sure it did quite some time ago. However, when these animals were introduced onto land, I'm sure it was a little different than it is now.

Now we've been equipped with industrial sized crops, domestic pets, game animals, things like that.

If the animal does not pose a threat in whatever area it is in, then it should be left alone. If it's substantially becoming a problem, it's not like you can just shoo the animal away, and I suppose people see killing it as the easiest option.

How are we supposed to do it without killing the animals hm? We can't just wait it works itself out. Then it'll end with a species becoming extinct. Better to kill off some animals than lose a whole species.