Is it correct to consider emotions and sentimentality when discussing the conservation of species and the preservation of the natural environment
Some time ago it was announced that the authorities in Australia are spreading poison in order to destroy hundreds of thousands of cats that have multiplied and are causing damage by predation on a scale that threatens hundreds of local species. The animal lovers raised a bitter cry: "How is it possible to kill animals and more with kangaroo meat sausages?"
This cry again raises the difference between the need to preserve the natural environment by relying on scientific data and the demand to prevent harm to animals because of the "universal" right of every creature to exist.
With us: the influential associations are associations for cats and dogs, strong enough to prevent the elimination of stray cats and dogs that have gone wild. The results: thousands of street cats that pick through trash and scatter it and of course hunt birds, reptiles and everything around. Packs of dogs that have gone wild and hunt deer, rabbits and other animals and above all spread rabies.
In the past I have already addressed the issue and wrote that with all due respect and appreciation to the activists for dogs and cats, it is appropriate that they learn and internalize the terrible environmental damage they cause and the need to remove them from the natural environment.
The activity of animal-loving associations that oppose any harm to any animal for any reason has received the nickname "Compassionate Preservation". Scientists who are engaged in the preservation of the natural environment claim that in terms of the essential need and the accepted concept of preserving nature - the idea that it is forbidden to kill any animal is fundamentally flawed, since conservation activities must be concentrated on species or habitats and not on a single animal.
Often the "treatment" of invasive or invasive species requires removal or thinning in order to protect and preserve the natural biological diversity, which cannot be done if the problem is approached under "compassionate conservation", since sustainable conservation requires different approaches that combine science in all its branches . A conservation whose practitioners love animals, but in order to succeed, one must "neutralize" emotions.
Today there is worldwide agreement on the importance of animal welfare, meaning that it is necessary to reduce the cruel harm to farm animals as well as to wild animals, but this does not justify the approach of "compassionate conservation" according to which there is no reason that justifies the killing of animals.
The four key points of "compassionate preservation" are:
1 - Prevent injury
2- Every detail is important
3-Everything is included
4-Peaceful mutual existence
Environmentalists who rely on science challenge the main point implied by the above, which is "not to kill" on the grounds that "compassionate conservation" is fundamentally flawed, since even the "merciful" must exclude killing when the killing prevents suffering and improves the survival chances of a species or habitat .
There are those who would add that sometimes it is necessary to kill animals to protect human life or other species, for example in reference to invasive species the "merciful" claim that they should not be exterminated because killing animals is bad. But when there are hundreds of thousands of cats killing millions of birds, and when feral dogs spread rabies and give birth to hybrids with wolves - a problem arises towards whom is mercy directed?
In 2010, the brown rat was declared the most invasive invasive species in Europe. Most people agree that rats should be exterminated. South Georgia is an island in the South Atlantic Ocean. Endangered bird species such as the albatross nest on this island. The rat population on the island endangered the birds and was therefore destroyed. There are other species that pose a challenging dilemma, so the British government decided to thin the badger population to stop the spread of tuberculosis in the cattle herds, a controversial decision that provoked opposition among animal lovers.
In South Asia and Africa there are cases where elephants or predators approach settlements and cause damage to agricultural crops and violent and dangerous encounters with people occur. In such cases, is it right and just to destroy the animal? According to the "compassionate" approach, does a person have a superior right? To understand the lack of justice and logic in "compassionate preservation" it is worth noting that the "compassionate" are mostly urbanites from Western countries.
It is clear that in many cases where the approach of "compassionate conservation" is taken, the environmental goal of protecting biological diversity is not taken into account, projecting a different opinion like that of the mercenaries on local populations does not respect the tradition and culture of the members of those populations, therefore it will be difficult to convince them of values that are different from their own , it will be difficult to convince them to change the way to protect species and habitats.
In the past I wrote that today there is almost no environment that is not adversely affected by man, therefore in order to preserve what exists, man must manage the environment, management that sometimes means eliminating invasive or erupting species even with methods that the people of "compassionate conservation" would consider cruel.
For the sake of all the respondents: repeated appeals to the authorities demanding that something be done to eliminate the offensive nuisance I replied that: "There is no possibility to do anything since the cats are a protected animal. is that so? A protected animal? A species that is considered worldwide as an invasive species that harms the natural environment and people's quality of life is a "protected species"?
It is appropriate that the "geniuses" who gave street cats "protection" read a few publications on the subject, learn and internalize the enormous damage that street cats cause to the natural environment, it is appropriate that they learn a little about the risk to pregnant women from the parasite"Toxoplasma"
the parasite-the-dropper-or-in-his-name-Toxoplasma and pregnant women
http://www.petdoctor.co.il/toxoplasma.html
To the best of my understanding, and like her understanding, everyone involved in preserving nature and the natural environment declares a "protected species" when there is a danger to its survival! Not only are feral cats and dogs not in danger, but they cause other species to reach a dangerous threshold from which their survival is in danger.
Therefore again: with all the appreciation and respect for "animal lovers" who resort to "compassionate conservation" it is better that they direct their compassion in positive directions and not to species that endanger proper conservation.
11 תגובות
We bought cat food instead
To all the geniuses who claim that the poisoned sausages will endanger other animals - the article says, even if not prominently, that the poison is not dangerous for Australia's native animals:
"A poison called 1080 - produced from gastrolobium, a plant highly toxic to animals such as cats (the lures are also toxic to other species of animals that are not native to Australia, such as foxes)".
I agree. Only that according to your approach it is appropriate to exterminate or thin out the most dangerous and destructive invasive species of all called humans.
There is a solution to this, only that the state does not take responsibility for it, and yes, I definitely think that it is the state's responsibility to ensure that a budget is given to the body responsible for spaying, neutering, and vaccinating the abandoned cats and dogs, and certainly not to poison them, because then they die and suffer, moreover, animals that eat Carrion such as vultures, hyenas, etc. eat the same carrion that was poisoned and poisoned themselves.
Man also threatens many species. Also called mass poisoning of humans in the areas they invaded?
And who guaranteed that only cats will eat the sausages? Raptors? Reptiles? Dingo dogs?
Here is an alternative to the mass poisoning of cats in Australia (PS: what do they plan to do with the carcasses of the dead animals?). Yes - it will cost the Australian taxpayer money.
1. Capture of wild cats and their sterilization.
2. Cats must be sterilized.
3. Prohibition of keeping cats in school areas. In the state of Queensland it is forbidden to keep rabbits as pets - the penalty is about 30 thousand dollars. Somewhat draconian considering that in neighboring New South Wales rabbits are allowed to be bred and the rabbits do not heed warning signs. But if you banned rabbits, then why do you allow cats?
4. Instead of putting deadly poison in the sausages - put an anesthetic. Catch the dozing cats, neuter them and hand them over to a foster home
5. In Japan there are several islands inhabited by one animal species. There is the rabbit island and the rabbit island. Tourists visit these islands. Why don't they try something similar in Australia?
And I will end by quoting the words of Agent Smith (played by an Australian actor):
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
Forgive me, but calling yourself a scientist is a mockery of any knowledge whatsoever. Stupid article by someone who doesn't understand and/or know anything. It makes sense that the author just hates cats. It is true that there is an excessive culture of cats for many reasons and it will be too short to address them here. The writer also mentions different phenomena from different places where the abundance of cats created a problem for completely different reasons. For example, in Australia they have multiplied because they have no natural enemy. Regarding the situation in Israel: the most successful option for maintaining a permanent population of cats is sterilization. This requires a budget and an orderly procedure under which humane sterilization is performed by professionals. In the past there was a dedicated budget - not a large one - for this purpose. The Minister of Agriculture canceled this unsatisfactory budget as well. The result: there are no sterilizations there is culture. In addition, the writer mentions the transmission of diseases, for your information, cats are among the mammals that transmit the fewest diseases to humans, about 4 diseases in total.
wines. The plague of the minnows is the result of the foolishness of the zafari in the Yarkon Park.
A group of wines came out of the safari (in my opinion, with the first intention, to reduce their quantity in the safari), began to spread throughout the country and today they are a painful blow both to the residents and, above all, to the birds of our country: yirgazi, sedum, sparrow, crow, finch and more...
We must find an urgent solution to their dilution and not through poisoning. A smart and efficient solution.
The plague of sorts is still in the making. They multiply at an ever-increasing rate. Every day that goes by without treating the stroke - worsens the situation.
H E L P!!!
I want to present a bigger problem and that is the damage that man does to nature. A person acts in a lack of understanding regarding the balance in biological systems and for one reason or another introduces changes to biological systems (such as importing trees/animals from one region to another) into systems that have worked in harmony for perhaps millions of years and disrupts the balance. And then that person who really doesn't understand, tries to correct the balance and at best fails and at worst causes damage upon damage.
Then there was a discussion about what to do with the problem that was created.
The problem is that neither compassionate conservation nor those in favor of another method can benefit nature.
I am neither a scientist nor a biologist but it is clear to me that none of the scientists can really understand the consequences of a solution such as poisoning millions of cats with poisoned sausages, will other animals also eat the sausages? Or other animals that will eat the poisoned carcasses of the cats? And how will it affect the insects? And the water and the snakes and the like and dozens of other side effects from this act that are not taken into account.
And this is just one example.
I love nature and the animals, I don't know what is the right thing to do and all I have left to do is to look sadly at the thoughtless and sensitive destruction we sow here.
To those who responded "I have seen many attempts by street cats to catch a bird, they all failed". Nice genius, that's not how you do science. There are enough studies in which they saw the effects of stray cats and domestic cats released on bird populations, put cameras on them and got an alarming amount of birds (and other small animals) that they hunted. In addition, the very experience of hunting causes a change in the birds' behavior and harms them (the ability to scavenge for food on the ground, for example).
And in life, almost every owner of cats who releases them receives "gifts" of dead birds from time to time, so how exactly can you deny the phenomenon, even based on observations in the field?!
I have seen many attempts of stray cats to catch a bird
All have failed, poor hunters, and the birds cooperate with warning calls
Before declaring a problem, you need to check that it really exists
It would be better for the street cats if they killed them than the fate they live in, hunger and thirst on a daily basis in addition to diseases and infections that sometimes lead to a slow death. Surprised to find out from the article that it is rights organizations that are responsible for this situation. It's a shame we didn't do anything about it.