Rallying for Deer Life

[Quintessence]

Today, the Wild Hunt featured a story about a wildlife rehabilitator that has been caught on the wrong end of antiquated laws. As a licensed rehabilitator, the honorable Cindy McGinley took a couple of deer into her care to ensure their survival. You can investigate the details of the story by reading the full article (http://wildhunt.org/2015/07/rallying-for-deer-life.html), but in essence, the deer are unable to fully recover in a fashion that would allow them to survive out in the wild. The honorable McGinley applied for the necessary permit to keep the animals (named Lily and Deirdre), and was told the following:

Six weeks later, she received a rejection letter that included strict orders on what to do. Lily should have been euthanized right away, she was informed. McGinley could either do so herself or turn the blind doe over to DEC officials to end her life. Those two options were also presented for Deirdre, along with a third one: lock her out and stop providing food and water.

We all understand (hopefully) that there are very good reasons why there are laws in place to prevent people from keeping wildlife as pets. However, given that releasing these animals into the wild would be condemning them to death, it seems profoundly unethical for the state to basically say "you have to murder these animals." I was both shocked and sickened when I read this story, which reminds me of the double-standard my species has for the treatment of non-human animals. Such a decision never would have been made if the subject was human.

Fortunately, there has been an explosion of support for the honorable McGinley and vehement protest against the deplorable suggestion by the state to murder these other-than-human persons. The final outcome remains to be seen, but there's an important lesson for us to remember here. When it comes to the law, one should remember the spirit of the law and not fall into the trap of following it merely to its letter. Preventing people from keeping wildlife as pets is important as it is respectful of those wonderful other-than-huaman persons we share our world with, but when releasing them would condemn them to death, the spirit of the law must be honored.

Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.

Thoughts?

 

[Nietzsche]

You keep using "honourable" like a samurai in a badly dubbed Kurosawa movie. It makes it hard for me to read your posts and take them seriously.

Now that that's out of the way; I dunno. Blind animals are..eh. Dogs & cats are one thing, they're used to living around(cats) or with(dogs) us. Deer..should ideally be free. And in the wild, a blind deer is known as "food".

 

[Nada]

Today, the Wild Hunt featured a story about a wildlife rehabilitator that has been caught on the wrong end of antiquated laws. As a licensed rehabilitator, the honorable Cindy McGinley took a couple of deer into her care to ensure their survival. You can investigate the details of the story by reading the full article (http://wildhunt.org/2015/07/rallying-for-deer-life.html), but in essence, the deer are unable to fully recover in a fashion that would allow them to survive out in the wild. The honorable McGinley applied for the necessary permit to keep the animals (named Lily and Deirdre), and was told the following:



We all understand (hopefully) that there are very good reasons why there are laws in place to prevent people from keeping wildlife as pets. However, given that releasing these animals into the wild would be condemning them to death, it seems profoundly unethical for the state to basically say "you have to murder these animals." I was both shocked and sickened when I read this story, which reminds me of the double-standard my species has for the treatment of non-human animals. Such a decision never would have been made if the subject was human.

Fortunately, there has been an explosion of support for the honorable McGinley and vehement protest against the deplorable suggestion by the state to murder these other-than-human persons. The final outcome remains to be seen, but there's an important lesson for us to remember here. When it comes to the law, one should remember the spirit of the law and not fall into the trap of following it merely to its letter. Preventing people from keeping wildlife as pets is important as it is respectful of those wonderful other-than-huaman persons we share our world with, but when releasing them would condemn them to death, the spirit of the law must be honored.

Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.

Thoughts?

Deer are very strong,as seen in this video at the 0:55 mark.

Ps.Seriously,it is good to see those who actually care for animals.I just saw a video today of Jimmy Kimmel getting all choked up on camera while talking about Cecil the Lion who was killed for fun by the dentist accused.@ the 4:12 mark he losses it on camera.He has a big heart.

 

[Nakosis]

Thoughts?

Couldn't she get a judgement based on religious beliefs?

 

[columbus]

Thoughts?

When I was a kid my family was driving through the Smoky mountains on vacation. We stopped at a roadside "zoo" that offered to show local wildlife for 50 cents a head.
Itwas one of the most dismal things I have ever seen. Crude cages with sickly looking raccoons, opossums, skunks, etc. It made me ill. We were hardly there ten minutes when my mom said, "Come on kids, we've had enough of this". And we drove off and left the creatures to their fates.
Where do you draw the line?
I don't know. But tough restrictions that do get enforced seem like a good thing to me.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Ps.Seriously,it is good to see those who actually care for animals.I just saw a video today of Jimmy Kimmel getting all choked up on camera while talking about Cecil the Lion who was killed for fun by the dentist accused.@ the 4:12 mark he losses it on camera.He has a big heart.

And to think he once he co-hosted "The Man Show".
How far he's fallen.

But I'm prejudiced against deer.
They're over-populated here, so they eat my small trees.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Today, the Wild Hunt featured a story about a wildlife rehabilitator that has been caught on the wrong end of antiquated laws. As a licensed rehabilitator, the honorable Cindy McGinley took a couple of deer into her care to ensure their survival. You can investigate the details of the story by reading the full article (http://wildhunt.org/2015/07/rallying-for-deer-life.html), but in essence, the deer are unable to fully recover in a fashion that would allow them to survive out in the wild. The honorable McGinley applied for the necessary permit to keep the animals (named Lily and Deirdre), and was told the following:



We all understand (hopefully) that there are very good reasons why there are laws in place to prevent people from keeping wildlife as pets. However, given that releasing these animals into the wild would be condemning them to death, it seems profoundly unethical for the state to basically say "you have to murder these animals." I was both shocked and sickened when I read this story, which reminds me of the double-standard my species has for the treatment of non-human animals. Such a decision never would have been made if the subject was human.

Fortunately, there has been an explosion of support for the honorable McGinley and vehement protest against the deplorable suggestion by the state to murder these other-than-human persons. The final outcome remains to be seen, but there's an important lesson for us to remember here. When it comes to the law, one should remember the spirit of the law and not fall into the trap of following it merely to its letter. Preventing people from keeping wildlife as pets is important as it is respectful of those wonderful other-than-huaman persons we share our world with, but when releasing them would condemn them to death, the spirit of the law must be honored.

Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.

Thoughts?

I strongly doubt that any laws concerning the treatment of wild animals are written with respect for the individual other-than-human persons in mind, and only a limited respect for their kinds--at least here in America. Even laws concerning livestock, pets and companion animals seem to rarely have any respect for them as living sentient beings. Property, at best. Why? Because in our Western culture, the churches spent the last several hundred years trying to stamp out the idea of souls in any beings except humans because we are God's special creation, and the "Enlightenment" has been all about how special and different we humans are because of evolution--that nonhumans (and sometimes, even other humans) are not persons, but unthinking, unfeeling automatons that are either wild or property, and therefore can be disposed of by humans as we see fit...within a few broad limits.

Respecting doesn't mean we shouldn't kill our animal kin, when the need arises--but I think there is plenty of room to discuss when that need arises and how it should be carried out. Our over-protection of wildlife, such as deer, can sometimes result in massive overpopulation in local areas, which damages local ecosystems and can negatively affect the individuals of that species, as well as other species that we aren't aware of or don't find as cute and appealing. There certainly isn't a simple answer for this kind of problem, at least I don't see one.

 

[Nada]

And to think he once he co-hosted "The Man Show".
How far he's fallen.

But I'm prejudiced against deer.
They're over-populated here, so they eat my small trees.

Yes,just like here in Texas,especially going west like towards Uvalde.They look like fleas jumping on the sides of the highway.Hopping all over the place.Many get smacked by big trucks.

 

[Quintessence]

Couldn't she get a judgement based on religious beliefs?

It's hard to say. Given she's a member of a minority religion, though, I wouldn't hold my breath. Various Neopagan religions, Druidry or otherwise, are barely on the public's radar.

 

[Quintessence]

Respecting doesn't mean we shouldn't kill our animal kin, when the need arises--but I think there is plenty of room to discuss when that need arises and how it should be carried out. Our over-protection of wildlife, such as deer, can sometimes result in massive overpopulation in local areas, which damages local ecosystems and can negatively affect the individuals of that species, as well as other species that we aren't aware of or don't find as cute and appealing. There certainly isn't a simple answer for this kind of problem, at least I don't see one.

Some very good points there. Basically, humans mucking about in things can cause all sorts of interesting effects, many of which we do not anticipate. As a conservationist by training, I'm all too aware of the deer overpopulation issue. The underlying causes of that issue are, however, human activities. It is unfortunate that these creatures are the ones that end up suffering for our lack of restraint and discretion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.

When the spirit of the law often doesn't consider respecting humans, how can we expect it to consider non-humans? When the law allows for something that rBGH, which is dangerous for both cows and humans, or when we allow x-amount of pollution that poisons humans and animals to be pumped into the environment, I think we are long ways off before the spirit of the law takes non-human life into consideration.

 

[Quintessence]

When the spirit of the law often doesn't consider respecting humans, how can we expect it to consider non-humans? When the law allows for something that rBGH, which is dangerous for both cows and humans, or when we allow x-amount of pollution that poisons humans and animals to be pumped into the environment, I think we are long ways off before the spirit of the law takes non-human life into consideration.

I like to be an optimist. Besides, I do see examples of extending our compassion to the other-than-human realm. The environmental movement never would have gotten started otherwise.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Some very good points there. Basically, humans mucking about in things can cause all sorts of interesting effects, many of which we do not anticipate. As a conservationist by training, I'm all too aware of the deer overpopulation issue. The underlying causes of that issue are, however, human activities. It is unfortunate that these creatures are the ones that end up suffering for our lack of restraint and discretion.

Absolutely agree. Left to it's own devices, nature tends toward a balance--although it's often not in the way people, even those with education and experience in ecology, etc., think. Anything that causes a disruption of any kind, causes repercussions that often cannot be predicted, and the lines of effect may not be easily detected. And humans cause LOTS of disruptions to nature, and therefore cause lots of suffering and other consequences for our plant and animal relatives.

 

[Kirran]

Deer are very strong,as seen in this video at the 0:55 mark.

Ps.Seriously,it is good to see those who actually care for animals.I just saw a video today of Jimmy Kimmel getting all choked up on camera while talking about Cecil the Lion who was killed for fun by the dentist accused.@ the 4:12 mark he losses it on camera.He has a big heart.

While commendable, it's all very well if he goes out for a burger later that evening. Or just eats meat, ever.

 

[BSM1]

Some very good points there. Basically, humans mucking about in things can cause all sorts of interesting effects, many of which we do not anticipate. As a conservationist by training, I'm all too aware of the deer overpopulation issue. The underlying causes of that issue are, however, human activities. It is unfortunate that these creatures are the ones that end up suffering for our lack of restraint and discretion.

Could you explain what you mean by human activities causing deer overpopulation? Are you talking about the decline of humans hunting deer being the cause of the problem?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Could you explain what you mean by human activities causing deer overpopulation? Are you talking about the decline of humans hunting deer being the cause of the problem?

In a sense, but before there were humans there were other predators that hunted deer. When America began to spread west, settlers killed off the predators--and in fact, in many areas like Illinois and Indiana, all the large native herbivores, too--as we converted the native biota into farmland, etc. Deer have made something of a comeback (hunting organizations like Deer Unlimited have been instrumental), adapting well to urban areas along with the limited areas of forest that are allowed to grow here and there. Some areas have limited hunting and deer populations have taken off--from a "normal" 20 to 30 per square mile of forest to in some parklands around Chicago and other big cities, hundreds per square mile. Without hunting, the only things to kill them are traffic, disease, and starvation. At several hundred per square mile, they strip all available vegetation, which negatively affects other species and reduces the diversity of the local ecosystems. As a result, many park systems have introduced limited culls to reduce populations periodically.

Edit: sorry, this was too broad a generalization: SOME sport hunters tend to want to only take bucks, but as long as you have one buck and a herd of does during the rut, there will be a full brood of fawns come the following summer. Many "sport" hunters want to also take as many deer as they can, and if the states did not tightly regulate hunting, we'd be back to no deer in the midwest in just a couple of years. Managing wildlife populations is difficult at best, when confronted with a political lobby that wants open season on game animals, all the time.

 

[Quintessence]

Could you explain what you mean by human activities causing deer overpopulation? Are you talking about the decline of humans hunting deer being the cause of the problem?

Pretty much what @beenherebeforeagain said. There's fairly extensive literature on this topic, though; it would take a while for me to find good summary papers.

A decent article about basic population dynamics for context, though: http://www.clemson.edu/extension/na...fe/publications/fs29_population_dynamics.html

 

[BSM1]

Pretty much what @beenherebeforeagain said. There's fairly extensive literature on this topic, though; it would take a while for me to find good summary papers.

A decent article about basic population dynamics for context, though: http://www.clemson.edu/extension/na...fe/publications/fs29_population_dynamics.html

If this is the case, why bother trying to save single deer? Shouldn't you become the "natural predator" of the deer to keep the rest healthy?

 

[columbus]

Many "sport" hunters want to also take as many deer as they can, and if the states did not tightly regulate hunting, we'd be back to no deer in the midwest in just a couple of years.

I don't believe this.
I've lived in Indiana my whole life. Deer have always been pests. They eat like rabbits, and can usually jump an eight foot fence.
We've killed off all the wolves and bobcats and such. Nobody wants them back. So we have to hunt them ourselves.
Or they'll just eat everything and then starve.
Tom

 

[freethinker44]

It was a kind a act to try and help the deer, but it's really hard for me to care about this. Growing up in northeast Michigan, deer were like rats. I'm sure they're majestic in other parts of the world, but in Michigan they're just pests. And as far as I know, at least where I'm from, humans are their only natural predator so they just eat and breed until their population can't support it and most the herd starves to death and then repeat the cycle. As far as I'm concerned they're just over-sized rats.