• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rallying for Deer Life

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

Did you read the article or what I said in the OP? Do you understand that the state is basically saying "either release these deer into the wild (where they will not survive because they're tame and one of them is blind) or murder them?"

No, the question is "why bother condemning them to death when a wildlife rehabilitator is willing to care to them for their entire lives?"
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Did you read the article or what I said in the OP? Do you understand that the state is basically saying "either release these deer into the wild (where they will not survive because they're tame and one of them is blind) or murder them?"

No, the question is "why bother condemning them to death when a wildlife rehabilitator is willing to care to them for their entire lives?"

Murder is a legal term pertaining to humans. You cannot "murder" an animal.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
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?
Seems like this is a human being interfering with the whole "circle of life" thing. It's sad, but it's just the way life works in the wild. I'm not sure she should have ever taken in the deer in the first place. Also, deer are not "people" or "persons".
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Murder is a legal term pertaining to humans. You cannot "murder" an animal.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time a human is "murdered," seeing as how humans are animals. :p

Seems like this is a human being interfering with the whole "circle of life" thing. It's sad, but it's just the way life works in the wild. I'm not sure she should have ever taken in the deer in the first place. Also, deer are not "people" or "persons".

I'll also be sure to keep this in mind the next time a human animal wants my help. I'll remember it's "interference" and I should just let them die as part of the whole "circle of life" thing. :cool:
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time a human is "murdered," seeing as how humans are animals. :p



I'll also be sure to keep this in mind the next time a human animal wants my help. I'll remember it's "interference" and I should just let them die as part of the whole "circle of life" thing. :cool:
This is nonsensical because humans aren't wild animals. We are long past belonging in the wild.

And, just as an example. Here in DC we have a massive deer population issue.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This is nonsensical because humans aren't wild animals. We are long past belonging in the wild.

Debatable, but fair enough. To me, the state's response to this wildlife rehabilitator is far more nonsensical. Well, perhaps not nonsensical as much as profoundly and deplorably unethical.


And, just as an example. Here in DC we have a massive deer population issue.

I'm aware of the issue. I'm also aware that this issue is not particularly relevant to the woman's case. But if we must bring in non-relevant details, agreeing to let her keep the deer in captivity is removing those deer from the breeding population, as well as suppressing the effects they would otherwise have on natural habitat areas. "But deer are overpopulated!" makes a poor argument for their murder/slaughter in this specific case.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Debatable, but fair enough. To me, the state's response to this wildlife rehabilitator is far more nonsensical. Well, perhaps not nonsensical as much as profoundly and deplorably unethical.



I'm aware of the issue. I'm also aware that this issue is not particularly relevant to the woman's case. But if we must bring in non-relevant details, agreeing to let her keep the deer in captivity is removing those deer from the breeding population, as well as suppressing the effects they would otherwise have on natural habitat areas. "But deer are overpopulated!" makes a poor argument for their murder/slaughter in this specific case.
What about authorizing hunting to limit the deer population. I mean, euthanasia seems to be better than releasing a bunch of hunters with rifles into the equation. I agree that it is a crappy situation, and it is pretty much 100% the fault of humans. But, that being said, if the population is a risk to deer in general, something has to be done.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What about authorizing hunting to limit the deer population. I mean, euthanasia seems to be better than releasing a bunch of hunters with rifles into the equation. I agree that it is a crappy situation, and it is pretty much 100% the fault of humans. But, that being said, if the population is a risk to deer in general, something has to be done.

What about it? I don't see how this is relevant to the story described in the OP. We are talking about two specific deer that were cared for by a wildlife rehabilitator that, because of their circumstances, would be unable to survive in the wild if they were released. The rehabilitator realized this, and asked for a permit to keep the animals in captivity so they could live their lives. The state responded with no, you can't keep these animals, you have to release them (which would kill them) or slaughter/starve them (which would also obviously kill them). Though I agree the issue of deer population management is important, it is not what this thread is about.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
What about it? I don't see how this is relevant to the story described in the OP. We are talking about two specific deer that were cared for by a wildlife rehabilitator that, because of their circumstances, would be unable to survive in the wild if they were released. The rehabilitator realized this, and asked for a permit to keep the animals in captivity so they could live their lives. The state responded with no, you can't keep these animals, you have to release them (which would kill them) or slaughter/starve them (which would also obviously kill them). Though I agree the issue of deer population management is important, it is not what this thread is about.


This was the proper call by the state. No matter how many times you watch Bambi, or how much you want to believe that deer can be domesticated they are still wild animals. If they can survive in the wild so be it. If they can't then they serve a purpose by feeding other animals.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This was the proper call by the state. No matter how many times you watch Bambi, or how much you want to believe that deer can be domesticated they are still wild animals. If they can survive in the wild so be it. If they can't then they serve a purpose by feeding other animals.

Yup.

Again, I'll have to remember that one the next time a human is in trouble. They can serve their purpose by dying and quit being a burden on the rest of us. Never mind that there are other humans willing to take care of that human in need. Nope, the state decrees they just need to die. No food for the poor, no shelter for the homeless, no adoptive parents for the orphans, no aids the deaf or blind, no medicines for the weak or cancerous... they all just need to die even if someone is willing to take care of them, because the state says so. Perfectly sensible. We should all be callous and unempathetic to the plights of other beings.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Yup.

Again, I'll have to remember that one the next time a human is in trouble. They can serve their purpose by dying and quit being a burden on the rest of us. Never mind that there are other humans willing to take care of that human in need. Nope, the state decrees they just need to die. No food for the poor, no shelter for the homeless, no adoptive parents for the orphans, no aids the deaf or blind, no medicines for the weak or cancerous... they all just need to die even if someone is willing to take care of them, because the state says so. Perfectly sensible. We should all be callous and unempathetic to the plights of other beings.

Now you're talking.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
No food for the poor, no shelter for the homeless, no adoptive parents for the orphans, no aids the deaf or blind, no medicines for the weak or cancerous...
That is pretty much the situation for most of the humans on this planet at this time.
Tom
 
Top