Eco-terrorism

[Slytovhand]

Some got moved to the bush.. 'relocated'. I've a feeling perhaps zoos as well - but maybe not. ( but IIRC, last I heard, there was still going to be culls though - perhaps another about-face! Then again, maybe I'm thinking back further as well )

[Nyoibo]

Culls are occasionally necesary, if their migratory patterns aren't large enough (which with all the urban sprawl they're getting smaller) then the genetic diversity gets closed off and interbreeding gets too much then it gets bad, the other problem is that their feeding grounds are getting smaller, so there's not as much land to support them.

[protege]

Culls are needed. How do I know this? Well, the deer population in SW PA is annoyingly large. Yet, because many rural areas are being turned over to development...the herds are being forced onto smaller and smaller tracts of land. While that is going on, nearly all of those "wooded but developed" areas are off-limits to hunting...and since (locally) deer have few predators, their population explodes and then they have to compete with limited resources.

Some survive, while others starve to death over the winter. I don't know about you...but dealing with deer carcasses is pretty nasty business. Rotting meat brings all sorts of critters into the area--possibly rabid raccoons, vultures and other scavengers. I don't know about the rest of you...but do you want rabid raccoons near your house? I sure as hell don't!

That's why you need some hunting to help control the population. Yet, because nobody wants to get shot...you're not allowed to hunt in Allegheny County (basically Pittsburgh and the 'burbs). Bow-hunting has been tried in the larger parks, but from what I've heard, has been unsuccessful. Too many protesters, and too many idiots walking around to worry about.

Also, not all "hunters" are sportsmen. Many do it for the thrill of killing something, or for a trophy...which isn't what it's about. Most guys I know do it to put food on the table (venison chili is freaking awesome), or because it requires plenty of skill for a clean kill. By "clean," I mean that one shot drops the animal. What you don't want, is for it to suffer...or have to chase it down to do it right.

...and then there are the assholes we'd sometimes come across. These fools, would sit atop one ridge, and shoot across the valley, attempting to hit targets on the other ridge. Never mind that they'd leave wounded (or dead) deer to rot, but we'd ask them to leave or call the cops. Why? Well, they didn't have permission to be on our land, and we'd tired of dealing with the mess they'd leave behind. Oh, and occasionally one of the renter's cattle (we'd rent out the pastures) would get shot!

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem with ecoterrorism is that it places people in a vacuum. A lot of people talk about punishing a Japanese whaling CEO or something.

But he doesn't exist in a vacuum. Killing him punishes his family. His wife, his children, people whose only crime is being associated with him. The families of the people on the whaling boats, etc. etc.

People don't exist in a vacuum, and destroying an industry without offering an alternative to those involved in it assumes that everyone involved in that industry is a malicious bastard. And that's just not fair.

[Fryk]

You could make the same argument for putting a father in prison for a crime he committed, though. After all, even though he murdered someone, the rest of the family suffers, too.

[Tanasi]

You could make the same argument for putting a father in prison for a crime he committed, though. After all, even though he murdered someone, the rest of the family suffers, too.

The difference is the CEO of the whaling company isn't breaking any laws of his country whereas the father that committed murdered did break a law.
When someone discounts another's life also discounts their own as well as every other person.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, well... as long as there's no law against it, it must be ok!!!

No, the 'law' isn't the sole determiner for what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

[Kimmik]

Oh, well... as long as there's no law against it, it must be ok!!!

No, the 'law' isn't the sole determiner for what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

So is it ok to violate a law that you think is wrong? Is it ok to murder someone who you think has done something against your moral compass?

you stated that

IMHO, if you can stop 10,000 whales being killed by the (at worst case scenario) death of 1 Japanese whaling company CEO... falls into acceptable losses in my books!

So if someone can stop a certain number of animals being killed it is worth a human life... does that mean anti-abortionist are right in killing an abortion doctor because it might save a life of a baby? Is it right if a homophobic Christian *not your normal Christian I am talking about the radicals* kills a homosexual because to them it is right because their bible says so?

What about the extremist in other countries that kill because of x reason that is right in their eyes?

See you begin a slippery slope. I am for banning sport hunting... but not hunting. I grew up eating venison and other things... I was raised if I shot it I ate it.... with the exception of self defense.. ALL Life is precious.. but killing for food is an acceptable thing.. some science requires killing.. But in all I think all extremist of ANY kind are bad.

Extremist get their way through bullying, violence and terror.. be it for the animals, the environment, or any other bloody thing... None of it is right..

I don't mean to come off like a bitch.. but I have seen what extremist can do.. and the damage lingers on after the act...

[Fryk]

Here's something I just thought of- where do we stop caring about what types of animals are killed? Is it ok to kill ants or termites?
"Oh, but termites damage homes and such, that why we-"
but anything living in close proximity to humans is bound to damage someone's property. Bear can crash their way into a kitchen and wreck someone's home up- can we kill them?
I'm not really trying to make a clear point here yet, I am just wondering what everytone thinks. At what point is it ok to kill an animal?

[joe hx]

Is it ok to kill ants or termites?

Another rationalization might be there's a shit ton of ants or termites, but only so many bears. But, according to this site, several species of incests are endangered, including a few groups of ants... So I guess that nullifies that rationalization.

[the_std]

several species of incests are endangered

... I just had to point this out, cause it nearly made me piss my pants from laughing.

[Slytovhand]

So is it ok to violate a law that you think is wrong?

Well - yes, of course! Who doesn't speed when they feel like it? Who doesn't cheat on their taxes? Who is a fully, 100% law abiding citizen? If you went to another country with laws you disagreed with, will you stick to them all - such as the alcohol ban in certain Muslim countries? (no, I'm not trying to indicate that breaking such laws is ok - just pointing out that the violation of laws happens in general, so the argument you present is a little weak on it's own.

Is it ok to murder someone who you think has done something against your moral compass?

Like all things in life - it depends on the individual circumstances. But, as a general answer to your question (that being either a 'yes' or a 'no'), then obviously, the answer is 'yes', given certain stances I've already stated here and elsewhere (eg, death penalty et al).

So if someone can stop a certain number of animals being killed it is worth a human life...

Yes - again depending on specifics - one human life is not worth the extinction or mass slaughter into seriously endangered of a species of other sentient life. Let me look at this argument from another point of view. Let's say a race of aliens comes to planet Earth and decides we're not worth much to them. They start doing whatever it is they want to do, with complete disregard to us - and in doing so, kills us off. Do we think "Well, that's ok, they're obviously superior to us, so we should just let them?" Or, do you think you're worth fighting for? Is the life worth something only because it happens to be in a human body??? I suggest not!

does that mean anti-abortionist are right in killing an abortion doctor because it might save a life of a baby? Is it right if a homophobic Christian *not your normal Christian I am talking about the radicals* kills a homosexual because to them it is right because their bible says so?

While the general argument seems to be similar, it is in fact very very different, to the point of being irrelevant. You're trying here to attach significance only on the moral aspect of my argument, rather than the reason for it. And also make it a lot more black and white in moralistic terms... I've never indicated that!

What about the extremist in other countries that kill because of x reason that is right in their eyes?

Are you doing anything to actively stop them? Please recall, George Bush (snr and jnr) both used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. Hitler used it to invade Czechoslovakia. Britain used it to help defend Europe, and the USA used it to join in WWI.

See you begin a slippery slope.

Yes, it can be... while it's still seen in purely black and white terms. And, in one way, it is - it's pretty black and white that taking a species to near or total extinction is a bad thing to do, and ought to be stopped. If good, civilised, peaceful and 'humane' ways don't work, then I advocate the use of more 'extreme' measures. It's not the best option - but if it's the only option remaining to prevent such extinctions and destructions, then so be it!

Extremist get their way through bullying, violence and terror.. be it for the animals, the environment, or any other bloody thing... None of it is right..

And the profits, and the home comforts and conveniences we take for granted???

I don't mean to come off like a bitch.. but I have seen what extremist can do.. and the damage lingers on after the act...

I totally agree! And that's why I started this thread - there are corporations that willingly, and unashamedly, damage the world around them. This species of humans will not readily survive this sort of damage they are inflicting. Hey, just look at how people are bitching now because they don't want to change to make things better around them (ie, alternative energies, reduced water usage, higher taxes to off-set carbon emmissions etc - if we wised up decades ago, when we were first told about what we're doing, this wouldn't be the problem it is now).

[Tanasi]

So Slytovhand when does your flight to Japan leave?

[Nyoibo]

And the profits, and the home comforts and conveniences we take for granted???

Unless you're living a totally impact free non-consumerist life then you are supporting the problem, does this mean it's ok to kill you becuase you are the cause of the problem?

The CEO is not to blame, the consumers who create the demand are, kill all of them the demand disappears.

[jackfaire]

I don't cross unless the light says I can or lacking a light I use my best judgement.