Should humans control animal populations?

[Vipera Magnifica]

I discussed this with a friend recently, and thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion here.

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

3) Should certain species of animals be given more right to live than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?

No one else is going to do it! I don't really see the need for it in most cases, but if there's a real ecological need then I don't think there's anyone else to be responsible for it.

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

I don't understand the exact meaning of this question but I will give it a go. Are we talking about things like feral cats wiping out island birds? I think that it's a sad decision to make, but yeah. The cats would, ideally, be relocated, but when you have hundreds of invasive animals and the threat of a destabilized ecosystem, people have to take responsibility for their own messes.

3) Should certain species of animals be given more rights than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?

"Rights" is ill-defined but I think yes to both? Great apes, due to their intelligence and obvious ability to experience complex emotions and pains, should be treated differently under the law than, say, wood lice or slugs. Humans are animals too, remember, so saying 'all animals should be treated the same' is flawed from the start.

Endangered animals do require more consideration, and I think that it's obvious why. Again, it's a matter of cleaning up messes that we have created, and so we kind of have to take more care of pandas than we do of box turtles or field mice.

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?

Yep. I love tigers as much as the next guy but if an old gruff of a cat is coming into your village at night, everyone has every right to protect themselves. It's preferable to keep the tiger alive (especially because of the previous question!), but an innocent person is worth more than a tiger. Mosquitoes need eradicating on some sort of scale because they transmit malaria, killing more people than any other animal.

 

[Murkrow]

I've always been of two minds about this kind of thing.

On the one hand, I never liked how humans think it's somehow okay to go around messing with other animals like that, but on the other hand, it might be for their benefit in the long run as well. So I guess on the poll I'll vote it depends on the circumstances. Apologies if my answers to pretty much each question is just a reiteration of what I just said.

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?
Out in the wild, ideally I think it should be fair game for any animal, but then large drops or rises in the population might have a massive effect on the ecosystem if something isn't done.
Although, if something's going on because of something we messed up in the first place like introducing a foreign animal, or pollution, then I think fixing it is the best thing to do.


2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?
Not sure what exactly is meant here. Do you mean like culling to prevent the spreading of a disease, that kind of thing? I'm pretty much really against that kind of thing, but it's hard to make that kind of call if other techniques are shown to be really ineffective. It might be the best option on paper but I feel a lot of the people making that kind decision don't realise that animals feel pain and fear :c
On a side note, it bothers me a lot when the news is reporting on a dog attack and they note that the dog was "destroyed" afterwards.


3) Should certain species of animals be given more rights than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?
I'd probably say no to the first question, but that's in the lack of information like how endangered it is. Since how many of them that there are left isn't an inherent quality of the species itself.
And as for endangered species, I've actually wondered this myself and I just can't agree with myself. Preserving a species is a noble effort, but I just can't bring myself to comprehend the difference between some animal dying, and some animal dying with the knowledge that it was the last of its kind.

Again, if the animal is endangered because of some screw-up we did, go for it. Other than that though, the animal would surely be endangered anyway, so it wouldn't have much of an impact on the ecosystem if there were none left rather than very few.


4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?
In human populated areas yes, non-lethally preferably. In the wild no.



The main issue I have with most of these questions is do we have the right to interfere with nature (provided we're not trying to fix something we already messed up) in the first place? Animals interfere with each other all the time, and we're an animal so yes? But we're more intelligent than pretty much all other animals and can consider ethical implications of things, and that leads me to believe that at that point, no option is an okay option because we're thinking on behalf of others whether they'd want it or not, if they were able to want it or not. But again, we're an animal so then is any option an okay option?
It ultimately feels like I'm getting confused about "X isn't natural" vs "the ability to decide to do X is natural", and while something being natural generally isn't a good argument for something, when it comes to preserving nature, I think it does come into it a bit.

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

This was meant to mean more of a "Can killing species x be justified if it stabilizes a certain ecosystem?"

 

[ultraviolet]

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?
Yes and no! it really depends. In Australia at least we have pretty awful problems with introduced animals (rabbits, pigs, cats, foxes, dogs, goats, etc.) going feral and doing significant damage to the native wildlife, because australia's native wildlife generally isn't really equipped for large populations of carnivorous mammals or huge competition from other species. This is because of European colonisation and development, and I think it would really irresponsible if people did not step in and do something about feral animals.

But this doesn't always work out - Cane Toads were introduced here to help reduce bug predation on Sugar Cane fields, but failed miserably because Cane Toads can't actually reach bugs when they live on the tops of sugar canes (not even kidding). The Cane Toad is a really striking example of what happens when you don't do your research.

I think an important role to consider is that of domesticated animal breeders, who breed cats or dogs despite the fact that thousands of animals are destroyed every year because they don't get homes, and also tend to breed for particular aesthetic traits with little regard for health complications. :|

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?
It depends! if there is a feral animal causing problems for native populations, it absolutely should be 'sacrificed' or otherwise managed. I don't really like the idea of killing animals, but if controlling feral populations means that some endangered native animals won't be killed, well. :/

3) Should certain species of animals be given more rights than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?
I definitely think the rights of an animal are more important if they are endangered than one that isn't, just because endangerment is usually due to human intervention and it is irresponsible to not try and rectify that.

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?
I don't think they necessarily need to be controlled unless they're frequently in close contact with people, because people tend to resort to cruel methods when they antagonise an animal and it seems like it would benefit the animals if they were kept away from human settlement. :/ It upsets me when people antagonise sharks even though they represent such a small proportion of human deaths each year because of preventative measures and because they generally seem to attack humans while mistaking them for prey.

 

[shy ♡]

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?

Depends what you mean by 'regulating'. If you mean hunting supposed over-population of animals like wolves, then definitely no. If you mean helping to restore populations that we have culled to begin with, then it is our moral imperative since if we didn't exist it would not be a problem at all.

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

I don't believe killing things is necessary, so no to sacrifices. If some individual animal is somehow a problem, just relocate it. Generally though it's probably the humans that are the problem.

3) Should certain species of animals be given more rights than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?

What do you mean by 'rights'? Does that mean voting rights or the right to bear arms or something? 9_9 Idk? All things are inherently equal, we just attach more value depending on certain things.

We definitely need to protect endangered species, but non-endangered species don't have to be sacrificed for them. You can protect both.

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?

Depends? I don't know of many animals that actually think of humans as prey so it's a very trivial question. The main problem is things like mosquitoes, which we obviously do try to control with little results.

Humm... don't know what I think about killing things like mosquitoes - I guess it's a self-defense situation so it's not a terrible.

 

[Espeon]

Yay, a debate I might be able to join in with!

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?

As others have said before me, it does entirely depend on the situation, and how the 'control' is being implemented. There are three major situations which I can think of: introduction of a new species, accidental introduction and farming/captivity.

Obviously as ultraviolet has previously stated, release of an animal which functions well in one ecosystem might completely destroy a population of animals. I seriously doubt all of the research in the world could accurately predict an introduced species' behaviour and interactions with its new environment and then you end up with masses of unwanted animals, such as rabbits and cane toads.

Conversely, you have species – such as the rat – which have climbed aboard ships when developed countries at the time were starting to explore the world. Unintentional introduction of species can be more harmful as in these cases, we're not even monitoring what's going on with the ecosystem. The Tuatara is now only found in remote areas because of the introduction of rats. I would agree that eradication of rat populations from these areas where they threaten the conservation of the Tuatara is acceptable for three main reasons: Without human intervention, the Tuatara would probably still be alright in its natural environments. Secondly, rats wouldn't have been introduced without accidental human interference. Lastly, rats are extremely common, so eradicating them in one area is not going to cause them to go extinct.

I think one of the largest areas where population control is highly important, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is in farming. With oversized farm populations, we end up with a 'battery' farming situation of low welfare imposed on the animals. However, at the same time, a farmer has to keep his profit margins within reason and as such, the productive value of an animal throughout its lifetime will impose on its lifestyle – whether it be breeding for replenisher stock, or for slaughter.

Any form of milk production will involve pregnancy. Control of the breeding seasons in production animals is highly important in the maintenance of food production, as a cow will only lactate due to calving. However, this then brings up ethical issues as only female animals produce milk. Though the bull could be slaughtered for beef, many are shot on being born because the dairy breeds do not have a good killing out percentage. However, if farmers had to keep and rear all of their bulls, they would lose a large amount of their profit which could mean lower welfare standards for all of the animals in the system.

Artificial insemination is very common in large production systems for dairy cattle due to low fertility rates. The fertility rates are low due to the drive for productivity – cows with a higher milk yield are less fertile due to a genetic link. As such, the population needs to be controlled this way in order to prevent there being too few cows born (and thus, no milk shortage).

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the 'greater good' of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

It really depends on the circumstances. In most circumstances, I don't agree with killing healthy animals however, if there is a large disruption to the ecosystem caused by animals then it's sometimes necessary. With the Tuatara, it was only due to humans that caused the introduction of rats to the ecosystem, so it seems more justified. We cause the problem, we do our best to fix it and the best way to do that is to get rid of what caused the initial imbalance. However, if the animal was already native to the population, or has migrated to a new location, this is really just nature taking its course. There are probably a few circumstances where removal of a species can be justified, but they're likely rare circumstances.

3) Should certain species of animals be given more rights than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?

You would swat a fly but you wouldn't do the same to a pug, yet that same person might find both to be abominations. As a whole, humans are very speciest. What we find cute, fluffy, or attractive, we'd give more priority to. What we can use, what is big, meaty, productive, we also use. In the UK, all vertebrate animals (and a particular species of octopus) are protected by the Animal Welfare Act (2006). Then you get all into the topic of animal sentience and stuff, which is all above me, because I struggle to get my head around it. But in short, animals we deem as being more sentient tend to get higher priority than those who don't because we can relate to them and because they're more interesting. Conservation charities advertise for "adopt a tiger", yet the money certainly wouldn't just be spent on tiger conservation as there are endangered plant species, too. You'd never see a pitch for "adopt a Myrtle Elbow Orchid" because it just doesn't appeal!

It's again, all very circumstance-based, but we perhaps differentiate our treatment of different animal groups more than we should.

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?

Well, lots of things can be dangerous to humans. We keep bulls, which can be dangerous. Pigs will eat you. There is a danger of death with most animal husbandry. There was a small uproar in London about an urban fox getting into someone's home and biting the finger off of their baby, which prompted a "we need to do more to control urban foxes" response from the Government, at the time. More people get bitten by dogs than foxes due to our close proximity to them and the fact that foxes often shy away from human contact. Although a growing population of urban foxes coexist with humans, attacks are so infrequent that the news story was unreasonably disproportioned. (Part of my personal feelings on this is due to certain people maybe wanting to reintroduce the sport hunting of foxes). Dogs frequently do more damage though; do they need to be more controlled than they are currently?

As for large, dangerous animals, they tend to live outside of human contact and if anything, humans do more damage to their species than their species do to ours. If there really is a major problem with say, man-eating animals, then control measures might need to be taken, but only when needed. I feel that control measures should aim to be non-lethal and welfare-friendly, and lethal treatments should be used only when there is no other possible option.

 

[Dannichu]

Just in response to the last question - the issue of foxes in urban areas really annoys me. The solution isn't to kill foxes, it's to have better waste disposal and cleaner streets, so foxes won't move into areas massively populated by humans. The foxes (and pigeons and seagulls) are symptomatic of a much wider problem of human waste, and culling the populations of those animals when they start to cause problems isn't really going to help.

There aren't any animals in the UK that are especially dangerous to humans, though I have opinions about having dangerous dogs, especially around children. If you have a dog you know is aggressive (or even an aggressive breed), it's an owner's responsibility to make sure it poses zero threat to people or other pets. And any dog that's shown to be dangerous absolutely needs to be controlled (even with lethal methods).

 

[Espeon]

Just in response to the last question - the issue of foxes in urban areas really annoys me. The solution isn't to kill foxes, it's to have better waste disposal and cleaner streets, so foxes won't move into areas massively populated by humans. The foxes (and pigeons and seagulls) are symptomatic of a much wider problem of human waste, and culling the populations of those animals when they start to cause problems isn't really going to help.

There aren't any animals in the UK that are especially dangerous to humans, though I have opinions about having dangerous dogs, especially around children. If you have a dog you know is aggressive (or even an aggressive breed), it's an owner's responsibility to make sure it poses zero threat to people or other pets. And any dog that's shown to be dangerous absolutely needs to be controlled (even with lethal methods).

Oh, yeah – this is sort of what I was getting at, really. Because the urban foxes pose near to no threat to human health, they don't need to be controlled through lethal methods. You're exactly right with the problem of human waste, and I hadn't exactly considered it from this perspective before. My stance was more "they're not a problem so why do anything?" :'D

And of course, aggressive dogs DO need to be controlled – I also agree 100% with you there. In general, I feel people SHOULD know to control their dogs. There are muzzles to prevent them from barking and, more importantly, biting.

I don't know how big a problem this is in the rest of the UK, or worldwide, but a lot of the time I do see people here in Liverpool who like to have these muscly, beefy dogs for status. They don't castrate them and prompt them to become aggressive in some extreme cases becasue they're just status dogs. It's highly irresponsible. Previously they were pit bulls before they became illegal to keep without a lisence in the UK. Luckily, most of the 'status dogs' (usually staffordshire terriers or some kind of staffie cross) I see now are really funny because they just look so happy and playful and you just can't look at all fearsome with such a happy, playful dog. :'D

The sad thing is that a lot of these status dogs do just end up being euthanised and quite a few of the canine cadavers at the vet school here are euthanised aggressive animals.

 

[shy ♡]

There aren't any animals in the UK that are especially dangerous to humans, though I have opinions about having dangerous dogs, especially around children. If you have a dog you know is aggressive (or even an aggressive breed), it's an owner's responsibility to make sure it poses zero threat to people or other pets. And any dog that's shown to be dangerous absolutely needs to be controlled (even with lethal methods).

I totally disagree about using lethal methods. If you can't handle a dog it's your own fault (the owners); dogs do not start out aggressive (technically, only 1% of dogs is inherently aggressive for aggressiveness sake, and even those can be used).

I think your lack of knowledge and possible bias on the subject of dogs is getting in the way of this topic, because lethal methods would not be necessary on humans, would they? Dogs are even less to blame than a human for their actions and can always be rehabilitated if someone actually knows how and tries.

 

[Dannichu]

I totally agree that euthanising dangerous dogs isn't the best way, and what would be ideal is that people didn't abuse dogs to make them dangerous in the first place. If there are people who are knowledgeable and able to rehabilitate dogs around, then that should absolutely happen (the dog that attacked me was given back to the breeder it came from, I'm glad it wasn't put down), but it isn't always the case, and the safety of humans and other dogs should come first.

Oh, yeah – this is sort of what I was getting at, really. Because the urban foxes pose near to no threat to human health, they don't need to be controlled through lethal methods. You're exactly right with the problem of human waste, and I hadn't exactly considered it from this perspective before. My stance was more "they're not a problem so why do anything?" :'D

And of course, aggressive dogs DO need to be controlled – I also agree 100% with you there. In general, I feel people SHOULD know to control their dogs. There are muzzles to prevent them from barking and, more importantly, biting.

I don't know how big a problem this is in the rest of the UK, or worldwide, but a lot of the time I do see people here in Liverpool who like to have these muscly, beefy dogs for status. They don't castrate them and prompt them to become aggressive in some extreme cases becasue they're just status dogs. It's highly irresponsible. Previously they were pit bulls before they became illegal to keep without a lisence in the UK. Luckily, most of the 'status dogs' (usually staffordshire terriers or some kind of staffie cross) I see now are really funny because they just look so happy and playful and you just can't look at all fearsome with such a happy, playful dog. :'D

The sad thing is that a lot of these status dogs do just end up being euthanised and quite a few of the canine cadavers at the vet school here are euthanised aggressive animals.

While foxes aren't really a safety issue, they are problematic - for starters, they make noises that sound like children being murdered, and if you live in an area with a whole bunch of foxes that come out at night, it's actually really distressing when you're trying to sleep. Plus they're wild animals, and it's no good to anybody that they're living off human refuse.

There are so many trophy dogs near where I live. Every other house has an uncastrated staffie bull terrier. Nobody cleans up after them either, and the streets are covered in dog mess.

 

[yiran]

1) Should humans be responsible for regulating animal populations?

I'd really like to see someone regulating the human population. But by human standards it's morally wrong to tell humans to stop having sex and/or to get abortions because as humans naturally place themselves on a higher moral ground than animals.

It really depends on what sort of morality the answerer has. Most logical answer I could see humans picking would be whatever benefited them the most.

2) Should individual animals be sacrificed for the "greater good" of an ecosystem, or should all individuals be given equal moral consideration?

Whatever option benefits humans more, as above.

3) Should certain species of animals be given more right to live than others? Should endangered species be given more consideration than non-endangered species?

If they can help humans. (Generally yes in this case because biodiversity helps a lot with health areas such as medicines and also provides entertainment in the zoo industry.)

4) Should animals that are dangerous to humans be controlled, by either lethal or non-lethal methods?

Blah blah same as above. In this case human attachment to the animal is a factor needed to be considered because omg dogs have the right to live even if they kill others! (Not a sarcastic parody, by the way. Legit reactions, perhaps exaggerated, demonstrated by those whose pets are threatened with lethal injections due to the pets' behaviour.)

 

[Espeon]

It's all well and good to say that only 1% of dogs are only inherently aggressive and that it should be the responsibility of the owner to keep the dog, or dogs, in question under control. Even if they could be rehabilitated, there are far more irresponsible owners who actually WANT an aggressive animal out there than can be feasibly observed. I mean, you could ban them from owning animals but then, if you never find these people or if they don't adhere to their ban then there's not really masses which can be done.

While foxes aren't really a safety issue, they are problematic - for starters, they make noises that sound like children being murdered, and if you live in an area with a whole bunch of foxes that come out at night, it's actually really distressing when you're trying to sleep. Plus they're wild animals, and it's no good to anybody that they're living off human refuse.

There are so many trophy dogs near where I live. Every other house has an uncastrated staffie bull terrier. Nobody cleans up after them either, and the streets are covered in dog mess.

Hm, I'd never really given thought to it that way. I like the noises that foxes make but they're really not that commonly heard where I live. Not to say that the foxes don't exist – we do have a fair few – but not as many to say that people are going to get swarmed by oodles of foxes. It's usually just a stray individual, or pair. Though, every encounter I've had with a fox has just caused it to run away, so I've never really had a bad experience with the animals.

I don't see why being a "wild animal" is a bad thing. We don't complain about most of the wildlife we have so I fail to see what this adds a little. :s But yeah, it's totally agreeable that it's bad for them to live off of our refuse. I guess having fox-proof bins is one thing, but if we want to control fox populations then it should (obviously) be done non-lethally, lest we want to get into a cycle of killing foxes when their populations become to large again. :/

Personally, I find it kind of irresponsible not to neuter your dog unless you intend to breed from it, so seeing all of these uncastrated status dogs does bother me a fair amount. :'D

 

[shy ♡]

It's all well and good to say that only 1% of dogs are only inherently aggressive and that it should be the responsibility of the owner to keep the dog, or dogs, in question under control. Even if they could be rehabilitated, there are far more irresponsible owners who actually WANT an aggressive animal out there than can be feasibly observed. I mean, you could ban them from owning animals but then, if you never find these people or if they don't adhere to their ban then there's not really masses which can be done.

That seems like a different issue.

The question is - can these dogs be rehabilitated? Yes, they can. So because of that, euthanizing them is immoral, unless you do not consider their lives to be important.

The things you bring up are certainly important and difficult, but they are separate issues to the underlying point - it is immoral to euthanize an animal who can be rehabilitated.

If you look at this in human terms:

Humans in prison are very difficult to rehabilitate. So let's say people on death row are simply too difficult to rehabilitate and we should euthanize them because they might be a danger to others and we can't find all the people who might be causing these situations in order to prevent them and some people even WANT their children to turn out like this. It's easier to euthanize than to rehabilitate.

But it's still immoral (and in the long run, you are not solving the problem, which is lack of knowledge causing these situations).

Sorry, I just know that dogs are really easy to rehabilitate in the right hands and will never excuse euthanizing them.

 

[Espeon]

I dunno. I mean, I don't disagree but comparing it to humans just doesn't really do anything for me since in my immediate life, capital punishment isn't a thing. As such, the idea of euthanising a person seems exceptionally foreign. :') Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound insensitive or robotic. I realise it happens and have opinions against it but it's not an issue which I can personally relate to. That's all. As someone who's more familiar with the animal side of things, the human example is just confusing. :')

I'd also like to point out here that I don't condone the euthanisation of any healthy or 'salveageable' animal, since it seems like you're arguing against me for that. (If not, my apologies, I've missed the point somewhere). Either way I feel that lethal methods should be the absolute last resort if nothing else can be done, which is highly unlikely.

With regards to the status dogs etc... Of course it's a different issue, but that doesn't mean it's unrelated. I just mean to say that sometimes it's impossible to find all aggressive animals, and if all were found then there may be too many to rehabilitate in one go AND that perhaps taking a more 'prevention is better than cure' attitude could help things a lot. I didn't explicitly say this since I thought it was implied so again, sorry I didn't communicate effectively.