Ideology Distorts Reason: Animal Rights Advocates Oppose Necessary S. African Elephant Cull
The South African government has relegalized the culling of elephant herds. Predictably, animal rights activists are calling for a boycott. From the story:
Beginning in May, the government will lift a 13-year ban on elephant culls, which are usually carried out by shooting entire herds, including youngsters, from helicopters.Animal Rights Africa said culling was "cruel and morally reprehensible," adding that elephants have emotions similar to those of humans.The reaction of groups like Animal Rights Africa demonstrates the profound irrationality that is a hallmark of animal rights ideology. Killing elephants isn't murder. Moreover, the animal rights activists are the cruel ones: Not culling would eventually lead to mass starvation of the elephants and other animals.The move could hurt the country's tourism industry, with animal welfare lobbies calling for a tourist boycott to protest culling...The guidelines call for "humane" killing, specifying that a rifle of at least .375 caliber be used. Sharpshooters usually kill entire herds because of the complex social structure of elephants and because young animals need to be taught social behavior by adults in order to survive...
Although elephants are endangered in other parts of Africa, the population in South Africa is robust. But the issue of culling is emotional for many, because of elephants' keen intelligence and elaborate social behaviors. Elephants are known to grieve for their dead. There are 18,000 elephants in South Africa, including more than 12,500 in Kruger National Park, one of the country's most famous tourist attractions. SANParks, the government agency in charge of parks and national game reserves, called for culling in a 2005 report to the government, arguing that too many elephants threaten other species.
Van Schalkwyk said there also was concern about the impact of elephants on the landscape and the livelihoods and safety of people living near the herds. Before culling, reserve managers will have to prove that they have excess elephants and that killing is the only effective option.
Animal Rights Africa said culling was "cruel and morally reprehensible," adding that elephants have emotions similar to those of humans. "The latest research has proved that elephants have a sense of self-awareness, placing them in a unique category with great apes, dolphins and humans," the organization said. "How much like us do elephants have to be before killing them becomes murder?"
I have visited these parks--the experience of a lifetime. I have seen wild elephants very close up and they are magnificent. But I have also seen firsthand how elephants destroy the environment. In closed systems like the S. African parks, their population must be kept in check or the parks will be destroyed. The only way to not cull would be to remove all humans from the adjacent area and make the entire east side of S. Africa an animal reserve. But most of the people I saw in the area are subsistence farmers. But, of course, they matter little to the animal rights advocates.
Boycott S. Africa? That was a totally righteous action to eradicate the evil of Apartheid, but over proper animal husbandry practices that are not pleasant but are definitely necessary? No!
Labels: Animal Rights Irrationality
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:56 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
You've seen firsthand how _elephants_ destroy the environment? What about people?!
Tracy: Like I said: Animal rights ideologues are irrational. It isn't a criticism of the animals. They are elephants. It is what they do. They don't have a sense of the environment. They don't have a sense of responsibility to anyone but their own herd. They don't have the capacity to live any other way.
They have to be culled to prevent the parks from becoming a wasteland. It's this simple, as unpleasant as killing elephants is.
Tsavo has struggled with this for years and I have seen conflicting reports about how successful it is to let elephant populations blow up, starve and naturally die back after taxing the local vegetation. It depends on how committed someone is to “natural” mechanisms. The following quote from a Smithsonian article on Tsavo seems to support your position, Wesley.
“Gay Bradshaw, a psychologist in the environmental sciences programs at Oregon State University and Pacifica Graduate Institute in California who is writing a book to be called Elephant Breakdown, contends that "culling is neither ethically nor scientifically viable." …The only way to save elephants, Bradshaw says, is to expand their habitat and find a way for humans to coexist with them and other wild animals.”
The elephants need us to cordon off more land for them!
I once talked to a naturalist scientist in Jackson Hole, Wyoming about culling back the elk herds. They reintroduced wolves to help do the job in addition to controlled hunting. The cattle ranchers were losing cattle, which means they were losing money, because the wolves were just as happy to eat the cattle as the elk. This man saw that as small concern to naturally controlling the elk population. I pointed out to him that his worldview was in conflict with his policies. WE had removed (reasonably) the balance of other predators because they represented a risk to us. WE are not an exceptional animal and merely a part of the natural order. Therefore, WE were the highest predator in the area and bore the brunt of the responsibility to control the herd sizes. The reintroduction of wolves is NOT natural, but an unnatural step performed by an animal that naturally eradicated wolves from this area in aggressive pursuit of our own self-interest like all other animals. He merely restated his objection to culling. When I asked, “Then why not just do nothing? We both know that the elk herd will very naturally explode in population over tax the local vegetation and starve as well as get diseased and die back.”
He responded, “No one wants to see a bunch of elk starving in the streets with a devastated local ecology. That would kill tourism.”
“So you are a capitalist after all,” I said. He just shrugged.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home