"Not all" are saved? I'd be surprised if you could save 1% of them. Ferals don't cooperate well with being saved.
Unwanted pest animals? You mean, like, those humans who greedily destroy their own environment despite having the superior-to- lesser-forms-of-life intelligence to make different choices rather than just reacting to survival instincts in the moment?
Once an animal is dead it IS a waste to not find a use for the remains, whether in clothing or food (or even fertilizer). The problem is that if a use is acceptable after death, it leads to the wanton and greedy and often cruelly painful extermination of the animal in order to supply the use/demand. Thus the prohibitions. Not that it helps totally, there's always a black market.
I support a number of TNR feral groups, because stopping the explosion of more litters exponentially is a critical first step, until we come up with something better. But they get me impatiently annoyed when they go to ridiculous and expensive lengths to keep an ailing or injured feral alive rather than euthanize it. Death isn't the worst thing: a hard life fraught with disease and accidents (and cruel humans) is.
Beloved pets vs. pragmatism: Once you've bonded with an individual animal, it isn't a hard next step to envision any other animal as being an individual creature one could become a bonded companion to/vice versa. But, like individuals humans, there's individuals one can and individuals one can't get close to. Is the criteria to be "If I can love this individual ______ (cat, pig, horse, monkey, rat, chicken) therefore it deserves to live, and live well, and everyone else should respect it as I do -- and all it's brethren"? That seems as reasonable (pragmatic?) a criteria as any other.
I don't think there will ever be a definitive, totally pragmatic answer to this question/problem as long as humans find themselves having emotional attachments to ANY non-human creature. Just as dog lovers won't get why cat lovers prefer cats and vice versa. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 05:07 pm (UTC)Unwanted pest animals? You mean, like, those humans who greedily destroy their own environment despite having the superior-to- lesser-forms-of-life intelligence to make different choices rather than just reacting to survival instincts in the moment?
Once an animal is dead it IS a waste to not find a use for the remains, whether in clothing or food (or even fertilizer). The problem is that if a use is acceptable after death, it leads to the wanton and greedy and often cruelly painful extermination of the animal in order to supply the use/demand. Thus the prohibitions. Not that it helps totally, there's always a black market.
I support a number of TNR feral groups, because stopping the explosion of more litters exponentially is a critical first step, until we come up with something better. But they get me impatiently annoyed when they go to ridiculous and expensive lengths to keep an ailing or injured feral alive rather than euthanize it. Death isn't the worst thing: a hard life fraught with disease and accidents (and cruel humans) is.
Beloved pets vs. pragmatism: Once you've bonded with an individual animal, it isn't a hard next step to envision any other animal as being an individual creature one could become a bonded companion to/vice versa. But, like individuals humans, there's individuals one can and individuals one can't get close to. Is the criteria to be "If I can love this individual ______ (cat, pig, horse, monkey, rat, chicken) therefore it deserves to live, and live well, and everyone else should respect it as I do -- and all it's brethren"? That seems as reasonable (pragmatic?) a criteria as any other.
I don't think there will ever be a definitive, totally pragmatic answer to this question/problem as long as humans find themselves having emotional attachments to ANY non-human creature. Just as dog lovers won't get why cat lovers prefer cats and vice versa. :-)