Coyote Attack in Laguna Woods: City Council Votes to Shoot Coyotes

[I_am_learning]

There's a big difference depending on the animal and what it's doing

Killing insects does not really open up an avenue to animal cruelty, hunting for hunting sake does.

Who is talking about hunting for hunting sake? I am talking about killing coyotes when they are trying to attack you or your puppy.

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but People talk about how cruel it is that the Municipality mercilessly Killing Street Dogs to control rabies.

I see high biasdness regarding animal affection and cruelity depending upon the size of the animal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Who is talking about hunting for hunting sake? I am talking about killing coyotes when they are trying to attack you or your puppy.

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but People talk about how cruel it is that the Municipality mercilessly Killing Street Dogs to control rabies.

I see high biasdness regarding animal affection and cruelity depending upon the size of the animal.

If there is a bias it's a legitimate bias. Firstly: Pesticides that wipe out other animals is unfortunate and should be worked against (e.g. DDT). Secondly: Insects are different not just because of their size but because of the indication that they may not feel pain and the level of consciousness we are willing to give them.

I base my ethics in a utilitarian manner, rating pleasure vs suffering. The suffering of insects rarely matches up, though I do avoid killing them unnecessarily.

 

[I_am_learning]

If there is a bias it's a legitimate bias. Firstly: Pesticides that wipe out other animals is unfortunate and should be worked against (e.g. DDT). Secondly: Insects are different not just because of their size but because of the indication that they may not feel pain and the level of consciousness we are willing to give them.

I base my ethics in a utilitarian manner, rating pleasure vs suffering. The suffering of insects rarely matches up, though I do avoid killing them unnecessarily.

For Bold: How do you know?
For Underline: How are we authorized to decide for them?

Furthermore, I think the mice that attacks our food are more innocent than the coyotes being discussed. Yet nobody feels bad about killing hundreds of mice.
In my opinion, we need to first care for ourselves, then only care animals.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but

There is a natural difference between the two survival strategies of many-but-simple and few-but-complex.

The many-but-simple strategy has evolved to be prey, to be wiped out by the thousands. If they were not, the world would quickly be overrun with them. The few-but-complex strategy is evolved to invest lots of budget into few creatures. Wiping out just a few of them can upset whole ecologies.

Which is why, yes, the life of a mosquito really is cheap - by nature's standards, not just our own.

And that's where we get into an issue of culling coyotes. When the few-but-complex predators start to overrun their domain, that can cause the balance to go haywire.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think humans have the right to claim any land they want and kill what ever lives on it. Just because it's done doesn't make it right.

True, though what are the alternatives? Human populations expand unchecked. We do not place restrictions on them (such as you have no land therefore you you cannot breed), so the needs of the animals fall second to the needs of the humans. Short of strict human population control (never going to happen) animals are fighting a losing war with human expansion. Not much that can be done about that at this level.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

For Bold: How do you know?
For Underline: How are we authorized to decide for them?

Furthermore, I think the mice that attacks our food are more innocent than the coyotes being discussed. Yet nobody feels bad about killing hundreds of mice.
In my opinion, we need to first care for ourselves, then only care animals.

I agree with the last statement but I do disapprove of mouse traps that kill over ones that don't unless it is unavoidable or necessary to cull the local mouse population.

Whether or not insects feel pain is still a debated topic in the field as they do not possesses anything approaching mammalian pain receptors, there is possible indications that their responses to stimulus are much more reflex based as opposed to conscious but it is disputed. It's been a long time (undergrad) since I worked in an insect lab but there was a lot of discussion on the topic then. As for "how can I judge" the same way I judge any ethical situation, by utilising what I know to come to the best possible solution at the time.

 

[I_am_learning]

I am thinking about it again and I realize this.
If there is a mosquito spinning around you, you kill it. Even if you aren't sure whether it was going to bite you or not. Nobody feels much bad about it, because, you don't see it in agony.

When bigger animals are killed, we see them in agony, and we feel bad, realating that agony to how we ourselves would feel. So, in the end its all about how we feel. Its nothing about, we really care for animals.
So,if someone don't feel that bad killing coyotes, (the feelings depends person-wise), you shouldn't stop him from protecting himself and his puppy, you better turn your head away.
Yeah, hunting for hunting sake is little cruel though.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I am thinking about it again and I realize this.
If there is a mosquito spinning around you, you kill it. Even if you aren't sure whether it was going to bite you or not. Nobody feels much bad about it, because, you don't see it in agony.

When bigger animals are killed, we see them in agony, and we feel bad, realating that agony to how we ourselves would feel. So, in the end its all about how we feel. Its nothing about, we really care for animals.
So,if someone don't feel that bad killing coyotes, (the feelings depends person-wise), you shouldn't stop him from protecting himself and his puppy, you better turn your head away.
Yeah, hunting for hunting sake is little cruel though.

I would qualify "nobody", clearly you've never met a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism" . In reality all of our ethics descends from how we feel, and "caring for animals" doesn't necessarily imply an absolute empathy with all animals under all situations. But this does cross over onto the bothersome problem that organisations such as the WWF that focus on cute and cuddly animals over the ugly yet critical ones.

Glad we agree on the hunting issue, that's how my criticism of shooting coyotes started. Not because I thought there weren't situations where it justified but because I'm sceptical of policies that allow people to legitimately walk around shooting animals.

 

[I_am_learning]

There is a natural difference between the two survival strategies of many-but-simple and few-but-complex.

The many-but-simple strategy has evolved to be prey, to be wiped out by the thousands. If they were not, the world would quickly be overrun with them. The few-but-complex strategy is evolved to invest lots of budget into few creatures. Wiping out just a few of them can upset whole ecologies.

Which is why, yes, the life of a mosquito really is cheap - by nature's standards, not just our own.

And that's where we get into an issue of culling coyotes. When the few-but-complex predators start to overrun their domain, that can cause the balance to go haywire.

So, you are on the opinion that --> We don't really care for animals. We don't love them (except for your beloved pets!). What we do is make laws for what animals you can kill and what animals you can't depending upon what impact it will make on the ecosystem, which in turn is caring for ourselves.
In fact that is what going on.

 

[DaveC426913]

But this does cross over onto the bothersome problem that organisations such as the WWF that focus on cute and cuddly animals over the ugly yet critical ones.

My sister the biologist used to feel the same way. She eventually came around to the philosophy of 'So what? Let em flog cute 'n cuddly! If it gets people (and kids) to donate, and to gets them seeing it as a cause - then that's way better than ignorance and apathy! Means justifies the end.'

 

[DaveC426913]

So, you are on the opinion that -->

Not really sure I said any of that but...

We don't really care for animals. We don't love them (except for your beloved pets!).

What we do is make laws for what animals you can kill and what animals you can't depending upon what impact it will make on the ecosystem, which in turn is caring for ourselves.
In fact that is what going on.

It seems kind of silly to say we don't really care about them, we just ... well ... care about them because we want nature to continue.

(Don't know what love has to do with anything. Seems like an attempt to drag this discussion to an emotional forum.)

Animals are the ecosystem. To care about the impact on the ecosystem is to care about them.

The philosophy is that of conscientious stewardship of our planet. We finally realize we cannot preserve nature, but we can conserve nature. So we choose to do that, because we can.

 

[I_am_learning]

Not really sure I said any of that but...



It seems kind of silly to say we don't really care about them, we just ... well ... care about them because we want nature to continue.

(Don't know what love has to do with anything. Seems like an attempt to drag this discussion to an emotional forum.)

Animals are the ecosystem. To care about the impact on the ecosystem is to care about them.

The philosophy is that of conscientious stewardship of our planet. We finally realize we cannot preserve nature, but we can conserve nature. So we choose to do that, because we can.

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)
Oh! wait let's leave this discussion. I think Its going towards vegetarian/non-vegeterian discussion. The discussion is boiling down to is it o.k. to use (Kill) animals solely for your benefit?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)
Oh! wait let's leave this discussion. I think Its going towards vegetarian/non-vegeterian discussion. The discussion is boiling down to is it o.k. to use (Kill) animals solely for your benefit?

I would argue it is not OK for you to go out and kill a deer for fun. Another way to look at how much we care about animals is just to think how we care about humans, I care about all humans in a general kind of way, I don't care for all of them individually, however I do care strongly about the ones I know.

 

[DaveC426913]

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

It means we make a decision to look after our planet. There was once a time that many we thought we could "preserve" nature, if only by leaving enough of it alone. We made huge nature preserves, and figured we could let nature run its course on them, and everything would stay "in balance". That was naive. If we want nature to continue, we will have to play an active part.

In a tiny scale the same thing happens with my fish tank. It is not simply a fish preserve, where I let things run their course; I must tend to it; I am its steward. I meddle with it constantly. I must meddle with it. I must change its water (since it is too small to be stable), I must check the temp, I must fee them and medicate them, etc.

Stewardship of the Earth is the same thing, writ large.

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)

If you hunt a deer? Or if the other 400,000 people who like hunting hunt a deer? See the problem?

 

[I_am_learning]

It means we make a decision to look after our planet. There was once a time that many we thought we could "preserve" nature, if only by leaving enough of it alone. We made huge nature preserves, and figured we could let nature run its course on them, and everything would stay "in balance". That was naive. If we want nature to continue, we will have to play an active part.

In a tiny scale the same thing happens with my fish tank. It is not simply a fish preserve, where I let things run their course; I must tend to it; I am its steward. I meddle with it constantly. I must meddle with it. I must change its water (since it is too small to be stable), I must check the temp, I must fee them and medicate them, etc.

Stewardship of the Earth is the same thing, writ large.



If you hunt a deer? Or if the other 400,000 people who like hunting hunt a deer? See the problem?

Got it. Thanks. :)

 

[DaveC426913]

P.S. I do not actually fee my fish. I am control freak, true, but taxing them is a bit excessive, even for me.