tiomet said:
The problem with the "all animals have a right to live" argument is that it is usually selective. We dominate nature, which takes away food and habitat from other creatures, denying them a right to life.
You are right, but choosing to live in an urban environment that likely took away wild life habitat, does not negate the right to live it simply highlights a conflict between humans and wildlife. All animals do have a right to live, including humans, but that right is often violated.
I am not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian - verging on macrobiotic. However, that does not mean that meat eaters do not also recognise and vociferously support the right to life.
It is an old argument to combat the ethics of rights with the argument that people, in other contexts, violate that right. It is a complex argument that deserves more than a simplistic response.
If we followed the simple premise that we cannot support right to life because we started clearing woodlands to build suburbs then we are saying that none of us are allowed to assert ethics, that we should accept any denial of rights because we are culpable. Yet all of us here, at least, have numerous feeding stations and accept that we chopped down trees and desecrated bird areas. We do that for any number of reasons, one of which is that we recognise our culpability and support the bird's rights to survive and live in spite of human progress.
And we created other numerous problems, like the grey squirrel problem. Because we created it we should be obliged to deal with it humanely, rather than deny animal rights and start beating our breasts and rushing around yelling for their elimination... because they are a pest and bother us some!
We aren't all vegetarians and we aren't all Buddhists. I've been included in a post above as some kind of nature hater. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I do passionately believe that grey squirrels should be actively denied access to previously grey-free areas, such as Northumberland and Cumbria and that areas where they are flourishing should make efforts into reducing their numbers. I believe that people who think they are cute and feed them are contributing to the extiction of our native red squirrel. There is nothing noble in that!
Wildlife trusts countrywide are encouraging efforts to preserve red squirrels including the eradication of greys and, as I've said above it is illegal to release one alive once trapped. This is because they are classed as vermin. That's the law, not my opinion. They are no different to brown rats in the eyes of the law, but because they have the aesthetic benefit of a fluffy, rather than bald tail, the Walt Disney factor kicks in and they are "cute".
Well they aren't. They are vermin, specifically (from my point of view) because they are contributing to the extinction of red squirrels.
I appreciate that for most of the country greys are all there are, but this is simply a demonstration of the extent of the damage already caused. Fortunately, I can still walk out of the door, walk less than a mile and still have a good chance of seeing red squirrels. My dream is that the rest of the country should also be able to do this.
But as long as people feed grey squirrels they are contributing to the early extiction of reds. They wouldn't encourage rats, so why feed their equivalent?
And to those who say they were introduced by humans and it's not the squirrels' fault, I agree, but it's our responibility to redress the wrongs of our ancestors and the greys will be the necessary casualties of their folly.
If we don't, WE are killing the reds. Do you want that on YOUR conscience?
That's why I say "shoot the 'squirrel'".
As the man said, "If you aren't part of the solution. you're part of the problem".
