When is culling immoral?

[Genius of the Restoration]

I was watching the evening news and heard a story about the culling of the Kaimanawa horses in New Zealand. One of the given reasons for the cull was that overpopulation had led to starvation. Someone who was interviewed said that nobody who had seen the skin-and-bones horses before the culling occurred would argue that the culling was bad.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheSettledL.../Standard/2/en

Environmental issues and other alternatives aside, is this a moral activity? Where do you draw the line between letting a creature live, and killing it because you assume it's life is too painful and it detracts from the lives of others simply by living?

[The Count(er)]

A good line to draw is when nature can solve the problem itself easily enough. Of course in isolated areas where humans have populated the place quite a bit usually results in nature having troubles doing it's job.

[Habelo]

To answer that question you must first answer the original one, why do we want to preserve nature?

[The Count(er)]

To answer that question you must first answer the original one, why do we want to preserve nature?

Quite a bit of it is necessary to keep us alive.

[Playfishpaste]

Quite a bit of it is necessary to keep us alive.

You do realize how we are nature right?

If you do anything at all, it's completely natural.

What we are actually trying to do, is cut down on pollution as well as effecting natural populations in ways that are negative to us. We are preserving ourselves, not nature. If we preserved nature, we'd be dead very quickly.

[The Count(er)]

You do realize how we are nature right?

Part of why we need it.

[michael123]

And besides, nature's nice . I much prefer a walk in the woods to a walk in a metropolis.

[conon394]

Environmental issues and other alternatives aside, is this a moral activity? Where do you draw the line between letting a creature live, and killing it because you assume it's life is too painful and it detracts from the lives of others simply by living?

Culling is rarely simply mercy killing it usually results form the fact that almost all landscapes are under multiple sources of pressure.

Take some of the Indian land managed by by the tribes here in Washington State - the reason the wild horse population is culled is not just to keep it from getting to large and suffer starvation, but because its over grazing until than damages the rivers and the salmon population (and other fish), kills plants harvested for the traditional and nature medicine/herb markets, and crowds out other grazing often endangered species.

edit: The 'wild' horse is also something of an invasive species in NA or NZ, a feral population is a thoroughly human caused issue so I fail to see any ethical issue with a human managed solution.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Culling is rarely simply mercy killing it usually results form the fact that almost all landscapes are under multiple sources of pressure.

Take some of the Indian land managed by by the tribes here in Washington State - the reason the wild horse population is culled is not just to keep it from getting to large and suffer starvation, but because its over grazing until than damages the rivers and the salmon population (and other fish), kills plants harvested for the traditional and nature medicine/herb markets, and crowds out other grazing often endangered species.

edit: The 'wild' horse is also something of an invasive species in NA or NZ, a feral population is a thoroughly human caused issue so I fail to see any ethical issue with a human managed solution.

There are also environmental issues, but I wanted to ignore them and focus on the argument this guy was putting forward; culling for the benefit of a species.

It is complicated in this case because it is an introduced species, which leaves humans responsible for them in a way. What if if it wasn't? What if a native species had lost control of their population and started to overpopulate. Would it be moral to periodically kill some so the others have more food?

[conon394]

A good line to draw is when nature can solve the problem itself easily enough

But how do you draw that line - in most place where horse herds are wild people have tampered with nature such that anything that could prey on them is gone.

[The Count(er)]

But how do you draw that line - in most place where horse herds are wild people have tampered with nature such that anything that could prey on them is gone.

Well drawing the line can be difficult in some situations, but in that one I think it's a pretty good idea to do it, if a predator is completely gone and nothing replaces it then some serious damage can be done by overpopulation of what ever the predator happens to prey on.

[Habelo]

Well if the only reason is for our own survival and not anything else we could proboly just ing kill all of the mamals on the planet. But that only goes for someone with that point of view.

[Playfishpaste]

Well if the only reason is for our own survival and not anything else we could proboly just ing kill all of the mamals on the planet. But that only goes for someone with that point of view.

If we did that, we would die.

We are fighting for our survival. Do you think we're reducing pollution for the polar bears?

screw the polar bears.

[Habelo]

No we would not die if we killed all wildlife mamal. Its rarely you eat wild. we dont need it for survival.

[The Count(er)]

No we would not die if we killed all wildlife mamal. Its rarely you eat wild. we dont need it for survival.

We need them for more than eating you know, removing them will completely up what ever place they used to live in, because what ever they done to keep that ecosystem up and running will no longer be done, we would need to do what ever it is they did(which we most likely either wouldn't be able to do or wouldn't know what it is) to keep that place from falling apart, to put it simply, we still need them.

[Richard]

EDIT: ignore

[Habelo]

M8, the number one animal we need is the insect. We could do well without mamals, those that we need we have domesticated anyway. Since i am not bringing any fact to this, prove yourself my superior and do it.

[The Count(er)]

I suppose you want a proper study, as opposed to a simple: Remove ant eater => too many ants => All plants get eaten, as just a random example of course. It may take some time to find anything proper on mammal's importance though.

Edit: I've found one on the importance of bats, that's a start at least, I also learned as some random fact while sifting through pages of useless garbage on mammals that there are approximately 4260 species of mammals, it's a little hard to find something that would explain the general importance of all those animal species as a whole, but perhaps just a few good paragraphs on a few animals would be enough. I think most reasons on why a particular mammal is important are just going to be on their diet, and how what ever it is the species eats will over-populate, either causing direct harm to us or the environment they live in.

Anyways, here's the one I found on bats.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ance-to-humans

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Most [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]bats[/COLOR][/COLOR]
are insectivorous, and they are important to humans primarily for their predation on insects, for pollination, and for seed dispersal. Little is known of the spectrum of insect species consumed, but the sheer quantity is formidable. The Mexican free-tailed bats of Texas have been estimated to consume about 9,100 metric tons (10,000 tons) of insects per year. Bats would thus seem to be important in the balance of insect populations and possibly in the control of insect pests.
Some bats feed on pollen and nectar and are the principal or exclusive pollinators of a number of tropical and subtropical plants. Others feed on fruit and aid in dispersing seeds, although bananas and figs must in some cases be protected from fruit-eating bats by early harvest or by nets.
Vampire bats (family Phyllostomidae, subfamily Desmodontinae) are considered serious pests of livestock in some parts of tropical America because the small wounds they cause provide egg-laying sites for parasites and because the vampires may transmit rabies and trypanosomiasis to cattle. Other bats also carry rabies or related viruses.
The guano (droppings) of insectivorous bats is still used for [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]agricultural[/COLOR][/COLOR]
fertilizer in many countries and in the past was used as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus for munitions. Large guano deposits, in addition, cover and thus preserve many archaeologically interesting artifacts and fossils in caves.
In tropical regions large colonies of bats often inhabit houses and public buildings, where they attract attention because of their noisiness, guano, and collective odour. In western culture bats have been the subject of unfavourable myths; in parts of the Orient, however, these [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]animals[/COLOR][/COLOR] serve as symbols of good luck, long life, and happiness. In some parts of Southeast Asia and on some Pacific islands, flying foxes (Pteropus) are hunted for food. Small bats are also widely but irregularly eaten.
Certain physiological aspects of some bats, particularly those involving adaptations for long hibernation, daily lethargy, complex temperature regulation, acoustical orientation, and long-distance migrations, are of interest to biologists.
In species and numbers, bats constitute an important and generally nonintrusive form of [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]wildlife[/COLOR][/COLOR]. Several zoos have established interesting exhibits of bats; indeed, some flying foxes and fruit bats have been exhibited in European zoos since the mid-19th century, and they have been kept widely for research purposes. Bats are interesting pets but require specialized care.

[Avendiel]

Yeah, see, the thing about incredibly complex systems that have taken ages to develop is that sometimes it's hard to tell what effect taking parts of them out is going to have until after you've already ed up.

[Habelo]

Nicely done counter! I could one all along though: many plants need mamals to spread their seed around. Like i eat an apple, then out its seeds some random place in the meadow so that a new tree can evolve there.
I was however trying to make you realise that we need animal diversity for other things then our own survival. We need them so we will not get depressed. Every human being has a bound with nature and if we destroy that, we would live in a more sad world.