From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 30 Dec 1992 18:38:58 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec8.092427.10511@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.165516.16430@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>>
>>From Debbie Leahy of Animal Rights Electronic Network (AREN):
>>
>>
>>Alaska Drops Wolf Kill
>>
>>Following a flurry of controversy and complaints from angry
>>citizens across the country over their proposed wolf kill,
>>Alaska Governor Walter Hickel announced Friday the program
>>will be postponed indefinitely.

I think a larger question is involved in regards to the Alaska Wolf Kill story,
and some of that I thankfully noticed was addressed in an essay in the 12/28/92
copy of _Time_.  It addressed the issue of interventionist conservation,
which takes many forms and I think needs ethical evaluation.  An example
that may seem less objectionable to many on the surface is the California
Marine Mammal Center and similar organizations, which have noble ends but
I think questionable means.

Unlike killing wolves in the name of "conservation" of caribou, the California
Marine Mammal Center basically cares fort sick and injured pinnepeds - seals,
sea lions, etc.  It is a noble cause and one to be taken seriously, yet
they practice capturing pinnepeds from the shore - most sick or orphaned,
but some overzealous volunteers bring up the healthy ones as well.  Then
at the center they are fed, given medical care, and kept in pens until later
released.

The problem I see here is that as in the case of the wolves, two ethical
questions arise.

1 - do we as humans REALLY know what is in the best interests of another
    species?
2 - do we ethically have the RIGHT to impose these beliefs upon another
    species?

Care for the sick an injured is an almost universal humanitarian ethic -
save for some Church of Science groups and others.  However, the validity
of this ethic becomes blurred when we as humans try to enforce it on
another species.  Why?  Well - for one, we assume a lot (such as the two
questions stated previously).  It is one thing to provide care for the
sick an injured, but it is another when animals are involuntarily subjected
to capture, detainment, and human contact.  The MMC itself detained many
healthy seals last summer because of the fear that El Nino - an offshore,
seasonal weather current in the Pacific - depleted their natural food supply
by sending fish elsewhere.  If we did the same to sick and injured humans
in some cases it might be felony kidnapping and imprisonment and involuntary
subjection to medical treatment.

The problem when we care for other species - seals, caribou, etc. - from the
standpoint of our intellectual superiority and superior capabilities as
humans in an interfering way (vs. protectionism or other forms of conservation)
is that we no longer act as equal co-residents within nature, but we act
as we-know-better pet owners ABOVE nature.  The good intentions may be there -
but we can't let the ends justify the means either.

As humans we have severely impacted the natural forces that have guided
animals (such as pinnepeds) for millions of years before the first human
footprints, but this should not necessarily justify further interfering with
their lives in the name of some human-conceived crusade.  Some might
argue from the HUMAN perspective that fragmented ecosystems and the threat
of extinction might warrant exceptions -- and this may be true.  But although
pinnepeds owe much to their comeback in numbers due to the efforts of the
MMC, they are no longer endangered species.

I think we need to reevaluate the place of humans within nature, to
respect nature while resisting the tempation to enforce our will upon it
whether it is in the name of righting environmental wrongs or not.
Protectionism and other forms of non-interfering conservation are the
most respectful things we can do.  We may have a responsibility to nature
and its creatures, but I think we also have to know when we are trying to
manipulate it.  A fact of nature is that many animals die, starve, are eaten
by others, etc. - and this has happened long before us and should not be
an excuse for us to let our consciences enforce more direct control over
the lives of free species and nature.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment