What plan does your organization have to reintroduce a predatory species that will hunt the seals and keep their population form ballooning, as has been well documented in the past, to prevent the seal population from suffering from over-crowding, lack of food resources, and illness? Is there a "total view" view of conservation is your organization or is this a case of protecting a species that appears 'cute' (because they are certainly in no danger of extinction)? I ask because there have been many organizations in the past that have attempted this type of campaign in the name of protecting the animals, that have subsequently been successful, only to see these very problems occur. An example are the campaigns of the 1970's and 80's that saw a massive explosion of the deer populations in the North Eastern Seaboard of the USA and Eastern Canada, to wit, there is now an estimated deer population that exceeds that of all large domesticated animals by a substantial factor (something like 5-7 times larger). Further I enquire as to the total numbers killed in taped "callous" hunts vs the total number hunted. Is the number of hunts that are suspected of being vicious a significant portion of the total number of hunts? Finally, is there a compromise position that your organization would accede to? Such as allowing hunts, but only if carefully documented (ie each kill is recorded to ensure no brutal or exceptionally violent kills; tags are issued like with other animals such as deer; etc) or is this a total belief that a population of animals (now devoid of their natural predators thanks to humanity) should be allowed to expand until it reaches a steady state in its new(ish) environment?
I ask not to be an ass (although is may have come across due to phrasing) but because I seriously do have a problem with environmental campaigns whose only justification is one of the cuteness factor or NIMBY factor, as opposed to one of total environmental management, and would willingly support the latter.
factanonverba_n2 karma
What plan does your organization have to reintroduce a predatory species that will hunt the seals and keep their population form ballooning, as has been well documented in the past, to prevent the seal population from suffering from over-crowding, lack of food resources, and illness? Is there a "total view" view of conservation is your organization or is this a case of protecting a species that appears 'cute' (because they are certainly in no danger of extinction)? I ask because there have been many organizations in the past that have attempted this type of campaign in the name of protecting the animals, that have subsequently been successful, only to see these very problems occur. An example are the campaigns of the 1970's and 80's that saw a massive explosion of the deer populations in the North Eastern Seaboard of the USA and Eastern Canada, to wit, there is now an estimated deer population that exceeds that of all large domesticated animals by a substantial factor (something like 5-7 times larger). Further I enquire as to the total numbers killed in taped "callous" hunts vs the total number hunted. Is the number of hunts that are suspected of being vicious a significant portion of the total number of hunts? Finally, is there a compromise position that your organization would accede to? Such as allowing hunts, but only if carefully documented (ie each kill is recorded to ensure no brutal or exceptionally violent kills; tags are issued like with other animals such as deer; etc) or is this a total belief that a population of animals (now devoid of their natural predators thanks to humanity) should be allowed to expand until it reaches a steady state in its new(ish) environment?
I ask not to be an ass (although is may have come across due to phrasing) but because I seriously do have a problem with environmental campaigns whose only justification is one of the cuteness factor or NIMBY factor, as opposed to one of total environmental management, and would willingly support the latter.
Thanks
View HistoryShare Link