Hat Tip: foxpolitics.net
By a 12-1 vote, the Sheboygan Common Council voted against shooting deer identified by some residents of the city as a "neighborhood and traffic nuisance." Alderman Mark Hanna told the Sheboygan Press that "the issue is dead." Other items of note:
*The Common Council and the Public Protection and Safety Committee "spent more than six months discussing the deer issue, including several meetings with neighbors."
*The city sent out 240 surveys, with half of the 79 responses in favor of killing the deer and half for leaving them alone.
*On November 12, 2008 the Public Protection and Safety Committee had a discussion of the methods available for handling deer perceived by some as a nuisance (Emphasis added):
Com. No. 46-08-09 (14-18) from Susan Smies regarding problems with deer in her neighborhood destroying landscaping, running onto porches and running in and out of the road. Several solutions to this matter were discussed. This included hired sharpshooters, trapping, or possibly lifting of the firearms ordinance in the City and allow hunters to hunt these deer. Issues of potential danger, costs, and if this issue is actually a private nuisance versus a public nuisance. Also, possibly this deer issue should be addressed in all areas of city, not just this area. Deterrents don’t seem to work. It costs about $400 per deer to dispatch. DNR personnel explained this problem is not unique to Sheboygan. The DNR has issued 57 deer removal permits in WI. If this matter is addressed, it should be addressed on a large scale, with a possible management plan for whole city. Over half these communities use sharpshooters. The sharpshooters can come from anywhere. There is no certification is required. There are several companies that do this.
Numerous factors should be looked at, including safety, nuisance complaints, habitat destruction, and budget. As long as it’s safe, any area of city should be open for hunting deer. Perhaps sharpshooters could be used for pockets of problem deer, versus open season all over City. Winter is best time for sharpshooters. They hunt over bait.
Motion made by Alderman Rindfleisch, seconded by Alderman Heidemann to open hunting season for city and allow discharge of firearms. Motion failed to pass, 3 no, 2 yes, Aldermen Heidemann and Rindfleisch voting yes. Motion made to hold by Alderman Ryan, seconded by Alderperson Kittelson. All ayes.
*It appears as if members of the Sheboygan Common Council actually researched the issue and invited ALL points of view to be heard before taking action. From the Public Protection and Safety Committee minutes of June 10th (Emphasis added):
Discuss deer issue referral from Committee of the Whole. Chairman Hanna provided some background and history of this issue. Alderpersons Surek, Wangemann, and Bowers spoke about their individual research. Chairman Hanna opened the discussion to the public, and the following individuals voiced opinions: Alice Schmitt, in favor of lethal means, Susan Theys of Wildlife of Wisconsin in favor of non-lethal means, Sharon Weiss in favor of non-lethal means, Sue Clark of Cedar Ridge Wildlife, Glenn Pilling in favor of lethal means, Pam Markelz in favor of non-lethal means, Lawrence Freitag in favor of non-lethal means. Chairman Hanna closed the discussion and advised that the committee will meet on this topic two weeks from tonight.
Would the Oshkosh Common Council have reached a different decision on deer culling if it had actively invited all points of view to the table? Maybe yes, maybe no. But we almost certainly would not have had the high level of anger, distrust, and divisiveness that still exists. If nothing else, the creation of an Urban Wildlife Management Committee might bring the issue back to a civil playing field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Here is a guiding document on the ethics of killing sentient beings who may or may not be persons (self conscious beings with "the capacity to see oneself as an individual as existing over time"):
Chapter 5 "Taking Life: Animals", in _Practical Ethics_, by Peter Singer (1993)
http://books.google.com/books?id=OZOmSTWZNdcC&lpg=PP1&dq=Practical%20Ethics&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=&f=false
At the very least, according to that treatise, in all cases, killing ought to be done in the most painless possible way. I believe that simple rule should rule out the option of killing Oshkosh's urban deer with bows and arrows, because many studies have found that bow hunting has a much higher crippling rate than rifle hunting. This means that deer are much more likely to be wounded and die a long and painful death by an arrow, than by a bullet. Last time I checked, Wisconsin state deer hunting regulations prohibited the use of a 22 caliber rifle, for example, because the crippling rate is too high, in comparison to that with a higher caliber rifle. By that same logic, a large caliber rifle is preferable to a bow and arrow.
Independent of issue of whether deer may have a right to life, there is also the matter of the ethics of population. If the deer have a good quality of life, their lives add to the total sum of happiness on Earth, and that is a reason to allow them to continue to exist. The elimination of that population would be bad, on those grounds. Similarly, their existence may add or subtract from the total human happiness, depending on the circumstances, but it is important to note that species, per se, is morally irrelevant when weighing the happiness (pleasure and satisfaction) and suffering (pain and frustration) involved, just as race or sex is morally irrelevant. Finally, we must consider the consequences of our policy, including long term sustainability, and the attitudes toward animal welfare that it will foster.
Those moral principles must be applied on a case by case basis.
Anybody who is familiar with current animal welfare issues knows that current laws allow many practices that cause much more harm to nonhumans than benefit for humans, and those practices are obviously immoral. This is especially true in the case of farmed animals, but it is also apparently true of deer. Apparently, according to news reports this Summer, we learned that Wisconsin hunting laws do not allow cruelty charges against a hunter for killing a deer inhumanely, such as via snowmobile, meaning that cruel killing, or inhumane slaughter, by a hunter must be tolerated, according to the law, even though inhumane killing is obviously unethical, according to the above principals. This is evidence that our hunting culture is fostering a bad attitude toward animals, and an attitude adjustment is in order. The law ought to be prohibit inhumane hunting, or the inhumane slaughter of wild animals, such as deer, just as it currently prohibits, at least on paper (interpretation and enforcement is another story), the inhumane slaughter of cows.
Post a Comment