U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

[Quintessence]

If moral equivalence doesn't apply to your view, why use the word "murder," then, to describe the killing of a bird?

Why not? I felt like it. Use a different word if you want. I might deign to use a term like "murder" to describe deliberate killings that are not done to satisfy a vital need, like food, shelter, water, defense... that sort of thing. In other words, it is a deliberate killing that probably did not need to happen and was done "just because" - maybe out of anger, maybe out of spite, maybe out of callous disregard... any killings for stupid and questionable reasons.

The killings planned of Barred Owl may not quite fall under the murder header by such standard. A killing of other persons that serves the vital needs of other persons is... well, as I said from the beginning I get where these kinds of decisions come from and their scientific basis. This is no matter of spite or anger, selfishness or flippancy. It is often painful for those who work in conservation - who tend to be far less speciesist and anthropocentric than other humans - to make these kinds of calls. The question now is how to give back and make it worth it. And, perhaps, when to know to let go.

 

[We Never Know]

If moral equivalence doesn't apply to your view, why use the word "murder," then, to describe the killing of a bird? Murder is a term in English that has a moral meaning. And it's a word we use only to describe innocent human deaths. Surely you know this. Surely that's the reason you're intentionally using it to apply to non-human killings.

Funny you brought up why use the word "murder," then, to describe the killing of a bird?

Murder also describes a group of birds, crows to be exact. A murder of crows.

 

[Quintessence]

Definition of Genocide: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

Do you seriously believe ants fit within that description? If so, then I hope nobody contacts the United Nations about me so they can put me on trial for war crimes.

At this point it sounds like you are not even attempting to understand what environmental ethics - where other-than-human persons are given due consideration - entails and considers. As such, I'm not going to give you any sort of serious response.

 

[Left Coast]

Why not? I felt like it.

Oh. So it had no basis besides random whim. Okay. Bizarre.

 

[Laniakea]

At this point it sounds like you are not even attempting to understand what environmental ethics - where other-than-human persons are given due consideration - entails and considers. As such, I'm not going to give you any sort of serious response.

Wait, did you just use the term, "other-than-human persons" to describe ants?
I think I'll get through the rest of my day without what you call a "serious" response.

 

[InChrist]

Yes. All taking of innocent life is murder. Imo

Maybe not from the American legal standpoint/definition, but yes imo it is.

Is it murder if a mountain lion kills a deer to survive?

 

[Quintessence]

Wait, did you just use the term, "other-than-human persons" to describe ants?

Yes. You would understand the meaning if you knew something about indigenous religions, animism, or environmental ethics. Here, start educating yourself because that is pretty necessary to understanding the issue this thread is presenting:

Environmental Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Many traditional western ethical perspectives are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any non-human things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of non-human things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense).

....

When environmental ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early 1970s, it did so by posing a challenge to traditional anthropocentrism. In the first place, it questioned the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on earth. In the second place, it investigated the possibility of rational arguments for assigning intrinsic value to the natural environment and its non-human contents. It should be noted, however, that some theorists working in the field see no need to develop new, non-anthropocentric theories.

Oh. So it had no basis besides random whim.

Not what I said if one reads the rest of what was written.

 

[Left Coast]

Not what I said if one reads the rest of what was written.

What you said was contradictory, so I just went with the first thing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Definition of Genocide: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

Do you seriously believe ants fit within that description? If so, then I hope nobody contacts the United Nations about me so they can put me on trial for war crimes.

That's true but it's also true a nation can be judged on how it treats its animals.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it murder if a mountain lion kills a deer to survive?

That true. How many times have I heard we should just let nature take care of itself?

Realizing we ourselves are nature as well with predator and prey relationships, those owls shouldn't be simply be shot and left to rot without using them in some way.

Still, population control is a function we must take seriously and only implement when alternatives are exhausted.

 

[Quintessence]

What you said was contradictory, so I just went with the first thing.

Not really - not sure what you're finding contradictory about having both thoughts and feelings, given that is routine in humans. What is happening, I suspect, is a lack of interest in understanding and/or an inability to understand. As @The Hammer earlier, those who are anthropocentric tend to stay that way and no amount of words will change that. It is too deeply-engrained, if not outright axiomatic, to their way of understanding the world. It's why, for example there was such strong backlash to biological evolution by some because it challenged that deeply-engrained notion of humans being "above" the rest of nature. How dare humans be part of nature? Kin to "mere" animals? Hence, the development of things like environmental ethics because non-indigenous Western culture tends to be extremely anthropocentric.

 

[Left Coast]

Not really - not sure what you're finding contradictory about having both thoughts and feelings, given that is routine in humans. What is happening, I suspect, is a lack of interest in understanding and/or an inability to understand. As @The Hammer earlier, those who are anthropocentric tend to stay that way and no amount of words will change that. It is too deeply-engrained, if not outright axiomatic, to their way of understanding the world. It's why, for example there was such strong backlash to biological evolution by some because it challenged that deeply-engrained notion of humans being "above" the rest of nature. How dare humans be part of nature? Kin to "mere" animals? Hence, the development of things like environmental ethics because non-indigenous Western culture tends to be extremely anthropocentric.

The condescension here is practically dripping. What's contradictory is saying that you just chose that word because you "felt like it" in order to avoid the obvious logical conclusion one would need to reach if you actually believe that killing of a bird, or a bacteria, is equivalent to murder. It might make a person feel superior intellectually to believe that anyone who questions their axioms must just be too brainwashed or dumb to comprehend how profound and sophisticated their worldview is. In my experience, it's rarely that and more often a case of someone just...not making sense, or holding conflicting ideas and trying to somehow make them work.

As far as non-Western indigenous cultures go, it's difficult to name one that morally treats the killing of any and all life with the same moral and legal gravity with which they treat the killing of innocent human life. I can think of the Jains, who might come close. They're quite an extreme outlier, even among Eastern cultures. The vast, vast majority of humans, including indigenous societies, have regarded the murder of innocent human beings with greater moral concern than the killing of a bird, or a deer, or a plant (which they would kill routinely). If one of their own did that to a human, it would be a very different story. So that's not awful "Western" influence. That's a moral intuition that many non-Western cultures achieved all on their own.

So once again, if you want to show how little I comprehend, this shouldn't be that difficult a question:

Should societies treat the killing of a bird with the same moral gravity as the killing of an innocent human?

 

[Watchmen]

Do you agree with the interfering of nature to this extent? In a way I see it as interfering with evolution.
Good thing the officials didn't exist when Neanderthals did or they might have killed off a bunch of modern humans to prevent Neanderthal extinction.

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

"To save the imperiled spotted owl from potential extinction, U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday was expected to release its final plan to prop up declining spotted owl populations in Oregon, Washington state and California. The Associated Press obtained details in advance.

The plan calls for killing up to 470,000 barred owls over three decades after the birds from the eastern U.S. encroached into the territory of two West Coast owls: northern spotted owls and California spotted owls. The smaller spotted owls have been unable to compete for food and habitat with the invaders.

Past efforts to save spotted owls focused on protecting the forests where they live. But the proliferation of barred owls in recent years is undermining that earlier work, officials said.

"We're at a crossroads. We have the science that indicates what we need to do to conserve the spotted owls, and that requires that we take action on the barred owls," said Bridget Moran, a deputy state supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon.

The notion of killing one bird species to save another has divided wildlife advocates and conservationists. Some grudgingly accepted the proposal after a draft version was announced last year; others denounced it as reckless and a diversion from needed forest preservation."

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins, the spotted owl.

www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org

Interfering with evolution? Would you see the issue differently if human interference played a role in the current situation?

 

[Laniakea]

That's true but it's also true a nation can be judged on how it treats its animals.

That's true. But when the people of that nation start assigning "personhood" to ants, it's a bit scary.
One of these environmental extremists we were having these types of discussions with yesterday could be found on another thread giving a "Like" to a post where someone wished Donald Trump would die. That, after talking so much about how even ants and bacteria are just as important as people.
Those are the types coming from elite universites, which shows what the elite are being taught, and are teaching others.

 

[We Never Know]

Do you agree with the interfering of nature to this extent? In a way I see it as interfering with evolution.
Good thing the officials didn't exist when Neanderthals did or they might have killed off a bunch of modern humans to prevent Neanderthal extinction.

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

"To save the imperiled spotted owl from potential extinction, U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday was expected to release its final plan to prop up declining spotted owl populations in Oregon, Washington state and California. The Associated Press obtained details in advance.

The plan calls for killing up to 470,000 barred owls over three decades after the birds from the eastern U.S. encroached into the territory of two West Coast owls: northern spotted owls and California spotted owls. The smaller spotted owls have been unable to compete for food and habitat with the invaders.

Past efforts to save spotted owls focused on protecting the forests where they live. But the proliferation of barred owls in recent years is undermining that earlier work, officials said.

"We're at a crossroads. We have the science that indicates what we need to do to conserve the spotted owls, and that requires that we take action on the barred owls," said Bridget Moran, a deputy state supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon.

The notion of killing one bird species to save another has divided wildlife advocates and conservationists. Some grudgingly accepted the proposal after a draft version was announced last year; others denounced it as reckless and a diversion from needed forest preservation."

U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls that are crowding out their smaller cousins, the spotted owl.

www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org

Well its seems the stakes have been upped. I didn't see mention of this in the first article.

They are also going to kill their hybrid offspring.

Nearly half a million 'invasive' owls, including their hybrid offspring, to be killed by US

Nearly half a million 'invasive' owls, including their hybrid offspring, to be killed by US

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released a final proposal to kill around 450,000 invasive barred owls in the Northwest, in an attempt to save two native species.

www.livescience.com

 

[Laniakea]

Well its seems the stakes have been upped. I didn't see mention of this in the first article.

They are also going to kill their hybrid offspring.

Nearly half a million 'invasive' owls, including their hybrid offspring, to be killed by US

Nearly half a million 'invasive' owls, including their hybrid offspring, to be killed by US

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released a final proposal to kill around 450,000 invasive barred owls in the Northwest, in an attempt to save two native species.

www.livescience.com

Watch the different factions of environmentalists go after each other on this.

 

[We Never Know]

Watch the different factions of environmentalists go after each other on this.

Killing their hybrids too. That's just plain sad.

 

[Laniakea]

Killing their hybrids too. That's just plain sad.

Wow! So much for the notion that "biodiversity" is so great!
I'm starting to detect a pattern.