Every morning, Roger and I wake up to the soothing sounds of the bear naming objects in the picture book we've left in her crib. It goes something like this: "ball? kick it! kick it! cat? meeeeeeeeoooooooooow... Daddy? Daddy where aaaaaaaaaaaare you?" We usually giggle, bargain over who's going to get up, and roll out of bed.
Once we're all seated for breakfast, coffee on the brew, we take separate sections of the paper and enjoy our toast & peanut butter. Sounds nice, right? It usually is. But yesterday, I was confronted by this story in the Montreal Gazette, about a Canadian lynx that had recently been killed in "a trap line north of Banff National Park in January".
The story told the tale of this wild cat who had originally been trapped in British Columbia, and then transported to Colorado as part of some sort of "landmark reintroduction program". According to the article, Colorado was once home to lynx, which have been on the endangered species list in that area for several decades. This particular lynx, known affectionately as "specimen BC-03-M-02" (birthplace-year of capture-sex-ID number) lived on a range there for several years, sired at least 6 kittens, and then disappeared (escaped??) and travelled approximately 2200 km. (or 1400 miles) until he was found dead in a neck snare in Alberta recently.
Sounds terrible, right? Well - not according to Randy Boswell, the author of the article, or any of the individuals he/she interviewed, all of whom commented on the amazing trek "home" accomplished by the lynx. Is it amazing that the lynx was able to travel so far and to have remained healthy? Absolutely. Is that the most shocking thing about this story? Absolutely not.
The most obvious issue, to me, is the horrific death this cat faced. Open traps such as these are a danger to all wildlife and should not be allowed. If you read the article, you may notice that they make very brief reference to "the animal's unfortunate end", but that's about it.
Perhaps more importantly, why are "re-population" efforts always considered a good thing? Is maintaining the existence of a species worth the suffering it inflicts upon the animals that are currently living? For example, a document published about the early days of this particular program reports that of 96 lynx captured and subsequently released in Colorado between 1999 and 2000, 43 (almost 45%!) had died by 2002 from the following causes: starvation, collision with motor vehicles, and gunshot. The article went on to discuss new measures to be taken to reduce the number of deaths (none of which were "stop bringing them here against their will"). A more recent article indicated that between the time of capture from Canada or Alaska and the time of release into the Colorado mountains, lynx spend 3 months in captivity.
It seems to me that capturing, imprisoning, and transporting animals to decrease the likelihood of their extinction is more about our desire for their existence than it is about the animals' best interests. I love animals, and the thought of a species ceasing to exist does not make me jump for joy. But the act of forcing them from their home, fitting them with collars, and releasing them in a new environment just so that we can enjoy the knowledge that they continue to live where we want them to makes my skin crawl even more.
Photo by digitalART2
Posts
Vegan
we have a similar situation in kansas city - there is a park that is overpopulated with deer, so they having 'days' in which snipers go in a take out large quantities of deer. although i'm against the idea of killing animals for human benefit, what bothers me more is how the media and politician keep saying 'it's for the animal's sake'. what bothers me is how they can get away with tampering the natural ecological system. if deer are overpopulated, they will die out... it's nature's way. it's been happening for thousands of years without the intervention of snipers.
ReplyDeleteI felt the same way when I read the story. If the animal had not been removed from his home, he would not have made that long and arduous trip back to his home and to his death. I would like to know why the area he was taken to has a diminshed lynx population. Is it caused by humans or part of the natural order?
ReplyDeleteApparently, some studies in the US found that though the hunters might have actually believed they were helping deer by keeping numbers "low" so they wouldn't starve, this didn't happen as the remaining deer just had more fawns. I'll look for the reference although maybe you already have it.
ReplyDeletePaste job. Little time today. "Here are a couple of examples from America:
ReplyDelete1. "In their 1990 report, An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey, Fish and Game offered a detailed example of this process:
"One of the most dramatic examples of the effect of habitat improvement or food availability on reproductive capacity occurred in the Earle Naval Ammunition Depot in Monmouth County. Range conditions improved in this case by an annual removal of deer by hunting.
Between 1968 and 1973 the reproductive rate almost doubled, an indication that the herd was in much healthier condition. The estimated fawn crop in 1969 was 116 fawns produced by 122 females, a reproductive rate of 0.95 fawns per doe, compared to 1974 when 78 does produced 133 fawns, or 1.70 fawns per doe (Burke et al. 1975)"
2. Another case in point of doe hunting increasing deer populations comes from an article in the "North American Hunter" magazine. The author, a former biologist who worked for the state of Texas, recounts a deer management program he established that removed 100 does from a 3,000 acre ranch.
"After the hunters on the property harvested the recommended 100 does, they figured that would probably be all the does they'd have to harvest for a long, long time. The following year when we conducted the deer survey, there were more deer on the property than the year before. But many of the deer were fawns. After shooting 100 does, the ranch actually had more fawns than it did the year before. Because of the significant doe harvest, the fawn survival rate increased from 25 percent (four does to rear one fawn to weaning age) to 120 percent (1.2 fawns per doe)."
It seems like this topic has really hit a nerve with a lot of you! From reading all your comments, it sounds like the consensus is that we would be better off allowing wild animals to manage their own population. To my mind, it boils down to respecting their rights. All animals, including us, have had a pretty good system in place for a long time: we do our best to reproduce in our natural environment. Why mess with a good thing?
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your comments!
That nut bag Freud once wrote the following: "Man has, as it were, become a prosthetic God." I think Freud might've made a better sociologist than psychiatrist. He definitely would've made a better dungeon-master than shrink...but what does "who" have to do with "where"?
ReplyDeleteOk, enough about the father of modern quackery. What about the father of modern Kabbalah?
Isaac Luria's kabbalahistic teachings focused on, among a myriad of other things, the concept of "tsimtsum" which, in hebrew can mean either "contraction" or "constriction".
Basically, the concept deals with the idea that God, in order for the physical universe to be able to come into existence, had to contract his "infinte light" or pull back, so to speak, to make room for everything else. Interesting concept...especially when applied to our role, with respect to environmetal issues, as prosthetic gods.
I think I have malarial fever.