Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
This discussion can be said to be one of favoring one specie (plant and animal) over others so those you accuse of being cold hearted may just have broader concerns than you do.
Yes.
I work in this field (wildlife management and conservation), it's what I've trained to do most of my life (though I've had other careers as well), but there has been in our society for the past several decades a blurring of lines between very different things. Being a proponent of ecological/wildlife conservation and being an animal rights activist are not at all the same. Sometimes they have similar positions on specific issues, often they do not. This would be one example where they do not. Most organizations that work in the field keep the issues separate, but some, like Greenpeace, are great proponents of blurring that line and it confuses the public.
Wildlife conservation people/orgs are generally concerned with ecosystems and native plant and animal populations while animal rights groups are generally concerned with individual animals or animals for their intrinsic worth as living creatures. It's a very different thing that I wish was not confused by people so often.
"Good. These are horrible invasive exotics. They're non native and a detriment to native wildlife.
I've actually worked on programs to stop them from reproducing where they compete with trumpeter swans. It generally involved treating eggs in the nest with a substance (often mineral oil) so they won't hatch. Can't just take the eggs or they'll re-lay."
I live on eastern LI and there are mute swans. I don't see any fewer ducks, geese, cormorants, or any other bird due to the swans. If there was such a problem with this "invasive exotic" then we would have had some very serious issues since the 1800's.
I can handle treating the eggs. That is a HUMANE solution. What sickens me are the quick responses to kill, kill, kill. Curbing the population is one thing. Slaughter of these beautiful birds is another.
Mute swans are monogamous and often reuse the same nest each year, restoring or rebuilding it as needed. Male and female swans share the care of the nest, and once the cygnets are fledged it is not uncommon to see whole families looking for food. See? They have more loyalty and commitment to family than most humans!
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by J5K5LY
Mute swans are monogamous and often reuse the same nest each year, restoring or rebuilding it as needed. Male and female swans share the care of the nest, and once the cygnets are fledged it is not uncommon to see whole families looking for food. See? They have more loyalty and commitment to family than most humans!
You're anthropomorphizing this species. That is not an appropriate approach to wildlife management. It is not an emotional issue, it is a management issue that should be based on biological science.
People often say in my field "I don't see any difference in... the prairie, the woods, the flocks or schools of XYZ", heck, when I started my field work I really couldn't see the difference in most related ecosystems (a dry praire vs a dry mesic prairie) or the difference in a high quality dry prairie from a medium quality one. It takes a lot of time, effort, education, training and data, especially data, to deduce the changes exotics have on the environment.
Most wildlife and habitat agencies are charged with promoting and maintaining native species and that in part (sometimes largely) has to involve eliminating exotics and human management to duplicate what naturally occurred in the past (i.e. fire prescription) in order to maintain the natural environment. There are notable exceptions in the field (wild horses and introduction of non native fish species for sport such as brown trout, for example) and those are highly contentious issues.
"You're anthropomorphizing this species. That is not an appropriate approach to wildlife management. It is not an emotional issue, it is a management issue that should be based on biological science. "
Are you saying that swans have no loyalty to each other? Are you saying that they don't protect their young and often the family stays together? Are these not human traits also? So what is the problem? You appear to only see things black and white with no compassion or empathy for animals. Your job is your job and there is no appreciation for the uniqueness of each animal that crosses your path.
Again, I will say, I have no issue with HUMANE solutions to curbing the population of the swans.
I also think it is ignorant of the DEC to think they will remove every mute swan from the state of NY. They do fly, ya know.
You're anthropomorphizing this species.
From that article, and the other posts on the blog, it is clearly an animal rights blog and not an ecological or wildlife conservation blog.
I'm certainly not doing that, as you should be able to see from my previous posts and I didn't see the blog I posted as coming at it from that angle either.
I do see a difference in the extreme method being used in this instance especially when taking the length of time the swans have been in the country under consideration.
Use those measures where they may now be just showing up? Yea, perhaps.
But where they've apparently made a niche for themselves now so many years, they and the environment immediately around them has adapted? Control maybe. Elimination? Eh!
And just trusting that all official wildlife management decisions are the right ones isn't suggestible, either when they aren't always very sensible.
Employing total elimination on the pythons in Florida makes more sense but you need to buy a permit and are restricted to a number?? That makes sense?
Too bad NYS can't spend their swan efforts in Florida to eliminate the boas
You're anthropomorphizing this species. That is not an appropriate approach to wildlife management. It is not an emotional issue, it is a management issue that should be based on biological science.
People often say in my field "I don't see any difference in... the prairie, the woods, the flocks or schools of XYZ", heck, when I started my field work I really couldn't see the difference in most related ecosystems (a dry praire vs a dry mesic prairie) or the difference in a high quality dry prairie from a medium quality one. It takes a lot of time, effort, education, training and data, especially data, to deduce the changes exotics have on the environment.
Most wildlife and habitat agencies are charged with promoting and maintaining native species and that in part (sometimes largely) has to involve eliminating exotics and human management to duplicate what naturally occurred in the past (i.e. fire prescription) in order to maintain the natural environment. There are notable exceptions in the field (wild horses and introduction of non native fish species for sport such as brown trout, for example) and those are highly contentious issues.
From that article, and the other posts on the blog, it is clearly an animal rights blog and not an ecological or wildlife conservation blog.
are we supposed to be impressed with these thousand dollar words ? sorry I went to college with some of the best legal minds in the country and really . Yes some animals do have human traits , are you saying they do or don"t demonstrate these traits ?
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Mod cut: Off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonelady61
are we supposed to be impressed with these thousand dollar words ? sorry I went to college with some of the best legal minds in the country and really . Yes some animals do have human traits , are you saying they do or don"t demonstrate these traits ?
They aren't "human" traits. That is arrogance. They're traits of the species. Mute swans have mute swan traits. Not reason to call them or think of them as human traits. Doing so is an attempt to create an emotional attachment.
(Timberline) "They aren't "human" traits. That is arrogance. They're traits of the species. Mute swans have mute swan traits. Not reason to call them or think of them as human traits. Doing so is an attempt to create an emotional attachment."
They are living, breathing, feeling beings. Of course people with compassion are going to feel an emotional attachment. Really, what is wrong with that? I could understand your detachment if this were a rock we were discussing but it isn't. What would the world be if no one had empathy? Call me and others arrogant but WE make the world a kinder place to live in.
I really think the phone lady had it right. There is ice water in your veins.
If these are swan traits, then I think swans are pretty amazing creatures.
That being said, I will take leave of this thread. I was just hoping for some kind, compassionate individuals to help end this slaughter, not end up in this inane discussion.
Thank you to the ones that care and signed and shared the petition!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
