Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Hedgehog Cull

Page: 1(2)

10:59 / 28.12.02

Well, for one thing, the conservation issue surely cuts both ways. We virtually wiped hedgehogs out on the mainland in the 70s and 80s: re-establishing the mainland population would be a positive thing. Several animal-friendly landowners have come forth and offered to share their space with the hodgepigs. No, it doesn't mean they will live lives free from risk and pain: but they will get a chance.

I simply don't accept that the cull is the most humane way to solve the problem. It's the cheapest way to solve the problem, and the authorities are trying to sell it to you.

Moving the story along: Advocates for Animals are on the case and will be repatriating as many hedgies as they possibly can.

And regarding the issues of animal pain, suffering, and death:

there is no definitive proof either way

so, if you're right, it's OK to hurt these animals: if I'm right, it's not OK. If we /really/ can't tell if these creatures suffer or not, it seems like the compassionate thing to do is to give the animals the benefit of the doubt.

but have you ever seen an animal in pain?

that's all the proof I need right there.

Aethelwine Jedi

12:28 / 28.12.02

Transporting hedgehogs means catching them, and catching them means handling them at some point. Handling wild hedgehogs causes stress, and stress alone can kill hedgehogs. That's not taking the noise, temperature change and disorientation that travelling will entail in to account. Sure, some of them will survive the journey back to mainland, but it looks like those that don't are going to have pretty slow deaths. There's also the risk that those who do make it through the journey will, once reaching their new location, just starve to death due to competition with the resident hedgepigs already there. Or they could die from infection/disease/whatever due to their immune systems being weakened by the ordeal of the journey.

18:22 / 28.12.02

The idea of a hedgehog cull is entirely consistent with attitudes to animals in the UK. If you are a vegetarian I imagine his would sound terrible. However, if like most people in the country you regularly eat cheap, factory farmed meat where animals are kept in poor conditions then this is just more of the same. Would it even be hypocritical to object?

Hedgehogs are cute though so they make a good news item.

23:29 / 28.12.02

What, incidentally, would be wrong with caring about cute animals more than non-cute ones? (Apart from, you know, ecological considerations and so on.) Do animals have a right to be treated equally regardless of appearance and behaviour?

04:50 / 29.12.02

I would suppose nothing is particularly wrong with that so long as you are frank and honest about it.

08:07 / 29.12.02

would be wrong with caring about cute animals more than non-cute ones?

It highlights the hypocrisy in this and similar situations. The animals aren't saved because of inherent animal rights, the duty of human beings to treat other creatures in a fair manner - they are saved because they are pleasant to look at and it gives us a nice warm feeling to do something for them.

Animal welfare should be important and it should be applied fairly and coherently. So if we decide that a hedgehog cull or fox hunting is wrong and bad and must be stopped then consequently other similar or worse cruelties should also be stopped. Which might actually affect lots of people - cost of food rising, national farming becoming uncompetitive internationally and declining.

I can't imagine legislation in the near future that would put animal rights before economics and I certainly can't imagine it getting any sort of democratic support. For the moment it seems that opposing hedgehog culls and the like is just a hobby for people who like animals. Enjoy the entertainment. The pleasing sensation of giving to worthy, cute animals.

10:55 / 29.12.02

Ah. So, as we're cruel to some animals, we should be consistent and be cruel to them all equally.

Yep. Makes perfect sense.

Or we could just GO VEGAN!!!!

Thank you and goodnight.

Aethelwine Jedi

13:10 / 29.12.02

Uh, Naked Flame? Actually, no one said that we should be consistantly cruel to all animals equally.

02:49 / 30.12.02

The animals aren't saved because of inherent animal rights, the duty of human beings to treat other creatures in a fair manner - they are saved because they are pleasant to look at and it gives us a nice warm feeling to do something for them.

The reason I posed the question is that the concept of "animal rights" is a lot harder to pin down, and get agreement on, than "human rights". You can get a lot of agreement on the subject of human rights - you can appeal to self-interest, you can appeal to people's instincts to preserve those who look a bit like them and so on.

"Animal rights" as a basic concept is harder. Opinion ranges all across the spectrum, from people who think all non-human life forms can be vivisected, to those who think killing bacteria is wrong. There seem to me to be so many different arguments, in the end based more on instinct than principle, that I think saying "I want to save animals that I think are cute" is just as rational as saying "I want to save animals that I think are sentient".

Page: 1(2)