Philosophy Now Forum

in my neck of the woods feral hogs are a major problem

so its always open season on them

anyway PETA got wind of this and showed up at our county government building to protest 'pig genocide'

most people just nodded and smiled and backed away slowly without making any sudden movements

but not me

i engaged them in rational discussion

i pointed out that for every wild hog killed, multiple animal lives - including in some cases endangered species - are saved

they agreed with me but told me I a missing the point

you see, when a human kills a pig, they violate the pigs rights

but when a pig eats some ducklings - which one did at our duck pond - those pigs move surprisingly fast let me tell you - no rights violation occurs since pigs are not capable of violating anyone's rights - their natural behavior cannot be understood in terms of violating rights

and it is the violation of rights that is the evil here and not the deaths of animals

is this making any sense to anyone?

We did get revenge on the duckling eating pig and it is now safely in our freezer

Kayla wrote:in my neck of the woods feral hogs are a major problem

so its always open season on them

anyway PETA got wind of this and showed up at our county government building to protest 'pig genocide'

most people just nodded and smiled and backed away slowly without making any sudden movements

but not me

i engaged them in rational discussion

i pointed out that for every wild hog killed, multiple animal lives - including in some cases endangered species - are saved

they agreed with me but told me I a missing the point

you see, when a human kills a pig, they violate the pigs rights

but when a pig eats some ducklings - which one did at our duck pond - those pigs move surprisingly fast let me tell you - no rights violation occurs since pigs are not capable of violating anyone's rights - their natural behavior cannot be understood in terms of violating rights

and it is the violation of rights that is the evil here and not the deaths of animals

is this making any sense to anyone?

No. But fundamental principles like that rarely does, fundamental principles that are too general are bound to break at some point, making them inherently invalid.

The reason you should not kill all of them is to preserve a minimum for the future biodiversity, and so when reducing the number you should have a clue as to how this would affect the animal ecology of your local environment. It is known for instance that when you kill a predator, like a wolf, for instance, the amount of a prey species, like reindeer or moose or deer (to take local examples from my country) would multiple beyond proportions and all sorts of new problems would arise, as vegetation eaten by those animals would slowly diminish, at worst by trodden down in ruin.

Other animals might be out-competed by large groups of these animals (though moose are solitary creatures), moose eat on trees and although I'm just guessing now because I'm no expert they might scar the trees. They are big and powerful and although they run away from humans, they might show more and more aggression as space gets tight. The "King of the Forest" (as it's called in Norway for the size of its "crown", its antler) is not an enemy other species would like to have despite it not being a predator.

The proliferation might lead to a growth of other even more annoying species (either because they stop being prey themselves or because of new abundance of prey granting easier food supplies capable of carrying greater quantities), like bears, which are very dangerous to us and are not easily killed, or foxes that steal our chickens and hens.

Therefore, and probably many other reasons I'm not qualified to provide, one should be very careful before eradicating or reducing too much the level of a species population, as it might have great impacts elsewhere in the bio-circle.

The Voice of Time wrote:The reason you should not kill all of them is to preserve a minimum for the future biodiversity, and so when reducing the number you should have a clue as to how this would affect the animal ecology of your local environment.

the problem with the hogs is that they are not, unlike wolves, top level predators

rather they invasive species that eat everything that they can

i dont think there is any risk of them being entirely wiped out - or in any case we are very far from the point of talk from hog hunting management being needed

It is known for instance that when you kill a predator, like a wolf,

bringing back the wolves might help here but that would have its own share of problems

we do have plenty of coyotes which i understand are actually the same species as wolves just very different breed - but they prefer prey that does not fight back

Therefore, and probably many other reasons I'm not qualified to provide, one should be very careful before eradicating or reducing too much the level of a species population, as it might have great impacts elsewhere in the bio-circle.

perhaps but the peta types were not calling for hog hunt management, for a licensing requirement, whatever,they were talking about the hogs having rights

Kayla wrote:they were talking about the hogs having rights

I'm never sure where people think rights come from. All the 'rights' that we have in England are concessions that we owe to people who fought and often died for. Frankly, anyone who believes in natural rights isn't very well acquainted with nature.

Kayla wrote:perhaps but the peta types were not calling for hog hunt management, for a licensing requirement, whatever,they were talking about the hogs having rights

well they do have some rights... like the right to not be subject to torture, and an effort on the behalf of the killer to be swift with his business and not let the animal walk around half-dead or in pain. But there's no fundamental right that says they cannot be killed when they are hampering the business of humans. Humans have their right to regulate the population of the animal in accordance with their own interests.

But to be short, in that case you talk of, my answer is the answer I started with on my last reply: no, it doesn't make sense.

The Voice of Time wrote:well they do have some rights... like the right to not be subject to torture, and an effort on the behalf of the killer to be swift with his business and not let the animal walk around half-dead or in pain.

i am not sure i would word it in terms or rights but it is certainly an great wrong to deliberately cause pain or even have no concern for making sure the kill is swift

vast majority of hog hunters would agree with you

my great uncle, on days his arthritis is not acting up, can take one out with a single heart/lung shot

there is unfortunately an occasional white trash yahoo who think its fun to repeatedly shoot a hog with a .22

Kayla wrote:am not sure i would word it in terms of rights

I would, with possibilities to be flexible.

Kayla: My position is sort of in the middle of the two you describe. On the one hand, I like wild hogs and grant them the right to live on wildlands and prey on crops etc. where they can get away with it. They are unbelievably smart, right up their with canines and the best of them are a sight to behold. Calling them invasive is technically correct, however they are here to stay and we might as well get used to it, put away our outright enmity towards them.

On the other hand, I support the right of residents of this fine country to ambush hogs to control their numbers and for some fine pork if butchered correctly. In some places, wild hogs are highly prized game animals. In addition to the meat to be eaten, the older boars make fine trophies. - CW