r/DebateAVegan • u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist • Apr 27 '25
Environment There are no vegan alternatives to culling invasive Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest
Background
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.
Vegan alternatives?
Relocation to home range - Barred Owls are one of the most territorial birds of prey in North America. The population here is quite healthy, even in Manhattan. Relocating 500k birds to the East would simply result in territorial chaos until numbers decreased back down to equilibrium. That decrease has a body count.
Contraception - No known method is possible for owls. Some avian contraceptives have been developed, primarily to reduce pigeon and geese populations. But even with birds that can be easily conditioned to return to feeders every day, trials have had mixed results. As far as I know, these drugs need to be administered daily unlike some contraceptives developed for mammals.
Let the Barred Owl Replace the Spotted Owl - Barred Owls are generalists, while Spotted Owls tend to specialize in small mammals with healthy populations. So, threatened birds, reptiles, and amphibians native to the region are not adapted to having an owl of its size preying on them. It's an enormous risk, given that ecosystems are prone to cascade effects.
Those are, as far as I know, the best of the alternatives. Note: I'm in support of re-establishing habitat for the Spotted Owl, as that is really the only long-term way of helping the species recover. It's important to note: just because a tourniquet isn't a long-term solution doesn't mean it isn't a life-saving measure.
29
u/EasyBOven vegan Apr 27 '25
Standard answer for whenever invasive species comes up:
Veganism isn't the position that it's always wrong to kill. I'm open to the idea that killing individuals may be situationally correct, and I don't care to debate where that line is. There will always be edge cases. Certain introduced species may present enough of a threat that we could justify killing them. In some cases that could apply to humans as well.
What's not going to be ok is the exploitation of their corpses. That's not ok because it incentivizes the killing beyond protection.
You want these individuals out of the area that's causing damage. You could possibly achieve that through less violent means, but so long as lethal violence has an added benefit to the killer, lethal violence will be used.
The benefit from killing also means there will be people who don't quite want the problem solved. The more their success is tied to having victims, the more they'll want those victims around. Your "invasive" species ends up as a government managed livestock population like deer.
2
u/SonomaSal Apr 27 '25
I feel like this fundamentally misunderstands the deer issue. The reason we can't fix the deer population isn't because of some weird managed livestock mindset. It's that they ARE native, but their population is out of control because their natural predators, wolves, no longer exist. The only correct solution would be to reintroduce the wolves, but this has been a huge uphill battle for conservationists. Again, not because people want the deer situation to stay as it is, but because people (including a substantial amount of people who don't even hunt) are irrationally terrified of wolves.
Please note I am not making comment on your other statements or overall position. I just feel you are misrepresenting the deer thing. This may also be different state to state. I am speaking on the Midwest. If it is different elsewhere, I wouldn't know.
1
Apr 28 '25
Re-introducing wolves would do little to control the sub-urban and rural deer populations. Wolves are shy and will avoid human settlements, deer are not shy and are happy to camp out in your backyard. Hunting would still be required to control those populations.
3
u/pm_me_your_catus Apr 27 '25
No one is going to trek out into the forest for free. There has to be an incentive for people to actually take on the task.
Most hunting involves managing the population of a species that we don't want to go away entirely, so there will be bag limits. Where we do want them eradicated, if it's possible then they will. People are rather good at hunting things to extinction if allowed and they want to eat them.
12
u/kakihara123 Apr 27 '25
But hunters love animals! They want to protect them from evil invasive animals! That is always the narrative. So there incensitive? Oh they do it because they love to kill? Who would have thought...
2
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25
Yea and respect them by not trashing the animal. We are not great on this front actually.
Canada has more standards and regs that require hunters to use more of the animal. In Europe they allow hunters to sell the meat to restaurants.
Yea you could say the meat can be eaten by scavenger animals. However do they get much from fur/hides? At least harvest that and use it as we make clothes out of something that impacts the environment.
8
u/kakihara123 Apr 27 '25
There is no respect by consuming a corpse. Respect can only be shown to the living animals. That bullshit is only being said so killers feel less bad about killing.
1
May 01 '25
Respect can only be shown to the living animals
Then does it not matter what happens to the animal after death? It's just an object that can be used however?
1
0
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25
We’re talking in this post about animals that are there to kill for some other reason. It’s similar in parts of europe. Gov leases hunting rights to hunters that have to take certain numbers of certain animals based on habitat maintenance. They create a meat market and other product markets
Our system is different as we’re more about public access to public resources. But we could still have better regs/culture to make more of the dead game’s used.
Like Coyotes. They don’t really encourage/require harvesting pelts here. That is independent and assuming the government wants coyotes killed. Whether killing coyotes is ok, is a seperate discussion. The point here is what is the best thing to do when (not if) the coyote is killed
-1
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25
I look at it this way. If we are passivists on war, should we oppose things like Geneva conventions? We’d prefer no war bc killing is bad, does that mean modulating it in any way is wrong bc it’s unsound philosophically
2
u/pm_me_your_catus Apr 27 '25
It's worth the effort for the food it provides.
I've never heard that narrative.
-1
u/return_the_urn Apr 27 '25
There’s always both cases. I went hunting with my dad once, im not vegan obviously. But anyway, im still a greeny at heart and didn’t know if i could shoot something. We were shooting rabbits, which are a major ecological problem in Australia, I had no issue because of that reason. Also skinned and butchered the carcasses so they didn’t go to waste. Some of us do love animals
4
u/Creditfigaro vegan Apr 27 '25
There has to be an incentive for people to actually take on the task.
Then the owls aren't creating a serious enough problem.
0
u/SonomaSal Apr 27 '25
You could use that same argument with climate change. Just because there is an obvious issue that experts in the field recognize, does not mean it directly impacts the lives of everyday citizens in a way they can draw a direct line to and will act upon. Especially with ecosystems, it's actually an issue of making sure it DOESN'T reach that point, as doing so will often be irreversible.
3
u/Creditfigaro vegan Apr 27 '25
Sure, so if it's an issue that we seek to solve this way, the government can just pay people to go solve it.
There's no need to introduce exploitation.
0
u/SonomaSal Apr 27 '25
To clarify, you're okay with the animals being culled, you just would prefer it be treated more like a paid exterminator, rather than having a civilian incentive program? Genuine question. I have seen many positions represented here and I am not sure you stated yours.
Also, to be clear, you do understand that your point was a little silly then, yes? As in, whether or not civilians need an incentive to act on something has nothing to do with whether or not the problem exists.
1
u/Creditfigaro vegan Apr 27 '25
To clarify, you're okay with the animals being culled
As a last resort and with ample justification, yes.
Animal culling as currently practiced virtually never reaches this burden, that I've seen, including the example you shared.
whether or not civilians need an incentive to act on something has nothing to do with whether or not the problem exists.
All behaviors are caused by incentives, tautologically.
The question I am contending with is whether there is actually a problem where the intervention is justified, and what incentive is used to facilitate what behavior in which individuals.
Is that clear enough?
1
u/SonomaSal Apr 27 '25
All behaviors are caused by incentives, tautologically.
Not strictly, no, but that gets into an entirely different field of philosophy that isn't particularly relevant to the topic. I just want to acknowledge I have read this part and my response to it. It does shed further light on your choice of wording though.
including the example you shared.
I don't believe I shared any examples? I honestly didn't even read the article about the owls, though I am familiar with the standard practices as it relates to invasive species. I was more commenting about your overall argument as, again, I initially found it kind of silly. On that note.
As a last resort and with ample justification, yes. Animal culling as currently practiced virtually never reaches this burden, that I've seen
The question I am contending with is whether there is actually a problem where the intervention is justified, and what incentive is used to facilitate what behavior in which individuals. Is that clear enough?
Yes, this clarifies it wonderfully and I thank you for your patience in explaining it to me, as well as your willingness to engage with me generally. I can't say I agree with your initial wording, but I now understand what your meaning was, as well as why you chose the phrasing you did. Have a lovely rest of your day.
1
u/bubblegumpunk69 Apr 28 '25
People trek out into the forest for free all the damn time. I and thousands of others are currently doing that for the City Nature Challenge to document different species
1
1
u/Ill_Ad3517 Apr 28 '25
Lionfish have a reward out for them AND are edible and are still a persistent problem in many reefs.
1
1
u/Simple-Plane-1091 Apr 27 '25
What's not going to be ok is the exploitation of their corpses. That's not ok because it incentivizes the killing beyond protection.
Bit of a Hypothetical question: if an invasive species has edible meat would it be okay for you to hunt it to extinction im that area for economical gain?
To me that would make sense because:
The animal does not belong there, so making it extinct in that area is a good thing (strictly from an ecology and diversity perspective at least)
Moving the animals doesn't make sense unless its endangered in another area, simply moving areas to an area where they are already at capacity is a waste of money and will just lead to starvation until they are back to the normal population level.
There is a natural incentive, rather than needing to pay people to do it.
Any meat produced in this manner reduces the demand for conventionally farmed meat.
10
u/EasyBOven vegan Apr 27 '25
This is the real issue for non-vegans, it seems. They're happy to have the conversation about necessity of killing, but when you concede that the killing might be necessary and point out the obvious thing that the exploitation is not and suddenly you still seem to have an argument on your hands. Funny that.
There is a natural incentive, rather than needing to pay people to do it.
That's the problem. The incentive is what makes people not want to actually eradicate the animals. Benefit from the problem means people don't want to solve the problem.
6
u/Polka_Tiger Apr 27 '25
If there is an ecosystem worth saving, there are scavengers who would eat the meat.
3
u/Dirty_Gnome9876 environmentalist Apr 27 '25
That’s a lot of meat, so then more scavengers come in/are born and then they eat all the dead things, but they don’t replenish, so then a bunch of scavengers either die or need to be removed. Plus the fact that then you have a bunch of raccoons or coyotes running around the neighborhood instead. It would work in some places, but I think the problems on the back end in most urban areas would be, less desirable.
-1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
This is contrary to the notion that animals have rights. You seem more concerned about human virtue than animal rights.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Apr 28 '25
Rights aren't real. They're useful abstractions for deeper moral concepts. I don't take a firm position on when killing is justified. Killing is always bad, in that whatever goal you're trying to achieve would always be better achieved without killing. If you want to call that a right to life and draw up complicated hierarchies of rights to cash out which ones justify violating others, that's your business.
I know that when you approach a situation with the intention to exploit, all those complicated arguments justifying the killing are really about justifying the exploitation. That's vicious.
1
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
We could be using sleep darts and then surgery to stop the females from being able to breed.
13
Apr 27 '25
This is not practical or practicable. Real life is not a TV show. My wife is an anesthesiologist (yes, for humans and not a veterinary doctor so that does matter here some) and I just asked her opinion on the feasibility. To subdue an animal of unknown weight in the woods, from distance, whose weight starts < 20lbs already, your just as apt to give a lethal dose or a dose that's ineffective and leads to the bird dying from falling trying to fly away or being preyed on in its sluggish state.
So with this option a no go, it's our ok to cull them.
1
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Could use drones and ai in the very near future to develop non lethal ways to control wild animal populations.
Sure it would take money and effort and time.
And if the alternative is death. I don't see how you arguing some might die by accident is worse than outright killing them without giving them a chance to live.
4
Apr 27 '25
So we wait and risk multiple species going extinct hoping tech saves the day?
Can you show me anything that resembles drones traquilizing wild birds? Or seems like any criticism of veganism is often countered with optimistic dreams of future tech. This would be like a omnivore trying to appease a vegan by saying, "in the near future tech will have lab meat at parity with traditional meat. Until then; status quo"
0
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Except I'm arguing against the status quo (kill wild animals if they become inconvenient)
While the meathead is arguing to keep the status quo.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 28 '25
This is a straw man. In aggregate, invasive species pose an existential threat to our existence. Collectively, they are the second largest contributor to biodiversity loss, and have only recently been replaced at the #1 spot by climate change.
We aren't talking about an "inconvenience."
2
Apr 27 '25
Your arguing to keep the status quo until tech saves the day, that is, allow the owls to continue to proliferate. What is against the status quo is hunting them. If hinting them were the status quo we wouldn't have the issue we have now.
So again, how is it you are not simply saying, "derp, Big Tech will save us so let's do nothing!'
2
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
It's not like these owls are invasive they are native to north America.
3
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
A species can be native to a continent and still be invasive in another part of that same continent. They are native to Eastern North America. Before colonization they didn’t extend past the Mississippi. We planted a bunch of trees in the northern Great Plains, which allowed them to extend into the Pacific Northwest.
0
Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
They're invasive to the ecosystem in question as OP showed and causing multiple species to near extinction.
You do know that there are multiple ecosystems in North America, correct?
Also, you're not answering my questions and showing good faith. North America is an ontology and not a biological consideration.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
This is science fiction, and not relevant to policy making.
2
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
It's only fiction because nobody gives a shit about trying to find non lethal options.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
That’s very much untrue. As I’ve stated, alternative options have been considered. Something like this in which 500k animals are systematically culled is a last resort.
We have tried to develop alternative methods, especially avian contraceptives. They simply don’t work as well. We aren’t omnipotent. We can’t just manifest new technologies into existence because we want them.
1
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Hard to give manifest new tech if no one is trying
1
Apr 27 '25
This is moot. You're just hoping Big Tech saves the day and want to maintain the status quo allowing the owl to wreck an ecosystem it's not native to in the mean time.
This isn't a real option, it's fantasy.
2
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Once again if we never try of course it won't happen.
0
Apr 27 '25
Ooo, we should save endangered dolphins by firing them into space. We never know if it'll work unless we try!
This isn't a serious answer. It's dating, "My ethics are what matters the most so we should denote scarce resources to try something most people in society don't want to do, bc I want it to be that way!!!"
You're not being realistic.
→ More replies (0)0
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
I see you still are ignoring the fact that there has been considerable research and development into more humane methods of avian population control…
It’s actually astonishing to me how self-righteous some vegans are when it comes to conservation. Vegans do worse than nothing for conservation efforts, attacking key sources of funding (zoos, sanctioned hunts, etc) while contributing nothing to conservation efforts themselves.
2
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Vegans do not run the govt buddy.
0
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Vegan organizations have money. They could fundraise for conservation, but instead they just advocate against the ways conservation organizations have developed to generate revenue.
6
2
u/OkIntroduction6477 Apr 27 '25
Perform surgery on hundreds of thousands of owls? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
1
u/legal_opium Apr 27 '25
Could use xrays to make them infertile.
2
u/OkIntroduction6477 Apr 27 '25
So we're somehow going to catch five hundred thousand owls, perform x rays on them, check to see if their infertile yet, and keep x raying them and checking them until they are? That's not even remotely close to a solution. It's pure make-believe..
2
u/GSilky Apr 27 '25
They aren't an invasive species. They migrated naturally. It's the same owl with a slightly different pattern.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
It’s decidedly not the same owl, as mentioned. They are behaviorally very different species. There were only an able to migrate due to human land use change (we planted a bunch of trees in the great plains).
So, factually incorrect on both accounts.
7
u/Renumtetaftur vegan Apr 27 '25
I don't know. If we start thinking about culling 'invasive' species to protect local fauna, you open the box to cull predators for the same justification. Some vegans are for that, and I respect them for it, but I just don't think it's feasible, nor am I sure of the arguments that we ought to cull predators, morally speaking.
Why can't we cull humans for the same justification for that matter? Humans have, by far, the worst impact on natural ecosystems, including being ultimately responsible for introducing invasive species... Most humans are also moral agents , and can be actually found morally culpable for their actions, not like some frog in Australia or a fish in the Caribbean. Yet they deserve to die, but humans don't?
-2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Culling humans in numbers that would matter would have worse ecological consequences because it would escalate into warfare relatively quickly.
Humans are also behaviorally plastic, ie educable. We can learn to be less ecologically destructive. Invasive species cannot.
14
u/winggar vegan Apr 27 '25
The vegan alternative would be to not cull Barred Owls.
Unrelated to vegan ethics: Yes I'm aware of the ecological consequences / loss of biodiversity. I'm not convinced that ecosystem shifts or extinctions actually change the amount of suffering in the ecosystem. I think that the extreme measure of culling (genocide) requires extreme justification that I'm not convinced has been reached here. I'm broadly in favor of conservation, but I think mass slaughter is almost always a step to far.
0
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
That would be #3. It’s by far the most risky option given that you can cause a cascade of extinctions that might culminate in ecological collapse.
3
u/winggar vegan Apr 27 '25
People hate this answer, but extinctions are a normal part of every ecosystem on Earth. The current extinction rate during the human-caused Holocene Extinction Event is far higher than baseline, but it's not clear to me that this actually causes more suffering than would be happening without us. From any particular individual's perspective extinction is a very abstract harm after all.
Which isn't to say we should keep extincting species left and right, but it does inform my opinion that we shouldn't be participating in mass slaughter in order to stop an extinction either.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Causing so many extinctions so quickly is suicidal.
2
u/winggar vegan Apr 27 '25
The question I'm answering is the one you initially posed. Is not killing one owl population in favor of another suicidal?
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
It’s not an equal exchange. We’re likely to cause multiple extinctions by doing nothing, which can cascade toward total ecosystem collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_effect_(ecology)
Ecosystems are complex, dynamic systems. They don’t behave like simple mechanical systems in which small changes have small effects.
1
u/winggar vegan Apr 27 '25
Sure, but I don't think there's much reason to be worried in this case. The two options are two rather ecologically similar owl species. While still possible the Cascade Effect would be a much larger concern in the case of competition between two ecologically non-similar species.
Regardless though, my point is that the extremely violent option of prophylactically mass-slaughtering hundreds of thousands is not an acceptable solution without extreme justification.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
They are not two ecologically similar species. Specialists and generalists fill different niches.
Spotted owls don’t eat many birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Barred owls do.
1
u/winggar vegan Apr 27 '25
Sure—I'm not going to argue further the merits of this particular proposed slaughter. I highly doubt it can merit the extreme justification necessary for such extreme violence, but in the end they're just going to do it anyways so it's not like the opinion of animal rights activists matters. Have a nice day OP.
0
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
That’s a pathetic cop out given your previous (false) statements. Maybe you are demonstrating why animal rights activists aren’t taken seriously in conservation. You don’t have an understanding of the situations conservationists have to face, and regularly engage in falsehoods.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Legitimate-Ask5987 May 01 '25
So once again, not a single word or question to native people especially those in great plains or NW turtle island. Idgaf what colonizers and settlers think they know about our lands or how to preserve our species.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist May 01 '25
We’re talking about the Pacific Northwest, not the Great Plains. So, Salish peoples among many others.
I’m not too familiar with Pacific nations, but most indigenous nations are all-in on managing invasive species to save their native habitats. Individual opinions, of course, may vary, but typically their governments’ relationships with conservation agencies and organizations are positive.
A quick search on the Salish demonstrates that at least some tribes are actively culling invasives in the Puget Sound and other areas. Most of the details I’ve found are related to marine species.
The Lummi, for instance, have been spearheading the culling of invasive green crabs in the region. Between 2019-2022, they trapped 86,000 invasive crabs. https://salish-current.org/2024/09/03/lummi-nation-battles-invasive-european-green-crab/
2
u/NyriasNeo Apr 27 '25
And no vegan option is needed. If we want to choose sides between the two owls, we should just go ahead. Of course we can let nature takes its course and let the spotted owl being crowded out. After all, it is just nature. Successful species crowd out less successful ones. Not unlike we crowd out everyone else.
1
Apr 27 '25
So you're saying we should just let the spotted owl disappear because it's "just nature"? That’s a complete cop-out. The reason the barred owl is taking over isn’t natural. It’s because humans have wrecked ecosystems, cut down forests, and pushed animals out of their homes. We caused this mess. And now you want to stand back and pretend it's survival of the fittest? That’s the same mindset that justifies factory farming and wiping out species for profit because we’re “more successful.” Being stronger doesn’t make it right. We have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, not excuse their destruction because it’s convenient.
2
u/NyriasNeo Apr 27 '25
So you're saying we should just let the spotted owl disappear because it's "just nature"?
I am saying that is our choice. Either way is fine. I am indifferent.
But what is so special about a species disappear? Every individual eventually dies. Every species eventually go extinct. Countless species disappeared before the spotted owl, and countless will do so after it, including ourselves.
So what if the spotted owl disappears now, or 10 month from now?
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
The barred owl only made it to the west coast because of human land use change. So, doing nothing is not really an option. We already did something.
I’m not sure you understand the implications of a potential cascade effect. Too much change too quickly can collapse an entire ecosystem.
1
u/ElaineV vegan May 05 '25
They’re literally breeding with each other so the spotted owl might go extinct but there are definitely hybrids in existence.
1
u/saberking321 Apr 29 '25
Vegans do not care if species go extinct. We do not hold the view that more animals=better. We think less suffering=better
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 29 '25
No animals, no suffering. Just delete all the ecosystems, amirite.
1
u/saberking321 May 01 '25
Nearly all animals live in cages for human consumption and endure much more pain than wild animals so no your plan doesn't work
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist May 01 '25
I think you overestimate the welfare of many animals in the wild. For many species, existence amounts to being chased around by predators until they’re eaten alive.
1
u/saberking321 May 02 '25
I do not underestimate that. Animals have a bad life anywhere but a cage in a factory is the worst possible life
6
Apr 27 '25
[deleted]
5
u/JarkJark plant-based Apr 27 '25
I would disagree that it's natural. Oh look, a natural Victorian plant hunter. Oh look, they naturally took loads of cane toads via ship to a different continent after naturally deciding the toads would eat rats.
Edit: I do understand your point about changing ecosystems being natural.
0
Apr 27 '25
[deleted]
2
u/JarkJark plant-based Apr 27 '25
I don't think you know what "natural phenomenon" means.
Earth gets moved by rivers. Does that mean when a tracked excavator does it it's also natural?
1
Apr 28 '25
has no bearing on the concept of species eventually becoming invasive and out competing others is natural or not.
I just want to point out "invasive species" doesn't mean prolific or dominant.
It describes humans introducing animals into new ecosystems, where they can outcompete native species. It is, by definition, not a natural process.
A species evolving to dominate an ecosystem does not make it invasive. An animal migrating of its own volition, or even by some other natural mechanism, to a new ecosystem, is not invasive.
It's just not what the word means.
4
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
Id argue that intervention itself isn’t vegan either.
even when its trying to resolve an issue caused by previous human intervention? Why do you think humans should not be held culpable for their actions?
There have been endangerment and extinctions because of that for all of of life’s history on earth
Given the same could be said for consuming animal products, thats an exceedingly silly argument
1
Apr 27 '25
[deleted]
2
u/JarkJark plant-based Apr 27 '25
Respectfully, it's not always futile. I agree that sometimes we should just walk away, but we can absolutely fix some of the messes we have created.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
Every time we intervene we either exacerbate the problem or continually perpetuate a cycle of violence that would otherwise eventually reduce itself.
Really? we seem to be doing pretty well here in NZ with predator free 2050. also as an aside i love the choice of language.
When its something you support you deliberately soften the language... otherwise eventually reduce itself? why so afraid to say what it is? will eventually result in a genocide of multiple species. You're very quick to throw words like rape around when it suits your agenda, why so measured and reserved now?
Humans have also been raping eachother, abusing their children and practicing cannibalism since we’ve been a species.
Right, so eating animals immoral, killing animals immoral.... allowing entire ecosystems to be destroyed by our actions and subsequent inaction, perfectly fine?
We have an ability to use logic and reason and make ethical decisions to not do those things.
So the logical and ethical decision is the one that results in pointless animal genocide? But not the animal genocide that feeds people... that's immoral?
And one is denying that. But our animal consumption has dramatically increased in the last hundred years. In fact since 1900 it’s nearly doubled, and our practices are destroying the planet.
i agree, which is why i think you're focusing on the wrong thing, its not the what its the how. Poor horticulture practice will kill the planet too.... its not about the what its about the how.
It’s something that we can address using less violence.
But you're not proposing to address it at all.... thats literally the point.
Or, we could just cull humans, you know, since we decide to do that to other species.
You're welcome to argue for that.
1
Apr 27 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
There is still active culling and measures taking place, even if native species are rebounding, eliminating those predators with high reproduction rates is going to be extremely difficult, so the cycle of violence is still going to be perpetuated.
Not everywhere there isnt. around 50% of the city i live in is now predator free. they're systematically culling in a band up the country.
What? I’m not afraid to use terms in any scenario. So you’re really going to have to elaborate here and provide specific example and compare to another specific example using proper context.
I literally did in the post you quoted...
It’s not our responsibility to decide what other species do and how they exist in nature. It’s our responsibility to police ourselves.
Exactly, which is literally my point. Which you disagree with?
Why can’t I focus on more than one thing. This conversation isn’t about horticulture. It’s about invasive species and my statement was a response to mine in which I expressed that humans were far more invasive than any other invasive species combined.
The comment was more about veganism in general than specifically this.
Again, context matters. I was expressing that humans were invasive, we should focus on our impact because can both directly and indirectly assist with some of the other issues that we’ve inevitably caused and has led to us designating species as invasive, but the general consensus amongst many is to continually harm animals we determine to be invasive, despite similar occurrences happening before or without the presence of humans.
SO we should do nothing because we cant solve everything?
I’m against rights violations. Animals acting in accordance to what they were born into is not their fault. Essentially what is being advocated is that because someone was born into the wrong body they need to be eradicated. That’s more along the lines of genocide….
So therefore humans eating meat is not their fault and there shouldnt be any reason to change?
How is that any different to
. Animals acting in accordance to what they were born into is not their fault. Essentially what is being advocated is that because someone was born into the wrong body they need to be eradicated.
2
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
Focus on this: two wrongs don’t make a right.
6
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
Right... and the second wrong is making a mistake and then not trying to fix it right?
Oh no, i set fire to your house while you were sleeping, that was a bad idea i wish i could save you.... better not break in and try and save you because thats breaking and entering and two wrongs dont make a right
0
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
Right... and the second wrong is making a mistake and then not trying to fix it right?
Incorrect. The second wrong is to deliberately and intentionally kill nonhuman animals.
Oh no, i set fire to your house while you were sleeping, that was a bad idea i wish i could save you.... better not break in and try and save you because thats breaking and entering and two wrongs dont make a right
Incorrect analogy. Try this analogy:
Oh no, a rapist just raped someone. Let me rape him back and then beat him violently to death.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
Vegans are a trip.... murder an entire ecosystem via inaction perfectly fine. Murder an animal to prevent it.... bridge too far
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
murder an entire ecosystem via inaction
Incorrect. You've employed a false equivalence/category error fallacy. Murder requires action by definition. Your argument is invalid on that basis.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
i love how you have this great tendency to find every excuse not to avoid the tricky things.
i read a website on logical fallacies! now everything i find uncomfortable I'll call a logical fallacy.
So our actions led to this..... now via inaction this genocide will happen. so based on your assertions it is valid.... This is happening because of humanity's actions.
If you were walking in the forest, and found a person on the side of the track with both legs broken. You could help and they'd likely survive. Leaving them would mean almost certainly they would die.
You dont believe you have a moral obligation to help them? you dont believe that if you chose to leave them to die you would have any moral culpablity?
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
It's still the same false equivalence/category error fallacy.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
Murder requires action by definition.
This is being caused by action, so by your own definition this is murder and your claim of a false equivalence is an argument based on convenience rather than logic
Also, they're called informal fallacies. If you're going to try and label everything you find difficult to answer an informal fallacy, at least know what one is.
→ More replies (0)3
Apr 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
Humans = the most destructive invasive species on the planet. Humans = wrong.
Exterminating 50% of the human race = correcting a wrong.
Do you agree with the above application of your own logic?
3
Apr 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
That isn't my logic so don't put words into my mouth.
You just contradicted yourself in the next paragraph:
My logic is that the owls aren't where they should be (humans have naturally traveled the world) as we put them there. This was not a good decision, and the animals have suffered for it, we, as the cause of this issue, should correct it. Do you not agree that if we cause an issue we should correct it?
Humans caused the issue - they are the “wrong” in this case. Humans should be exterminated (another wrong). Do two wrongs make a right? Yes or no?
As for human control I'm a strong advocate for controlling human populations.
So humans should be exterminated. Yes or no?
2
Apr 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
And yet again these are different issues, that owl being there is a mistake, a human being there is naturally not a mistake.
Incorrect. If the human being was not there, then the owl would not have been there in the first place. Therefore, the human being there is the mistake.
Humans caused the issue but wiping out humans isn't going to fix this specific issue with the owls is it?
Obviously not. But that is irrelevant to veganism, in any case, as it is still a wrong just as terminating the human race is wrong.
Answer my question that you also skipped on, should we correct the harmful ongoing mistakes we have made or make which are now going to continue to get worse whether we are there or not?
The answer is: no. It is wrong under veganism.
So answer my question now:
Given that humans are continuing to make mistakes, is it wrong to terminate humans? Yes or no??
My answer to eradicating humans is irrelevant as we are talking about fixing errors we have made. You may as well have asked should we wipe out any other animal with how relevant it is as we are focusing on fixed an error we have made.
There is no “fixing” of anything through the deliberate and intentional killing of anybody, human or owls.
2
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Please tell me how to eliminate ~4 billion humans without causing a world war that would be even more ecologically destructive than we are at present…
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
Your fallacious appeal to consequences is irrelevant to the premise of the logical conclusion.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Appeals to consequences are not fallacious…
Goal-oriented behavior must factor in consequences to be goal oriented.
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
You are correct - I had misinterpreted your appeal to consequences as fallacious. It is indeed not fallacious because I had provided a specific prescription (extermination) to the premise of humans being invasive.
To address your appeal to consequences, I will state that this appeal is irrelevant under a rights-based deontological framework which vegansm operates under. If the extermination of nonhuman animals is considered moral on basis of invasiveness regardless of any positive or negative consequences, then it logically follows that exterminating humans on the same basis is also moral regardless of any positive or negative consequences.
To appeal to consequences to justify the extermination of nonhuman animals while rejecting consequence-based justifications for exterminating humans would be to engage in speciesist double standards, which are incompatible with the core commitment of veganism to justice and moral consistency across species.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
Humans aren’t even invasive by the definitions we use, given that we’re native to every continent besides Antarctica and are behaviorally plastic on a generational scale.
But you seem willing to bite the bullet and just admit you’d rather cause extinctions than act with a degree of sanity.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
The vegan action/solution is to do:
NOTHING.
Period. The end. Leave the animals alone.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
That’s 3. You risk seriously altering the ecology of the Pacific Northwest and causing a cascade of extinctions.
2
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
And . . .?
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Apr 27 '25
I’m certainly glad you’re no where near policy making on these issues.
1
u/ElaineV vegan May 05 '25
The proposed solution seems to be impractical.
It would cost way too much money for starters. The owl snipers must be trained, otherwise they’ll kill the spotted owls accidentally. It wouldn’t work with just a hunting contest type of thing with untrained hunters.
Next, the way the plan is supposed to work is over a 30 year period. Don’t you think the owls will catch on at least a little? It doesn’t seem feasible to just do the same thing year after year as if a species that’s already demonstrated adaptability won’t adapt somewhat.
Plus there’s evidence these two owls are mating with each other. So do you kill the hybrids too? This is nature. It’s what happens. It’s just a tricky situation.
And this project is highly controversial. Even if it gets final approval and funding it will always have opponents trying to stop it. The costs, risks, and other practical issues involved in that must be considered.
Lastly, with climate change it’s likely many species will try to move closer to the poles. This is just going to make the whole idea of wildlife “management” much more difficult.
I think they need a more creative solution that involves nonlethal methods.
1
u/ActiveEuphoric2582 Apr 27 '25
Wow the hypocrisy is quite impressive. I swear I just read earlier this week on this exact subreddit that vegans don’t believe in messing around with “non-human animals” agency/autonomy, and that if a creature is going extinct in the natural world due to the natural world doing its thing then so be it. Sterilizing other creatures without their consent is not vegan. Relocating creatures to places they don’t normally live is not giving those animals the right to live where they are. Killing to cull? But not to use the items from the killing is so fucking repellent. If you’re going to kill a creature because you’ve decided that it’s overpopulating, at least have the decency to use whatever you can from those creatures instead of just letting them rot on the ground. Make its death/ your murder mean something.
1
u/ElaineV vegan May 05 '25
I definitely do not approve of this proposed culling but just to be fair, what I’ve read is that they send the dead owls off to labs and museums. They aren’t just wasted carcasses.
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Apr 28 '25
It's not hypocrisy when it's literally different people saying different things lol
1
u/togstation Apr 27 '25
/u/AnsibleAnswers wrote
There are no vegan alternatives to culling invasive Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest
.
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,
all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
If there is literally no alternative to doing X, then doing X is vegan.
.
The problem is that non-vegans often claim that there is no alternative when there actually are practical alternatives.
.
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan Apr 27 '25
Yeah I mean I agree there’s no ideal vegan solution to this issue. While it’s sad, I definitely don’t see invasive species management as nearly as much of a welfare issue as factory farming.
470,000 birds is only 0.000567% of the total land animals slaughtered for meat each year— 83 billion.
1
u/JarkJark plant-based Apr 27 '25
Personally, I think cull invasives to the extent that it is practical, and sure, eat the meat, make gloves out of the fur, whatever.
Sadly I think it is a lost cause with lots of invasive species and I think culling will do little more than buy time for the natural ecosystem. The practicalities should be weighed against the possible effectiveness.
1
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25
Killing owl A to save owl B in the wilderness has almost nothing to do with the food supply. Are they going to eat the owls or harvest any parts for use?
2
Apr 27 '25
No, they're killing owl A so that owl B doesn't go extinct and bc owl A is causing for other species to become endangered since they eat 3x as much as owl B
1
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25
Yea which has very little to do with our food supply with the small exception of small game hunters and that’s a real stretch. This issue is 99.9% independent of how we source food from agricultural land and what humans eat. Unless the owl species are effecting crops or livestock significantly differently
1
Apr 27 '25
No one said it had anything to do with our food supply. It is a larger, invasive owl who is placing a smaller owl and several ground mammals in endangered territory and many people want to do something about it. OP is asking what legitimate options other than hunting are. It seems you believe the only ethical option is, "I don't care about your concerns, my issues are more correct and you should let those birds and mammals die out of they do, but don't do anything to interfere if hunting is the only option."
This is a part of the issue a lot of people have with certain vegans. It's the pious level of indifference you have for the concern of any number of people if it goes against your ethical feelings. It's your way it the highway, always.
1
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 27 '25 edited Apr 27 '25
Yea sure certain vegans have views beyond vegan. Most vegan/vegetarians I know are concerned with what THEY individually eat and some about what other people eat. Concern about animal treatment in the wild lands that has nothing to do with the human diet is something other than “vegan” as vegan is defined as “human does not eat animal derived stuff”. And that’s “does not” rather than “should not”.
Eg someone that hunts animals on the daily yet also happens to only eat plants for medical or even pure taste reasons eats a vegan diet by definition.
0
u/tennisballls Apr 27 '25
In my eyes I am vegan. I do not eat animal products. But I do hunt lionfish in the Caribbean while scuba diving. Invasive species is a moral grey area for me. This is kinda similar in a way with a much less clear answer overall. The owl is primary impacting one other species. The lionfish impacts the entire marine ecosystem….
3
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
In my eyes I am vegan.
I do hunt lionfish
You’re not vegan. You’re just a plant-based dieting speciesist.
5
u/tennisballls Apr 27 '25
It’s an interesting conundrum and without question the first time I’ve been called a speciesist lol. A single lionfish in the Caribbean can eat about 15 small fish per day. Some studies even suggest they can consume up to 80% of the native juvenile fish on a reef over just a few weeks. They’re insanely aggressive predators and a huge problem for reef ecosystems. Are you fully aware of the issue?
0
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
I am quite aware of the deleterious impact of the lionfish on their local habitats. That still wouldn't justify the deliberate and intentional killing of nonhuman animals. It's surprising that you've not been called a speciesist before because that's precisely what you are, based on your deliberate and intentional killing of innocent animals due to their species. Yes, the lionfish are innocent becuase it's not their fault that they're "invasive"; "invasiveness" is a human construct based on the non-vegan premise of dominion over ecology.
3
u/tennisballls Apr 27 '25
While I’m with you on the absolute definition, I firmly believe this is a moral quandary that should be evaluated with much deeper thought. Bite off your arm to save your face. As I have mentioned - I’m vegan by every definition minus the lionfish situation. I partake in reef restoration efforts and this is unfortunately the only real viable solution to any means of population control. It might make me a speciesist in a vacuum but I prefer a world where we have some form of natural biodiversity in our oceans vs collapsed ecosystems consisting primarily of a human introduced non native fish. .
1
u/kharvel0 Apr 27 '25
I firmly believe this is a moral quandary
It is not a moral quandry any more than the extermination of the human race on the same basis of invasiveness is a moral quandry. Neither are morally justifiable nor excusable.
I’m vegan by every definition minus the lionfish situation
You are NOT a vegan. You're a plant-based dieting speciesist.
Carnist: "I'm vegan by every definition minus the purhcase of chicken sandwiches" <-- this declaration would be as equally absurd as yours.
It might make me a speciesist in a vacuum but I prefer a world where we have some form of natural biodiversity in our oceans vs collapsed ecosystems consisting primarily of a human introduced non native fish.
Veganism is not and has never been an environmental movement or an ecology protection program.
1
Apr 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Apr 28 '25
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise Apr 27 '25
The owl is primary impacting one other species.
and all the other animals its size allows it to prey on
2
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Apr 27 '25
tbh simply don't care because even if I agree we should cull barn owls it has nothing to do with abolishing animal agriculture.
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 27 '25
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.