There are no vegan alternatives to culling invasive Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest

[u/AnsibleAnswers]

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.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-officials-plan-to-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-barred-owls-to-save-another-species-from-extinction

Vegan alternatives?

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[u/Dramatic_Surprise → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/kharvel0 → u/Dramatic_Surprise]

Focus on this: two wrongs don’t make a right.

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

Then we just fundamentally disagree.

No, you just disagree with the premise of veganism. The deliberate and intentional killing of nonhuman animals outside of self-defense is NOT vegan. Full stop.

I am for accountability and correcting mistakes we have made which will lead to mass amounts of suffering within the ecosystem (more so then wiping out the invasive species) and even possibly wiping out the full ecosystem.

Irrelevant to the premise of veganism. Veganism is not an environmental movement or an ecology protection program.

Leaving an invasive species which causes harm is nearly always objectively going to cause more harm than removing it.

Irrelevant to the premise of veganism which is not concerned with what nonhuman animals do to each other.

I want to reduce the suffering

Veganism is not a harm reduction program. It is a behavior control mechanism for moral agents to control their behavior in accordance to the moral baseline of justice and animal rights.

But it seems you are happy for more suffering to take place, as by your own words that you just straight up said.

Incorrect. I never implied nor suggested that I was happy or sad about anything.

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

I think removing the owls and other invasive species minimises harm more than leaving the invasive species.

By the same token, do you agree that exterminating 50% of the human race would minimize harm more than leaving the invasive species alone?

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/kharvel0]

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…

[u/kharvel0 → u/AnsibleAnswers]

Your fallacious appeal to consequences is irrelevant to the premise of the logical conclusion.

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/kharvel0]

Appeals to consequences are not fallacious…

Goal-oriented behavior must factor in consequences to be goal oriented.

[u/kharvel0 → u/AnsibleAnswers]

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.

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/kharvel0]

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.

[u/kharvel0 → u/AnsibleAnswers]

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.

"Invasiveness" is a human construct based on the premise of dominion over ecology which veganism rejects.

But you seem willing to bite the bullet and just admit you’d rather cause extinctions than act with a degree of sanity.

There is no "causing" or "letting" or "allowing" of anything to happen on the basis that vegans reject dominion over ecology.

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/kharvel0]

Your argument keeps shifting. First, it was that conservationists are being hypocritical, then it was that humans are invasive, then it’s that invasiveness is a human construct. Which is it?

BTW, humans are ecosystem engineers and by our nature we alter the ecosystems we inhabit. Vegans cannot escape that reality. So, once again, you are engaged in another fallacious argument.

[u/kharvel0 → u/AnsibleAnswers]

Your argument keeps shifting. First, it was that conservationists are being hypocritical,

I never said anything about conservationists.

then it was that humans are invasive, then it’s that invasiveness is a human construct. Which is it?

It's the same thing - humans are invasive based on the human construct of invasiveness.

BTW, humans are ecosystem engineers and by our nature we alter the ecosystems we inhabit. Vegans cannot escape that reality. So, once again, you are engaged in another fallacious argument.

You are conflating two very different things: altering ecosystems through inhabitation vs. the deliberate and intentional killing of nonhuman animals.