Yes, this is controversial, but I’m guessing that if the drought is severe enough that people can’t farm, the animals are going to starve to death too, and this would be a more humane alternative.
2 points:
1 - if people get desperate enough they’ll start killing and eating animals in an uncontrolled manner
2 - if the drought is bad enough animals will start dying anyway and culling them in a controlled manner might mean fewer overall deaths due to less competition for resources, and certainly a quicker, arguably more humane death for the animals, and the remaining population will be healthier.
Note that only works if the authorities can actually keep control of the situation and the culling is done in a thoughtful/knowledgeable manner. The situation is quite dicey no matter what is or isn’t done.
The title of this thread is a little misleading. Feeding some people is a benefit of the culling; not the reason for it.
I don’t get how this could be controversial (I mean I sort of do, but only in a dumb knee jerk way)
Hell if the US was facing that level of food insecurity good luck stopping the populace hunting every last wild animal that came into their sights (and the American government or people would give a shit about is what activists in SW Africa thought about it)
I see human life more important than animal life, not much more. But I do think of babies with bloated bellys.
If the animals have to be culled, it will just have to be.
Hate it.
Makes me terribly sad.
From the OP’s link, seems to be some of each:
So, the primary motive for the cull definitely appears to be alleviating the hunger of the suffering humans. But its greatest impact in that regard, AFAICT, will be the reduction of pressure on water and land use rather than the direct distribution of edible meat.
Moreover, from what I can figure of the numbers provided, most of the culled animals would probably have died of the drought anyway, and the culling will make it less likely that the survivors will perish due to resource conflicts or unauthorized DIY hunting by desperate humans.
Still can’t exactly call it “win/win”, but I think it seems to qualify at least for “lose less/lose less”.
Where does it say that?
Isn’t that the obvious inference from the article’s emphasis on catastrophic food insecurity? Maybe it just seemed obvious to me:
I mean, a declared state of emergency AFAICT is usually a response to dangers faced by the human population. If Namibian wildlife were facing acute food insecurity while the humans were doing fine, I’m guessing that that would not rise to the level of an official state of emergency?
The impression I get is that the wildlife is competing with livestock for the diminished grazing land. The wildlife are NOT being killed for their meat as implied in the thread title; they are being killed to minimize their effect on the environment they share with humans. Using their meat to feed people is just a beneficial byproduct of the culling.
Right, and like I said, it appears that reducing that pressure is the primary goal of the cull:
Of course, this is all my naive inference based on a few remarks in a single not very detailed article and zero in-depth knowledge of the specifics of the situation in Namibia, so I definitely could be wrong.
With the starving population there, I’m assuming that amount of meat would not be wasted.
Either way there’s just so much resources to begin with.
The balance is off.
Some of them are endangered or threatened species, but if the alternative is starving to death, for us and them, this is far more humane for everyone IMHO.
I know where some Hippos are in S. America.
I saw a doco some years back where some vets sedated AND NEUTERED the alpha male hippo from Pablo Escobar’s home zoo. His testes were the size of the veterinarian’s hand!
Not only was he fathering lots of baby hippos, he was really too big and aggressive to transport, and he was killing livestock and singlehandedly upsetting the ecosystem in the area.
Yep. Recent thread here.
There are over 200 hippos there now.
It’s a big problem.