Added On February 19, 2010
A risk-averse argument for smaller, scrawnier 80-pound deer. Makes the eating of toxic-laden ducks seem positively harmless.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Quality Deer Management: A Risk-Averse View
Will bigger, higher-quality deer lead to more traffic fatalities? From today's CNN postings.
A risk-averse argument for smaller, scrawnier 80-pound deer. Makes the eating of toxic-laden ducks seem positively harmless.
Nashville police say a deer crashed through the windshield of a car and killed a young girl. WKRN reports.
A risk-averse argument for smaller, scrawnier 80-pound deer. Makes the eating of toxic-laden ducks seem positively harmless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
lest any of you think this is a silly or facetious point I'm making in this post--one of the arguments made by pro-deer contraception advocates in interviews Bruce Lauber and I did several years was that immunocontraception drugs helped keep the body mass of deer (particularly male deer) low. They reasoned that this was an ethical plus given their desire in places like Princeton and Hilton Head SC (where I did interviews) to minimize the effects of deer-car collisions.
When we asked them questions about the aesthetic loss of seeing scrawny, "emasculated" deer (although we didn't use THOSE terms obviously) (as always I paraphrase promiscuously and for dramatic effect), the interviewees appeared to be completely unmoved by the aesthetics of deer. The idea of "quality deer" was something they might see as a problem, not as a positive.
More things to think about . . . .
I can think of no stronger evidence of the primary role of puritanism in the animal rights movement than their unquestioned support of deer immunocantraception.
-Joshua
Post a Comment