The way you phrase this suggests that people are distinct from “animals”, while “nobody” refers only to humans.
It is not the slightest bit “sad”, it is normal and natural. Territories overlap, they always have done, they have never been exclusive. Saying that “they should be exclusive” sounds more like wishful thinking than it does any attempt to realistically define or solve a problem. The reason their habitat seems to be lost (it actually isn’t) is because it is assumed by many that such land is taken and will not be shared. Any animal can be dangerous, life is dangerous. But the question then becomes: “dangerous to whom?” Do you suggest that if you threaten a cougar, it has less of a right to put you down? What is the basis?
Humans and non-humans living in the same area is not sad, it is obvious. Even if they killed 1/10 of the humans (which would be unlikely), there would still be too many humans. Overpopulation and lack of biodiversity pose a very real risk of rendering humans (and nearly everything else) extinct. Whereas coexisting with other animals presents no such risks.
Besides, the whole “you own and control the planet and animals” BS came from the Christians. Being a native and not Christian, I feel zero incentive to care about humans believing that they own land, since it’s not likely to do them or me any good.
The linked chain of articles questions how likely it is that they really are habituated; apparently previous cases have been entirely resolved, sans bullets.
I am inclined to agree that there are too many humans. I am disinclined to agree that the solution is to feed my (or your) kids to the cougars (bears are less of a threat than people make them out to be).
We don’t own the planet, we certainly don’t control it. But we live on it and need to find ways to coexist with animals.
I’m going to go out on an unpopular limb here and say that this is similar to those clerks who won’t marry gay couples…If you refuse to do your job, you should probably get another job. As others have said, getting these bears to unlearn that houses are full of tasty food is problematic, even if they don’t pose a serious threat today. Black bears aren’t endangered so it’s not like the species will be hurt because killing two of them reduces genetic diversity.
From an article linked to from links on the boing boing post:
Even if they had been in the garbage, one bear expert says the cubs can still easily be rehabilitated. “Scientific data we have clearly shows young cubs at that age are not habituated, that they’re just following the mother. We have rehabbed a number of bears that came out of garbage situations and not one of them has been re-offending,” says Angelika Langen of the Northern Lights Wildlife Shelter.
I think it’s better if this kind of thing is treated like an open range, where it’s your responsibility to keep unwanted wandering critters out of your property, rather than the critters having to stay off. Anti-bear your place.
Are you suggesting we extend all rights and responsibilities of democratic society to the rest of the animal kingdom? As in “Meat is Murder” becomes literally true? We’d have to charge ducks with rape and build microscopic polling places for tardigrades! Monarch butterfly migrations would mean issuing millions of visas! Tapeworms could petition for the right to occupy your colon! Talk about opening a legal can of worms. And I don’t mean that as an idiom—consider the legal rights that would be afforded to an actual can of worms.
This is why police is infinitely preferable to military.
Soldiers who exercise their own judgement and refuse a direct order to kill are going to face a court martial or (in some “jurisdictions”) be executed on the spot.
If police officers exercise their own judgement and refuse a direct order to kill, they are suspended.
Police officers remain responsible for their own acts, whereas soldiers put themselves in a situation where they are forced to obey orders without question. Which is why I still think that joining any military force is an immoral act in itself.
I don’t think it’s so much that the good apple causes the rot to disappear, as much as rotted apples don’t like being reminded that they’re rotted, and often feel threatened (and rightly so), when an unrotted apple speaks out against rot. Even the possibility (highly unlikely) that the “good apple” is going to reverse decay is enough to be a very real threat to corruption.
