On Killing “Pest” Species: Where do you draw the line?
When does it become justifiable to kill individuals merely because the species they belong to is associated with disease or property damage and the entire species (unless kept by humans) may thus be marked “dangerous (to humans)”? I think that wild animals in general are associated with disease and illness, and understandably so, but why is it that when we talk about wild dogs, cats, squirrels, and various others, the visceral response is “stay away,” while for mice and especially rats it is “kill it!”?
I thought this was just a non-vegan thing, but I have discovered through discussion on a vegan forum that many and perhaps even the majority of vegans believe that killing is the only solution for the problem of discovering a rat in one’s house. I was quite surprised to see how bent others in the discussion were on arguing against any other possible solution. Although I am open to considering various perspectives – yes, even killing – I found this commitment to the act of killing a bit much for a vegan forum (I have since lost interest in vegan forums generally, as those I used no longer resonate so well with the more critically-oriented commitment of my own).
Eventually, I would like to do some in-depth research on rats, juxtaposed against some information about other wild animals. Are rats really as dangerous as society seems to believe? How are rats and other wild animal species socially constructed? I did some preliminary Google research, and it does appear that rats carry very high rates of dangerous (to humans) diseases, but don’t other wild animals as well? Of course, the risk in presenting the information thus is that society simply adds the association to the other animals along with the same stigma.
In an article titled “The Cougar’s Tale,” Andrea Gullo, Unna Lassiter, and Jennifer Wolch (from Animal Geographies) unravel the story of cougar-human relations in Orange County. Here, the authors explain based on thorough research how various groups from the Orange County area have expressed desire to kill cougars, which in reality have hardly harmed any humans at all. Nevertheless, for the sake of cougars and humans alike, it is argued that, instead of killing cougars, they should simply be taught to associate humans with fear and stay away.
However, this case study reveals the need for in-depth (case) studies regarding other species and places. What about disease-bearing animals versus perceived-to-be or previously aggressive animals, i.e. leopards in India or poisonous snakes in one’s home/yard? What if there are small children around versus not? I remember when I was a kid, we’d often get snakes in the yard, and my dad would typically take a machete and chop off their heads. My mom was bitten once in the foot and ended up in the hospital, but she had been wearing sandals in the woods (and pointing a BB gun at my dad, incidentally). Do “privileged” humans have a duty, or rather a responsibility (as defined by H.E.A.L.T.H.), to take precautions like proper footwear so as to protect animal life? I am really finding Adam’s definitions helpful here:
responsibility (contextual response)
vs morality (fixed system)
etiquette (everyday attentive care)
vs ethics (special code of conduct)
Honestly, I think I would draw a line somewhere, and yet life doesn’t seem to be so principled as that. What do you think? I am interested in hearing other opinions and arguments.
By the way, I just discovered this organization called Mice and Rat Rights that I would like to share because I would not have found it had I not seen the URL advertised at the Animal Rights Conference.