Continuing the series about symptoms and causes of “The Problem” …
A debate about trapping in Dane County parks is active. Few people trap, and many people oppose trapping in county parks for various reasons, including the safety of children and pets and the suffering of non-human animals. But the state requires that trapping be permitted on land bought by the county with money from the state’s Stewardship Fund.
A letter from Joe Parisi, the county executive, suggests that the trade-offs are acceptable because of two considerations.
First, the program is “limited” in a few ways:
Trapping is permitted only between November 1 and February 15.
Trapping is required only on lands purchased after 2006.
Very few people — only three in 2010 — request permits to trap on county lands.Second, green space in the county “makes a critical impact to our local economy” and “to continue to make these land purchases during the extremely difficult budget times we are in, the county needs the support that the Stewardship Fund provides.”
In other words, trapping may not be a very desirable activity — as the tone of Parisi’s letter suggests — but it’s OK because not much of it is done, we get money for it, and we can help other people make money too.
Imagine a similar situation involving cruelty to people and killing of people. “Cruelty to people is bad, and killing people is bad, but if we can trade a little of them for a lot of money and some economic activity, then we have to do it.” Doesn’t sound like a very strong argument, does it?
But, for some reason that no one ever explains, the same argument sounds acceptable to many people when made about non-human animals. Why? What exactly is not being stated here?
One frequently hears that experimenting on non-human animals is “necessary” (which is an indefensible argument on many levels). Researchers and uninformed members of the public claim that non-human animals must suffer and die because their suffering and death are necessary to help people.
The same argument cannot even be attempted about trapping. Nonetheless, our elected representatives are willing to treat trapping as necessary just because some money is involved.
So consider the ethics of state legislators mandating that counties permit unnecessary cruelty to non-human animals and unnecessary killing of them in exchange for money. What a terrible bribe.
Now consider the ethics of county representatives accepting that bribe.
A professional ethicist told me that we often falsely perceive either/or decisions when there are alternatives. What alternatives might there be in this situation?
Lobby the state legislature to change the rules of the Stewardship Fund.
Establish a different fund for purchasing county lands. I would be happy to pay my share for land on which cruelty to non-human animals and the killing of non-human animals would not be allowed. I know other people who would also. Break the cycle of buying habitat so that the creatures who rely on it can be killed.If neither of these approaches works, then we can always fall back, if we really have to, on a simple principle that we should have learned before kindergarten: cruelty is bad, so we will not participate in it. If our elected representatives, a few years out of kindergarten, only had the courage to say so.
For more on the subject, see here.
