Culling - Why It's Bullshit

Animal culling is something that has long been done for a variety of reasons including managing a population or ridding an area of an extreme amount of "pestilence" animals. Although this method of dealing with a supposed overpopulation might seem like a solution and is almost always the ONLY solution according to our governments, it is not only disturbing but it is almost always ineffective. Let me explain.

In my community of Windsor Ontario, culling of deer in one of our prized parks is a regular occurrence. Every year there is a day or two that visitors are restricted so that the population of deer can be "managed." The problem here in my opinion is that we somehow decide the fate of these animals and yet we continue to develop and grow our own communities but allow ourselves the privilege of deciding how many creatures can inhabit a space. When talks of a purported plan to build a super shopping center near Ojibway were released, animal activists and environmentalists were angered over this decision because it encroached on a beautiful space. What this will do will draw more foot traffic to the area which will inevitably have an effect on the animals and nature in this beautiful park. With the increase in foot traffic, will this now mean that there can be even less deer to maintain the park's integrity?

The problem here is us. We can build a shopping center that will inevitably effect the park and the amount of people that traverse it, but the deer who roam this area are the problem? This is completely hypocritical and in my opinion, an excuse to kill animals when the solution is right under our noses. We should be restricting the amount of people who can visit the park or designate days / week's where the park can flourish without human interference, not slaughter all of the animal inhabitants. It's absolutely ridiculous to me that we lame animals for destroying our parks or nature reserves when we continue to develop in areas that bring more foot traffic that inevitably leads to nature related damages.

I am also reminded of a time when my city proposed culling skunks as they were becoming a problem. I wrote to PETA and also wrote to the mayor explaining why this was not appropriate and not an actual solution to the problem. We were currently allowing our citizens to leave bags of garbage out for the garbage men to pick up without having them in containers that would protect them from animals. These animals were abundant because we were leaving food out for them every Thursday. Obviously, killing them all was the only solution our government could come up with despite the fact that we were providing for these animals. it was our fault!

Well, flash forward a few months later and the cull was decided against in favour of mandatory bins for garbage and guess what, the population of skunks swarming the city dwindled. If we give these animals access to food of course they are going to come and get it. Killing them all wasn't going to solve a damned thing because they would eventually reproduce elsewhere and return because we would have continued to give them access to garbage and food. Why was killing them the only answer despite the fact that the REAL solution was as simple as protecting our garbage?

Also, I'm reminded of a time when people were concerned over coyote spottings in my city. People were scared because they could see coyotes and were worried that they would become a danger to children and small animals and of course, the media was painting them as aggressive scavengers looking for every opportunity to kill kids and puppies. The truth is, we developed so heavily and destroyed our green spaces leaving these poor animals with nowhere but the city to go. Coyotes have lived there as long if not longer than we have and guess what, they weren't killing kids then so what changes this now? The problem here once again is our supposed right in deciding when an animal is becoming a problem and should be eradicated. It couldn't possibly be our fault that these animals are in the position they're in could it?

Culling is a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of lives.  It's repeatedly proven as ineffective because the animals always come back. In the case of the deer from my first story, I mentioned they do this almost every year which implies that by the end of every year, they're all back. There has to be other solutions aside from killing them simply for existing in a space that is just as much theirs as it is ours.

My point here is simple, we continue to develop and grow and allow ourselves to take more and more green space away from wildlife for our own gains and then determine how many animals are allowed to live because of our over development. Our over development pushes animals into our city and we deem they frightening and nuisance animals so the solution is to cull them. We leave food out that baits animals to us and then complain and suggest killing them all as a solution. The problem in all of these scenarios is us and always has been us. When will we stop punishing animals for our own problems and start allowing them the same opportunities to live as we so dominantly allow ourselves?

What do you guys think? Do you believe culling is a reasonable means of dealing with a supposed overpopulation or do you agree with me that it's only ever a temporary fix that will inevitably be repeated multiple times and cost taxpayers money yet never actually be 100% successful?

HAPPY VEG