In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

288 | sapontzis / ethical vegetarianism tablished where people could feed pigeons, but strict bylaws were enacted to forbid feeding anywhere else. At the feeding sites, pigeon lofts were built so that the birds had somewhere to congregate, roost, and nest. The birds’ eggs were regularly removed with the result that, over subsequent years, the pigeon population was dramatically reduced without the need for killing adult birds. The idea is now being promoted, with some success , to British local authorities by the Pigeon Control Advisory Service. Hitherto, many local authorities have unthinkingly conducted culls with guns, traps, and poisons , causing widespread suffering and miserably failing to achieve a permanent solution. The Fox Project, based in Tonbridge, Kent, has developed an effective system of humane deterrence that, over the last decade, has led to virtually all local councils abandoning the destruction of nuisance foxes. Already, there are signs that industry is beginning to respond to the increasing demand for the humane, nonlethal control of nuisance species. Many garden centers display safe chemical repellents that were designed originally to repel nuisance domesticated animals but that are also effective against some other animals. There are also ultrasonic sound devices (with varying degrees of efficacy ) and even a device (again of Canadian origin) that detects intruding animals and repels them with squirts of water! A current company even produces tethered helium kites that replicate hovering birds of prey, which deter unwanted birds from feeding or settling below. And there are many humane live-capture traps available for the relocation of nuisance animals, especially rats and mice. It is hoped that exciting new technologies will help deliver us from the old view that we have to live in a state of war with animals. New techniques, based on knowledge of the relevant species, common sense, and compassion , could bring about a future where all people, whether they live in town or in the country, resolve their conflicts with free-living creatures without resorting to killing and cruelty. Related articles: Animals and public health; The ethics of killing free-living animals; Moral anthropocentrism Bryant, John, Animal Sanctuary, Centaur Press, 1999. ———, Fettered Kingdoms, Fox Press, 1982. ———, Living with Urban Wildlife, Centaur Press, 2002. Harris, Stephen, and Baker, Phil, Urban Foxes, Whittet Books, 1986. Humane Society of the United States, Wild Neighbors, Fulcrum, 1997. Roots, Clive, Animal Invaders, David and Charles, 1976. John Bryant Vegetarian Living Ethical vegetarianism Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating the flesh of animals, including fishes and birds as well as red meat. Vegans do not eat any animal products, including eggs and dairy products, and some of the ethical reasons for being a vegetarian also apply to veganism. Ethical arguments for vegetarianism focus on two issues: the suffering inflicted on animals in the production of meat and the value of conscious life itself, which is, of course, destroyed when animals are killed for food. Both arguments presuppose that animals can feel pleasure and pain, fulfillment and frustration, and contentment and fear or have similar experiences, making life better or worse for them. This may not be true of simpler life-forms in the animal kingdom, including some that are routinely eaten, such as clams and oysters, but many animals who are used for human food are clearly capable of all these experiences. This awareness that animals, like us, are also sentient, self-conscious, and complex beings is important because preserving and enhancing the lives of beings who possess such qualities should be one of the goals of ethics. One of the most widely accepted ethical principles is that we should not make others suffer unnecessarily. If making someone suffer is in the best interests of that individual —for example, in a medical procedure designed to restore health—and is the only means available, then that may justify the infliction of suffering in that case. But if there are other, less hurtful ways of attaining the good result, then causing the extra pain is unjustified, as with cruel or excessive punishments. Also, if the good attained is less significant than the suffering caused, as with cruel entertainments, such as dog and cock fighting , then causing that pain is also unjustified. Another issue is fairness: when one group is made to suffer so hershaft / meatout  | 289 that another group may prosper, as with slavery and other forms of exploitation, then causing that suffering is also unethical. These considerations mean that contemporary animal husbandry practices called “factory farming,” where animals are kept indoors, closely confined, and on...

Share