hypothetical ethics discussion
recent discussions regarding population controls and local events have come together to create a interesting topic that I felt like addressing. allow me to pose a hypothetical scenario.
let's say that we have a certain game animal in the area. the local hunting laws restrict harvest to only mature males, making females and immature males illegal to hunt. as a result over generations the female population rises and since all of the healthy, larger males are being harvested while the smaller sickly ones are left in the gene pool all of the male offspring are also smaller and harder to distinguish from juveniles. with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.
so say a group of outdoorsmen take it into their own hands to thin the population and take some of the strain off both the animals and the land. even though there is no malice, they do not take trophies, and they only want to help the game even when the authorities won't, they are labeled as poachers and face serious charges if apprehended.
so my question to the internet is
are these men justified or are they simply poachers with no regard for the law?
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
Last edited by tahunua001; July 15, 2012 at 01:09 AM.
Reason: poor choice of words