Seamus Haley
Big Game Hunter
Ehhhh...
A few people here... not everyone but a few very clearly... seem to be mixing up a few issues. There's the ethical question of when and if it's okay to kill an animal which could be considered to be potentially dangerous or damaging to humans or their property, there's the ethical question of how that "danger" is defined and then there's an entire range of issues surrounding the debate between capture, relocation and death as the best option under any given set of circumstances and lastly the method which would best be used in order to bring about the death of an animal when it's been determined that it's appropriate... And that doesn't even begin to touch the questions inherent in the legal ability to "hunt" a given species for meat, skin or sport.
Everyone's going to have a different take on things I suppose and there isn't much that can be done about it... Because I've already started typing and figure I may come to regret the contribution I have already given I may as well go all out and offer mine. Feel free to disagree with me but frankly... I don't give a rat's ass if someone's opinion does differ from mine I'm merely offering mine up because someone else might happen to agree with a few points or potentially see the logic behind mine and change their stance. If not, it's just a couple wasted minutes typing.
Anyway... The first question is about the ethics inherent in killing an animal because it's existance is inconvenient or potentially dangerous. The most common alternatives are either collection and keeping the animal in captivity for the remainder of it's life or releasing the animal into an area where it is believed that it will no longer pose such difficulties for people. Killing the individual specimin or collecting it for permenant captivity are often covered by the laws of any given area. Sometimes one option or the other is legally endorsed or made illegal and I feel that an individual faced with making a decision about an individual animal should follow the legal statutes surrounding such situations at all times. So if any given option is illegal, it removes the decision from the hands of the individual and leaves them with only the legal options or complete inaction. It's worth noting that capture and release in a different area is also very commonly an illegal action and there are very good reasons for this... The spread of pathenogens between semi-isolated populations is a very legitimate concern (desert tortoise style) for starters but there is also the ability of even the most instinctive animals to eventually reccognize patterns and allow these patterns to become ingrained in their behavioral patterns. You move a crotalid a few miles away from where you found it and chances are very good that it'll either end up eaten by the first passing predator that can safely ignore the venom or it'll dehydrate/starve/freeze/bake because the behavioral patterns of the individual animal are so reliant on the patterns which have been established that the animal will literally be unable to perform the actions which would keep it alive. This is, of course, applied to varying degrees for any given species but as a group... crotalids do not fare well at ALL when moved so captivity or a quick death are the preffered options if the animal's best interests are in mind.
This leads somewhat into the second portion of the equation... I didn't get to see the website but from the descriptions posted here it sounds like the device is essentially a four foot (ridgid) snare pole that uses uncoated (?) and thin wire as the snare and then in some fashion incorporates an optional blade which the animal is either pulled against or is in some way made to move into the animal with the intended result being decapitation. I agree that this is not the sort of thing which one would reasonabally be anticipated as carrying around with them "just incase" of a snake encounter that couldn't be resolved by simply moving away. I do see it as something which would only be carried or owned if snake encounters were either common or likely (i.e.-someone who doesn't quite "get it" and can't control snake encounters on their property near their home despite the simplicity inherent in this or someone seeking out snakes on a larger property or with the expressed intention of killing them for what little meat there is and/or the skin). Now... a tool is a tool and has no value inherent in itself. It's an inanimate object, the only moral value which can be applied is specifically in the manner it's used. It's not sane or reasonable to blame a tool or a tool manufacturer for rattlesnake roundups or poaching. That's simply emotional and illogical and kind of a low blow. The issues of how a tool is designed, what it is designed for and it's specific applications are seperate and distinct and need to be kept that way if any conclusions are going to be made.
Now... the design itself... I didn't see it and don't have one but I believe I understand the principle involved here pretty well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like a noose pole, only smaller. From a handling standpoint, it's a piss poor tool. Too easy to cause injury when that's not the intention, too inaccurate and imprecise to make a good tool for causing injury and/or death (in my experience handling snakes you're probably just as likely to cut the snake in half as decapitate it since most of them react badly to having a constricting pressure of any amount around the neck directly behind the head) given that I think we can all agree that cruelty is wrong (not death... cruelty. There's a difference between killing an animal in the fastest and least painful way possible based on how the animal registeres pain and simply hurting it through intention or ineptitude) and that this tool is not, in it's current design, minimizing the potential for injury and pain- it's a bad tool. I don't even like most tongs because of the ease with which pain and injury can be caused and this seems far more likely to cause such accidental damage without offering any clear advantage over the tools which are already present filling the same potential niche. The other potential application of deliberately causing death... ignoring the whole complication of the morality of causing the death to begin with, this tool does not seem to be a way of efficiently causing the death with the minimum amount of suffering to the animal. Personally... animals will die and unless they are legally protected I've got no real issues with it- I do have issues with causing that death in a manner which is inhumane. Since this tool would just as easily and in fact I'd wager probably more likely end up cutting an animal in half... or worse still cutting it behind the vital organs in such a fashion which leaves it alive after the initial application... it's a bad tool that shouldn't be purchased and, if the manufacturer is serious about the statements of quickly and cleanly causing death OR allowing for safe handling without injury... he'll know that he has failed in meeting these goals and will either seriously redesign the tool or scrap the production entirely if redesign of the basic concept can not allow for those goals to be met (the more likely scenario in my mind, I can't really conceive of a way to make this product work as intended but I guess it's a possibility).
Now... convicting this individual of ethical misdeeds is a personal thing. Trust me, I know well what must be considered before doing so... based on what has been presented here can this individual be condemned? I believe he can be condemned of making and selling a poorly designed tool that does not meet the qualifications he claims to have set out to meet. Selling them anyway... I personally see this as being wrong because it's unfair to his end consumers, but this is balanced against my hatred of ignorant consumers who need to take responsibility for their own actions... so in the end I suppose all I can convict the manufacturer of is stupidity in the implimentation of his design. The marketing is a little screwy since his product can't meet the claims which are being made but I don't think the product is actually outright misrepresented. Selling it as a tool to kill snakes... well, that's what it is, isn't it? I really don't see why people are angry about that aspect, it seems like there's been some emotionally charged confusion between the tool and where and how the tool is applied. This tool doesn't cause poaching or the illegal killing of protected species and rattlesnake roundups were undertaken long before this thing was created and marketed. The tool and it's creator can't be blamed for specific applications the tool is put towards... that's as illogical, stupid and dangerous as blaming gun manufacturers for school shootings or McDonalds for fat fifth graders.
A few people here... not everyone but a few very clearly... seem to be mixing up a few issues. There's the ethical question of when and if it's okay to kill an animal which could be considered to be potentially dangerous or damaging to humans or their property, there's the ethical question of how that "danger" is defined and then there's an entire range of issues surrounding the debate between capture, relocation and death as the best option under any given set of circumstances and lastly the method which would best be used in order to bring about the death of an animal when it's been determined that it's appropriate... And that doesn't even begin to touch the questions inherent in the legal ability to "hunt" a given species for meat, skin or sport.
Everyone's going to have a different take on things I suppose and there isn't much that can be done about it... Because I've already started typing and figure I may come to regret the contribution I have already given I may as well go all out and offer mine. Feel free to disagree with me but frankly... I don't give a rat's ass if someone's opinion does differ from mine I'm merely offering mine up because someone else might happen to agree with a few points or potentially see the logic behind mine and change their stance. If not, it's just a couple wasted minutes typing.
Anyway... The first question is about the ethics inherent in killing an animal because it's existance is inconvenient or potentially dangerous. The most common alternatives are either collection and keeping the animal in captivity for the remainder of it's life or releasing the animal into an area where it is believed that it will no longer pose such difficulties for people. Killing the individual specimin or collecting it for permenant captivity are often covered by the laws of any given area. Sometimes one option or the other is legally endorsed or made illegal and I feel that an individual faced with making a decision about an individual animal should follow the legal statutes surrounding such situations at all times. So if any given option is illegal, it removes the decision from the hands of the individual and leaves them with only the legal options or complete inaction. It's worth noting that capture and release in a different area is also very commonly an illegal action and there are very good reasons for this... The spread of pathenogens between semi-isolated populations is a very legitimate concern (desert tortoise style) for starters but there is also the ability of even the most instinctive animals to eventually reccognize patterns and allow these patterns to become ingrained in their behavioral patterns. You move a crotalid a few miles away from where you found it and chances are very good that it'll either end up eaten by the first passing predator that can safely ignore the venom or it'll dehydrate/starve/freeze/bake because the behavioral patterns of the individual animal are so reliant on the patterns which have been established that the animal will literally be unable to perform the actions which would keep it alive. This is, of course, applied to varying degrees for any given species but as a group... crotalids do not fare well at ALL when moved so captivity or a quick death are the preffered options if the animal's best interests are in mind.
This leads somewhat into the second portion of the equation... I didn't get to see the website but from the descriptions posted here it sounds like the device is essentially a four foot (ridgid) snare pole that uses uncoated (?) and thin wire as the snare and then in some fashion incorporates an optional blade which the animal is either pulled against or is in some way made to move into the animal with the intended result being decapitation. I agree that this is not the sort of thing which one would reasonabally be anticipated as carrying around with them "just incase" of a snake encounter that couldn't be resolved by simply moving away. I do see it as something which would only be carried or owned if snake encounters were either common or likely (i.e.-someone who doesn't quite "get it" and can't control snake encounters on their property near their home despite the simplicity inherent in this or someone seeking out snakes on a larger property or with the expressed intention of killing them for what little meat there is and/or the skin). Now... a tool is a tool and has no value inherent in itself. It's an inanimate object, the only moral value which can be applied is specifically in the manner it's used. It's not sane or reasonable to blame a tool or a tool manufacturer for rattlesnake roundups or poaching. That's simply emotional and illogical and kind of a low blow. The issues of how a tool is designed, what it is designed for and it's specific applications are seperate and distinct and need to be kept that way if any conclusions are going to be made.
Now... the design itself... I didn't see it and don't have one but I believe I understand the principle involved here pretty well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like a noose pole, only smaller. From a handling standpoint, it's a piss poor tool. Too easy to cause injury when that's not the intention, too inaccurate and imprecise to make a good tool for causing injury and/or death (in my experience handling snakes you're probably just as likely to cut the snake in half as decapitate it since most of them react badly to having a constricting pressure of any amount around the neck directly behind the head) given that I think we can all agree that cruelty is wrong (not death... cruelty. There's a difference between killing an animal in the fastest and least painful way possible based on how the animal registeres pain and simply hurting it through intention or ineptitude) and that this tool is not, in it's current design, minimizing the potential for injury and pain- it's a bad tool. I don't even like most tongs because of the ease with which pain and injury can be caused and this seems far more likely to cause such accidental damage without offering any clear advantage over the tools which are already present filling the same potential niche. The other potential application of deliberately causing death... ignoring the whole complication of the morality of causing the death to begin with, this tool does not seem to be a way of efficiently causing the death with the minimum amount of suffering to the animal. Personally... animals will die and unless they are legally protected I've got no real issues with it- I do have issues with causing that death in a manner which is inhumane. Since this tool would just as easily and in fact I'd wager probably more likely end up cutting an animal in half... or worse still cutting it behind the vital organs in such a fashion which leaves it alive after the initial application... it's a bad tool that shouldn't be purchased and, if the manufacturer is serious about the statements of quickly and cleanly causing death OR allowing for safe handling without injury... he'll know that he has failed in meeting these goals and will either seriously redesign the tool or scrap the production entirely if redesign of the basic concept can not allow for those goals to be met (the more likely scenario in my mind, I can't really conceive of a way to make this product work as intended but I guess it's a possibility).
Now... convicting this individual of ethical misdeeds is a personal thing. Trust me, I know well what must be considered before doing so... based on what has been presented here can this individual be condemned? I believe he can be condemned of making and selling a poorly designed tool that does not meet the qualifications he claims to have set out to meet. Selling them anyway... I personally see this as being wrong because it's unfair to his end consumers, but this is balanced against my hatred of ignorant consumers who need to take responsibility for their own actions... so in the end I suppose all I can convict the manufacturer of is stupidity in the implimentation of his design. The marketing is a little screwy since his product can't meet the claims which are being made but I don't think the product is actually outright misrepresented. Selling it as a tool to kill snakes... well, that's what it is, isn't it? I really don't see why people are angry about that aspect, it seems like there's been some emotionally charged confusion between the tool and where and how the tool is applied. This tool doesn't cause poaching or the illegal killing of protected species and rattlesnake roundups were undertaken long before this thing was created and marketed. The tool and it's creator can't be blamed for specific applications the tool is put towards... that's as illogical, stupid and dangerous as blaming gun manufacturers for school shootings or McDonalds for fat fifth graders.
