I hate killing, yet I have a lot of friends who take gardening very seriously - some are completely self-sufficient! Is is a bad thing to kill the pests which ruin their crops? If they do not kill the pests, then the pests multiply and ruin the harvest. Any advice?
2006-09-19 13:28:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Don't think of it as a moral problem, its more a case of statistics.
One cute squirrel = half eaten corn cobs raining down on you from on high.
One cute chipmunk called Chippy = no strawberry's
One cute mouse = many more friends and relations who have booked a table at their fave. eatery... your garden.
Now the flip side of the equation,
One hubby + one shotgun and some traps = a bumper harvest and Squirrel fritters.
Not a question of morals dear Lady... just a case of what do you hold most dear? lunch or small mammals.
2006-09-20 10:09:24 · answer #1 · answered by Zarathustra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not get around the moral dilemma by setting humane traps and once you've caught the pests, roadtripping them far, far away to an unused field or forest.
My garden is a slug and snail (just slugs with pretty shells) haven. I collect them every few days (and their pearly eggs in the fall) and put them in our compost container which is picked up every other week and taken to the large city dump where they MAY or MAY NOT survive. It's a little Pontius Pilate (I'm washing my hands figuratively and literally; have you ever tried to get off slug slime? Major YUCK!) of me. But they do leave my garden alive -- and my plants remain intact!
2006-09-19 13:42:08 · answer #2 · answered by pat z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are different kinds of pests and different ways to handle each. When it comes to animals like moles or rabbits, there are safe, non-lethal ways to handle the problem. Check with your local garden center for help.
When it comes to bugs, there are also various non-lethal ways to handle the problems as well but there are also some very simple to use, very effective ways to just kill the little suckers. I'll chase away an animal but an insect is going to to just have to die.
2006-09-19 13:40:40 · answer #3 · answered by Big Ed 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Safely & Permanently Remove Moles, Warts and Skin Blemishes
2016-05-16 04:47:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know some large organic farms that put up kestrel perches, to attract the birds of prey to their fields. They probably have to still deal with a few rodent pests, but not nearly as many.
2006-09-20 05:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by Megan S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say it depends on how you plan on killing them. If you find natural predators that can help balance out the population, that is probably one of the better ways to take care of the problem. Humans often push away natural predators from areas they inhabit, causing population spikes. One of the bigger problems in my area are migrating geese. Without natural predators such as bobcats or foxes to control the population, they have grown out of control, and polluted many lakes and parks.
I don't believe in killing animals and pests to protect your property, but that's just me.
2006-09-19 13:41:45 · answer #6 · answered by Zambartas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say kill them so I can eat. How about cats? You don't actually HAVE to kill them. You can buy a device that makes a vibration and sound at intervals to bury in the ground. They help repel moles etc. You'll need several, and some batteries.
2006-09-19 13:33:24 · answer #7 · answered by c.arsenault 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
in case you're a theist, you do no longer ought to subject approximately this question, because of the fact in user-friendly terms killing human beings is homicide. God makes all your ethical judgements for you. Atheists, on the different hand, understand that morality is relative, no longer absolute. in case you had to choose for between saving your newborn and saving the existence of, say Hitler, ought to you're making that determination? easily. between your newborn and an entire stranger? maximum possibly. between an entire stranger and a monkey? i think of you're able to make that determination. the magnitude we assign to existence stems from relative closeness to our own genetic makeup. additionally, morality comes from suffering, the two from struggling with it or inflicting it. If an action motives suffering, that's a morally undesirable act, if an action motives no suffering, then that's no longer morally undesirable. So, you ought to come to a call if killing that animal motives suffering. yet there is greater to it. What in case you ought to maintain the existence of your newborn, in user-friendly terms with the aid of torturing Hitler? might you? maximum human beings might. So we understand that some suffering is mandatory for even a ethical action. there's a internet benefit or loss of suffering. Slaughtering a pig could reason that pig to go through, yet once you are able to feed some dozen ravenous toddlers, is it a nevertheless a ethical act? i've got self belief so. For me, the greater stepped forward the animal, the greater possibly that's to experience soreness, and for this reason the greater possibly to have the means to go through. I in user-friendly terms eat meat from to blame growers, the place i will experience certain the animal did no longer go through. stable question although, and an substantial one each sentient being ought to respond to on their own. with out the help of a few bronze-age e book.
2016-10-15 04:40:56 · answer #8 · answered by ridinger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you are the pest that is killed
2006-09-21 06:19:27 · answer #9 · answered by curious george 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends, if it is one of those places that doesnt have very many of the rodents than YES ((its a bad thing)) def. but if it one of those states or counties that have way too many than its slightly less of a big deal. But as for me, i woudnt do it to save my life. I hope that helps.
2006-09-19 13:33:20 · answer #10 · answered by dark_angel_360 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋