Extinction?
But for some humans, defense of an endangered species is also natural.
Sorry, what?
Natural?
I think we have drifted a long way in our definition of "natural."
Defense of endangered species is quite contrived, and very much an exercise of intellect.
Now, if I'm a governing body, and I've declared something "protected" or "endangered" and I might also consider just what measures are appropriate to the protection of such a species.
I might prohibit
people from doing them harm, but would I then also encourage direct action against their natural predators?
I like cats. We have three. The darned things bring birds they've caught into our house every few weeks. Feathers everywhere.
It's not likely that I would contemplate shooting a cat engaged in the very natural activity of hunting birds. But then, I have no stake in the continued survival of said birds. I'm not raising them to sell for food or pets. The birds are wild (natural, if you prefer) and, even if they're endangered, I'm not doing the species any favors by eliminating its natural predators.
Now, if I were entrusted with actively protecting the birds, as pets, "livestock," a cultural icon, or whatever, then I would treat cats as I would treat coyotes preying on my sheep.
Our hero, in this instance, was not (if I understand it correctly)
entrusted with the protection of these birds. He may have felt he was acting in the spirit of a declaration protecting them but, without specific license or assignment, it's not actually his job.
I guess the question will come down to whether the cat was owned or could be classified as a pest.
If I had a pet dog that was eating the chickens, I'd put it down. If I had a cat that was doing the same, I'd do the same. Neither of them is feral, but eliminating the chicken killer is still necessary if I want to raise chickens.
And, incidentally, I've been through this as a kid, where we had to halt a pet's predation of the chickens. That's not fun, but certainly an educational part of growing up.
All things considered, I think the shooter goofed.
I'm not mourning the puddy tat, and I'm not fanatical about birds.
I think, if he wanted it to be his
job to protect a protected species, he needed to cover himself with a legal dispensation of some kind. An open letter from the sheriff saying, "yes, shoot any cats or other predators that threaten these birds." Maybe a statement from Fish & Game, stating that he had their proxy to do the deed.
Failure to do that and yet engaging in "enforcement" of rules not his to enforce may land him in jail.
Which really is too bad, as I don't think anything beyond a fine is warranted.
But I'm not in charge there.
All I have is an opinion.
