consideration at all is given to the interests of the
“pests”—theveryword“pest”seemstoexcludeanyconcern
fortheanimalsthemselves.^29 Buttheclassification“pest”is
ourown,andarabbitthatisapestisascapableofsuffering,
andasdeservingofconsideration,asawhiterabbitwhoisa
belovedcompanionanimal.Theproblemishowtodefendour
ownessentialfoodsupplieswhilerespectingtheinterestsof
theseanimalstothegreatestextentpossible.Itshouldnotbe
beyondour technologicalabilities tofinda solutiontothis
problemwhich,ifnottotallysatisfactorytoallconcerned,at
leastcausesfarlesssufferingthanthepresent“solution.”The
useofbaitsthatcausesterility,insteadofalingeringdeath,
would be an obvious improvement.
Whenwehavetodefendourfoodsuppliesagainstrabbits,or
our houses and our health against mice and rats, it is as
natural
for usto lash out violentlyattheanimals that invade our
property as it is for the animals themselves to seek food
wheretheycanfindit.Atthepresentstageofourattitudesto
animals,itwouldbeabsurdtoexpectpeopletochangetheir
conductinthisrespect.Perhapsintime,however,whenmore
majorabuseshavebeenremedied,and attitudestoanimals
havechanged,peoplewillcometoseethatevenanimalswho
arein somesense“threatening”ourwelfaredonotdeserve
the cruel deaths we inflict upon them; and so we may
eventually develop more humane methods of limiting the
numbers of those animals whose interests are genuinely
incompatible with our own.
Asimilarreplymaybegiventothosehuntersandcontrollers
ofwhataremisleadinglycalled“wildliferefuges”whoclaim
thattopreventoverpopulationbydeer,seals,orwhateverthe