Archive for the ‘controversial’ category

Stun Gun Hunting?

April 14, 2011

– – As technology continues to advance, it can lead us into ethical considerations previously unconsidered and perhaps unexplored that were in the past gray areas at best.  One such area is that posed by the possibility of the stun gun hunting of animals...

The value of Tasers and other electronic stun devices has been well established in police work and security applications as a non-lethal way of subduing and controlling non-compliant suspects.  Likewise, one can readily see the potential value of a Taser Wildlife Electronic Control Device such as has also been developed as a non-lethal way of immobilizing wildlife that has perhaps blundered into a human habitation area where its presence poses potential danger both to the animal itself as well as to humans present.  This non-lethal weapon can temporarily incapacitate moose, bears, and other large animals, and could be helpful to park rangers and wildlife officials; it’s a heavy-duty device which packs quite a wallop and costs about $2,000.

A disturbing question that has arisen is whether such a weapon might be used deliberately by private individuals seeking to practice “catch-and-release” hunting.  While it is unclear whether stun guns have already been used for this purpose, the potential for such abuse is real.  While stunning an animal without need is preferable to shooting it, such an action could easily be considered cruelty.  Human test subjects who have experienced stun guns almost universally describe the experience as painful and unpleasant, and the United Nations considers stun guns instruments of torture as they inflict pain.

The state of Alaska is accordingly moving to proactively outlaw the use of stun guns to zap wild animals for “catch and release” hunting in the state.  The weapon may still be used defensively, in emergency situations, or for purposes of further research by trained professionals.  State biologists have been using electronic animal control devices in Alaska since 2005.  Additionally,  while wild animals usually flee when hit with the current, there is no guarantee that they will do so…and one does not want to severely aggravate a grizzly!


Biting Humor?

February 20, 2011

– – I like dark humor and black comedy, but they’re not everyone’s cup of tea.  For this reason, the recent Snickers great white shark commercial has rubbed some shark conservationists and shark attack victims and their families the wrong way, plus done little to dispel the erroneous notion that humans are the preferred food source for sharks.

In the commercial, a group of well-animated and voiced-over CG great white sharks are participating in a focus group where they are questioned about a “blind taste test” of people that they have just eaten.  The preferred victim is revealed to have eaten Snickers Peanut Butter Squared, while the less tasty victim had consumed peanut butter cups.

Now the commercial is intended to be comical, harmless, and light-hearted rather than educational and sensitive, and is a vehicle intended to entertain and linger in the mind so as to sell more Snickers products.  Some contend, however, that the ad was released too close on the heels of actual shark attacks in Egypt and elsewhere, and has accordingly gone too far.- -Sick or slick?  You decide!