Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

Feral Horses, The Environment, Taxes, and the Poor

Feral Horses, The Environment, Taxes, and the Poor.

Feral horses (aka Mustangs) are unbranded, wild, and non-indigenous horses that live in Western states (for a listing click States). They are the decedents of the horses brought to the New World by the Spanish and other Europeans. Feral horses have recently hit the news (particularly CNN) because of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) activity to remove excess horses from the open range.

Feral horses have significant impacts on the fragile dry-lands of the West. Their hoofs compact the soil making it more difficult for plants to grow and their foraging removes plant resources from other native species and for cattle that also graze the land.

Of course, the animal rights protest industry groups allege the cruelty of such round-ups, saying the round ups stress the horses and cause some of them to die. The BLM, according to CNN reports, says that less than 1% of the horses rounded up die in the process. Of course, the facts don't matter. To animal rights protest industry activists (ARPIA), every horse is sacred.

Feral Horses and the Environment

Here are some fact that should trouble readers who care about the environment (for details on the environmental impacts of feral horses click Wildlife Society), the poor, and the out of control Federal budget.  First, ever since the passage of THE WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS ACT OF 1971(PUBLIC LAW 92-195),  the hunting of horses has been banned. Therefore, what used to be a way for individuals to harvest and utilize horse resources, has now become a financial liability. Feral horse numbers have exploded and adoptions are not keeping pace with reproduction. Of course, the ARPIAs want to require feral horse birth control to management the reproductive rate, a tool that is very expensive. No surprise ARPIAs don't care because they aren't spending their money to handle this problem, they want to take your money as tax payers to pay for it.

Feral Horses and the Poor

How much money does the ARPIAs "compassion" cost you the tax payer? According to the BLM GAO report, "Total program costs were $36.7 million in 2004 and $66.1 million in 2010 (p. 7)." The costs are actually higher in that the horses could have brought revenue to these rural areas if hunting and harvesting was allowed. My point is simply this. Spending 66.1 million dollars on horses when money could be spent on unemployment, employment re-training or even paying down the deficit is immoral.

I strongly recommend that Congress consider overturning this act as a simple and no-brainer way to reduce Federal expenditures. Certainly Congressional leaders should prepare themselves for the emotional tirades of the ARPIAs. But the truth is offensive. You can't legislate to satisfy the extremist anti-environmentalists fringe.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a lecturer of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School who specializes in environmental ethics. His latest book is Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009). 

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

I normally don't read novels. Right or wrong, my attitude is why bother reading fiction when there is plenty of non-fiction reading to do. But a doctoral student and friend at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln wanted me to read this book because it had such a big impact on him. So I agreed to do so.
Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn (ISBN 0-553-37540-7) is a story about a man who answers ad which reads "Teacher seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person." The guy arrives to the location to find a large gorilla. The gorilla can talk and leads the man through a process to help him understand how mankind fell into the trap of destroying the planet.

I am almost at the book's midpoint and wanted to provide a brief review of the text. On an artistic level, the book is rather interesting. Unlike the Planet of the Apes, the ape in this book doesn't hate or want to enslave people. Instead the Ape wants to teach humans how to save the planet. The Ape leads his pupil through a thought exercise to help the human understand how things got this way.

First, the Ape invites the human to think about the cultural myth that blinds him to the problem. Core elements of the myth are  1. humans are the pinnacle of evolution (creation isn't permitted), 2. the planet is for mankind, 3. that the problems with the planet is because there is something wrong with humans, and 4. facts are different from values in that facts can never prove values. All four of these ideas are mistaken and leading humans down the wrong path according to this Ape.

What I find interesting about this book is that it diametrically opposes the teaching of Scripture. Let's look at the elements in parallel. 1. Bible says humans are the pinnacle of creation (Genesis 1). 2. The Bible says the planet was made for mankind (Genesis 1-2; Psalm 8). 3. The Bible does teach that there is something wrong with humans, it is sin in that we have rebelled against God (Genesis 3 and the teachings of Christ). 4. Interestingly, Scripture would agree that the fact-value split is over played. However, the reason for the split is due to humanity's willing rebellion and subsequent denial of the Creator. Paul says humans suppress the knowledge of God and therefore fall into great moral evil (Romans 1).

In summary, Christians should recognize that key elements of the doctrine of creation are under assault because non-Christians believe that those doctrines have encouraged humans to abuse the planet. Plenty of articles have demonstrated that self-professing Christians (I hasten to point out that plenty of people call themselves Christian because they believe their religion is a genetic heritage) are not alone in harming the earth. Even Buddhist and Hindu lands have a poor record (Dr. Robert Wright has an excellent article on this. Find it at the American Scientific Affiliation website). The ultimate point I want to make is that Christians must understand that this anti-christian story is what is feeding the actions of many so-called environmentalists. We must understand their story in order to have a proper answer.

I will have more on the book in the future.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a tutor of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School and author of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009). 
 
I welcome book submissions. Contact me at King's Evangelical Divinity School or through my website.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Was Jesus an Environmentalist?

With all the conversation about creation-care amongst Christians, one has to ask, "Was Jesus an Environmentalist?" It isn't a silly question, one would hope that if Christians are going to engage in an activity as part of their Christian obligation, it would make sense to ask if Jesus would support the behavior?

In one sense, the question of environmentalism is anachronistic. People in Christ's day had enough trouble just staying alive, let alone worry about whether a specific species was going extinct. But on another level, we can inquire and gain some insight on how his behavior should be a model for ours? For example, many people worry about whether they are recycling enough or feel guilt about the bottled water they bought because they were thirsty. 
Consider Christ, he killed a fig tree simply because it didn't bear fruit when he wanted it (Mk 11). Does this exemplify behavior of someone who is supposedly calling us to environmentalism?Christ killed a tree simply to make a point. Is that right? Couldn't he have just made his point in a more environmentally responsible way?

I think a couple of points should be considered. First, Christ is Lord of Creation. He can do with his property as he wished/s. Second, since Christ was fully human, it means we too can destroy elements of God's creation in God's service. That may shock some people, but it is true. When you eat an animal, you destroy God's creation but no moral stain obtains. The key is to judge oneself accurately and truly, by asking, "is this destruction to God's glory or yours?"  While that is a humbling question, we should also consider that Christ's yoke is easy and his burden is light.

Stephen Vantassel is a tutor at King's Evangelical Divinity School and author of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009)