Ethics Vs. Conservation

Do Bears Stimulate The Economy?
Are Bears The Equivalent Of Cattle?

How Do You Place A Monetary Value On The Lives Of Animals?

When we think about the human crimes made against bears, we most certainly consider these human crimes to be ethical issues. However, are ethical concerns also conservation concerns? And where do we draw the line? Please, feel free to weigh in on these questions. My opinion is only my opinion.

Are Bile Farming, Den Hunting, Bear Baiting, Dancing Bears, Pet Bears, and Trophy Hunting considered Conservation concerns?

In my opinion, they absolutely are.

Bile Farming, Bear Baiting, Dancing Bears, and Pet Bears are all the direct result of poaching wild bears from the wild. Poaching has and will always be a conservation issue. By poaching bears, we are decreasing the wild populations. This is the exact opposite of conservation.

Den Hunting and Trophy Hunting are a little more difficult to diagnose. Hunting occurs all throughout the world. Just about any species of animal has been hunted at one point. Hunting is also an accepted practice in just about every country, but yet again, where do we draw the line?

I draw the line at vulnerable, threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species. I also draw the line at species who are vital to the survival of vulnerable, threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species. For example, the European Rabbit is critical to the survival of the critically endangered Iberian Lynx. Thus, we should not hunt European Rabbit. Iberian Lynx are specialist and are selected for the European Rabbit. Without it, they cannot survive.

As another example, the trophy hunting of Polar Bears is a conservation issue. Polar Bears are threatened from all sides by climate change. We are only adding to the problem and creating an even bigger decline in Polar Bear populations by allowing the hunting of their species. Hence, a conservation issue.

The biggest problem with creating a clear line between ethics and conservation is the fact that, by assigning value to the world arround us, we make people want to participate in conservation. For example, the conservation of wooded forests is vital to the survival of loggers, lumber workers, and wood-workers. Without these forests, these workers have no jobs. This creates a passion for conservation. Loggers, lumber workers, and wood-workers get involved in conserving forests because, by doing so, they are also conserving their jobs.

So, here's the problem. By allowing Bile Farming, Den Hunting, Bear Baiting, Dancing Bears, Pet Bears, and Trophy Hunting to occue, we are creating a value for these bears.

How do you assign a value to an animal?

In order to do so, we have to consider two types of values: Use Values and Non-Use Values.

Use Values are associated with values that come from contact/use of a resource or good.

-Direct Use: this refers to direct consumption or non-consumption (ex. Bile, Paws, Meat, etc.). Bears have value because they provide these items for consumption.

-Indirect Use: this can refer to the ecosystem service done by an organism (ex. bears are vital to seed dispersal). Bears have value because they perform a service which provides us with vegetation/wood for harvesting.

-Option Value: this is defined by those who want to secure the use of a resource for future generations. For examples, bile farmers should want to conserve the Asiatic Black Bear because, by conserving these bears, they are conserving a career for their children.

Non-Use Values refer to values which are not the result of contact between consumer and the resource.

-Existence Value: this refers to value of knowing that a certain something exists. Sun Bears have value because we know that they exist and we would rather see them exist than not exist.

-Bequest Value: this refers to the value that comes from knowing that we will provide resources for future generations. For example, if we stopped hunting American Black Bear, we would be ensuring the availability of American Black Bears for hunting in the future.

I find value in all-living things based on Existence Value. They are here for a reason and thus, deserve to be conserved. Just knowing that Polar Bears exist is enough for me. Why we need to hunt them, in order to conserve them, is something I just don't understand. As a mammal, something related to us, don't Polar Bears deserve to exist as we exist? The fact that Asiatic Black Bears exist is enough for me. Why we need to torture them for own monetary gain, in order to conserve them, is something I will never understand.

How would you place a value on the bear species of this planet? And when do ethical concerns become more than just ethical concerns? The floor is open.

Ashley