Live Capture of Animals for Research
Critical Thinking Question:
In the past, scientists have often used live capture studies – tranquilizing an animal to study it up close, and maybe tagging it with a GPS. On one hand, this really stresses out an animal that Inuit depend on for food…and some people believe that if you don’t respect the spirit of an animal, it won’t come back to provide for your family again. On the other hand, concrete scientific data can give you the information that you need to make the best management decisions…so that wildlife will always be around in the future. So, here’s the question….is live capture worth it?
Is live capture worth it? It is a very ethical question, because it touches so much values for the Inuit. Personally, I think that live capture of a animal is worth it. The data gave to the scientists are very detailed and it is good it makes the scientific studies move forward. Of course they stress out the animal, but if it could help the rest of the pack, it is a good sacrifice. Sadly, they have cons for the live capture, but in everything new, there are always cons. For now if helping the race alive means having a few animals stressed and a meat that taste bad for a few years, I'm okay with it. One day when the race will be able to have a bigger TAH the scientific studies will diminue.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have said it any better!
DeleteYes, I do think live capture is worth it. In my opinion it is needed in order to keep the population of animals sustainable for hunting. It does help out with knowing how the animals are doing, we wouldn’t know as much as we do now without live capturing. In the grand scheme of things, stressing out a few animals does help us know more about the caribou and polar bears.
ReplyDeleteI do feel a bit uncomfortable with how they do it though. I saw that during the polar bear capture in Alaska I saw blood to where they shot it with the tranquilizer dart. Watching what they were doing made me feel a bit sad for them, but I do understand that it is, in fact, for the better. I know elderly Inuit do not agree with live capture, due to the meat taste different than usual, alongside with stressing out the animals.
Hi Derrick,
DeleteWhile I do not agree with live recapture, I believe there is a method of doing it that could both be non-disruptive and provide all the data. The method would be for elders to accompany the scientist and to not go in a helicopter. Like you said, I think the method in which the western scientist proceeded can be adjusted to make it useful and reflective of ethical standards on both sides. Maybe choosing animals that look close to death or are sick.
Qujannamiik,
Nolan
In my opinion, Yes it is very good research for most people and scientist, but in the future animals that people depend on might end up scared of hunters in the future and inuit and native hunters would have already known the hibernation routes and mating grounds. So i think in the future scientists should maybe collaborate with inuit hunters and if needed to use this tagging method.
ReplyDeleteyes, live capture is worth it. in my opinion animals needs to get populations because the hunter can kill lots in the mainland but in Baffin, they have to have tags to kill caribou's and that's every year in the summer. But the elders and some Inuit don't like the taste if the animals are tags by the scientist and i don't think its bad idea to tag animals so the scientist can know if the animals are in good living or how they are healthy
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Tia, our elders must've been pissed off at first but it's true that our animals are in control instead of being out of hand.
DeleteAnd same! Caribou is key to my heart, if it weren't for Live capture I think there wouldn't be anymore caribou in our area, baffin.
The first idea of life capturing animals, From what the scientists were putting on the animals, Was not a very good idea for the elders, They found the meat tasting different. Which was probably not the best idea.
ReplyDeleteThe other ways of capturing the animals were fair enough for the hunters who share their catch with others, Makes the meat taste better.
I think this is a very intelligent idea for studying animals.
The scientists did very well on ways to study these populations.
The biologist role is pretty interesting working with 7 different communities, hearing concerns from people, And having to negotiate about what people come up with on the land and so on.
In the beginning not so acceptable, but in the end after a change on the live capture sounds fair.
I'd say live capture is worth it. As long as they're respecting the animals, the scientist and the Inuit benefit from where and what's happening to the animals they're studying. i'm concerned about how they studied the polar bear and the caribou by putting them down how they did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment about being concerned about how they studied the polar bear and caribou by putting them down how they did, it isn't right after we watched how they put them down.
DeleteIs live capture worth it?
ReplyDeleteLive capture to me is worth it, everyone will know that there are enough animals to hunt. It would be too stressful if any kind of animal became extinct, a lot of Inuit rely on eating country food for it's healthy for the body and soul.
Live capture may hurt the animals but at least it doesn’t hurt all of them, for one to suffer for the whole pack to be here forever is a big help instead of being out of control.
The bowhead whales almost became extinct back in 1970's and that caused so many problems in nunavut, no one was allowed to hunt Bowhead whales, also few guys got charged for harvesting a bowhead after 20 years, that was something new to Inuit and that caused so much disruption.
To know that our animals are in control is a good feeling to have. With the animals in Nunavut Being controlled, means that the animals will be here for a longer time
Live capture as a means of providing scientific data proves to be a controversial topic. I believe, the most honest was of obtaining data on animals does not include such a large disruption to their lives. Building a way to collect DNA (such as bear scratchers) is proven to be an effective non-invasive and non-disruptive method that reflects Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (traditional Inuit ecological knowledge).
ReplyDeleteImagine an alien species came and put a tag or collar on you, disrupting everything you know about your life, and then forced to live on. This is obviously a hyperbole of the situation but it puts in perspective, don't do something you wouldn't like done to yourself. In Inuit culture I believe this can be argued that the principle applies to animals as well.
Creating ways of ethical research to bridge IQ and western knowledge for mutual benefit in the Nunavut Settlement Area cannot include live capture due to the stressors it places on animals. Technologies have developed to the point where this activity should be pushed out of the modern age.
The question is asking is live capture worth it?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, no it isn't. If the live capture is giving the meat a different taste then I don't agree with live capture.
Our elders never had live capture before, I think what the scientists are doing with live capture is not right, I think it's against TAH because they're giving the animals meat an unusual taste.
Is live capture worth it? As some people don't agree with live capture but in my opinion, Yes it's worth it for most of Inuit and i noticed that after tagging the animals some animals meat taste different but for me if the meat taste is different I'm okay with it. As the scientists been that for a decade, I know some elders don't agree with live capturing with animals but most of Inuit agree with this and it's for a better future. There would've been a caribous by now if the scientists don't put tags on animals such as ( Caribous polar bears and bowhead whales), the reason why the scientists do live capture is to animals to exists for longer period of time. Some elders are even said to agree with the live capture because elders want Inuit to eat more country foods than usual. Some elders are okay with what if meats taste different, as long as elders don't get sick after tasting meats. I just follow alongside with what elders say about live capture because elders knows a lot about
ReplyDeletecountry foods that younger Inuit don't know about.
Going back to what Aupilardjuk believes, putting two and two together will make us successful. I think live capturing can be approached differently than how they have started analyzing the animals. I think that each side of the party (scientist and IQ principles) should compromise what each party can give up to figure out the questions that everyone is asking. Find ways to mitigate every scenario, figure out how other countries are analyzing and maybe learn from them. This is something new for Inuit to adjust on how to use scientific ways to analyze on the animals which can be hard to be open about. I think live capturing is worth it but to approach it in a manner where we should seek out all options on both parties to make it successful.
ReplyDeleteLive capture is a controversial topic for both youth like us and for our elders who live on Inuit Nunangat, where live capture does occur. I personally believe live capture is worth it, because then you could determine what the possible situation can or could be with our animals living on our lands. Live capture could help with finding what sicknesses are going through caribou or foxes, etc. Inuit Qaujimatuqangit and scientific research are what make things like examination of species stronger.
ReplyDelete