The EU executive has decided to buy time pushing back to 2026 a decision on whether to introduce an EU-wide ban on the keeping and killing of animals for fur.
That makes zero sense, if you’re collecting data then you don’t take action as that spoils the experiment. If you’ve collected the data then you know the results and should start fixing things.
At no point during this situation is there a decade or so for populations to ‘explode’.
Ew. ‘Sampling’ as killing now? And ‘furbearers’? Animals are being killed by humans, for fur. Using different words just shows how uncomfortable people are with what’s happening.
The point is that it allows us to gain metrics on the population so we can implement meaningful changes, based on data.
That makes zero sense, if you’re collecting data then you don’t take action as that spoils the experiment. If you’ve collected the data then you know the results and should start fixing things.
At no point during this situation is there a decade or so for populations to ‘explode’.
The actual amount of trapping is limited meaning the removed animals are de minimis compared to the total population.
It’s important to continue to collect data as you implement changes to ensure that your efforts aren’t having adverse effects.
Here’s a report on the practice: https://www.nhfishandwildlife.com/assets/Performance-reports/W89R21-6Furbearer 2023-Final.pdf
Why are you saying ‘removed’ when you mean killed?
Dead furbearers are no longer a part of the population due to the means of sampling, trapping. So they’ve been removed from the population.
Maybe this could work for a higher acceptance for mass shootings too, if the victims are not killed but removed from the population.
Ew. ‘Sampling’ as killing now? And ‘furbearers’? Animals are being killed by humans, for fur. Using different words just shows how uncomfortable people are with what’s happening.