Heavenly Encounters: Extinct Species' Testimonies

Rucervus Schomburgki

The Schomburgka deer, or Rucervus schomburgki, has long eluded even the most knowledgeable zoologists. Little was known of its habits or appearance, and the scant descriptions that had been recorded of it over the years were the only clues to its existence. The Schomburgka deer remained shrouded in mystery, a creature of legend and rumour, whispered about among those who had glimpsed it in the wild. Its very existence was a question mark, etched in the annals of natural history, yet to be fully understood by the scientific community. The first mention of it dates back to 1850 when Sir Robert H. Schomburgke created a brief description of the breed, and soon the species was named after him.

The males of this species were large, brown in color, with a peculiar collar of longer hair around the neck in the summer. In the winter, the hair became smoother and golden red. The lower part of the belly, muzzle, and the inside of the paws were whitish in color, and the hooves were wide. The horns of males were very large and branched, consisting of 16-20 twigs, compared to the related species Rucervus duvaucelii, which had 12 twigs.

The Schomburgka deer lived in central Thailand in swampy meadows near rice paddies and rivers. On the plains, their antlers prevented them from living in dense forests. They would gather in small herds of several females, calves, and one male, with herds not exceeding 15 individuals. They fed on grass and reeds, as well as a variety of plants growing in the swamp, presumably moss. Being out in the open, the deer were easy prey for tigers and leopards, and they were also easily shot by antler hunters.

The species has been considered extinct since 1932, but the last individual held in captivity was killed in 1938 by its own owners. According to official reports, the Schomburgka deer became extinct due to habitat loss and uncontrolled hunting. The conversion of marshlands to rice fields and the construction of railroads on the plains led to an irreversible decline in the population by the 1900s. From 1906 there was a huge importation of reindeer antlers, for which huge sums of money were paid, and also the young and soft parts of the antlers were used for medicines, they improved potency in men. The reindeer were wounded and held, their warm young antlers were cut off alive and then killed, sometimes leaving the body to rot on the ground. The Schomburgka deer, once a proud and majestic creature, was reduced to nothing more than a commodity to be hunted and exploited for profit.

What is your reasoning for why people would have desired antlers?

People perceive our antlers as a symbol of luxury and wealth, often displaying them in their homes as trophies and symbols of their power over nature and strong animals like us. Additionally, some believe that by cutting off newly sprouted antlers and bringing them indoors, they will gain strength.

Is it considered morally justifiable to engage in hunting as a recreational activity in the present day?

—The practice of killing for sport should be reconsidered by society. It reveals a disturbing aspect of human nature, a willingness to pay exorbitant amounts of money to watch an animal suffer and die. The answer is clear: it is morally reprehensible and inhumane, and those who engage in it should not consider themselves as true human beings.

What legal rights, if any, do animals possess in society? Is it necessary to establish a set of constitutional rights for them?

—Although there are laws in place in various countries to regulate hunting and ensure the proper treatment of pets, they are often not enforced. Some individuals attempt to evade these regulations, indirectly support poaching, and allow animals to be killed for financial gain, leading to a decrease in population. Additionally, there is a widespread issue of cruel treatment, abuse, and neglect of pets, including the extermination of offspring. Cats and dogs are often buried or drowned alive. It is disturbing to see such practices being tolerated. Why is this not being regulated by human laws? It is crucial to create a global constitution with strict laws to protect what remains on the planet, it's not too late yet.

What methods are currently considered acceptable for humanely killing animals for food production?

—While I disapprove of raising animals for the purpose of consuming their meat and organs, I find it even more reprehensible that some people resort to cruel methods such as beating pigs or cows to death with sticks. These methods cause immense suffering to the animals, who may die in agony over an extended period. It is crucial to reduce the number of animals raised for slaughter and to prevent the use of inhumane methods of killing. Humane authorities should ensure that the death of the animal is quick and painless, typically lasting from a few seconds to one minute. Even methods such as electrocution, which are often touted as humane, can cause significant pain to the animal. The best way to avoid causing harm to animals is to stop consuming meat.

If humans continue to destroy animals with such disregard, how long will it take before all of them are wiped out?

—Currently, nearly half of all animals on Earth are raised for slaughter and owned by humans. Horses are used as beasts of burden, cows are exploited for their milk and meat, birds are forced to produce eggs, and people consume the unborn fetuses of animals for meat. All fields and forests are under the influence of human development, and animals are forced to abandon their homes at the mercy of human decisions. This is unjust! If the destructive human impact on the natural environment persists, more and more animals will die, and more species will go extinct, including me. It is clear that humans have proven themselves unworthy of living in harmony with nature on this planet.