Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...

Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...

Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

It's too damn easy

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...

Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

...Never hunted cow...though I imagine it would be quite easy.
My overall point is that I've often heard people with freezers full of processed and packaged meat descibe the act of hunting as "cruel",and this makes me wonder if they fully grasp just where their pot roast and hamburgers came from...or if they somehow belive an animal dying has somehow been removed from the equation simply because they had no part in it.

Well, cruelty isn't an act, it's a state of mind.

If I cut into a person and removed an organ, I could be a surgeon, or a sadist. It all depends on the circumstances and the mindset.

A person that hunts for the sport of it, and really just likes the hunt, isn't doing so for food, but there's a primal base feature there that isn't too scary. A person that hunts because he likes to kill is a bit different.

Now, things get interesting because at least where I live hunting is the only thing keeping the deer population at bay. we're the only predator left, so if we don't hunt, the ecological balance is way out of whack.

Either way, hunting isn't the problem. The mass production of livestock for consumption is a bigger problem, IMO.

I appreciate there is more skill than just walking up to it and shooting it but the pride (I assume) is from killing the animal. When hunters talk about hunting they are always focus on the killing than the stalking. The action of killing the animal doesn't really require any skill.

If you want to track an animal there are lots of ways to do that without killing it afterwards.

As I said before I see no problem hunting for food - infact I would prefer the animal to have lived a happy life than stuck on a farm. I just disagree with killing for enjoyment.

4M2A wrote:I just disagree with killing for enjoyment.

Well, do you mean solely for enjoyment, regardless of the benefits? Or do you simply not like the idea of people liking to kill animals?

As I posted above, somebody needs to kill the deer in Ohio. Why not people that enjoy it?

Hmm...I don't know if I would say I "enjoy" the act of killing a deer...I mean I certianly don't leap up and do a victory dance or start exchanging high fives with those I hunt with...

But...I do admit to a satisfaction in my ability to put food on the table with the use of my own skills...a certian "pride" that I brought the deer down myself and didn't need anyone else to aquire the meat for me.

sofar as "Filthy Pigs" go... yep, I hunt and eat them too.
BTW: your turban is poking out.

Hope I can answer some questions here:
What is the appeal of hunting?
Stalking, calling, and "clean" kills are alot harder than hunters are given credit for. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to prove my standing as a "top predator" something that many men cannot rightly claim now-a-days. (unless you count killing your fellow man.... seems like the inner city needs a hunting season)

I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?

Wow.... Consider yourself lucky if you even SEE an animal; and that's after rise at 4 in the morning, take a shower in scen killer, stalk 30+ acres of land *while minding the wind*. If you accomplish all that, and see the "deer" at 200+ yards and manage to kill it with one shot. *youre a marksman first off* That's really satisfing. I hunted every morning of deer season in NC..... I SAW 8. *not counting those caught on a trail-camera.*

And just to stir the pot more:
This afternoon I went back out to the field *turkey hunting* (this one is admittadly easier) and killed a coyote. He was stalking the call I was using. I kill these menaces every time I get a chance. They cut the deer, turkey, livestock, and pet populations around here. *Last deer season a buddy and I got 22!* (BTW... until 4 years ago there was a $3 bounty on them.)

Killing and animal and eating it is entirely different to killing an animal for sport. It's not my thing, I derive no pleasure from killing animals 'for sport', whatever sport there is in using a rifle to shoot an unarmed creature. If a creature needs killing legitimately it's generally because it's threat or food.

I'm against unnecessary cruelty. We eat animals sure, but there's no reason not to make an effort to treat them in some decent fashion. I think that animals that are farmed for food could be treated a lot better in general, I buy free range for the better treatment such animals get before slaughter. They get slaughtered but at least their lives are not a misery stuck in a small pen with hardly any daylight. Even if you have no care for the animal's well being it has to be said that animals that are humanely reared and slaughtered tend to produce a better quality of meat, not only because they use less antibiotics and hormones but also because animals slaughtered in a panicked state produce adrenaline which affects the meat.

Lastly there's research purposes. For medicine it's a necessary evil. Animals will always be placed before human lives, you can't test most drugs on people because the risks are too great, you simply have to reduce the number of drugs that reach the human testing stage because lives are at risk. People who claim that drugs tests can be satisfactorily carried out in petri-dishes on or isolated cells prior to human testing are liars, nothing can replicate the real environment of a living creature unfortunately for all those mice and other creatures subjected to testing.

But medical research is a different thing to cosmetics, cosmetics is an industry I have no interest in supporting in using any form of animal testing.

By for enjoyment I just mean killing for the primary reason of enjoyment.

Feeling pride at doing something yourself isn't really the same as enjoying killing. Your killing to eat, which is no different from buying prepared meat.

I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.

The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Well since you said normally, I will not call BS. Of course "normally" comes from cooking the outside of the piece of beef. That's why hamburger is suggested to be cooked completly, since the salmonella could be ground up into the inside of the patty.

Steaks can have salmonella too, but this is usually from the meat being tenderized with a fork which pushes the salmonella deep inside. If you sear the outside before tenderizing then you shouldn't have a problem with salmonella.

If it is fresh from the cow you shouldn't have many issues with salmonella either, with red meat the risk of food poisoning is almost completely in the storage and preparation.

Of course for the better part of society that is "normal" either. If I want beef, it is usually Wal-Mart, Kroger's, or some other supermarket. Society isn't set up so everyone can go get them a slice of fresh cow from their backyard.

4M2A wrote:I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.

The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.

that's an interesting thought, but it's kind of like arguing "you know your wife loves you, why do you need to have sex with her?" Sometimes the visceral thrill is part of the emotion.

ColdFire wrote:Hey all.

Ive had this topic on several different sites and was pretty much shocked and disturbed about peoples reactions to animal cruelty etc. Reactions ranged from 80% Say get over it, 10% think its funny and acceptable and 10% of people are genuineley empathetic.
Now please before we derail me as a "hippy" one of the worst examples of a person who actually cares about something other then pot, I would like to make a couple of points clear.

1. I am not a vegetarian, we are biologically designed to consume meat and I enjoy it too much to quit now. The ethical standards of how that meat was produced is a completely different story and the type of animal is also an issue.

2. I am not against hunting, I used to be until I did some research into why and how it is done, I do beleive however there are still some major ethical issues with the sport, namely the use of assault rifles and other overkill weapons.

3. I believe killing animals to eat is justified as long as it is done ethically and with respect for the animals life in which you are taking. As much of the animal should be used as possible. However things like hunting for trophies or for sport "in otherwords any kind of hunting not involving the need for food" is morally disturbing.

Now onto the actuall topic I was curious as to what people on DakkaDakka think of animal cruelty and rights in general, Id like to know your views before I comment.

I think you'll find, and proven by the many posts here, that what people define as Cruelty will differ from person to person, mostly because anyone can feasibly argue a valid point as to why something is not cruel on almost anything. There will always be exceptions of course, I personally cannot see how anyone could logically justify throwing a cat from a highrise for kicks, for example.

I can ssum up what I view cruelty as quite simply ... anything that causes undo suffering to an animal.

For example.
I don't view slaughtering animals for food as cruelty because animals are kept in decent conditions and killed humanely and their body used to give vital foods and forms a vital part of our diets and industry. (in registered establishments in Britain at least)
I view Hunting for sport as Cruelty because an aminal is actively hunted by a human/dog predator for reasons of sport. The fact they are shot at the end before the dogs get them is completely a mute point.

Of course I understand(and somewhat disagree) that some poeple have counter arguements, such as by denying an animals right to live is classed as cruelty. Or with hunting, is the arguement of overpopulation of a species or the destructive repercussions of the animal in surrounding areas/farm land.

4M2A wrote:

The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.

IMO,it's far more "humane" to use a riffle for hunting than say a bow (though bow hunting does require a bit more skill),I've seen more "prolonged" death to deer due to bad shots with a bow than from a riffle.
I'm not sure what you mean in your statement that killing a deer with a gun doesn't "prove" anything...unless your attempting to some how connect the act of hunting to some sort of "macho posturing".

4M2A wrote:
None of the examples are actually us looking after animals, they are just us reducing the harm we do or righting previous mistakes. Most recent extinctions are due to humans (either because of intentional actions or carelessness) and so passing laws to protect endangered animals isn't us being nice we are just reducing the marm we do, but still causing some harm. Feeding livestock can hardly be called caring, we feed them because it suits us, not through genuine care. National parks are set up to protect habitats- from us. We seem very happy to see our species as one that cares about animals but most of the things we do are just getting us closer to neutral- and we are still a long way to go.

But it IS us looking after animals. It suits us to have healthy, living cows, pigs and chickens to eat, so we feed and shelter them. If that's not caring for them then I don't know what is. Passing laws to try and protect endangered animals is doing a good, it's us being nice and not continuing through with the 'kill everything' idea. The fact that we are going through with these plans shows that we do live in some kind of symbiosis with animals. In exchange for the services they provide for us, be it food, companionship, entertainment, etc. they are either allowed to live their lives as normally as possible, or are actively cared for by humans.

I'd say that whether or not our great balance of caring for animals is still waited heavily negative, it doesn't change the fact that we do care for our animals, even if said care is limited to us NOT wiping them from the face of the Earth.

I'd even say that humanity should not go all the way to help or hurt animals, yes the ones that have been endangered through our actions should be cared for, but extinction existed for millions of years before humanity, and we have to no right to stop it. If anything we should be neutral, trying to let evolution take its natural course as much as possible. Of course, part of evolutions natural course is the existence of a species intelligent enough to direct it, so make of that what you will.

Yes but I was talking about proving you are a top predator. Killing something which isn't a top predator with a very powerful weapon doesn't prove anything. Trying to be a top predator is nothing more than trying to feel macho- which is one of the reason I think it's so stupid.

Melissia wrote:Meh, the animal cruelty I despise the most is probably closer to cruelty to pets and work animals such as horses. Animals raised to eat should be kept in a sanitary environment, though, for the sake of keeping the people eating it healthy.

But then, our beef industry in the US is so fethed up that they sue people for NOT pumping hormones into the cow because they see it as anticompetitive to sell organic beef. Not that chicken is THAT much better, but at least regulations prevent hormones from being used on them.

It's actually a bad idea to feed your kids beef in the U.S., because of all the hormones in them kids will hit puberty sooner, become more aggressive, etc, and in the case of young girls it increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.

Agreed with this.

4M2A wrote:By for enjoyment I just mean killing for the primary reason of enjoyment.

Feeling pride at doing something yourself isn't really the same as enjoying killing. Your killing to eat, which is no different from buying prepared meat.

I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.

The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.

I dont kill to eat. I just eat what I kill. (it is soooo much easier to go to the market) no matter what they say ALL hunters enjoy the kill.
About putting my enjoyment above the life of an animal.... yep. They do have better than house odds though. Added to the fact I'm doing the habitat a service.

As for what makes man the top predator, it's the abiltiy to use his brains and "tools" and someone who attacks a croc with his hands only proves he's the "top-idiot"

It's very easy to say "it proves nothing" when youve never tried. Thats like saying "Sex with a woman is Impossible!" just because youve never gotten any. Correct?

4M2A wrote:Yes but I was talking about proving you are a top predator. Killing something which isn't a top predator with a very powerful weapon doesn't prove anything. Trying to be a top predator is nothing more than trying to feel macho- which is one of the reason I think it's so stupid.

As was pointed out, it's very difficult to succesfully hunt. You don't go out just firing randomly and bring back a dozen dead deer. In all honesty, the fact that we're hunting them with a powerful weapon proves we're the top predator. Other animals have to close the range and kill their pray with tooth and claw, humanity has developed ways to kill from a distance, it's part of our nature.

WHen hunters talk about their kills, the fact that they made the kill is part of the inherent respect I have for them. It's not all about macho posturing...it's much more about the inherent skill implied by sucesfully bringing down their prey.

Using a gun doesn't show your a top predator. Your personally didn't do any thinking when it comes to pulling the trigger. Humans as a species developed weapons but that isn't your achievement- you didn't design it.

IMO the tracking is entirely seperate as if it was just about the tracking the killing would be unneccessary. The tracking isn't hurting them- the shooting them is.

Part of why humans are the top predator is our igenuity, and the gun is part of that. Using it is expressing your dominance as the top of the food chain. Saying that using a gun doesn't show you're the top predator is like saying tha a shark using its teeth is disproving its own predatory superiority, it's part of our evolution, what makes us such succesfull predators.

I'd say that part of the reason fro the kill is an expression of the skill it took to track it. It's like with fishing, you can talk all you want about the massive beast you once caught, but I'm not going to believe you until I see it.

I don't know, I used to romanticize a lot of animal cruelty. (read a lot of Hemingway type books)

Dog fighting/racing. I used to not really be concerned about these until I understood them better. Dog fighting is just terrible all the way around, every aspect from breeding to the fight itself takes a noble animal whose only desire is to please its master and be loved into a evil machine.

Dog racing is almost just as bad, I used to like to go to the do races, until I know some people that adopted used racing dogs. These are shattered animals, I have no idea what they do to them, but it must be horrible.

In general I'm a hypocrite, I don't like seeing dogs get hurt because I know dogs, I understand dogs, I love dogs, I own dogs.

Cat fights. I'd probably love to see cat fights because I HATE CATS. People don't take care of their cats, they just buy them and let them go. If you love your cat get it spayed it neutered, there are way too many cats, so I don't think I would have a problem with cat fights. I had a friend when I was growing up that lived on a farm and he would hunt cats with a bow and arrow. I thought it was cruel and gross, but I honestly didn't have a problem with it, I eventually had a problem with him, because he was just a jerk.....go figure. He actually did some very cruel things. He's probably a serial killer now.

Cock fighting/bull fighting. Meh, at least they get to do something before they get turned into food. It's true it's cruel, but I don't know if I consider it any more cruel than wasting your life in a box. At least this way they may get some room to move and fresh air.

Bear baiting. Pretty gross and again dogs, i just don't understand cruelty to dogs at all.

Fox hunting. I don't really have a problem with it.

Horse racing. I love horse racing. I love going to the track with friends and placing a bet here and there, just to make it interesting. I'm sure if I look, I'll have the same issues I have with dog racing.....so i don't look. I don't want to look. I don't really know jack about horses, don't want to.

Hunting. I've hunted, I ate what I hunt. I see what happens when people don't hunt enough. So I don't have a problem. Also there is a lot more to hunting. I don't think there would be too many people that would just go to deers in pens and cap them for fun. Oh I'm sure they are out there they probably work at a meat processing center, but that's not the majority. It's more about the hunting.

Raising animals for food. I think their lot should be improved. I know you are gonna be food, but lets have some dignity. I can understand though, the people that process these animals would have to be callous do what they do day in day out. I'm sure they don't even see them as animals.

Animal testing. Not really sure about this. I mean does this really help? Is it necessary? Someone must think so, but I don't know why? Is a rabbit a real analog to how a human would react? I don't know, but I don't really care.

I'll be honest for the most part I'm willfully ignorant about animal cruelty. I don't kick animals or light cats on fire. If someone did that to my pet, I'd be furious...but I'd also wonder how they got my pet. I feed stray dogs when I travel to other countries because I saw them all the time in Russia and India. One night in Russia, I saw a drunk guy punt one of our stray dogs that lived outside the dorms, I kicked his ass.

So I don't know what that makes me, but that's my view.

In relation to Horse Racing

I grew up at Turf Paradise Race Track (Phoenix, AZ) until my Mom got seriously injured in an accident. I can say the for those most part, from what I saw the Horses were treated pretty well. Better than the workers for the most part.

But you need to remember this is a more high profile racing sport, and one that requires the animals to be in top notch health to compete, I doubt it has to do much with the good nature attitude of the owners.

There are some instances of abuse no doubt, most involving thing like shockers (a 9vt battery, couple nails and some copper wire) which were used to "convince" the animal to run faster, but given this was considered cheating, was grounds for being banned from the grounds and seen as a poor move by the people in the back, it was a rare thing and cracked down on hard when discovered.

Dog racing is another beast entirely though, my wife did volunteer work at a greyhound rescue for a couple years, if I had the room where I lived I'd adopt some of those dogs in a heart beat, they really are treated like trash.

I think probably the thing that gets me most are breeders and people that buy pure breeds. Go rescue a dog from the shelter. Is your ego so shot that your animal has to be a status symbol! I've always has strays or rescue dogs. They have the least problems because of their lack of inbreeding. Puppy and kitten mills are the worst!

ColdFire wrote:
The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.

Okay, so the Rhino was a bad example. But what if killing a Rhino, taking the horn (and then eating the meat) was seen as a rite of passage by an indigenous tribe? Either way the act is unsustainable (given the endangered nature of some Rhinos, especially the Java Rhinocerous in South-East Asia).

As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.

I already pointed out my typo in that post.

If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.

If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.

Screw Pandas, they seam unworried about the survival of their own species. I mean really Pandas, have some sex would you, the GD things won't even copulate, much less populate. Lazy gits!

Time to relax the thread alittle :3

I thought you hated cats Luna.

4M2A wrote:It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.

What about the enjoyment from eating it?

I mean, if you're going to make a statement that human enjoyment can't be used to justify the killing of an animal, then you're probably going to say that includes not killing an animal for the pleasure of eating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:Murderous yes but animals can't be cruel. This implies they get some pleasure from causing escess harm, which isn't something they understand. It may seem cruel to us but not to them.

Not quite, cruelty requires an indifference to suffering, not necessarily a desire to cause it.

If an animal doesn't get that it is causing suffering because it is not intellectually capable of understanding that, it might absolve it from blame but it doesn't make its action any less cruel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happydude wrote:You're right, not after sex. However I doubt that praying mantis had gas chambers, implemented mustard gas or created concentration camps. As far as cannibalization, yeah man I hate to say it but certain tribes will eat the other ( kids and all ) when taking territory over. And as far as art, art is subjective. If you want art nature is the largest and most beautiful canvas that will ever exist. Dali has nothing on the Aurora Borealis, and Van Gogh couldn't capture a true rain forest setting if he tried his hardest. Animals do not screw each other over for a profit margin, and this is what makes us the most worthless beings on the planet. However what makes us unique is that we can also be the best thing that happened to this planet if we so choose however I doubt I will live to see that serenity.

You're confusing capability with moral restraint.

Animals are not capable of conceiving of genocide, let alone acting it, but this is only a measure of their intellect, not their morality. Animals also have very limited empathy, and will not limit their actions for the welfare of another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Scythican wrote:The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this.

First up, we are biologically meant to eat meat. There's vital proteins that we need that we could't get out of any other source. We can now substitute those proteins thanks to modern science, but for most of human history we needed to eat meat. Those canine teeth are there for a reason.

Second up, I think you're confusing "we weren't to eat this much meat" with "we weren't meant to eat meat". The amount of meat in most people's diets today is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean much smaller amounts of meat

Thirdly, there's nothing saying what we've done historically is how we should act now. Our diets, traditionally, were a product of our limitations, we ate what we could get our hands on, and we didn't have the moral systems built up to ever consider if we should eat any other way. We now have almost complete control over what we choose to eat, and so all that matters is what we most enjoy eating, what is healthiest for us, and what is most ethical. Which, according to each individual, may be no meat, some meat or a whole lot of meat. But what certainly doesn't matter is how much meat we've eaten historically.

Hawkward wrote:
Humans are animals, too. Simply because we are capable of giving our actions names does not free us from the onus of instinct.

Animals have a choice how to behave, just like humans. I guarantee you that the darkest depravities of the animal kingdom are just as shocking as the depravities of mankind.

No they arent, the very fact that we devote so much time and effort into finding new ways to hurt each other is testimony to that. And what about Torture, not so much now but for centuries this was a form of entertainment and oh all the fun little things we invented to peel peoples skin off or gouge out their eyes while keeping them alive, or why not bury them to the chin in sand so that they can slowly die of sun stroke. Though I dont believe we are higher lifeforms we are more "Civilised", comparing the actions of animals is like comparing our moral standards to when we were cavemen beating women over the head to rape them and bear children for us. You just cant compare the two, we have all of this knowledge and understanding but we choose not to use it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:
The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.

Okay, so the Rhino was a bad example. But what if killing a Rhino, taking the horn (and then eating the meat) was seen as a rite of passage by an indigenous tribe? Either way the act is unsustainable (given the endangered nature of some Rhinos, especially the Java Rhinocerous in South-East Asia).

As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.

I already pointed out my typo in that post.

If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.

If it was a right by indiginous tribes I really have no say in it, I certainly dont agree with it, Indiginous tribes here wiped out almost half of our native animals for food, some pretty spectacular creatures too like Giant Wombats and Kangaroos 3 metres tall. I think if the tribes were willing to listen they should be educated in what will happen if they continue doing what they are doing, if they insist on continuing we would simply have to have the option to relocate a couple of specimens to a zoo for continued breeding. Zoos are excellent, they are a great source of education and will probably be the last bastions of many endangered species. Well, most zoos anyway, some zoos in East Europe are deplorable.

As for the panda thing, sure if its sustainable any animal is game but ONLY if it is sustainable, although Panda's dont have an ideal birth rate to be considered sustainable for mass food production.

Andrew1975 wrote:

If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.

Screw Pandas, they seam unworried about the survival of their own species. I mean really Pandas, have some sex would you, the GD things won't even copulate, much less populate. Lazy gits!

Im sure your joking but just to be clear, I seriously doubt Pandas realise the situation they're in.