Animal rights

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Michael1695 If you are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to eat plants as well since they are living organisms?

More importantly, if people are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to do anything other than grow and process your own crops? Millions of critters die with every growing season and harvest of wheat, soybean, and other crops. The combine does not distinguish between a ear of corn and a bunny.

Whether meat eater or vegetarian, it is much more important to be mindful of where your food comes from than to try to stick to a label.

[another day]

Hunting is only ok if you eat the animal you kill. As for the argument that if they outlawed deer hunting, the population would skyrocket, that is bullshit. It would only "skyrocket" to what was once a natural level, were it for humans taking over their entire habitat. They have predators in the wild too you know.

Not saying im against hunting, but I am against hunting for sport. It should only be done for food.

[shawmutt]

Hunting is only ok if you eat the animal you kill.

That is a straw man. I don't know any game hunters* that don't either a. eat the food they kill, or b. give the food away to be eaten. Can you provide any examples otherwise?

As for the argument that if they outlawed deer hunting, the population would skyrocket, that is bullshit. It would only "skyrocket" to what was once a natural level, were it for humans taking over their entire habitat.

That is incorrect. If deer hunting was outlawed, the population would be unsustainable and result in deer dying from starvation and widespread disease.

It also ignores the larger picture of what deer hunting, and the licensing thereof, provides for an area. A lot of folks want to oversimplify the issue to a redneck with a case a beer and a gun, and Bambi. Here is one example from Minnesota:

It's deer hunting season in Minnesota. Deer hunting is a major industry in this state, generating $236 million in retail sales in 2001, 4,825 jobs and $122 million in wages. The sale of hunting licenses for deer brought in $19.7 million to the DNR in 2004. The revenue from these licenses account for 29% of the DNR's Game and Fish Fund, which help buy and manage wildlife management areas and fund research on forest animals. As important as all this is, deer hunting plays an even more critical role in managing the state's deer population. There are more than a million whitetail deer in Minnesota, and due to recent mild winters the population is nearing record numbers. The record number of deer is having an impact in many parts of the state. Deer grazing is threatening some plant species, such as trillium, wild lily of the valley, and rose twistedstalk. Reforestation of Eastern white pines and white cedar trees is difficult due to deer grazing. Deer related traffic accidents are also a concern, with an estimated 20,000 deer-vehicle crashes annually. Deer management through hunting is tricky, especially since the DNR cannot predict what the winter weather will be like. Seven of the last eight winters have been milder than average, leading to increased deer numbers despite more liberal hunting policies meant to control the population. Severe winters result in "winterkills" that can reduce the population significantly, but without being able to predict them, the DNR has to make some educated guesses. Another factor that worries the DNR is that while the number of hunters is increasing, it is not increasing at a rate that can control the high population of deer. As a result, the DNR is loosening restrictions on hunting anterless deer. Hunters used to have to enter a lottery to obtain an anterless permit. Now any hunter can buy them over the counter.

Cite: Deer Hunting | Science Buzz

They have predators in the wild too you know.

When predators get to certain numbers they start affecting the human population, gain "pest" status, and are demanded to be controlled. There are certainly not enough "natural" predators to keep an overpopulation of deer from starving or dying of widespread disease.

*I make the distinction between "game hunting" and "pest hunting". For example, hunters will often go to farm lands and shoot groundhogs, and they aren't very good eatin' so they're usually left for the buzzards and crows. The alternative to hunting them is poisoning them, and besides being a slow death, introduces poison into the food supply.

[another day]

Quote by: shawmutt That is a straw man. I don't know any game hunters* that don't either a. eat the food they kill, or b. give the food away to be eaten. Can you provide any examples otherwise?

No, that's not a strawman. I said it's fine if you eat the animal. So if you are eating it, then that's fine. Where's the strawman?

That is incorrect. If deer hunting was outlawed, the population would be unsustainable and result in deer dying from starvation and widespread disease.

Only because we have destroyed their habitat. I'm not saying it's such a bad thing, that's the way nature works. And I don't support outlawing deer hunting. If anything, outlawing hunting will only cause more animals to be killed by people. It was only after they outlawed tiger hunting and such that the population began to take huge hits, because it opened up the entire game to poachers, who functioned without any restrictions as long as they werent caught, and who were driven by the high prices associated with anything made illegal, like the drug market or any black market. Before that, the hunters were all fairly educated about their practices, bound by many restrictions, and worked to keep their hunting sustainable.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: shawmutt That is incorrect. If deer hunting was outlawed, the population would be unsustainable and result in deer dying from starvation and widespread disease.

I don't disagree that this would happen but we should also point out that it is our own fault. When we essentially wipe out the only natural, non-human predators of a species we don't have much of a right to be concerned about the overpopulation of their prey.

I think overpopulation is a convenient justification for hunting and if we were really concerned about deer population we could come up with a more accurate, and measurable solution to the problem.

Also, there are many areas with an overpopulation of stray cats and dogs and, while the county can round them up and gas them, I don't believe they issue licenses to hunt them. I could be wrong on that but I would be very surprised if they did.

I am not completely educated on the topic though and would be interested in reading any studies done on deer population, the number of deer target areas can sustain, and the effect of human hunting on the population.

I also agree that anyone willing to hunt for, kill, butcher, and eat their own meat should have the complete freedom to do so providing they only kill animals they are legally allowed to and they only give the meat to people that know where it came from. A local Taco Bell owner should not be allowed to provide his own meat if his customers are not aware of that fact.

[another day]

[ruksak]

Quote by: another day

Coming from an avid hunter that just shot a 10 point Buck last week with my muzzle loader rifle, that is god damn funny.

I almost feel guilty now.

[Jedi31293]

Quote by: Michael1695 If you are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to eat plants as well since they are living organisms?

This is exactly what I find so funny about vegetarians. They refuse to eat animals, but they still eat living organisms that provide for those animals.

As the old saying goes: "If you care about the animals so much, why are you eating their food?"

[Michael1695]

Quote by: Jedi31293 This is exactly what I find so funny about vegetarians. They refuse to eat animals, but they still eat living organisms that provide for those animals. As the old saying goes: "If you care about the animals so much, why are you eating their food?"

Yea, and what about insects? Are animal rights activist against swatting a fly, or killing a bee, because if they are, then they are complete hypocrits. And what about bacteria, are they against anti-biotics because they kill a living breathing organism. What about disinfecting their bathrooms? Are there any PETA members that will enlighten me as to where the line is drawn?

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Michael1695 Yea, and what about insects? Are animal rights activist against swatting a fly, or killing a bee, because if they are, then they are complete hypocrits. And what about bacteria, are they against anti-biotics because they kill a living breathing organism. What about disinfecting their bathrooms? Are there any PETA members that will enlighten me as to where the line is drawn?

I'm sure you meant that the activists are hypocrites if they are for the killing of insects. Being against the killing of insects would be in line with their view that killing animals is wrong.

One doesn't have to be a PETA member to enlighten you. One just has to have the most basic understanding of biology. It really is very simple. Nerves are neurological structures that generate impulses from external stimuli. Brains are neurological structures that interpret those signals and make decisions based on the signals. If an organism does not possess nerves or a brain then they are completely incapable of "feeling" pain. This would apply to all plants and all bacteria. If an organism possesses either nerves or a brain, but not both, then they have limited capability to feel and what they are capable of feeling is debatable.

The position is quite simple. If there are minor sacrifices or changes I can make in my life that will minimize pain or discomfort then I would like to make those changes. If the change drastically decreases my own quality of life then I would not make the change. The line is in different places for everyone but I would argue that just about everyone - the possible exception being psychopaths - does indeed have a line.

Scenario: You are walking down the sidewalk and you happen to notice that your footfalls may be on a collision course with a worm. Do you -
1. Adjust your step so you walk over or beside the worm but not on it?
2. Not adjust your step and possibly step on the worm?
3. Deliberately adjust your step so that you definitely WILL step on the worm?
4. Adjust your step and then put the worm in the grass so nobody else will step on it either?
5. Adjust your step and pick up the worm so you put your cigarrete out on it and flick off pieces of its body with your thumbnail?

Now the question is, how does your course of action change if you substitute different creatures? What about a slug? Fly? An anthill teeming with activity? Monarch Butterfly? Turtle? Baby bunny? Puppy? Human toddler? A piece of ice that has partially melted into an amazing pattern? A mound of dog poo? A miniature sand castle built by a watchful gradeschooler nearby?

For me, not eating meat is not a great sacrifice. There are a lot of alternatives that I enjoy and, as the years go by, I find it easier and easier to find options available at restaurants.

I have no problem at all with where people draw their lines. I don't try to convince people that I'm right and that they are wrong in their choices. If someone asks why I don't eat meat then I ask them if they really want to know or if they would prefer a short answer that fits in with their stereotypes. And the only reason I debate about it here is because it is just that - debate.

I just wish people on the other side of the argument could think outside their boxes and come up with something more well thought out than the simplistic, meat-eater, knee-jerk, reaction phrases. Give it a little effort folks. I'm a peace-loving vegetarian and I can come up with better arguments for eating meat than some of you guys have offered up.

I don't care if you eat meat. I only care about rebutting the meat eaters who care enough about their position to insist on tossing up the same flimsy arguments over and over again.

[Jokerjdude]

I think it's wrong.... now where did I put my Big mac

[Nemiroff]

Muckraker, I like your arguments. But how do you know that no animal, perhaps not on this planet, but nowhere in existence has developed any other method of "feeling" and processing that feeling?

Also, its nice to come up with creative arguments while playing devil's advocate, but when you argue for something you believe in you don't usually get such luxuries. Perhaps the simple knee jerk answers are what most meat eaters trully feel.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Nemiroff Muckraker, I like your arguments. But how do you know that no animal, perhaps not on this planet, but nowhere in existence has developed any other method of "feeling" and processing that feeling?

I will concern myself with other methods of feeling when science identifies them. Until then, I can stick with the findings of modern science and their backing of thousands of years of collective human thought, experience, and ingenuity.

Also, its nice to come up with creative arguments while playing devil's advocate, but when you argue for something you believe in you don't usually get such luxuries. Perhaps the simple knee jerk answers are what most meat eaters trully feel.

Agreed. But debate is not about telling people what you feel. It is about arguing to further a point and rebutting the points of your opponents. If a statement doesn't further a point or attack the point of an opponent then it doesn't really exist in a debate scenario. If anything, such statements admit defeat.

Anyone posting a knee-jerk response will most likely be ground down to about knee level by anyone else who is actually debating, regardless of whether they are debating for their own side or playing devil's advocate for the other side.

[gela]

If you are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to eat plants as well since they are living organisms?

ok, I am against animal cruelty.

Thats animal cruelty, not eating animales.

Cows live to be eaten, they have an increadibly happy life, food is provided for them, and they just wander around eating. I have no issues with eating beef.

Pigs and chickens however, live their lives inside a container. Some never get the chance to stand up. They are given low quality food and they live their lives surrounded by their own feacies.
Not only is this cruel, its completely unnessecary - pigs and chickens can still be raised outside with space, with a decent profit margin - greed is the only reason these animales live out their lives in pain.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: gela ok, I am against animal cruelty. Thats animal cruelty, not eating animales. Cows live to be eaten, they have an increadibly happy life, food is provided for them, and they just wander around eating. I have no issues with eating beef. Pigs and chickens however, live their lives inside a container. Some never get the chance to stand up. They are given low quality food and they live their lives surrounded by their own feacies. Not only is this cruel, its completely unnessecary - pigs and chickens can still be raised outside with space, with a decent profit margin - greed is the only reason these animales live out their lives in pain.

Would love to see some links supporting your claims.

[sevendogs]

Animal rightist ideology or believes are dead wrong and based on personal emotions of some whimpish by nature people. Here is hard science theory in favor of mutual benefits between humans and domesticated animals:
Amazon.com: The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication: Books: Stephen Budiansky

Do our dogs, horses and cows have right to live with us and serve us one way or another? All domesticated animals benefit ecologically, because their populations are flourishing under conditions of domestication. Do lions have rights to kill and eat wildebeest? Does wildebeest want to be killed by lions? It is under control of ecological interactions, not rights. Likewise we have right to kill animals for food. Animals pay for their protection and care by loosing some individuals and becoming meat on our plates. As populations, we all need each other for survival. Think populations, not individuals. Population has potential immortality, individuals are dispensable, and all ecological relationships are developing as interactions between populations. Entire evolutionary process is driven by selection and interactions between populations of plants adn animals.

[gela]

Would love to see some links supporting your claims.

Pig Farming

Chicken

Laying hens

[Muckraker]

Quote by: gela Pig Farming Chicken Laying hens

I was more interested in the link regarding how "happy" cows are.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: sevendogs Animal rightist ideology or believes are dead wrong and based on personal emotions of some whimpish by nature people.

They are not dead wrong. Animal rights are backed by laws in just about every state in the country. The fact of the matter is that many animals already do have rights, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. People who would like those rights extended to additional species are more in line with their reasoning than people who believe some animals have rights but others don't have rights. The latter belief is clearly hippocritical and is the belief held by the vast majority of Americans.

Here is hard science theory in favor of mutual benefits between humans and domesticated animals: Amazon.com: The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication: Books: Stephen Budiansky

Make your own point instead of requesting we purchase a book that makes it for you.

Do our dogs, horses and cows have right to live with us and serve us one way or another?

Depends on where you live. Some animals have a legal right to not be food. Others have a right to not be starved or left in a car. Others have a right to not be touched or harmed by anyone in any way and the environment they live in is also protected from humans. Some animals have no legal rights at all. Regardless, the legal rights of animals are currently decided by countries and states and they vary greatly.

All domesticated animals benefit ecologically, because their populations are flourishing under conditions of domestication.

This is nonsense. The populations of animals in factories are completely controlled by humans. How does the population of cows benefit cows? Also keep in mind that these creatures exist, for the most part, outside of ecology. They have minimal positive impact on their factory environments and no place in any food chain other than at the bottom of ours.

Do lions have rights to kill and eat wildebeest? Does wildebeest want to be killed by lions? It is under control of ecological interactions, not rights.

Human farming of animals for food exists outside of ecology and nature. There is absolutely no similarity between modern human meat consumption and that of lions killing their prey.

Likewise we have right to kill animals for food.

Not in this country. You have a right to go to McDonald's and purchase unidentified food someone else has killed. You have a right to buy a hunting license and hunt for the approved quantity of the approved animal during the approved time frame. You can make what you kill into food but you can't legally sell that food to others without a wide variety of other legal licenses.

If you want to test your right to kill an animal for food, even an animal that is your own legal property, then take your dog out in the front yard, hang it from a tree, slaughter it, and start passing out home-made hotdogs off your grill. Heck, if you live anywhere but the country boonies, try that with a chicken, pig, or cow you own, if you are even allowed to legally own one in the first place.

What you have a "right" to do is take the bills in your wallet and feed them into smoke and mirrors of the American meat industry - the monstrous conglomeration that everyone supports while very few actually have any idea what they do or how they do it.

Animals pay for their protection and care by loosing some individuals and becoming meat on our plates.

The animals in question are incapable of "paying" for anything. They are abominations of nature, just as humans are.

I am not arguing to set "free" the cows and chickens. My ideal scenario would be for a diminishing demand as a cheaper, healthier, and tastier non-animal alternative decreases and eventually stops the creation of new generations of the animals that are being farmed.

As populations, we all need each other for survival. Think populations, not individuals. Population has potential immortality, individuals are dispensable, and all ecological relationships are developing as interactions between populations. Entire evolutionary process is driven by selection and interactions between populations of plants adn animals.

No species can achieve immortality. Populations are just as dispensable as individuals. If a species no longer fits into their ecosystem then they will cease to exist. The species in question, the animals that are food for Americans, do not have an ecosystem. They will only cease to exist when human desire for them ceases.

My argument is consistent and simple:

1. Humans are animals.
2. Animals share common physical structures with humans.
3. Physical structures that perform a particular function in humans perform similar functions in animals. (Eyes see, ears hear, etc...)
4. Animals that experience the world in ways similar to humans are capable of experiencing discomfort and pain.
5. Meat is not necessary for modern human survival, procreation, or the overall health of the species.
6. "Farming" animals is not an ideal or productive method of acquiring food.
7. As technology progresses further, non-animal substitutes for meat will become a viable, and lower cost, alternative to animal meat.
8. Human are moving toward extending a "right to avoid pain/discomfort" to additional species and we are not revoking the right from species that are granted it.
9. Humans of the distant future will not pay to cause pain to creatures capable of experiencing pain merely to enjoy food that is not nutritionally necessary.

[gela]

I was more interested in the link regarding how "happy" cows are.

I don't have a link, only personal experience.
My grandparents and my uncle are dairy farmers.

The only cruelty I can see is that their calves are taken away from them. But I have to wonder just how connected a mother feels to a calve that shes only had for one day, when she has a calf every year.

I just assumed meat cows are kept similarly.

They live very easy lives, free of disease and predators. With food always provided for them.

I've always had the opinion that death isn't cruel. In the case of humans, its those that are left behind that suffer. However I dont think cows have such strong bonds.

That said, I dont really disagree with any of your points:

1. Humans are animals. 2. Animals share common physical structures with humans. 3. Physical structures that perform a particular function in humans perform similar functions in animals. (Eyes see, ears hear, etc...) 4. Animals that experience the world in ways similar to humans are capable of experiencing discomfort and pain. 5. Meat is not necessary for modern human survival, procreation, or the overall health of the species. 6. "Farming" animals is not an ideal or productive method of acquiring food. 7. As technology progresses further, non-animal substitutes for meat will become a viable, and lower cost, alternative to animal meat. 8. Human are moving toward extending a "right to avoid pain/discomfort" to additional species and we are not revoking the right from species that are granted it. 9. Humans of the distant future will not pay to cause pain to creatures capable of experiencing pain merely to enjoy food that is not nutritionally necessary.

I am considering becoming a vegetarian, once I leave home. Its unfair to ask my parents to cater for me being vegetarian atm.