PDA

View Full Version : Farming critters.


G-CPTN
31st Jan 2006, 13:44
Following my reference to Crocodiles on the 'pond' thread, I discovered that saltwater crocodiles are farmed in Australia for their hide and meat. Whilst taking creatures from the wild (such as elephant) for their 'cosmetic' components is classed as undesirable, and mink farming has it's opponents, where (if anywhere) does the line of acceptability lie WRT humans farming animals for their inherent bodily resources.
Keeping cows, sheep and goats for their milk?
Cattle for their meat (free-roaming, living a 'natural' life until required)?
Pigs kept in pens/sties for their bacon (is pig milk so bad?)?
Deer for venison?
Sheep for wool (and meat, and 'sport')?
Free-range chickens for their eggs?
Battery hens for eggs and meat?
Turkeys (for Christmas and Thanksgiving)?
Pheasants for 'sport'? (Foxes too.)
Fish (salmon for flesh, trout for 'sport')?
Pigeons for sport (racing)?
Guinea pigs and rabbits as pets?
Horses for racing, hunting and general riding?
Snakes for their venom?
Crocodiles for hide and meat?

This isn't considering other societies' keeping of horses and dogs for eating.

Do we have justification for keeping ANY creature captive for our own gratification (zoos) or even for conservation purposes (endangered species)?
Do we have 'rights' to take creatures from the wild (hunting) for provisions (as Eskimos do) and also for skins, horns etc. ?


What about breeding-farms for medical research?


WHERE should we draw the line? Almost everyone will have leather shoes.

R4+Z
31st Jan 2006, 14:05
I wonder do lions debate this kind of subject before stalking and bringing down thier prey, often eating them alive? Are our actions humane... yes by definition they are.

Please excuse the pun but it's a dog eat dog world out there. We are part of the food chain and will eventually get consumed ourselves if only by micro-organisms and insects (maybe a few worms as well) and then up the food chain once again we will pass as each creature that one step higher on the ladder consumes the one below it.

It's a fact of life and a necessary process, get over it. Or would you prefer to see people starve?

airship
31st Jan 2006, 14:24
Oooh, R4+Z considers himself a lion does he?! That most noble of wild creatures... ;)

Don't you read the Bible? We were given dominion over every other living creature...! And then some bright spark construed that to also include other 'human-beings', a terrible period which only left us in the modern World a few decades ago. But ostensibly continues elsewhere to this day... :sad:

In my heyday, we didn't farm nuffink. :ok:

These days I have a problem with the way animals are kept. It's always about economics and never about quality of life (for everyone and everything). Which is why you can't get a decent side of mutton anymore.

Of course, I love eating meat. But I'm happy enough with the beef, chicken, lamb, pork and fish that feature on my menu. I respect the right of others on the other side of the planet to eat whatever they wish provided I don't hear about it too often.

If we're going to farm an animal in the best conditions, then that should mean we use every bit of the animal. Which is why I abhore seeing fur coats. I can just about understand it when I see an elderly woman wearing one down the street, but if a younger woman wears it, then I hope she won't mind if I consider her an 'old hag' anyway. :ok:

In a sense, the way we condone the treatment of animals is catching up with us. BSE notwithstanding, more human-beings than ever today live out their lives 'cooped-up' into ever tinier multi-storey cages we can no longer even afford to buy. Of course, we have old people's homes and many forward-thinking governments are finally showing more understanding of our rights of voluntary euthanisia. Given the choice, I believe every 2 week old chicken would take 'the easy way out'...?! :sad:

airship
31st Jan 2006, 14:28
Maybe we should just eat each other...?! :8

G-CPTN
31st Jan 2006, 14:52
Just to clarify my position, I eat meat (including pheasant, venison, farmed salmon etc) but I'm against killing whales (I'd forgotten that in my summary). WHERE the line of dos and don'ts should be drawn I just don't know. Of course primitive tribes are justified in hunting for survival (IMHO) but I'd draw the line at the chinese eating monkey brains. Not certain about dogs and horses.
Do creatures bred by humans as pets benefit from being given the chance of life or should they be left in the wild? Goldfish? Are we really justified in captive breeding of endangered species (and culling of intrusive species)? Snakes, spiders, alligators and crocodiles, rats and mice? Mosquitoes?
I used to have an egg-farmer as a neighbour, who was convinced that his battery hens had a better life than his free-range chickens (all food found).
We euthanise creatures when we suspect they are suffering (not available to humans), but should we allow cattle and sheep to live their 'three-score-years-and-ten' rather than killing them in their prime?
Is fishing cruel (I've been a fly-fisherman, though rarely caught anything!)? What about net-fishing?
I've been a hunt-follower, but why not shoot foxes when they are intrusive (or is that over the line?)?
I started the thread because In cannot define where my personal line should be drawn. I can sympathise with vegetarians (though I don't want to stop eating meat).

Mrs G-CPTN will NOT eat veal or fois-gras. I prefer not to think about it and enjoy the taste and flavour.

airship
31st Jan 2006, 14:53
Nobody would starve without lipstick maybe... But it's a very complex World we live in today.

(eg.) If women didn't wear lipstick, men might find women less attractive. The result would affect every industry we have ever invented to further man's pursuit of woman: luxury and sports car manufacturers, learning French, pubs and restaurants, diamonds would be mundane, even the aviation industry: who'd still want to become a pilot, not being able to drink for long periods of time and not being able to keep a dog? The direct knock-on effect would be to put the big watch industry into recession - you see what I mean?!

Saving the odd creature fallen from its nest etc. is very commendable and prolly much appreciated by the party in question. But it doesn't change anything in the great scheme of things does it?! :{

tony draper
31st Jan 2006, 17:30
Of course in the future we could be genetically engineered and have chlorophylle in our skin and blood,then all we need do is sit in a pile of horse shit for twelve hours a day photosythesising.
:uhoh:

Loose rivets
31st Jan 2006, 20:02
Well, I set out to write something meaningful...and then I read Drape's last post...difficult to type while laughing so much.

I think that if I could eat cheese I would be a vegetarian. I don't because I know that it jumbles my ability to read.

Mrs R has been a vegetarian for 30 years or so, and looks half my age. Her brain works better, and she seems to have tireless energy,:E so it seems that it's possible to get sustenance from foods other than meat. However, I should say that she does take supplements which wouldn't have been available a while back.

As far as meat tasting nice, I wonder if god simply forgot to put some nasty tasting stuff in animals to protected them from us.

Starving people. That's is simply wrong, it takes huge resources to produce meat. There is more than enough food potential right now to feed the world twice over–if we stopped producing meat.

"There is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed." A rough translation of one of Gandhi's wise sayings. Oh, and another...excuse me if I don't remember them exactly.

"We should eat simply, so that others can simply eat."

steinycans
1st Feb 2006, 02:45
I'm neither here nor there on the topic of eating animals but to go back to the original question, 'where (if anywhere) does the line of acceptability lie WRT humans farming animals for their inherent bodily resources[?].' I think the line is drawn at sustainability. The animals that cannot be farmed and replaced are not hunted or else they will be come extinct, with all the impact on the food chain that will bring, while animals that can be farmed and replaced are... farmed and replaced with hopefully little impact on the food chain. to my mind anyway.