The relationship between animals & humans is evolving.

[Godboy]

I misunderstood the term “hunting tags” which exposes my ignorance.
At least I stuck around long enough to witness my ignorance.

Godboy, forgive me for being the ass hole I appeared to be.

I will strive to listen before speaking in the future.

-

It seems bad when you see a picture of a guy proudly smiling next to a big lion, but that lion is old, and old lions kill the young lions because it knows the young ones will challenge his position soon. It isnt some random lion he came across, its a specific lion that the nations wildlife officials chose FOR him because, it has become a problem for either the other lions or the local villagers. As a side note, elephants can sometimes have similar issues when they get old, so they sometimes issue hunting tags for them as well. The guy who is enjoying himself next to the lions corpse might be a douchebag, but those rich douchebags are necessary in the fight fight against poachers.

Its not in the picture, but these guys carry AK-47s and followed this rhino around to protect it from poachers, until he died of natural causes. They were hired with the money that Kenya got from hunting tags. This is the last male northern white rhino, now dead.

 

[badger2]

The perpetrators should be drawn and quartered on videocam, or given a life sentence.

 

[buttercup]

Not for any real moral reasons (although I don't like the process and will always advocate humane slaughter) but because I was traumatised and couldn't actually put it past my lips and keep it down.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I only quoted this part of your post because I just wanted to respond to something you said. I have learned that there really is no such thing as "humane slaughter." For a few reasons.

First of all, many of the methods that are called "humane" are really just as horrible as any other type of slaughter. Secondly, when you have a fast moving slaughter process, where time/making money is more important than the animals, things often don't go the way they're supposed to go. For example, when they try to stun a cow to render the cow unconscious, it often misses the spot, and when that happens, the cow is either partially or fully conscious during slaughter.

And lastly, the question should be asked, what does humane really mean? Here are a few dictionary definitions:

"marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals" (Merriam-Webster)

"characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed" (dictionary.com)

"having or showing compassion or benevolence." (Oxford)

So basically it means showing compassion. There is NOTHING compassionate about taking what is most important from a sentient being (their very life) when they clearly don't want to die, and when it is completely unnecessary.

What IS compassionate is choosing to not needlessly harm or kill anyone, but instead following the Golden rule which means would I want this done to me if I was in their place?

That's all I have to say about that, and I didn't post this with the intention to get into a debate necessarily, but I just felt it needed to be said.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I only quoted this part of your post because I just wanted to respond to something you said. I have learned that there really is no such thing as "humane slaughter." For a few reasons.

First of all, many of the methods that are called "humane" are really just as horrible as any other type of slaughter. Secondly, when you have a fast moving slaughter process, where time/making money is more important than the animals, things often don't go the way they're supposed to go. For example, when they try to stun a cow to render the cow unconscious, it often misses the spot, and when that happens, the cow is either partially or fully conscious during slaughter.

And lastly, the question should be asked, what does humane really mean? Here are a few dictionary definitions:

"marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals" (Merriam-Webster)

"characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed" (dictionary.com)

"having or showing compassion or benevolence." (Oxford)

So basically it means showing compassion. There is NOTHING compassionate about taking what is most important from a sentient being (their very life) when they clearly don't want to die, and when it is completely unnecessary.

What IS compassionate is choosing to not needlessly harm or kill anyone, but instead following the Golden rule which means would I want this done to me if I was in their place?

That's all I have to say about that, and I didn't post this with the intention to get into a debate necessarily, but I just felt I needed to be said.

Maybe there isn't such a thing as humane slaughter in a literal sense if you peel it right back, but there's some ways that's better than others. That's what I mean.

There's absolutely no good reason why the animal should suffer at the hands of abattoir staff because they're bored, having a bad day or inpatient.

Ironically I think halal slaughter (when done right) is probably as humane as you can get as the the swift slitting of the throat with the heart still pumping you'd pass out in a few seconds (compared to stunned with a captive bolt gun and then dispatched - when sometimes the gun doesn't work right first time or it takes multiple attempts).

I know there's halal horror videos too though that's why I said when it's "done properly"

I think humane slaughter simply comes down to handling at the slaughterhouse. If things are calm, the people professional, patient, they are handled well, not stressed, don't witness others getting slaughtered and dispatched swiftly then that's humane slaughter to me.

But even that's not done almost enough.

That's the issue for me.

 

[Likkmee]

I eat chickens and have a good steak from time to time; but I did not kill any of them. And the death of the chicken, cow and trout was for nourishment, not just for the fun of it.

There is a difference, but if you can not tell one from another that is your problem, not mine

I do to and I'm the killer. They never know what hit them.
My hogs are cleaner than most idiots dogs and they go out with a bowl of corn and a 9mm hardball to the brain
The chickens are a quick SNAP
Done it that way for 50 years

 

[buttercup]

Maybe there isn't such a thing as humane slaughter in a literal sense if you peel it right back, but there's some ways that's better than others. That's what I mean.

There's absolutely no good reason why the animal should suffer at the hands of abattoir staff because they're bored, having a bad day or inpatient.

Ironically I think halal slaughter (when done right) is probably as humane as you can get as the the swift slitting of the throat with the heart still pumping you'd pass out in a few seconds (compared to stunned with a captive bolt gun and then dispatched - when sometimes the gun doesn't work right first time or it takes multiple attempts).

I know there's halal horror videos too though that's why I said when it's "done properly"

I think humane slaughter simply comes down to handling at the slaughterhouse. If things are calm, the people professional, patient, they are handled well, not stressed, don't witness others getting slaughtered and dispatched swiftly then that's humane slaughter to me.

But even that's not done almost enough.

That's the issue for me.

I hear what you're saying, but I just see it differently now. We can agree to disagree, but I believe the act of needlessly killing in and of itself is uncompassionate. So trying to find better ways of doing something that is inherently inhumane is not what is best, in my view. Again, I think if people followed the Golden rule… or, to be more specific, applied it to animals instead of only to humans (many people don't even apply it to humans btw, but I digress) then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But as I said, I don't necessarily want to argue about this, just wanted to reply.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

I hear what you're saying, but I just see it differently now. We can agree to disagree, but I believe the act of needlessly killing in and of itself is uncompassionate. So trying to find better ways of doing something that is inherently inhumane is not what is best, in my view. Again, I think if people followed the Golden rule… or, to be more specific, applied it to animals instead of only to humans (many people don't even apply it to humans btw, but I digress) then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But as I said, I don't necessarily want to argue about this, just wanted to reply.

We can defo agree to disagree.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who doesn't like the idea of animals getting killed or finds it wrong because that's not insane or evil - so I've no issue with you because you come at it from a good place.