I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.
The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.
If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical. But if you’re using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you’re hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I’d argue that’s the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.
Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There’s a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It’s obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.
Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation
I think if factory farming were more stringently regulated a lot more people would hunt than buy a $500 steak.
I agree but I do have a little issue with the “wasting resources” part, that’s a very anthropocentric view to take. There’s an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There’s obviously a lot of “ifs” involved but I wouldn’t generalise by saying that because a human didn’t get to eat it the resource was “wasted”.
It’s unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we’re obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we’ve inherited.
This relates to Britain, not the United States. Results will be different.
What are the natural predators of deer in Britain?
As someone else mentioned, it used to be wolves, lynxes, bears etc. But we killed them all so that humans could eat the deer. Then hunting deer became the sport of the king and associated royalty. This is why eating venison became associated with wealth and only eaten on special occasions. When it used to be available for all.
We now have a problem as there is no natural predator to keep the numbers down.
Wolves, lynxes, and (used to be) bears
Wolves have been extinct in Britain since 1680. Bears in 500 AD. Lynxes, at best, in the 1700s, going by reported sightings, but possibly even in 600 AD, going by proven examples.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Well, it’s worse than I was aware of then. I am not British and just thought of animals that at least were there. I’m guessing there isn’t anything that will eat deer there anymore.
I’d argue that even if you waste everything from hunting deer, in most areas of the US fact their is now one less deer is definite ecological benefit all on its own.
A forest with a large deer population where people don’t landscape and fence every tree is going to become either a near monoculture with the only exceptions being invasive species. This is because deer eat most but not all native saplings before they can grow to the point they can survive a deer attack, and with most forests in the US having far, far higher populations than natural we get far fewer native trees than natural.
Normally anything like modern deer levels would have led to a population explosion of predators to keep them in check, but because most deer predators are far more vulnerable to human presence, activity, and historical control efforts than deer, which thrive in human dominated areas, the result has been significant damage to forests.
As such, anything like hunting that can lower the deer population back towards natural is very enthical as it doing far more to protect the forest than any number of newly planted saplings could ever do. Your mileage may very, all forests arn’t the same, check the ecology of your local forest before hunting to figure out what the forest needs more of and what it need less of, etc…
Yeah, I’m vegan and still recognize the need for deer hunting in the US (and anywhere else where all their natural predators have been eliminated). I don’t know of any other effective method for controlling their population when no other species exists to do it. I would be totally open to reintroducing wolves, bears, big cats etc to areas where they existed historically, but I just don’t see enough popular support growing for that that it seems likely to happen anytime soon. People like their meat too much and wild predators kill free ranging livestock, plus I suspect most people are not going to want to worry about encounters while they’re out in nature (see my link below for how things have been going with the red wolf re-introduction to North Carolina, US). I mean I’m an animal lover and it still makes me a tiny bit nervous when I go out into bear country in the wild parts of my state (not that that would stop me from supporting re-introduction). Lots of people are ignorant and don’t give a shit about harming ecology if it benefits them in some way.
wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical.
Why is leaving the carcass to degrade naturally unethical? Is it better for the nutrients in the meat to end up in a water treatment plant or dumped into a river? Or do you prefer most of the nutrients to be used exclusively by humans?
I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don’t particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.
Wild boars are also quite a nuisance.
I’m guessing farmed meat isn’t on the list, because adding it becomes an anchor that throws everything else off. It’s easily more brutal than a circus but has single-digit non-participation, and people don’t want to look inconsistent.
I wonder now, what happens to the results if you put the question about factory farming at either the beginning or the very end?
My guess is that when at the beginning, the percentages would shift significantly into the acceptable range because of the not wanting to look inconsistent.
Oh bother I can’t remember who did the study, but Earthling Ed in his book talks about it, whereby participants were either served meat or not during questions regarding diet, and those who were eating meat became almost obtusely against vegan diets. I tried searching for it just now but can’t think of the right keywords to find it.
I used to be cool with the idea of elephant riding, seemed cool and it’s not like such a big animal is even going to notice a human on its shoulders. Then I was at a ren fair or something like one that had an elephant to ride. When we got in line for it I saw just what they do to get an elephant to walk around. I think you have to be a real piece of shit to poke an animal with a sharp stick all day for a job.
They’re also quite intelligent and are likely to be extremely aware of their captive situation. It’s basically slavery.
I went to an elephant sanctuary in Thailand. They explained that riding elephants is incredibly stressful for the elephant’s back, and that in order to train them to obey, torture is usually involved.
I’m against zoos as well. I know some do good work with rehabilitation and such (and we should support them), but a lot just capture animals for our enjoyment. Even if they’re not explicitly mistreated, it’s pretty cruel to just keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives.
The MD renn fest had an elephant.
There was a divide between the folks who thought “ohhhh it fine” and the rest of us who thought “elephants don’t live in Maryland and definitely don’t give rides to screaming children, willingly”
The MD renn fest elephant was also used as Trump advertising at other events, which did NOT help the communities view here in MD.
There was a noticeable boycott until they stopped abusing the elephants at the MD renn fest.
I once visited a local market in Indonesia pre dawn, when the locals did their shopping before every stall turned into tourist trinkets. And at a pig salesman watched the guy put a pigglet into a bag and the customer just swing it over their shoulder and walked off. Another lady there asked the sales guy “what about animal rights”, the guy shrugged and answered “lady, we don’t even have human rights”… This was an eye opener for me on how these things work outside my West European bubble.
If you look too closely at any way humans use animals, it gets sad really fast.
Surprised how many people were opposed to hunting deer with guns. I know that’s super popular in some places.
It makes more sense as the survey was conducted on British adults.
Ah, makes sense. In Texas, everyone does that lol.
I wonder if this odd result is from the question not specifying trophy hunting vs. food hunting. If you eat meat it wouldn’t make sense to be against food hunting, but it would make sense if you think they’re hunting deer just to hang a big antler head on your wall
Good point. Most vegetarians and vegans I’ve met have had relatively favorable views of hunting for food, compared to animal agriculture, since it’s such a more sustainable and ethical way to acquire meat
Well, it can be. I knew a guy who talked about some of his (incompetent) deer kills in a way that made me pretty sure he was extending the suffering deliberately. That or he was just a callous dick and a bad shot.
He did kill himself in a 4-wheeler accident though, so sucks to suck I guess.
- It’s British adults, not Americans. Private gun ownership is uncommon-to-rare, and hunting even less so.
- It’s British adults, so you need to read almost everything through the lens of classism and/or class jealousy. Most hunting in the UK is done by the upper class - there are genuine outdoorsmen hunting types but the norm is posh folk hunting for sport.
“class jealousy”
😂
Class permeates British culture unlike any other European society. And it goes beyond the rich:poor divide you’d see in America or say France.
The upper class look down on the working and middle class, viewing any self made money with disdain. Unless you’re a blue blood your money doesn’t really count. Money is not the only factor.
The working class in turn tend to view anyone who tries to climb the ladder as a class traitor or someone who doesn’t know their place. “Crabs in a bucket” if you will. Self made success is sneered at the same as multi-generational inherited (and unearned) wealth.
Class permeates British culture unlike any other European society. And it goes beyond the rich:poor divide you’d see in America or say France.
The upper class look down on the working and middle class, viewing any self made money with disdain. Unless you’re a blue blood your money doesn’t really count. Money is not the only factor.
The working class in turn tend to view anyone who tries to climb the ladder as a class traitor or someone who doesn’t know their place. “Crabs in a bucket” if you will. Self made success is sneered at the same as multi-generational inherited (and unearned) wealth.
Nonsense. The class divide is significant but it’s purely down to wealth, not anything else. I can attest as someone who has climbed the ladder myself.
I think your American views on other countries might be a few centuries out of date.
Historically the perception of the people who have “climbed the class tower” is usually very out of touch with the rest of us.
I have major doubts a majority percentage of American gun-owners use their guns for hunting. It’s more likely they don’t use them at all (for collector’s purposes) or just take them to a range. So the only consideration here should be the declared hunters but I’d need stats on the rates for each country.
Nice bullshit, American.
The real reason (from someone who actually lives here) is that hunting isn’t really a part of our culture anymore.
My British passport, growing up, and living in the UK for decades argues otherwise, but sure thing mate.
New money Russian oligarchs get to rub shoulders with British elites and upper class, but proximity is not acceptance. Private school v public school is still a huge determinant to your life’s path even though Oxbridge offer superior education.
Hunting has never been a part of the general culture yes, but don’t try to tell me there isn’t classist attitudes towards deer stalkers and fox hunters. Press imagery rarely shows the actual attire, but focuses on the “Toffs on horseback” and tweed clad pheasant shooters, versus muck boots and Barbour jackets.
The headline says British adults so it’s not going to be applicable outside Britain.
I think that was added in later, but ya, makes sense lol (or I’m blind, either one)
I think far less than 41% of the population actually won’t wear leather. Also, apparently riding a donkey is worse than riding a horse, and dog races are worse than horse races.
Note they merge ‘somewhat unacceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ into the bars, which is… a choice.
Dog races are worse than horse races, mostly because the dogs are trained to be more-or-less psychotic. Horses, you can see as understanding the competition they’re in and being (at least mostly) willing participants.
Can you explain about the dogs? I thought that while they aren’t always treated well, running and chasing things is natural for them.
Where is “eating animals from livestock”?
And especially eating horses?
Totally common where I live.
Same, horse and rabbit meat are common here too.
Pretty surprised at the difference between leather and fur. Poor cows need better PR.
Sounds like they need fur.
Scottish Highland cow: Am I a joke to you?
My dude looks like he listens to My Chemical Romance.
I’m nooot, oh-cow
Who the fuck is in the 6% who are fine with dog fighting?
Winners of dog fight bets probably
I think the 6% includes winners, losers, and attendees with no dog in the fight, as well as those who just admire the cruelty of it without personally having ever taken part.
Some people see no inherent value in animals aside from the utility they have for humans. It allows them to justify whatever we do to animals as long as it provides some perceived benefit to us.
I would suspect this train of thought leads some to conclude that dog fighting is ok since it provides entertainment to people, in the same way that farming animals is ok because it provides food that people enjoy eating.
Now you and I know that dogs, like most other animals, are sentient. They have a subjective experience that allows them to feel fear, loss, pain, happiness and love. This is why I (and I suspect you) believe dogs should not be forced to fight each other for our amusement.
As pointed out in the graphic, most people feel that at least some commodification of animals is morally justifiable. It’s up to you where you would draw the line.
Dark triads
I don’t like how they had four data points, but combined them into only two.
This kind of graphics is easily read with only two options.
Yes, but I didn’t think having four options would greatly detract from it either. In fact, I’m very curious about the line between somewhat acceptable and completely acceptable. Like, how clear is that divide? Was there a neutral option between the two, or were they forced to choose for or against?
I don’t understand the opposition to mobile zoos of reptiles/snakes. Are people just voting ‘ick’ factor, or is there something horrifying I’ve missed?
I don’t think you’ve missed anything. Reptiles are particularly good for mobile zoos as many don’t stress easily and don’t require (or in some cases actively hate) large enclosures. Tegus, Monitors, and more intelligent lizards actually seem to enjoy, or at least show interest in, people and new places.
As long as the keeper is responsible and takes good care of the animals I don’t know what exactly the problem is
Most of these kinds of mobile reptile zoos are educational as well.
TIL you only need a 26% approval rate for a controversial practice to be widely legal and accepted.
I’m surprised that deer hunting is shown as so unacceptable here. Who was sampled for this, and where do they live? I’m guessing not the Midwest lol
The demographics sampled are adults from the UK.
I’m pleasantly surprised at how many people are against fishing.
I’m by no means a vegan, but it has always weirded me out how people see no problem of dragging an animal out of the water by using a hook in the animal’s mouth. Even weirder is it when people then throw the fish back into the sea to be “ethical”. It’s just plain recreational torture at that point.
Agreed. I have no issue with fishing for food, so long as you put the creature out of it’s misery quickly (unlike a lot of commercial fishing)… but injuring then throwing it back “for sport” seems mean.
I don’t understand why there are any who oppose riding horses
Is it bad for them or something?
Same as with sheep, I guess. It’s not really their choice to be there with a guy on top.
Vegans take that to it’s logical conclusion and won’t even eat honey, but I have a (edit: non-literal, I’m still veg) bone to pick with them about the nature of the life of a wild animal.
I’ve owned horses. Trust me, if they don’t want to be rode then they’ll make it clear to you. I’ve had a horse decide that we’re done and just lay down in a stream with me still on their back before.
All the horses I’ve have the pleasure of interacting with always seems eager to go out for a ride at any and every opporitunity. But at the same time I’m sure that less about the actual riding and more that they know they always get a thorough brushing and treats before and after.
You have to assume they just like getting out of a pasture as well.
Yeah. As I alluded to, between being a pet or zoo animal or a wild animal, I’d definitely choose the former. Being factory farmed would be worse, that’s messed up. Being someone’s backyard laying chicken looks okay.
Not enough thought is devoted to what the life of an animal should actually be, long term. Vegans think about animals in a theme-park way, carnists mostly don’t think about them. I have some respect for the guys that will eat an animal they personally know, because while that’s not nice it’s intellectually honest.
Yes, I know, I know, hot take, at least for the people that didn’t click away already.
I have some respect for the guys that will eat an animal they personally know, because while that’s not nice it’s intellectually honest.
Same stance here. If you aren’t at least mentally willing and capable of raising and butchering your own meat then you shouldn’t be eating it. If the only way you can stomach meat is to ignore the ugly side of it then you shouldn’t be eating it.
You need to at least aknowledge that what you’re eating was once an animal and consider the life it lived. You owe the animal at least that much. Growing up on a farm it was always funny when the sheltered kids I knew would be suddenly devistated to realize where their chicken nuggets came from. It was no longer funny when I got older and realized that most of society doesn’t pay any attention at all to where their meat comes from. It is that detachment that allows the awful conditions in factory farms to exist. Generally speaking when people have to look their dinner in they eye then they are going to be far more eager to ensure that that animal has lived a good life.
People have a bigger issue with fish in an aquarium than animals on a zoo, that’s so weird seeing as aquarius usually have giant tanks that replicate natural habitat where zoos just have poor animals in pens that are always too small. Fucking weird
