The Value of a Human Life

[Kyriakos]

Most of those wild animals exist in only tiny numbers because they are quite dangerous to humans, or are so in some not that rare circumstances of encounter, in the first place; thus they can't really be left there even if they aren't hunted for sport.
Eg bears, wolves, tigers, lions and so on.

 

[Berzerker]

larger predators are more rare just because they're at the top of the food pyramid/chain (us excluded of course), but the real war on predators began with animal domestication.

 

[Snerk]

A trophy hunter recently posed with a dead snow leopard wrapped around his shoulders (the photo that inspired this thread)... How many of them are killed for their meat? How many of them are even alive? How are they 'preserved' by killing them for money? I know people who hunt deer or moose for sport, we're all sinners and that to me is one of theirs.

I dont care as much if someone hunts deer for food, this aint about them. If Ted Nugent wants to kill a deer with his bow and arrow, I'd still be laughing if he became an adornment on his prey's antler rack. But we're not in danger of deer becoming extinct...yet... and he eats what he kills. How long would they be around if millions of people got their jollies killing them? The rest of us would have to step in and regulate their behavior.

Pardon my hyperbole, but I still think these people have a mental illness. Maybe we're evolutionarily driven to kill animals beyond our need for sustenance. Becoming a man often involved killing a ferocious wild animal with some rudimentary weapon, but that was it. We didn't keep killing them for 'fun' or ego, it was a one time deal - but how many lions would be alive today if we left them alone?

If you think moose or deer hunting is unethical but chicken mcnuggets aren't, then you need a big reality check. Who cares about the hunter's motive? Do you think the moose care? Or the chicken for that matter? What matters is the result. And the result of this hunting is that meat is harvested from nature's surplus. A surplus that is regulated through starvation (among others) when populations are left to reach it's natural high point. This is an ethical source of meat as the animals live free lives without ever having to even face the concept of captivity. Or others horrors in industrialised meat farming.

The hunting need of course be regulated and populations closely monitored. This is in everybody's interest. And the more hunters the better as hunters are conservationists by need as there is little to hunt if nature is replaced by grassland for cattle or mega malls.

Some defend trophy hunters by pointing to fishermen. Are fish in danger of extinction from trophy hunters? Most fishermen ('sportsmen') catch and release, but I'm still not a fan of these guys who go after Marlin eg. What a pathetic sport, trail a hook behind a fast moving boat and wait for one of God's most magnificent creatures to take the bait.

Eating chickens and cows translates into more chickens and cows, that doesn't work with tigers and snow leopards. We're not increasing their numbers by killing them, it dont matter how much money the trophy hunter gives to the people who 'own' the animal. Reminds me of the South Park episode where the Japanese run around killing dolphins and whales because the USA told them they were piloting the Enola Gay. So the South Park kids show the Japanese a photo of the actual pilots - chicken and cow. So the Japanese start running around killing chickens and cows instead and Randy Marsh says now they're like us. Okay, the Japanese dont kill these critters for fun (or revenge), not quite the same situation...

You seem to argue that trophy hunters are hunters hunting endangered animals and thus contributing to their endangerment. Do you have a source for this as I'm pretty sure that is illegal, and not what most people would associate trophy hunting with anyway?

If we're talking big predators, then take lions. What lions need are very large areas that can support enough prey they can live on. This is only viable through establishing and maintaining national parks. Because if lions or other large predators have to compete with humans for land, they will lose every time. Thing is, these national parks and the conservationism that goes with it doesn't come cheap. So some sell hunting licences for animals in the park. Again, the outtake of animals can't exceed what is needed for a healthy population.
Now it's easy to come along and say hey, this is ugly, stop it. But are you going to replace that loss of income? No? Then better provide some solutions before you start criticising.

Most of those wild animals exist in only tiny numbers because they are quite dangerous to humans, or are so in some not that rare circumstances of encounter, in the first place; thus they can't really be left there even if they aren't hunted for sport.
Eg bears, wolves, tigers, lions and so on.

If we look at raw numbers these animals aren't dangerous to humans. But they are dangerous to our livestock, unfortunately that usually means that the predators have to go.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you think moose or deer hunting is unethical but chicken mcnuggets aren't, then you need a big reality check. Who cares about the hunter's motive? Do you think the moose care? Or the chicken for that matter? What matters is the result. And the result of this hunting is that meat is harvested from nature's surplus. A surplus that is regulated through starvation (among others) when populations are left to reach it's natural high point. This is an ethical source of meat as the animals live free lives without ever having to even face the concept of captivity. Or others horrors in industrialised meat farming.

The hunting need of course be regulated and populations closely monitored. This is in everybody's interest. And the more hunters the better as hunters are conservationists by need as there is little to hunt if nature is replaced by grassland for cattle or mega malls.


You seem to argue that trophy hunters are hunters hunting endangered animals and thus contributing to their endangerment. Do you have a source for this as I'm pretty sure that is illegal, and not what most people would associate trophy hunting with anyway?

If we're talking big predators, then take lions. What lions need are very large areas that can support enough prey they can live on. This is only viable through establishing and maintaining national parks. Because if lions or other large predators have to compete with humans for land, they will lose every time. Thing is, these national parks and the conservationism that goes with it doesn't come cheap. So some sell hunting licences for animals in the park. Again, the outtake of animals can't exceed what is needed for a healthy population.
Now it's easy to come along and say hey, this is ugly, stop it. But are you going to replace that loss of income? No? Then better provide some solutions before you start criticising.


If we look at raw numbers these animals aren't dangerous to humans. But they are dangerous to our livestock, unfortunately that usually means that the predators have to go.

They are dangerous to humans living near them. And not just in countries like India, or in some african rural areas. If a bear somehow climbs the fences they have for the preservation area it will be dangerous to any human near.

 

[Berzerker]

When hunters kill deer to prevent their starvation, do they kill the weak, starving deer?

 

[warpus]

What's so valuable about a tiger's life?

In terms of biodiversity on the planet, losing a unique species forever is not something I would put a $ amount on. It's unique and irreplaceable, and once its gone, it's gone forever.

 

[Kyriakos]

In terms of biodiversity on the planet, losing a unique species forever is not something I would put a $ amount on. It's unique and irreplaceable, and once its gone, it's gone forever.

Yet the price-tag for artificially keeping tigers alive as a species comes with cost in human life as well.

 

[Snerk]

When hunters kill deer to prevent their starvation, do they kill the weak, starving deer?

I dunno but if they're able to prioritise weak individuals when they hunt, then they should! But ideally there aren't any starving deer if the population is kept at a sustainable level.

They are dangerous to humans living near them. And not just in countries like India, or in some african rural areas. If a bear somehow climbs the fences they have for the preservation area it will be dangerous to any human near.

Not really. Bears and humans are nonfenced neighbours in several parts of the world yet bear attacks are very rare. Bears are scared of humans, and they should be.

The animals that pose a threat that is high enough to really act on are the various bugs and parasites that cause serious illness.

 

[Kyriakos]

I dunno but if they're able to prioritise weak individuals when they hunt, then they should! But ideally there aren't any starving deer if the population is kept at a sustainable level.

Not really. Bears and humans are nonfenced neighbours in several parts of the world yet bear attacks are very rare. Bears are scared of humans, and they should be.

The animals that pose a threat that is high enough to really act on are the various bugs and parasites that cause serious illness.

Bears kill and maim humans who are near them, eg in areas where bears live, like US mountain ranges. They are wild animals; they will kill if they feel they should. I am not of the view this is to be just dismissed as either supposedly unreal, or something that goes with the (no pun) territory

Other wild animals which kill humans include wolves, tigers, rhinos, hippopotamoi. They all live in some areas, usually with no discernible border to humans either (eg in India and parts of Africa).

 

[Ryika]

In terms of biodiversity on the planet, losing a unique species forever is not something I would put a $ amount on. It's unique and irreplaceable, and once its gone, it's gone forever.

So?

 

[Berzerker]

If you think moose or deer hunting is unethical but chicken mcnuggets aren't, then you need a big reality check. Who cares about the hunter's motive? Do you think the moose care? Or the chicken for that matter? What matters is the result. And the result of this hunting is that meat is harvested from nature's surplus. A surplus that is regulated through starvation (among others) when populations are left to reach it's natural high point. This is an ethical source of meat as the animals live free lives without ever having to even face the concept of captivity. Or others horrors in industrialised meat farming.

The hunting need of course be regulated and populations closely monitored. This is in everybody's interest. And the more hunters the better as hunters are conservationists by need as there is little to hunt if nature is replaced by grassland for cattle or mega malls.

You seem to argue that trophy hunters are hunters hunting endangered animals and thus contributing to their endangerment. Do you have a source for this as I'm pretty sure that is illegal, and not what most people would associate trophy hunting with anyway?

If we're talking big predators, then take lions. What lions need are very large areas that can support enough prey they can live on. This is only viable through establishing and maintaining national parks. Because if lions or other large predators have to compete with humans for land, they will lose every time. Thing is, these national parks and the conservationism that goes with it doesn't come cheap. So some sell hunting licences for animals in the park. Again, the outtake of animals can't exceed what is needed for a healthy population. Now it's easy to come along and say hey, this is ugly, stop it. But are you going to replace that loss of income? No? Then better provide some solutions before you start criticising.

You're missing the point, the chicken industry is horrible but chickens aint in danger of extinction. How many moose are there? And I dont have a problem with poor folk who need to hunt moose for lack of other resources, I condemn the trophy hunters who want a rack over the fireplace. I need a source to show tigers and snow leopards are in danger of extinction? You dont see a difference between hunters who like killing animals and industries designed to feed people? The latter have their problems, but sadism aint one of them.

I dunno but if they're able to prioritise weak individuals when they hunt, then they should! But ideally there aren't any starving deer if the population is kept at a sustainable level.

Of course they dont kill the ones that are starving, they aint out there to prevent starvation - thats an excuse. They kill healthy deer so how do you know they're starving? Course one reason a regional population might get too large is because we killed off the other predators. Deer only starve during winter when resources are scarce, but deer have evolved to cope with that problem. Some might starve but I suspect that doesn't happen to the deer targeted by hunters. And if some starve, thats life. Better that happen than hunters kill the ones who aint starving...and thats what they do. We have to kill them or they'll starve

 

[warpus]

So?

We are a part of this ecosystem whether we like it or not. The less biodiversity there is in it, the less we will be able to do research in the future to understand it and ourselves better. And that's not even considering that species falling off the radar can often have a domino effect affecting many others. We sit at the top of the food chain and are a part of this complex system - species going extinct affects all the other species, including us.

The more biodiversity there remains, the brighter future our species will be able to have as well.

 

[Berzerker]

not to mention (I will ) the potential cures out there being destroyed as we pave over paradise

 

[warpus]

People often forget that we rely on so many other species in this ecosystem to survive. Not only the animals and plants we eat, but yeah also the ones that we are able to use to advance our science, our medicine.. But wait, there's more, there's a plethora of gut bacteria, and all sorts of other species making our lives possible. By wiping out the ecosystem species by species, who knows what sort of effects it can have down the line.. There is a complex set of relationships between all these species.. maybe the tigers all going extinct won't be much of a problem, who knows... maybe it will.. but if this continues, it's not going to be very rosy for the next generation of humans. It's like we're slowly wiping out the foundation on which our house is built. One little pebble might not matter, but slowly over time the house is going to collapse

 

[Berzerker]

if tigers disappear where will asians get their boner pills?

oh yeah, Viagra - modern science will replace that need

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yet the price-tag for artificially keeping tigers alive as a species comes with cost in human life as well.

Human life is pretty cheap these days. Cf were were concerned/worried about preserving it, then lots of things about society would change. Tigers killing peiople is a pretty low number compared to, say, drug deaths.

I dunno but if they're able to prioritise weak individuals when they hunt, then they should! But ideally there aren't any starving deer if the population is kept at a sustainable level.

Not really. Bears and humans are nonfenced neighbours in several parts of the world yet bear attacks are very rare. Bears are scared of humans, and they should be.

The animals that pose a threat that is high enough to really act on are the various bugs and parasites that cause serious illness.

Bears kill and maim humans who are near them, eg in areas where bears live, like US mountain ranges. They are wild animals; they will kill if they feel they should. I am not of the view this is to be just dismissed as either supposedly unreal, or something that goes with the (no pun) territory

Other wild animals which kill humans include wolves, tigers, rhinos, hippopotamoi. They all live in some areas, usually with no discernible border to humans either (eg in India and parts of Africa).

Bears live the the mountains that abut Albuquerque's east side. When food or water gets scarce, they come down into town. They get caught and taken back to the mountains. Nobody dies or is hurt.

 

[warpus]

if tigers disappear where will asians get their boner pills?

oh yeah, Viagra - modern science will replace that need

I don't want to speak for Asians, because I'm not Asian* and even if I was I wouldn't be able to speak for all Asians.

In the end people will always find ways to make boner pills.. out of whatever. Tigers or sharks not being around anymore won't be a problem for people who buy boner pills. They'll be just as easily convinced that you can make boner pills out of tacos, or I suppose out of whatever sort of substance is deemed to be rare and exotic at the time

*actually technically 0.8% central Asian

 

[REDY]

Meat is not necessity, its commodity nowdays. And the fun/recreation is just another commodity, imho more important for human beings than meat eating.

 

[Berzerker]

meat is high in protein so its probably beneficial to have some in our diet, might be what spurred our evolution in terms of feeding brains


yummm...brains, feeding

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not really. Bears and humans are nonfenced neighbours in several parts of the world yet bear attacks are very rare. Bears are scared of humans, and they should be.

The animals that pose a threat that is high enough to really act on are the various bugs and parasites that cause serious illness.

There's more attention being paid nowadays here to Lyme disease. Now that I've read up on what it can do to people, I cringe when I see people wandering through forests in open-toed shoes or wearing shorts and either low socks or no socks.

Bears kill and maim humans who are near them, eg in areas where bears live, like US mountain ranges. They are wild animals; they will kill if they feel they should. I am not of the view this is to be just dismissed as either supposedly unreal, or something that goes with the (no pun) territory

Bears are a problem here ("here" not meaning Red Deer because the ones here are just passing through via the migration corridor that runs through the city (with a stopoff in the sanctuary where I used to work since there are lots of berry bushes there that are strictly for the animals to eat; humans are not allowed to pick any), and everyone here knows enough to stay out of their way if we do see one), but "here" in terms of the sheer stupidity of tourists in Banff/Canmore, 3 hours west of here. People see a bear, and stop to take a picture. But it's not enough that some of them take a picture, they want a closer look, so they offer the bear food. Some bears get very upset if they don't think you've given them enough.

And then some people opt for the truly idiotic thing of wanting a selfie with the bear. So because the bear hasn't made any threatening moves so far, the tourist get closer. Next thing you know, the bear feels its personal space is being crowded, and may growl or make some other indication to the human to <go away NOW!>. Piss off a bear long enough, or if there are cubs in the vicinity, and there's Big Trouble.

Enter the Parks Canada officers who are now empowered to hand out hefty fines to the humans, and what happens to the bear depends on its prior history. If it's the bear's first offense, it's relocated to a different area in the park system. Second offense (of interacting with humans/taking food from humans), the bear may be relocated to a totally different park (many bears are tagged, so they know each bear's individual history). If a bear ever hurts a human or encroaches multiple times in human territory (ie. starts wandering around the towns of Banff or Canmore), that bear is deemed a hazard and is euthenized. If it has cubs, they're killed as well, as the presumption is that A. They would die anyway without their mother; and B. The mother would have been teaching that where there are humans, there is food.

There was a conservation officer some years ago who got fired for saving the cubs and taking them to a wildlife rehabilitation center so they could be retrained to hunt for themselves. The rules said he was supposed to kill them, but he didn't see why the cubs should have to suffer for their mother's bad decision.

Meat is not necessity, its commodity nowdays. And the fun/recreation is just another commodity, imho more important for human beings than meat eating.

If anyone turns this into a vegan-omnivore argument, I'm going to let Birchbark22 know (someone who joined CFC but didn't stick around long, but she really gets into this type of argument... and pulls not a single punch).