Originally posted by Randfan:
Problem is it's not true. Oh, I don't mean to suggest that animals are incapable of enjoying life from time to time but "enjoyment" is not the word that should be used to describe animals living in their native environment. No, there is but one word, "survival". The vast majority of animals spend the vast majority of their life trying to find food and avoid being eaten. The vast majority of them are unsuccessful. That is not hyperbole, not exaggeration, it is a fact. Most animals are killed and eaten before they can reach maturity. Those not lucky enough to suffer this fate die from starvation or the elements. Many are killed by their own parents. Statistically few, only those strong enough or fortunate enough to survive live to "enjoy" any aspect of their life. And if they do happen to make it to their prime it is statistically probable that they will be hunted down and eaten or die from the elements before they can reach old age.
How very true. I often wonder whether any animal rights activists actually spend time "in the wild", so to speak, and observed Mother Nature in all her cruel reality. Even animals who survive to old age will eventually end up being killed by rivals (in the case of amle animals), eaten, starving to death,or freezing in winter. The luckiest animals are those that meet a swift death at the hands of an experienced hunter.
I love nature and I love animals in the wild. I have had many opportunities to observe animals in their natural environment. I grew up in a rural part of Utah.
Likewise I grew up, and still spend a lot of time, in rural Ireland. I'm often struck that most animal right's activists seem to come from urban backgrounds. Seeing the devestation wrought by a fox in a chicken coop, or a wild dog in a flock of sheep, makes you aware of the reality of the natural world.
Compare that to most dogs and cats (most that I know of). They play in the yard or the house, get constant attention and have little if any fear of being slaughtered by some predator. Statistically that vast majority who live with a caring family suffer little or no disease, get care when they do and are well fed.
I'd extend that to farm animals as well.
I get so angry when animal rights idiots paint all farmers with the same brush.
Agreed. Quite apart from the fact that farmers aren't sadists it must also be remembered that it's in the farmer's narrow financial interest to take care of his animals. Sick and maltreated animals don't put on weight, and vet's bills are expensive. Good animal husbandry is cost efficient.
Well as you can see I am very passionate about this subject. I believe animal husbandry to be a noble and good thing for both humans and animals.
As someone doing an MS/PhD with the department of Animal Husbandry and Production in the veterinary faculty at NUI Dublin, I'd like to say thanks.
Originally posted by Starshark:
On which point, I may as well cement my eccentricity by saying I would only eat pork if I killed a wild pig with a bow and arrow.......
.......Guns to me are a cowards weapon. Hey, it's not just me who thinks it... ever heard Batman's opinion on guns? But a bow-and-arrow is God's little equaliser.
Would you be absolutely confident that you could terminate a pig clinically and humanely with a bow and arrow?
It might be relevant to point out that my line of work involves me observing animals being slaughtered in abbatoirs quite a bit, and it hasn't changed my attitudes or eating habitsa one iota.
