Eating ethical meat

[Rick O'Shez]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals (like the incredibly destructive Asian carp, or invasive pythons and turtles)? Does it make a difference to you if the utter necessity for culling is there, and using the meat would cut down on waste and build a market for helping fish and game remove destructive species?
(Turtle, snake, carp, overpopulated culled animals besides deer)

"Invasive species" sounds like another way of saying "successful species".

Humans are invasive and destructive, of course.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ethical to who ?, you or the animal that can't speak ?.

To you, I'm asking you a question about reducing waste while eliminating a problem which effects far more than just the invasive animal.
Would you leave the invasive species alone? If not, what would you do with them?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Would you leave the invasive species alone? If not, what would you do with them?

What is the problem with letting nature take it's course when more successful species dominate?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"Invasive species" sounds like another way of saying "successful species".
Humans are invasive and destructive, of course.

Invasive species are plants, animals, or pathogens that are non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause harm. This can happen naturally, of course, like with the Guam python which floated over on storm debris then quickly wiped out most of Guam's bird diversity. Most invasives are human caused and yes, humans are quite destructive (not invasive, though. You can't really call an established species in a continental region for thousands of years 'invasive'). But talking about what to do about human growth won't change the aforementioned already introduced Asian carp tearing up American water ways.

That they don't have natural predators here and there hasn't been time for an evolved response means that lots of watersheds will have its back broken, meaning huge dangers to fish, amphibians and aquatic mammals native to here. So would you just shrug and say 'Oh well, guess that's just the way it goes?' That inaction means the death of a lot more animals than the invasive species.

 

[psychoslice]

To you, I'm asking you a question about reducing waste while eliminating a problem which effects far more than just the invasive animal.
Would you leave the invasive species alone? If not, what would you do with them?

Well that's not my job but you can eat as many as you like.

 

[james bond]

Oh I'm not talking about extermination of invasive species from the Earth, just from places they were introduced to and cause damage to native species. Like the once-pet-snakes that are killing scores of native birds and reptiles in the Everglades.

I think these non-native invasive species were introduced by people for their selfish gaming purposes or other mostly nefarious reasons. It may unwittingly like the mongoose, but that's another story.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think these non-native invasive species were introduced by people for their selfish gaming purposes or other mostly nefarious reasons. It may unwittingly like the mongoose, but that's another story.

Some of them were. Some were former pets. Some were introduced for hunting or as vermin control and became peste themselves. Some got there naturally, like the Guam python which came on storm debris and eliminated many bird species.
Regardless of how they got there, they present clear problems to am ecosystem and threaten a lot of species.

 

[Nous]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals (like the incredibly destructive Asian carp, or invasive pythons and turtles)? Does it make a difference to you if the utter necessity for culling is there, and using the meat would cut down on waste and build a market for helping fish and game remove destructive species?

In the case of an animal species that, because of human actions, is overpopulated, causing ecological ruin and there is no other possible solution than to kill them, the more environmentally responsible and only ethical thing to do is to use the meat of those killed animals to feed animals held in captivity that, unlike humans, are biologically adapted as animal-eaters, such as the carnivores in zoos and animal shelters.

 

[Vinayaka]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals

As a vegetarian, no I wouldn't, but then there are other reasons besides ethics for me personally. As for 'invasive species', is not the human the most invasive of all?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In the case of an animal species that, because of human actions, is overpopulated, causing ecological ruin and there is no other possible solution than to kill them, the more environmentally responsible and only ethical thing to do is to use the meat of those killed animals to feed animals held in captivity that, unlike humans, are biologically adapted as animal-eaters, such as the carnivores in zoos and animal shelters.

I can think of a number of reasons that won't work for much except overpopulated deer, since most zoos need specifically macrofauna that are vegetarian or rodents to meet the nutritional needs of the animals on whole prey diets. And even then, they wouldn't for the same reason I would never go out and hunt mice for my rescued corn snake. A closed and contained environment makes captive animals more vulnerable to communicable illness. A mite infestation a mouse has is not a huge deal (usually) for the mouse as its usually temporary. In captivity it's more likely to be chronic and systemic.

I can think of some other cost (after all, this is a call for individuals to take up hunting and fishing licensing for this purpose, zoos can't and won't do that, and there's no infrastructure for fish and game to do it on the scale needed) and processing (most zoos don't do their own butchering, its already done for then for marketed food) reasons too but that was the first thing that came to mind.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As a vegetarian, no I wouldn't, but then there are other reasons besides ethics for me personally. As for 'invasive species', is not the human the most invasive of all?

No. Humans are overpopulated and destructuve, sure. But not invasive. Animals established in a habitat for thousands of years don't really qualify for the term.
And, in any case, talking about human growth patterns and what to do about it won't change things like Asian carp are already tearing up North American waterways and need to be removed to prevent wide spread habitat loss and species extinction.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Asian carp says: "Please don't eat me, I'm on holiday!"

 

[Nous]

I can think of a number of reasons that won't work for much except overpopulated deer, since most zoos need specifically macrofauna that are vegetarian or rodents to meet the nutritional needs of the animals on whole prey diets.

That's goofy. There are all manner of captive carnivores that can thrive on the invasive species you mentioned.

 

[Vinayaka]

No. Humans are overpopulated and destructuve, sure. But not invasive. Animals established in a habitat for thousands of years don't really qualify for the term.
And, in any case, talking about human growth patterns and what to do about it won't change things like Asian carp are already tearing up North American waterways and need to be removed to prevent wide spread habitat loss and species extinction.

I never said I wasn't against culling, or other people besides me eating them. We've had to manage species before, usually problems that we caused ourselves.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Asian carp says: "Please don't eat me, I'm on holiday!"

And a score of bass, salmon, walleye, steelhead, trout and the predators who rely on them, as well as the reptiles and amphibians that rely on stream health and are destroyed when their vegetation sources and spawning grounds are eaten out say: "Please get rid of him, he's eating us out of house and home and we have nowhere to go!"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's goofy. There are all manner of captive carnivores that can thrive on the invasive species you mentioned.

*Waves to the rest of the post.*

 

[Penumbra]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals (like the incredibly destructive Asian carp, or invasive pythons and turtles)? Does it make a difference to you if the utter necessity for culling is there, and using the meat would cut down on waste and build a market for helping fish and game remove destructive species?

As a non-vegetarian would you be willing to add in these sources of fresh meats, preventing waste and helping lower ecological threats, in place of a burger or steak? Have you already tried any of these? (Turtle, snake, carp, overpopulated culled animals besides deer)

I ate alligator once, and it was alright. So I'd eat snake. It's supposedly not unlike chicken, which was the case for alligator in my experience.

I'm not a biologist but I would imagine that it would be virtually impossible to harvest most types of invasive species for human consumption on any sort of large scale. It would likely have to be done in a low-tech, local basis, like some hunters/fishers go out and catch some of these species and bring them back to the local town.

If we're focusing on ethical meat, I don't think we have to look much further than permacultures- farms that use plants and natures symbiotically as nature does. And there are protein bars made from cricket protein. Supposedly very healthy and sustainable. Chimps and other apes, as well as several hunter-gatherer tribes, do eat a significant amount of bugs as their protein.

 

[james bond]

Some of them were. Some were former pets. Some were introduced for hunting or as vermin control and became peste themselves. Some got there naturally, like the Guam python which came on storm debris and eliminated many bird species.
Regardless of how they got there, they present clear problems to am ecosystem and threaten a lot of species.

What about these invasive fish? Do they live together? I was watching this survival video. You're next to a body of water or land and a grenade was tossed at you. Do you have a better chance of survival jumping in the water or diving on the ground? The answer is diving on the ground because if you jump in the water and the explosion is in the water then the shock waves go through the liquid. You're made of liquid so the shock viberates through your system and causes more damage than from shrapnel flying towards you on land. This story is to point out that using controlled explosives could be used to kill invasive fish. I don't know how these fish would taste afterward ha ha.

 

[Nous]

That's goofy. There are all manner of captive carnivores that can thrive on the invasive species you mentioned.

*Waves to the rest of the post.*

Was there anything else in your post that requires a response?

Again, if any animal species needs to be slaughtered in order to prevent ecological ruin, the only ethical and environmentally responsible thing to do with the meat of those animals is to feed the many captive carnivores, who, unlike humans, are biologically adapted as animal-eaters.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Was there anything else in your post that requires a response?

Again, if any animal species needs to be slaughtered in order to prevent ecological ruin, the only ethical and environmentally responsible thing to do with the meat of those animals is to feed the many captive carnivores, who, unlike humans, are biologically adapted as animal-eaters.

Again, I can think of a number of reasons that won't work for much except overpopulated deer, since most zoos need specifically macrofauna that are vegetarian or rodents to meet the nutritional needs of the animals on whole prey diets. And even then, they wouldn't for the same reason I would never go out and hunt mice for my rescued corn snake. A closed and contained environment makes captive animals more vulnerable to communicable illness. A mite infestation a mouse has is not a huge deal (usually) for the mouse as its usually temporary. In captivity it's more likely to be chronic and systemic.

I can think of some other cost (after all, this is a call for individuals to take up hunting and fishing licensing for this purpose, zoos can't and won't do that, and there's no infrastructure for fish and game to do it on the scale needed) and processing (most zoos don't do their own butchering, its already done for then for marketed food) reasons too but that was the first thing that came to mind.