Right. When is it appropriate to make use of animals for human enjoyment (food, zoos, big game hunting)? Our ideas evolve. The culture changes. The sort of zoos that existed in my childhood don’t really exist much these days. We tend to find them unseemly, if not immoral. We think differently about circuses and marine shows. We talk about eating free range. I thought this was because we cared about animals’ pain and suffering.
I am interested in Bay’s exploration of the topic. I want to know what GreatKid thinks.
Keeping animals ALIVE in zoos or aquariums, feeding and caring for them, attending to their medical issues, etc is NOT the same as killing them for sport. Yes, zoos and aquariums have progressed a lot in the past several decades with sensitivity to providing better living environments for the animals. The Big game hunting is, IMO, the opposite. And barbaric.
And I am interested in bay’s response to the question about her experiences in South Africa this past year since she presented it in response to ML’s multiple safari experiences, and she is now querying bclintock’s experiences. Her silence is deafening.
So is this thread about Cecil, or about discussing posters?
Some species would not longer exist if not for the efforts of great zoos and their breeding programs. Of course this is not a substitute for having a wild population of these animals.
We treat animals populations by how they affect humans. I just had my house treated for termites and crickets. Maybe the exterminators killed thousands of creatures. So what? Neither is endangered and they could have affected my house.
Just watched it. And while I don’t see what’s wrong with hunting, especially if it’s legal (even technically) but I agree with Bill Maher on the entitlement problem.
I hope that we continue to evolve as a species and a culture away from trophy hunting and other barbarisms. Bear baiting and badger fights used to be a form of entertainment. Now people would go to jail for them (if caught). Teddy Roosevelt’s house is full of hunting trophies, but it seems Victorian and regressive from our modern point of view. The outrage over Cecil’s death is proof of this change.
I think maybe the 84 percent drop in the price of Sea World stock is also an indication that the public’s view is evolving on what is considered an appropriate way to treat wild animals, and particularly large mammals and endangered species.
I hate posts in which people imply that others have no business discussing something. Not interested, don’t read the thread. Interested in something else, start a thread on that.
Two very different explanations as to why he won’t be charged in Zimbabwe. One says he’s had enough punishment in the court of public opinion, one says his papers were in order.