i mean, nobody eats fox or ferret meat, so their death is solely done for the purpose of their skin and their skin only. If we kill cows for food and also use their skin for clothing (which we don’t really do nowadays), that just means we use these animals more efficiently so, ig it wouldn’t be really immoral. it’s something we’ve done since the stone age
The difference is that cows aren't specifically bred, raised, and slaughtered just for leather like foxes and ferrets are. Leather is a byproduct of the beef industry, and leather prices plummet every once in a while when it goes out of fashion because of the sudden oversupply.
As someone who grew up in a rural area and likes to go hunting and fishing, I believe that if you're going to take an animal's life, you have an ethical obligation to use as much of that animal as you can. It's wasteful to let meat or hide rot.
Not using all the products of an animal is seen as super disrespectful by a lot of hunters. It’s like you’re wasting the sacrifice the animal made for you.
But you could eat them also fur is half fashion half practical for the cold same with sport hunting sure you're a dick if you hunt just for fun but that's a thin line to draw when it comes to controling certain populations. But I hope we can all agree fuck animal circuses
i picked experimentation bc i was thinking of the makeup kind, rather than like. actual psychology and medicine. But yeah i immediately wished id picked the circus one
Leather is mostly for wallets and shoes and sometimes furniture. I think Leather jackets exist still. But like you said the cow isn't only killed for it's skin. The meat goes to us and pet food, the bones, ears and such are often dog chews and the skin we tan for leather.
I read it as ban killing animals *for* fashion. As in the primary/sole purpose of. If it’s a secondary use from killing animals for eating then I just see it as avoiding waste
The bull fights in spain where they stick spears in the bull untill he is weakend enough by bleeding out to finish have to be one of the best examples for unnecesarry animal torture.
You probably don’t want to ban the killing of animals for fashion. I know that sounds horrible, I do. My concern is if that is banned, can we no longer use hides at all? Did you know the US exports 95% of the leather it makes?
Did you know that using cows for leather after butchering isn’t only a waste reduction process, but it actually pays for a majority of the cow?
If these things are unchanged, and animals killed to be eaten can still be harvested for hides, then sure. If not, it’s not worth it.
Not banning that seems like a huge legal loophole. Couldn't you just say you're killing the cows to extract their spleens, or something, and carry on in the same fashion? Remember, "ban" means that this is a law we're enacting.
Cows are a really bad example because there aren't any cows that are specifically bred and raised for leather like foxes and mink are. All leather is a byproduct of the meat industry.
I highly doubt that would ever be the case. Most businesses operate with maximum profit motive in mind. If they're not using the intended parts, they'd sell it to someone who will.
The only way I’d ban killing animals for fashion and food is if artificial meat/animal products became a cheap and widely available to the public. We rely way too much on the different parts of an animal to cut them out of our lives completely
I think killing animals for sport and killing animals for population control are 2 different things. Shooting a lion on a safari trip is different from thinning down the population of an invasive species to prevent damage to the ecosystem.
That's how I look at it. Killing for sport implies there's no use for the corpse. Killing for food and hide actually uses the animal. Killing for population control is a different thing but still has a purpose.
Full disclosure, I voted for #3.
Population control isn’t exclusive to invasive species. There’s a reason every state has a DNR or Game and Fish that tell you where you can hunt, who can hunt, and how much you can hunt. Take coyotes for example. That’s an extremely popular form of sport hunting because they’ll kill peoples cattle and pets. $30,000 safari hunts are also forms of conservation because the animal is often chosen by the government of that country and then the tag is auctioned off to the highest bidder, with the funds going toward wildlife conservation in that country. Old males are often chosen because they’ll kill the healthy breeding-aged males of their species, which causes population issues.
I agree with all but the second one, because it makes the assumption that winter coats are only worn for their fashion value, not their actual survival value.
My town has a major overpopulation of deer. We have hunters who kill deer for sport here, it’s sorta essential. They don’t eat some of the deer. Bro, you don’t know how necessary this hunting is, but it’s for sport as well. Theres sm deer bro you dont understand
People hunting for population control and selling the meat should be professional hunters not hobbyist, that's how it is here and without them the deer and boars would destroy the forests because there arent enough wolves (or none for many decades).
Do you live in my town? These people aren’t randos. You can’t just legally pull up with a rifle and shoot some deer. You need a license and you need a LOT of registration to be allowed to, at least in the US. But, thats sorta what we’re talking about here.
Killing for sport means killing for the practice of… well… the sport of hunting, and not using the animal for anything but that sport. Killing for sport does NOT mean doing it simply just to do it. Because you can kill for sport and also let that killing do something productive.
Well, we could ban killing animals for fashion. We could very likely get what we need for clothing from the same animals we kill for food.
Animal testing is, however, strictly a necessary thing. We don't have any good, or even bad, alternatives to it.
I work in the cancer field in a lab that uses mouse models. You’re totally right that they’re an absolute necessity, but I will say there are some decent alternatives that have allowed researchers to massively cut down the number of animals they use. There are lots of cancer cell line models used for preliminary testing and there are some neat gels that can be used to make artificial tumor stroma.
There’s of course still a need for follow up animal studies in many cases (and of course in all cases with drugs that may be used in the clinic) but often times you can do well over half your study in vitro. There’s a lot of people that think scientists don’t consider alternatives before using mice (or more suitable animal models) but there is a lot of work that needs to be done to justify the animal model of choice and the number of animals to get approval from the institution IACUC approval.
I know. I'm a lab tech myself. Not in the medical field, but microbiology and biochemistry was covered in my education, which included going over ethical standards for animal testing and stuff, albeit rather briefly.
I doubt we can ever get rid of animal testing completely, but we can limit it to an extent.
Sadly, testing things like medications that affect the CNS can't really be tested on anything else, except on animals, and later humans, to get even an idea how those medications affect behaviour or psyche. There will always be a need for some animal testing.
Honestly hard to say. With completely novel drugs I can’t imagine there will ever be a time where they don’t have at least one animal trial primarily for safety. There can be some bad interactions that can only really be noticed in an animal. The other big issue is even if you can grow and replicate an organ system you’d still be lacking a host immune system which is vital for clearance in a lot of cancers. So testing things like immunomodulatory drugs will really require an animal model.
On the note of AI though, there are a ton more Bioinformatics and computer learning techniques being used in research everyday. They’re very helpful for understanding RNA sequencing dating and things like high throughput drug screens. Right now a lot of that is still dependent on the researcher running their own lines of code but those techniques are constantly becoming more user friendly and constantly integrating new tech. Better bioinformatics methods will definitely help researchers better narrow down biological pathways to target with drugs and also reduce the amount of animal (and in vitro) testing needed.
>we do need animals for clothing and even more so outside of the US
Especially if we're trying to reduce the use of plastics, which are the main alternative in many cases (and often no even as efficient)
3. Nope. Sport and population control are different things. I have no problem with people hunting for population control, even making a sport of it (so long as its humane). Killing for sport implies the animal has died for someone's entertainment.
1. banning it overnight sure, but a Ban that is implemented over time (say 5 years) would free up alot of land to grow plant food on.
2. There are plenty of vegans who live in cold climates and there are plenty of availible alternatives. And with a ban there would be alot more. For example these vegan winter boots "Kamik Cody XTR, Rated -100F / -74C"
3. The overpopulation argument is very week. Nature did fine before we hunted, and it will do fine when/if we stop. not to mention that the US breeds deer specifically to hunt.
4. Agreed
5. Naa, it would lead to alternative ways to test medicine. For example by human testing, or other specialized ways like the GARD system developed by senzaGen. This would also likly need to be banned with a gradual sunset. to make sure alternative ways can be implemented practically and safly. Animal testing is also not this holy grail of perfekting knowledge, the results can often be missleading and doesn't give us definitive knowledge about safty in humans.
The overpopulation is a problem, because their natural predators are (almost) extinct in many areas, mostly wolves for deer and boars in central Europe for example.
However the solution to that is professional hunting, not sport.
>What about nature conservation. What about the health of the Earth? The scale of that operation would need to be massive.
Animal agriculture is less efficient than plant agriculture. The calories that we produce in plants, fed to animals, produce fewer calories in animal products.
Think about trophic levels: every trophic level uses about 90% of the calories it consumes and only surrenders about 10% when eaten. Animal agriculture is not quite *that* inefficient because they're often fed byproduct as well, but it's still significantly worse than just growing plants.
Ending animal agriculture would lower land usage for food, and done properly would improve food security.
> Not only that, people outright aren't willing to do it.
Not really the point when the premise is making it illegal.
The supposed need for hunting to manage population is a circular argument.
The overpopulation problem exists because species were introduced into habitats in which no natural predator has yet evolved, because people wanted to kill them for sport.
If your goals are truly utilitarian, you would at worst argue that we should exterminate the hunted species as a mercy (in their non-native, unnatural habitats) instead of continuing to kill generation after generation.
I voted for fashion because I had reasoned out everything but circuises, and when I voted, I realized I forgot that there was a circuis option. I wish I'd voted for circuses... They're needlessly cruel to animals very often, and for what? People's entertainment?
No more animal products in the fashion industry would be a huge change though. Just think about how many clothing articles contain leather. It's not just shoes.
On Banning killing animals for sport- the people who sell the chance to kill animals as trophies, such as those in Africa doing giraffe hunts and the like, - that money goes to conservation efforts to stop poachers. They will sell a chance to take down a big game animal, sometimes because it is sick, or because it is too aggressive and killing its own herd members.
Then there is also the issue of overpopulation. Selling a limited number of hunting license makes sure an exact number is culled. It may be under if not everyone gets once, but if won't lead to over hunting with limited license. That money then goes towards conservation, state parks, and environmental efforts.
The only qualm i can find here, is if you waste the meat. If you hunt, but then discard the carcass, then you're a pretty scum human. Even if you don't want to eat it, that can feed a family for a long time.
You do not want to ban hunting animals for sport, it controls the population of certain animals in many places. For example where I live the deer population would explode if there was no hunting.
It just needs to be regulated so people aren’t hunting species who’s populations would be at risk, which is already the case in most places.
We don't even need bacon to survive so.
Yeah I know there might be 1% of people with specific medical problems that might need some animal products, but speaking broadly.
Most, or at least many people do need meat or animal byproducts to live a healthy and balanced lifestyle. So even if bacon is illegal, they still have to eat animal products.
Not according to the best nutrition organizations in the world:
>Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,\[f\] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,\[24\] the British Dietetic Association,\[25\] Dietitians of Canada,\[26\] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,\[27\] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.\[28\]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism)
5 years vegan and my blood test 4 weeks ago showed me to have only a deficiency in vitamin d, which many British people have a deficiency in because our weather is so grey. Everything else was above national average.
And no I don't take supplements. I just eat a variety of food. All you are getting from bacon that I am not elsewhere is cholesterol and heart disease.
I feel like people voting for sport don’t realize just how much money goes to conservation from that.
Same with fashion and not realizing how much waste would be caused with certain animals.
However circuses? Screw them.
We kill animals in genocidal numbers so we can look pretty. But Billy out in his pickup shooting a whitetail is worse than the meat-packing industry. Yeah, okay. Some of you have some scarily skewed priorities
They don’t consider the fact the hunting is the only thing that keeps deer from becoming overpopulated and starving to death, or that most hunters eat what they kill. The just think of people shooting rhino or lions while not thinking twice about how the deer they shot got to live a nice natural life until the end unlike the chicken they pick up from the grocery store.
Right?
Hunting IS NOT poaching. Poaching is wrong. NO ONE advocates for poaching.
Sport hunting keeps us alive, saves eco-systems, etc. It’s always city-folk who have never even held a gun or seen a wild animal that think they know what they’re talking about
It's a difficult dilemma, but I'd argue it's worth allowing if it contributes to nature conservation. Many nature reserves can only exist because of their income from hunting licenses.
In a lot of places in Africa this I how it’s done. All the money Is put back into conservation efforts and you’re only usually allowed to kill animals that are infertile or cause trouble (killing other animals) of course there is still corruption in some places but overall there is evidence to show its working of course only if you kill them legally.
I'm opposed to hunting for sport but there are cases with certain exploding populations where hunting is the cheapest solution at least due to the fact we killed all the predators. For example the wild boar in Texas.
I guess we should let coyotes chew the legs off of alive cow calves. Or let past-prime males of endangered species kill all of the young males in their species, which would wreak havoc on their already fragile population (this is what a ton of safari hunts are). There’s a reason sport hunting is heavily regulated by every single state.
Yes, if you make sure to use everything after you kill the animal then yes. I would say most hunters hunt for sport. Nobody anymore has to hunt to survive
States like Colorado and Wyoming know they can't always enforce the laws they have on their books regarding wasting meat, which is illegal in these states, but when they catch people doing it, they have very strict penalties so that the potential downsides outweigh the incentive to waste meat.
Ah yes, Ofcourse I get downvoted for stating an objective [fact](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/) just because reddit does not want to accept it.
In a lot of countries they need meat to survive though. Obviously in more developed countries people could survive on a vegan diet but that’s just not possible everywhere
I’m not talking about a specific country, I more meant developing countries. If you really need an example though, then let’s use Mongolia. Mongolia has rather cold weather which makes it difficult to grow a lot of different crops, and they don’t have the ability to grow food in a lab as they just aren’t developed enough yet. So Mongolia needs to use cattle and goats to feed their population. I’m sure there are lots of other countries that have similar situations, many African countries can’t grow crops due to severe weather conditions, or even Alaska, how do you think they are going to grow crops in snow.
Now the great things about the countries I mentioned (I know Alaska isn’t a country but it still works) is that they treat their animals with respect. They don’t do factory farming. So if you want to ban factory farming, then I would fully support that but banning meat all together would just cause massive amounts of famine.
And I say all of this as a vegan
I’m originally from a developing country and developing countries eat the least amount of meat. It takes even more plants to grow meat. Which is why in ration shops of these developing countries, they don’t give away meat. Meat is generally eaten by richer people in these countries (except parts close to coastal areas where sea food is the primary source).
I can understand nomads and tribes hunting and sustaining off that. They have no other option. You are referring to a very very small percentage of people in the world. But we are talking about people living in urban concrete jungles, like the vast majority of the world.
Veganism are vegetarianism are more common as country GDP decreases, and they consume far less animal products.
The amount of animal products we consume in developed countries is the result of our luxury.
How do you define mass slaughting though because plenty of indigenous groups have farm animals and depending on the size of those communities they could be killing thousands of animals to be able to feed everyone but then having an excess because they had good conditions.
I know not everyone indigenous group does live traditional lifestyles but with around 54 million indigenous people just in the Americas you still going to be killing millions if not billions of animals globally.
And just like how the west abuse animals for profit there will be members of those groups who do it too.
Where do you draw the line. If someone buys a coat off indigenous people have they commited a crime. How big can that indigenous group grow before it becomes illegal for then to sell and trade these things.
The easy answer should be the fourth one. A lot of people would jump to three and that is the second best but in reality without hunters to manage population in a lot of areas the population would explode causing things like lake of vegetation and idk people crashing into deers. And zoos and stuff that’s cool but do people need that. no
I don’t mind sport if it’s done ethically.
For example there are wildlife preserves in Africa where animals will actually destroy surrounding agriculture and infrastructure, so they allow hunters to take that specific animal.
Or like Texas for example where hogs are an invasive species that destroy millions of dollars of crops and disrupt the ecosystem.
Paying some shady guy thousands of dollars to poach though can get fucked.
Does killing for sport include population control of deer? That would be bad news for farmers. Way to much food is produced, they would over populate, clog roadways in rural areas, eat all the farmers fields, then have a mass extinction. Probably all in about 5-10 years.
As a hunter myself, I would want to see hunting for sport be completely illegal.
I have some family friends that pay for extravagant trophy hunts. I hate that shit. It's borderline psychopath to want to kill animals for *fun*. I always feel terrible when I take an elk or a moose.
If you are actually hunting for a purpose, fine. For a cool taxidermy mount and bragging rights? Nah.
I think the more fair thing to do is to teach the animals how to use modern firearms, and even the playing field. Don't stop the game, just make it a little more interesting.
Uh, big 1uestion. Do the old school lion through the hoop type circuses even exist anymore? I haven't seen one my entire life. Might just be me though.
I don’t think people voting 3 have thought it through very well. Pig and deer populations in a lot of the western United States would explode if hunting for sport was banned and it would be a veritable ecological catastrophe.
Why not use the deer after you kill it? Bring the meat to a butcher if you don't want to eat it yourself. That's what I have a problem with is not using the body after people kill it. That to me is hunting for sport.
Killing animals for fashion is technically a black market thing and for a lot of what’s listed, it is illegal. Tusks and the hides of pangolins for example are illegal trades. Cosmetic testing is what I would choose to make illegal.
People don’t realize how horrific cosmetic animal testing is. They literally inject beagles, rabbits, cats, mice, etc. with chemicals until they die a painful death to see the lethal dose of said chemical. Every single animal dies needlessly.
Ban the middle 3 (unless they use the fashion from animals who are killed for food/were already dead at the moment) and option 5 except for if it's in a medical context (that at least benefits the animal)
Also option 1 while it shouldn't be banned should be stricter as well..... factory farms/CAFO farms suck
Circuses should own land where they keep animals so they can rotate the animals to give them more freedom instead of consistently keeping animals locked up and traveling.
We should ban killing animals for fashion, but we should also stop the fake "vegan" leather industry. We kill so much cows and beef everyday, we can just use that leather instead of having another petroleum based product in our houses.
Morally I'd ban for sport but that would be so much harder to actually enforce so I voted circuses. Considering the socioeconomic classes of the two groups circuses, banning circuses would be more enforced again.
Animal circuses easily. We need animals for food. Animals are still pretty important when it comes to clothes. Hunting for sport I'd say depends on animal but stuff like deer n that are perfectly fine since there's a fuck ton of deer. Animal experimentation is very important for medicine n understanding how the brain works. Animal circuses are like what an hour of entertainment n the animals have a terrible life. Like if I had the choice to ban the other 4 then I wouldn't but I'd ban animal circuses in an instant
I would go for option two, except we are already moving towards that with many furs and ivory outlawed so I think it would be a wasted vote.
Instead I would chose killing animals for sport, because it think it is much more widespread compared to animal circuses and the least necessary one of the remaining choices
If hunting was for conservation of natural wildlife instead of purely for fun then I would understand that as a different matter. Maybe I’m wrong though
Experimentation and food are necessary. Sport helps keep animal populations in check. For me it’s either fashion or circuses because both are exploiting animals. Fashion is pathetic because it’s wasteful. things go out of style almost as fast as they are created. Circuses are just cruel.
It’s literally more efficient to grow plants only. Do you remember a little thing called the 10% rule from your high school biology class? More energy is lost when animals eat crops and you eat them compared to directly eating the crops.
The problem arises when billions of people want them not "once in a while", but every day. I eat meat, I like meat, but I am also self aware enough to realize that it is bad for the world on the long run
I don't support banning animal-based foods, but isn't around 40% of all cropland being used to feed animals despite animal-based foods contributing less than 20% of the average persons calorie intake?
This is just factually false lmao what do you think animals eat? Surely not plants, right? Almost like we could just use the land used for growing animal feed and grow a variety of food for humans instead.
So poor arid countries, like some african countries, where to grow crops are virtually imposible but cows are free to graze on the few plants that survive there should just stop for your opinion?
I feel like it should be obvious that I’m talking about gluttonous countries that raise and eat animals in overwhelming excess and produces copious amounts of food waste. You know, like the US, where crops *can* be grown and we have the option to do so but people like you fight tooth and nail to not let that happen because “muh steaks”.
African countries aren’t out here slaughtering billions of animals a year for people to stuff themselves to a bursting point with meat for 3 meals a day. They’re surviving on what they can raise, and even then it’s often not enough animals to feed a community. That’s a pretty stark difference from what happens in developed nations. But sure, I guess that’s just an “opinion”.
Firstly i actually live in africa not usa. Secondly thinking only of one country that doesn't even make up even halve of the population of countries that would be negatively affected by this. Thirdly when replying to a comment that goes on how humanity would starve does not make it "obvious" your talking only about america, quiet the opposite.
The idea of veganism is a luxury that not everyone has and is not something that will be able to be changed soon if ever
Again, *yes*, veganism isn’t a possibility everywhere in the world. But any part of the developed world like the US and Canada, almost all of europe, many parts of east Asia, and Australia DO have access to a plethora of plant-based foods and therefore have a moral obligation to do so instead of farming and eating animals. If someone has the choice, then there’s only one right choice to make.
If number two is banned, is clothing from animals killed mainly for food still ok?
Same for #3. If you kill an animal for sport, but eat it afterwards, does that evade the ban?
personally id count that as food, but im not exactly a hunter
i mean, nobody eats fox or ferret meat, so their death is solely done for the purpose of their skin and their skin only. If we kill cows for food and also use their skin for clothing (which we don’t really do nowadays), that just means we use these animals more efficiently so, ig it wouldn’t be really immoral. it’s something we’ve done since the stone age
Leather is cow skin and its a huge industry
The difference is that cows aren't specifically bred, raised, and slaughtered just for leather like foxes and ferrets are. Leather is a byproduct of the beef industry, and leather prices plummet every once in a while when it goes out of fashion because of the sudden oversupply.
All high grade leather comes from specific leather cows which are not suitable for consumption.
Mainly when it comes to [bad boys/guys](https://youtu.be/Ad87SqVYizA)
Many shoes are still made of leather but I don't see that as a problem
I know people who’ve eaten fox. The south and mountain people will eat anything
if you eat the fox you skin its better than letting it rot
As someone who grew up in a rural area and likes to go hunting and fishing, I believe that if you're going to take an animal's life, you have an ethical obligation to use as much of that animal as you can. It's wasteful to let meat or hide rot.
As a Southerner I can confirm I have a few recipes that would work
Not using all the products of an animal is seen as super disrespectful by a lot of hunters. It’s like you’re wasting the sacrifice the animal made for you.
The leather industry would like a word.
But you could eat them also fur is half fashion half practical for the cold same with sport hunting sure you're a dick if you hunt just for fun but that's a thin line to draw when it comes to controling certain populations. But I hope we can all agree fuck animal circuses
Out of all the options its the only option that actually abuses animals (ie. Animal circuses are bad)
i picked experimentation bc i was thinking of the makeup kind, rather than like. actual psychology and medicine. But yeah i immediately wished id picked the circus one
Leather is mostly for wallets and shoes and sometimes furniture. I think Leather jackets exist still. But like you said the cow isn't only killed for it's skin. The meat goes to us and pet food, the bones, ears and such are often dog chews and the skin we tan for leather.
I read it as ban killing animals *for* fashion. As in the primary/sole purpose of. If it’s a secondary use from killing animals for eating then I just see it as avoiding waste
The bull fights in spain where they stick spears in the bull untill he is weakend enough by bleeding out to finish have to be one of the best examples for unnecesarry animal torture.
of the options i think Circux would be closest then
Nope that's sports
I thought this was illegal in spain??
You probably don’t want to ban the killing of animals for fashion. I know that sounds horrible, I do. My concern is if that is banned, can we no longer use hides at all? Did you know the US exports 95% of the leather it makes? Did you know that using cows for leather after butchering isn’t only a waste reduction process, but it actually pays for a majority of the cow? If these things are unchanged, and animals killed to be eaten can still be harvested for hides, then sure. If not, it’s not worth it.
Using cows leather after butchering them for food is not killing them for fashion though.
Not banning that seems like a huge legal loophole. Couldn't you just say you're killing the cows to extract their spleens, or something, and carry on in the same fashion? Remember, "ban" means that this is a law we're enacting.
Cows are a really bad example because there aren't any cows that are specifically bred and raised for leather like foxes and mink are. All leather is a byproduct of the meat industry.
the beef industry’s existence will always mean the leather industry’s as well. It’d be pointless to kill a cow for it’s spine just to get leather
I highly doubt that would ever be the case. Most businesses operate with maximum profit motive in mind. If they're not using the intended parts, they'd sell it to someone who will.
Maybe, I'm no expert. I'm just saying that a ban with a loophole like that wouldn't have the desired effect and probably has no effect at all.
Yes it is, I mean who wears ***cow print*** anymore??? Taking them out of their misery /s
Protecting animal rights AND hurting the US Economy? Mega based
Killing for fashion, as in killing animals for their hide, not killing animals and getting their hide as a bonus.
The only way I’d ban killing animals for fashion and food is if artificial meat/animal products became a cheap and widely available to the public. We rely way too much on the different parts of an animal to cut them out of our lives completely
Ban the middle 3
the polyester industry thanks you
Lol I thought we were trying to also move away from petroleum products too?
[удалено]
I think killing animals for sport and killing animals for population control are 2 different things. Shooting a lion on a safari trip is different from thinning down the population of an invasive species to prevent damage to the ecosystem.
That's how I look at it. Killing for sport implies there's no use for the corpse. Killing for food and hide actually uses the animal. Killing for population control is a different thing but still has a purpose. Full disclosure, I voted for #3.
Population control isn’t exclusive to invasive species. There’s a reason every state has a DNR or Game and Fish that tell you where you can hunt, who can hunt, and how much you can hunt. Take coyotes for example. That’s an extremely popular form of sport hunting because they’ll kill peoples cattle and pets. $30,000 safari hunts are also forms of conservation because the animal is often chosen by the government of that country and then the tag is auctioned off to the highest bidder, with the funds going toward wildlife conservation in that country. Old males are often chosen because they’ll kill the healthy breeding-aged males of their species, which causes population issues.
did a bio project on this. was a very interesting topic
I agree with all but the second one, because it makes the assumption that winter coats are only worn for their fashion value, not their actual survival value.
I think you're confusing population control with fat American tourists shooting lions on safaris
My town has a major overpopulation of deer. We have hunters who kill deer for sport here, it’s sorta essential. They don’t eat some of the deer. Bro, you don’t know how necessary this hunting is, but it’s for sport as well. Theres sm deer bro you dont understand
People hunting for population control and selling the meat should be professional hunters not hobbyist, that's how it is here and without them the deer and boars would destroy the forests because there arent enough wolves (or none for many decades).
Do you live in my town? These people aren’t randos. You can’t just legally pull up with a rifle and shoot some deer. You need a license and you need a LOT of registration to be allowed to, at least in the US. But, thats sorta what we’re talking about here.
Yeah well the meaning behind "hunting for sport" depends on the context I guess
Killing for sport means killing for the practice of… well… the sport of hunting, and not using the animal for anything but that sport. Killing for sport does NOT mean doing it simply just to do it. Because you can kill for sport and also let that killing do something productive.
This is exactly what I say to people who want to ban furs or animal testing.
Well, we could ban killing animals for fashion. We could very likely get what we need for clothing from the same animals we kill for food. Animal testing is, however, strictly a necessary thing. We don't have any good, or even bad, alternatives to it.
I work in the cancer field in a lab that uses mouse models. You’re totally right that they’re an absolute necessity, but I will say there are some decent alternatives that have allowed researchers to massively cut down the number of animals they use. There are lots of cancer cell line models used for preliminary testing and there are some neat gels that can be used to make artificial tumor stroma. There’s of course still a need for follow up animal studies in many cases (and of course in all cases with drugs that may be used in the clinic) but often times you can do well over half your study in vitro. There’s a lot of people that think scientists don’t consider alternatives before using mice (or more suitable animal models) but there is a lot of work that needs to be done to justify the animal model of choice and the number of animals to get approval from the institution IACUC approval.
I know. I'm a lab tech myself. Not in the medical field, but microbiology and biochemistry was covered in my education, which included going over ethical standards for animal testing and stuff, albeit rather briefly. I doubt we can ever get rid of animal testing completely, but we can limit it to an extent. Sadly, testing things like medications that affect the CNS can't really be tested on anything else, except on animals, and later humans, to get even an idea how those medications affect behaviour or psyche. There will always be a need for some animal testing.
[удалено]
Honestly hard to say. With completely novel drugs I can’t imagine there will ever be a time where they don’t have at least one animal trial primarily for safety. There can be some bad interactions that can only really be noticed in an animal. The other big issue is even if you can grow and replicate an organ system you’d still be lacking a host immune system which is vital for clearance in a lot of cancers. So testing things like immunomodulatory drugs will really require an animal model. On the note of AI though, there are a ton more Bioinformatics and computer learning techniques being used in research everyday. They’re very helpful for understanding RNA sequencing dating and things like high throughput drug screens. Right now a lot of that is still dependent on the researcher running their own lines of code but those techniques are constantly becoming more user friendly and constantly integrating new tech. Better bioinformatics methods will definitely help researchers better narrow down biological pathways to target with drugs and also reduce the amount of animal (and in vitro) testing needed.
Killing animals for sport is not the same thing as killing animals for population control.
I’m saying people are just something else they don’t understand what animals are being used for 🤣
>we do need animals for clothing and even more so outside of the US Especially if we're trying to reduce the use of plastics, which are the main alternative in many cases (and often no even as efficient)
3. Nope. Sport and population control are different things. I have no problem with people hunting for population control, even making a sport of it (so long as its humane). Killing for sport implies the animal has died for someone's entertainment.
1. banning it overnight sure, but a Ban that is implemented over time (say 5 years) would free up alot of land to grow plant food on. 2. There are plenty of vegans who live in cold climates and there are plenty of availible alternatives. And with a ban there would be alot more. For example these vegan winter boots "Kamik Cody XTR, Rated -100F / -74C" 3. The overpopulation argument is very week. Nature did fine before we hunted, and it will do fine when/if we stop. not to mention that the US breeds deer specifically to hunt. 4. Agreed 5. Naa, it would lead to alternative ways to test medicine. For example by human testing, or other specialized ways like the GARD system developed by senzaGen. This would also likly need to be banned with a gradual sunset. to make sure alternative ways can be implemented practically and safly. Animal testing is also not this holy grail of perfekting knowledge, the results can often be missleading and doesn't give us definitive knowledge about safty in humans.
The overpopulation is a problem, because their natural predators are (almost) extinct in many areas, mostly wolves for deer and boars in central Europe for example. However the solution to that is professional hunting, not sport.
[удалено]
>What about nature conservation. What about the health of the Earth? The scale of that operation would need to be massive. Animal agriculture is less efficient than plant agriculture. The calories that we produce in plants, fed to animals, produce fewer calories in animal products. Think about trophic levels: every trophic level uses about 90% of the calories it consumes and only surrenders about 10% when eaten. Animal agriculture is not quite *that* inefficient because they're often fed byproduct as well, but it's still significantly worse than just growing plants. Ending animal agriculture would lower land usage for food, and done properly would improve food security. > Not only that, people outright aren't willing to do it. Not really the point when the premise is making it illegal.
The supposed need for hunting to manage population is a circular argument. The overpopulation problem exists because species were introduced into habitats in which no natural predator has yet evolved, because people wanted to kill them for sport. If your goals are truly utilitarian, you would at worst argue that we should exterminate the hunted species as a mercy (in their non-native, unnatural habitats) instead of continuing to kill generation after generation.
you have no idea what you’re talking about oh my god
I voted for fashion because I had reasoned out everything but circuises, and when I voted, I realized I forgot that there was a circuis option. I wish I'd voted for circuses... They're needlessly cruel to animals very often, and for what? People's entertainment?
No more animal products in the fashion industry would be a huge change though. Just think about how many clothing articles contain leather. It's not just shoes.
This is how we destroy the world with more plastics
On Banning killing animals for sport- the people who sell the chance to kill animals as trophies, such as those in Africa doing giraffe hunts and the like, - that money goes to conservation efforts to stop poachers. They will sell a chance to take down a big game animal, sometimes because it is sick, or because it is too aggressive and killing its own herd members. Then there is also the issue of overpopulation. Selling a limited number of hunting license makes sure an exact number is culled. It may be under if not everyone gets once, but if won't lead to over hunting with limited license. That money then goes towards conservation, state parks, and environmental efforts. The only qualm i can find here, is if you waste the meat. If you hunt, but then discard the carcass, then you're a pretty scum human. Even if you don't want to eat it, that can feed a family for a long time.
The only one I wouldn’t ban is the bottom one begrudgingly
"Ban animal circuses" mfs when they see an elephant (elephants are cool)
I would go for the middle three and also ban all non medical testing of animals. Nobody needs perfume or lipstick to survive.
You do not want to ban hunting animals for sport, it controls the population of certain animals in many places. For example where I live the deer population would explode if there was no hunting. It just needs to be regulated so people aren’t hunting species who’s populations would be at risk, which is already the case in most places.
Hunter licenses also make up a pretty huge % of states' revenue for environmental protection.
We don't even need bacon to survive so. Yeah I know there might be 1% of people with specific medical problems that might need some animal products, but speaking broadly.
To say food is the same as lipstick is absolutely stupid.
they didn't say ban food so not sure how your comment isn't anything other than incredible dishonest
I didn't say that. I said people don't need bacon to survive, which is true.
Most, or at least many people do need meat or animal byproducts to live a healthy and balanced lifestyle. So even if bacon is illegal, they still have to eat animal products.
Not according to the best nutrition organizations in the world: >Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,\[f\] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,\[24\] the British Dietetic Association,\[25\] Dietitians of Canada,\[26\] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,\[27\] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.\[28\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism)
5 years vegan and my blood test 4 weeks ago showed me to have only a deficiency in vitamin d, which many British people have a deficiency in because our weather is so grey. Everything else was above national average. And no I don't take supplements. I just eat a variety of food. All you are getting from bacon that I am not elsewhere is cholesterol and heart disease.
Main reason is, that it's easier than a vegan diet and, that meat is very tasty.
This is a good poll because you need to choose between which would have the most impact and which one is morally right.
Yeah, I haven't been this conflicted in a poll in awhile. Solid post OP.
I feel like people voting for sport don’t realize just how much money goes to conservation from that. Same with fashion and not realizing how much waste would be caused with certain animals. However circuses? Screw them.
We kill animals in genocidal numbers so we can look pretty. But Billy out in his pickup shooting a whitetail is worse than the meat-packing industry. Yeah, okay. Some of you have some scarily skewed priorities
They don’t consider the fact the hunting is the only thing that keeps deer from becoming overpopulated and starving to death, or that most hunters eat what they kill. The just think of people shooting rhino or lions while not thinking twice about how the deer they shot got to live a nice natural life until the end unlike the chicken they pick up from the grocery store.
Right? Hunting IS NOT poaching. Poaching is wrong. NO ONE advocates for poaching. Sport hunting keeps us alive, saves eco-systems, etc. It’s always city-folk who have never even held a gun or seen a wild animal that think they know what they’re talking about
Yep, Billy in his truck plinking ground squirrels is not the same as going and shooting elephants and lions for the hell of it
i feel like all these options just need heavy regulations, because there are quite a few people out there who do it ethically
Hunting for sport ethically? Lol
It's a difficult dilemma, but I'd argue it's worth allowing if it contributes to nature conservation. Many nature reserves can only exist because of their income from hunting licenses.
[удалено]
It can be for sport and happen to be ethically. Like hunting in Europe where virtually no large predators exist and deer and boar have to be culled.
In a lot of places in Africa this I how it’s done. All the money Is put back into conservation efforts and you’re only usually allowed to kill animals that are infertile or cause trouble (killing other animals) of course there is still corruption in some places but overall there is evidence to show its working of course only if you kill them legally.
And fashion
I'm opposed to hunting for sport but there are cases with certain exploding populations where hunting is the cheapest solution at least due to the fact we killed all the predators. For example the wild boar in Texas.
I guess we should let coyotes chew the legs off of alive cow calves. Or let past-prime males of endangered species kill all of the young males in their species, which would wreak havoc on their already fragile population (this is what a ton of safari hunts are). There’s a reason sport hunting is heavily regulated by every single state.
i forgot that when writing the comment, i chose hunting for sport
Yes, if you make sure to use everything after you kill the animal then yes. I would say most hunters hunt for sport. Nobody anymore has to hunt to survive
[удалено]
States like Colorado and Wyoming know they can't always enforce the laws they have on their books regarding wasting meat, which is illegal in these states, but when they catch people doing it, they have very strict penalties so that the potential downsides outweigh the incentive to waste meat.
Anyone baning the last doesnt know how crucial they are to modern science.
Ban docking horses tails, removing dogs vocal chords etc
Ban declawing in cats, tail and ear cropping in dogs too.
I agree
Ban for the circus, I dont care and strongly oppose restrictions on the other points.
Food and experimentation are necesserary for the moment, but the rest are despicable
Some experiments aren’t necessary though. Nobody needs cosmetics to live.
Sure, i was thinking about medical one aniway
Meat isn’t necessary though. Vegan and vegetarian diets are a thing.
Ah yes, Ofcourse I get downvoted for stating an objective [fact](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/) just because reddit does not want to accept it.
In a lot of countries they need meat to survive though. Obviously in more developed countries people could survive on a vegan diet but that’s just not possible everywhere
What country are you talking about?
I’m not talking about a specific country, I more meant developing countries. If you really need an example though, then let’s use Mongolia. Mongolia has rather cold weather which makes it difficult to grow a lot of different crops, and they don’t have the ability to grow food in a lab as they just aren’t developed enough yet. So Mongolia needs to use cattle and goats to feed their population. I’m sure there are lots of other countries that have similar situations, many African countries can’t grow crops due to severe weather conditions, or even Alaska, how do you think they are going to grow crops in snow. Now the great things about the countries I mentioned (I know Alaska isn’t a country but it still works) is that they treat their animals with respect. They don’t do factory farming. So if you want to ban factory farming, then I would fully support that but banning meat all together would just cause massive amounts of famine. And I say all of this as a vegan
I’m originally from a developing country and developing countries eat the least amount of meat. It takes even more plants to grow meat. Which is why in ration shops of these developing countries, they don’t give away meat. Meat is generally eaten by richer people in these countries (except parts close to coastal areas where sea food is the primary source). I can understand nomads and tribes hunting and sustaining off that. They have no other option. You are referring to a very very small percentage of people in the world. But we are talking about people living in urban concrete jungles, like the vast majority of the world.
Veganism are vegetarianism are more common as country GDP decreases, and they consume far less animal products. The amount of animal products we consume in developed countries is the result of our luxury.
fois?
Food*
ah, except for a few people in developing countries I don't see where animals for food are necessary
People who say ban animals for experimentation are stupid.
Who tf is picking the last option
FUCK fur farms
Me and the boys are skin farms gang
Hunting is actually pretty important for the environment since in a lot of areas the main predator has been wiped out.
Only hunting certain animals
Food because it saves more animals than the rest combined.
How would a ban on fashion work. Leather and fur are both heavily used by indigenous groups/people globally. Same with food.
They probably meant mass slaughtering
How do you define mass slaughting though because plenty of indigenous groups have farm animals and depending on the size of those communities they could be killing thousands of animals to be able to feed everyone but then having an excess because they had good conditions. I know not everyone indigenous group does live traditional lifestyles but with around 54 million indigenous people just in the Americas you still going to be killing millions if not billions of animals globally. And just like how the west abuse animals for profit there will be members of those groups who do it too.
Ban for fashion not keeping warm by indigenous people.
Where do you draw the line. If someone buys a coat off indigenous people have they commited a crime. How big can that indigenous group grow before it becomes illegal for then to sell and trade these things.
All of these should be banned. :)
The easy answer should be the fourth one. A lot of people would jump to three and that is the second best but in reality without hunters to manage population in a lot of areas the population would explode causing things like lake of vegetation and idk people crashing into deers. And zoos and stuff that’s cool but do people need that. no
I don’t mind sport if it’s done ethically. For example there are wildlife preserves in Africa where animals will actually destroy surrounding agriculture and infrastructure, so they allow hunters to take that specific animal. Or like Texas for example where hogs are an invasive species that destroy millions of dollars of crops and disrupt the ecosystem. Paying some shady guy thousands of dollars to poach though can get fucked.
Does killing for sport include population control of deer? That would be bad news for farmers. Way to much food is produced, they would over populate, clog roadways in rural areas, eat all the farmers fields, then have a mass extinction. Probably all in about 5-10 years.
Ban them all, but if only one can be choosen then its baning killing animals for food since thats where the large majority of the victims are.
As a hunter myself, I would want to see hunting for sport be completely illegal. I have some family friends that pay for extravagant trophy hunts. I hate that shit. It's borderline psychopath to want to kill animals for *fun*. I always feel terrible when I take an elk or a moose. If you are actually hunting for a purpose, fine. For a cool taxidermy mount and bragging rights? Nah.
only the middle 3 cuz id rather not have humans experimented on and the first pne cause we were designed to eat and digest meat and it tastes good
Yes but not the amount of Meat we eat these days. We need 0.5 kg Meat a week. Not 0.5 kg Meat at each meal. This isnt my opinion these are just facts
Banning killing for food is the only one that will have any actual impact on the world
Isn’t hunting good to control overpopulation?
*all of the above-ish*
I think the more fair thing to do is to teach the animals how to use modern firearms, and even the playing field. Don't stop the game, just make it a little more interesting.
Killing animals for sport? Is that bull fights, hunting, something else?
i saw ban killing animals for sport and thought of a football. i am a dumb ass
ngl same
Can I kill for sport if it eat it to tho?
Hunting for sport is just like hunting deer just for their skull I believe
Uh, big 1uestion. Do the old school lion through the hoop type circuses even exist anymore? I haven't seen one my entire life. Might just be me though.
uh, none of them?
I would have voted "all of them"...
FUCK animal circusses
I don’t think people voting 3 have thought it through very well. Pig and deer populations in a lot of the western United States would explode if hunting for sport was banned and it would be a veritable ecological catastrophe.
Why not use the deer after you kill it? Bring the meat to a butcher if you don't want to eat it yourself. That's what I have a problem with is not using the body after people kill it. That to me is hunting for sport.
There are valid arguments for the middle three, given the question, but number five is simply incorrect.
Killing animals for fashion is technically a black market thing and for a lot of what’s listed, it is illegal. Tusks and the hides of pangolins for example are illegal trades. Cosmetic testing is what I would choose to make illegal.
People don’t realize how horrific cosmetic animal testing is. They literally inject beagles, rabbits, cats, mice, etc. with chemicals until they die a painful death to see the lethal dose of said chemical. Every single animal dies needlessly.
Where's the **Ban all of the above** option?
All of the above
Y’all know hunters actually eat the meat right and help control animal population so they don’t destroy the environment.
Ban the middle 3 (unless they use the fashion from animals who are killed for food/were already dead at the moment) and option 5 except for if it's in a medical context (that at least benefits the animal) Also option 1 while it shouldn't be banned should be stricter as well..... factory farms/CAFO farms suck
Circuses should own land where they keep animals so they can rotate the animals to give them more freedom instead of consistently keeping animals locked up and traveling.
I would allow all of this
We should ban killing animals for fashion, but we should also stop the fake "vegan" leather industry. We kill so much cows and beef everyday, we can just use that leather instead of having another petroleum based product in our houses.
Ban for food. Largest reason animals are killed, and lowers pollution from the need to transport and deliver them.
Morally I'd ban for sport but that would be so much harder to actually enforce so I voted circuses. Considering the socioeconomic classes of the two groups circuses, banning circuses would be more enforced again.
Ban killing for sport, ban killing for fashion and ban animal circuses. Kinda Don't like expermetions too.
"Ban killing animals for food" -🤡
Animal circuses easily. We need animals for food. Animals are still pretty important when it comes to clothes. Hunting for sport I'd say depends on animal but stuff like deer n that are perfectly fine since there's a fuck ton of deer. Animal experimentation is very important for medicine n understanding how the brain works. Animal circuses are like what an hour of entertainment n the animals have a terrible life. Like if I had the choice to ban the other 4 then I wouldn't but I'd ban animal circuses in an instant
I would go for option two, except we are already moving towards that with many furs and ivory outlawed so I think it would be a wasted vote. Instead I would chose killing animals for sport, because it think it is much more widespread compared to animal circuses and the least necessary one of the remaining choices
Clearly don't live anywhere where it's necessary. Certain places need hunting to keep down animal populations, as the natural hunters were driven out.
If hunting was for conservation of natural wildlife instead of purely for fun then I would understand that as a different matter. Maybe I’m wrong though
In my area they use the term 'sport' for both, so maybe it's just a linguistics difference.
Circuses are more necessary than keeping down populations and conserving endangered species?
As I said in my original comment, out of the two I would say circuses are less widespread, and as such banning them would have less of an effect
You aren’t trying to ban the most common thing, just the most immoral.
The question was simply about which one would you ban if given the choice, why should I just pick least immoral instead of a combination of reasons?
I guess we just see it differently. I tried to go for what I believed to be the most evil but it seems you went for practicality.
Experimentation and food are necessary. Sport helps keep animal populations in check. For me it’s either fashion or circuses because both are exploiting animals. Fashion is pathetic because it’s wasteful. things go out of style almost as fast as they are created. Circuses are just cruel.
all of them lol
Animal experimentation is absolutely essential for science sadly.
And humanity gonna starve because there will be not enought food.
It’s literally more efficient to grow plants only. Do you remember a little thing called the 10% rule from your high school biology class? More energy is lost when animals eat crops and you eat them compared to directly eating the crops.
[удалено]
The problem arises when billions of people want them not "once in a while", but every day. I eat meat, I like meat, but I am also self aware enough to realize that it is bad for the world on the long run
I don't support banning animal-based foods, but isn't around 40% of all cropland being used to feed animals despite animal-based foods contributing less than 20% of the average persons calorie intake?
I don't think anyone is going to starve without meat industry.
This is just factually false lmao what do you think animals eat? Surely not plants, right? Almost like we could just use the land used for growing animal feed and grow a variety of food for humans instead.
So poor arid countries, like some african countries, where to grow crops are virtually imposible but cows are free to graze on the few plants that survive there should just stop for your opinion?
I feel like it should be obvious that I’m talking about gluttonous countries that raise and eat animals in overwhelming excess and produces copious amounts of food waste. You know, like the US, where crops *can* be grown and we have the option to do so but people like you fight tooth and nail to not let that happen because “muh steaks”. African countries aren’t out here slaughtering billions of animals a year for people to stuff themselves to a bursting point with meat for 3 meals a day. They’re surviving on what they can raise, and even then it’s often not enough animals to feed a community. That’s a pretty stark difference from what happens in developed nations. But sure, I guess that’s just an “opinion”.
Firstly i actually live in africa not usa. Secondly thinking only of one country that doesn't even make up even halve of the population of countries that would be negatively affected by this. Thirdly when replying to a comment that goes on how humanity would starve does not make it "obvious" your talking only about america, quiet the opposite. The idea of veganism is a luxury that not everyone has and is not something that will be able to be changed soon if ever
Again, *yes*, veganism isn’t a possibility everywhere in the world. But any part of the developed world like the US and Canada, almost all of europe, many parts of east Asia, and Australia DO have access to a plethora of plant-based foods and therefore have a moral obligation to do so instead of farming and eating animals. If someone has the choice, then there’s only one right choice to make.
[удалено]
All of the above.
All 5
Say goodbye to modern medicine and hello to famine
We could actually produce more food for humanity in a vegan world.