|
Post by Am on Apr 19, 2005 22:40:35 GMT -5
Perhaps I can add another perspective?
In New Zealand, it's perfectly legal to kill any non-domestic cat. Always has been, and hopefully always will be.
This isn't because we don't like cats. It's simply because feral cats have already had a devastating impact on our native bird life. New Zealand has no native land mammals - instead, we have an amazing variety of flightless birds, most of which are completely defenseless against introduced mammalian predators like the domestic cat. These birds would quickly become extinct if mammalian predators were allowed to breed unchecked (many species already have).
I agree with Kona that killing one animal species is no more morally defensible than killing another. However, I think in a situation where humans have caused the near-extinction of a species, it's our job to put things right even if the means aren't particually palatable.
So personally, I think this issue hinges on why people want to introduce the "cat killing laws" in your state. If it's to protect a rare species, perhaps these laws are defensible.
As an aside though, I think our gun control laws are a little different to yours. Shooting in towns and built up areas is completely prohibited here, and you need a farmer's permission to shoot game upon his land, so it's very rare that a pet cat is shot accidentally. I guess if I was living in an area where you were allowed to shoot a gun pretty much anywhere, I'd be concerned for my cat too.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Apr 20, 2005 0:02:15 GMT -5
As an aside though, I think our gun control laws are a little different to yours. Shooting in towns and built up areas is completely prohibited here, and you need a farmer's permission to shoot game upon his land, so it's very rare that a pet cat is shot accidentally. I guess if I was living in an area where you were allowed to shoot a gun pretty much anywhere, I'd be concerned for my cat too. It's actually not like that. Typically there are only certain areas you can hunt per se "publicly". They are normally designated to specific locations and only during specific hunting seasons usually. It depends a lot on where you are geographically. Guns are not permitted to be shot (or most times even carried) in towns or cities for any reason other than self defense against, for instance, an intruder. And even that can be up in the air half the time in this crazy country. You wouldn't believe the "rights" intruders have here... Great post Am ;D
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 20, 2005 4:55:18 GMT -5
Buddhists are mindful that they do cause death and suffering to countless animals even by the planting of crops.
Bugs are sentient beings too ya know!
The difference is the mindfulness. Also my husband took some lay precepts (sp?) in Tibetan Buddhism one of which was that he would not hunt. It is a differnt thing to be an active participant in the death of an animal - quite another to be mindful of that animals suffering and be nourished by his flesh.
The Tibetans believe in using every part of an animal that is also used for meat and even give of thier own bodies back to the earth.
The difference in this case is like Ann said. Nobody is going to eat a cat. Nobody is going to use it's pelt. They will be exterminated like vermin (which they very well might be - depending on your perspective).
There is a whole culture of hunting at least around here that seems to be well a bit "Yeee HAW" and reckless. People are killed every year during deer season due to supreme idiocy. I imagine that will increase exponentially with the elusiveness of the prey. Also - if there is no value in the cat - ie for food or trophy people won't even pick them up. Who wants to go hiking after "cat season"? peeeeeyuuuuu.
BTW though I do eat meat (as do my dogs) - I am very picky about my sources and I try when ever possible logistically and financially to make sure those food animals were well cared for in their life time. I feed pastured beef, goat, lamb and ostrich - all from known sources with decent rearing practices. Its important to me. It is how I deal with the complexities of the issue.
Kona, I believe you feed kibble? Yes? Is your dog a vegetarian? How do you reconcile your financial support of the feed-lot economy?
|
|
|
Post by willow on Apr 21, 2005 0:32:52 GMT -5
My 2cents worth. There are a lot of cats roaming around our area, but most of them are someone's pet and they aren't wearing collars. Just because a cat is wearing a collar, does that mean it isn't killing the small critters everyone is so worried about? come on! Most hunter's I know will automatically kill a cat when they are out hunting, and it don't have to be a black cat that crosses their path. Do I agree with that or with the new proposed law. Pesticides and the destroying of habitat kill more critters than cats do. I saw this first hand back where I walk my dogs. There are power lines and rr tracks and the brush had really grown up. It was teeming with rabbits and birds of all kinds. Last fall the county came through with mowers and cut down all the brush. This spring there is not a rabbit or bird in the area. The solution? Pass a law that cats must be contained on your property or they are fair game....no pun intended. I haven't seen anyone shooting mourning doves off of bird feeders in people back yards yet, and this is where I see most of them, so I don't think anyone will be shooting cats in someone's back yard. As far as any health issue is concerned from cats being killed....Uh...have you seen our state and all the deer and small critters lying dead on and beside the roads that no one picks up? On second though....maybe that is what is wrong with all of us in Wisconsin. We are all suffering from some disease caused by dead animals. ;D ;D ;D I don't mean to be "flip" and my intention is not to offend anyone, but common sense has been educated out of people.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Apr 21, 2005 14:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Am on Apr 21, 2005 17:45:09 GMT -5
I know this isn't meant to be a debate on vegetarianism, but I was interested in what Amyjo had to say: "It is a differnt thing to be an active participant in the death of an animal - quite another to be mindful of that animals suffering and be nourished by his flesh." I personally agree with this sentiment, but in exactly the opposite way to Amyjo! I think if you're prepared to go bush and hunt your own food, well that's admirable. As long as you hunt ecological "pest" species (which around here include deer, rabbits and pig), and do it in as humane a way as possible, then I think you can go right ahead! At least you KNOW for a fact that the animal had as kind a death as you could give it. And at least the animals you hunted had a good chance to escape their fate - believe me, you have to be pretty clever and quick to shoot a deer. I find farming a lot less acceptable. I think it's just an easy way out - we can let someone else do our " dirty work", and just collect a shrink wrapped package at the supermarket. When you have never met the animal you're eating, when you don't really know how it lived or how it died, then it's way too easy to fool yourself that it had a humane life and death. How can you genuinely be "mindful of suffering", if you don't even know how much the animal suffered? As for being "less guilty" if you don't directly participate in an animal's death, give me a break! If you pay a hit-man to kill someone, then legally you're just as culpable as if you shot them yourself. How is this any different? Just because there isn't blood on YOUR hands, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for a death. I find it genuinely facinating that Amyjo thinks the exact opposite. Like my Gran says, isn't it a good thing we're all different? Rachel PS - I can't answer for Kona, but my dog is semi-veg (eats a 50/50 mixture of regular dog kibble and vegetarian table scraps). The cat, however, remains a stubborn and obligate carnivore. Who can reason with a cat ? ! ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by willow on Apr 22, 2005 7:04:24 GMT -5
Am, Cats definitely cannot be vegetarians. It will kill them, and while a dog probably can survive as a vegetarian or partial vegetarian, because dogs are carnivores, they benefit greatly from a species appropriate diet.
My next comment is not directed at anyone here...it is JMO, but I think forcing our dog or cat to be a vegetarian, just because we are, is more inhumane than hunting etc., and goes beyond all reason.
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Apr 22, 2005 12:36:28 GMT -5
"Bugs are sentient beings too ya know!" - amyjo
One must be realistic. Sentient simply means self-aware. A carrot is not self-aware, but arguably an ant is. There is a spectrum of sentience with worms at one end and (some would say) humans at the other. I am quite comfortable knowing that as I walk from my bedroom to my kitchen I may inadvertently step on a bug. Otherwise I would still be in bed cowering under the covers, afraid to roll over lest I squish a bedbug.
What is more important is the fact that I neither personally participate in the mistreatment or killing of animals for my personal benefit, nor do I pay someone else to do it.
"Also my husband took some lay precepts (sp?) in Tibetan Buddhism one of which was that he would not hunt. It is a different thing to be an active participant in the death of an animal - quite another to be mindful of that animals suffering and be nourished by his flesh." - amyjo
I have to agree with Am (Rachel) on this one. Promising not to do something yourself and then paying someone else to do it is . . . sorry, but I don't want to be insulting and I really can't think of a diplomatic way to say it.
"Kona, I believe you feed kibble? Yes? Is your dog a vegetarian? How do you reconcile your financial support of the feed-lot economy?" - amyjo
An excellent question. To put it simply, I recognize the fact that my dog is not a vegetarian. It would be hypocritical of me to say that of the two possibilities, either killing an animal myself to feed her or paying someone else to do it, one is morally better than the other.
The important distinction is that human beings have a choice that no other animals have, and that is to consider ethics when making choices. When an animal kills another animal to eat, it is neither right nor wrong; it simply is. The responsibility that humans have, as I see it, is to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity that we have to rise above our animal ancestors and voluntarily take the next step in our evolution.
Up to this point, evolution has been biological. We now have the ability to become morally evolved as well. The choices are difficult, and the answers are neither clear nor obvious.
On a side not, I was hesitant to bring some of this up again. I was told in the past that this was not the place for it, and yet it is obvious that at least a few of us are interested in the subject(s) and are able to discuss it with respect and an open mind. I am extremely grateful to the moderators for allowing this thread to remain open.
- Kona
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 22, 2005 21:16:18 GMT -5
Perhaps I wasn't clear. ACCORDING TO THE LAY PRECEPTS OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM - hunting/killing is forbidden, while eating meat is not they consider it a different thing.
I am not arguing the wrongness or rightness of the statement - simply giving you the information. I guess if you want to call an entire culture hypocritical - that is up to you.
There is not "less guilty" for not killing the animal. It isn't about "guilt" it is about being aware and thankful that a creature died so that you might nourish yourself and live.
And yes - even being mindful about the slugs that die when the field is plowed so you can have your tofu burgers.
Personally - I do not think it is wrong to hunt. I think it is wrong to hunt for sport alone. Which I think most of us here can agree on.
And Kona you never answered my question. You can feed your dog with out supporting those feed lots and large meat packing houses which notoriously treat animals cruely. Why wouldn't you choose to feed her pasture raised animals that were humanely treated in life? Do you think that just because an animal ends up as food it matters not how?
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Apr 22, 2005 23:44:34 GMT -5
Who is "calling an entire culture hypocritical"? As you said yourself, it is simply one precept, and not even one that all buddhists agree on.
As to my dogs, as I said I recognize that they are not vegetarian, so short of turning them loose to hunt every day, I am forced to find less "natural" ways to feed them. The only meat that they eat is lamb. I'm not aware of any feed lots where lambs are treated inhumanely, but I am open for any information that you may have.
|
|
|
Post by FlatCoatedLover on Apr 23, 2005 9:22:08 GMT -5
You do feed you dogs kibble, right? Kibble has a percentage of protein init that is not always gotten with the best of sources. I beleive Amyjo is refering to the feed lots and meat packing centers that are utilized in making it.
So, from my perspective here is the question...
Why would you choose to feed kibble, where the sources and treatment of included animals is questionable at best and inhumane at worst, instead of feeding pasture raised animals that you can verify the living conditions and method of death of?
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 23, 2005 10:03:50 GMT -5
Well yeah. Unless you are feeding happy magic fairy land kibble the animal protein contained in it was once feed-lotted and mass slaughtered. and before that raised in over-crowded conditions.
Lamb too (maybe not feedlotted but the other conditions apply) - in the US anway. There is no getting around it. Even the organic lable won't help you as it applies mainly to the feed the animal consumed - not the rearing and slaughtering practices.
Another note is that if your lable says "lamb meal" then only 25% of the meal has to actually be lamb. The rest can be anything as long as it doesn't exceed 25% of the volume of the meal. Nice huh? So depending on the lable - you may not be feeding only lamb even though it appears that way.
I put my money and my energy where my mouth is. I spend alot of time working on a raw feeding co-op that I started. I will give you an example. Our ostrich supplier is a local family farmer.
Our dogs now eat heads, wings, ribs, meaty joints, lungs and tracheas. All items which are illegal to sell for human consumption and were previously landing on the scrap heap. It took some working to convince her and the USDA inspector to let us have these items.
Now the small family farmer makes about an extra $85.00 per bird. And I personally believe we are honoring the bird by not wasting so much of it.
Just my personal opinion and a long way from cat hunting sorry for the tangent.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 23, 2005 10:29:12 GMT -5
Just my personal opinion and a long way from cat hunting .... Indeed it is...for now, let's close this down and move on. (the info posted aside from the cat hunting probably deserves its own thread for continuity and discussion - nicely of course! ;D )
|
|