WILL YOU SNUGGLE IT OR EAT IT
How we categorize animals has a profound impact on how we treat them.
Familiarity with a certain animal brings with it different feelings about that animal. Some people love camels, others are completely disinterested in them. To some, rabbits are pets but lambs are food. You can only behave within the framework of your own experience. Be it learnt through hands-on real life experience; or acquired through movies, books and internet; or handed down through cultural norms and standards.
There do, of course, exist categories, way outside of your own boundaries of experience. For example, how do you see a lion?
To someone out there, a lion is a beast who could devour his livelihood, therefore the lion is an impediment towards him being able to afford his upcoming marriage.
Someone else sees a lion as an ordinary sighting along his everyday route to work.
There are those who take guests to photograph lions in their safari vehicles, they see lions as valuable alive, as it keeps on generating money.
There are many who see lions as a farm animals, there to be culled for their body parts when they reach a certain size.
Others see lions as ego-objects, glory items to be boasted about.
A few Africans see lions as majestic icons, something to be proud of, almost as sacred.
To someone, lions are wild animals who ought to be free in their wild habitat.
Others see them as money making machines that attract tourists.
None of these view points change the lion. However, how we treat the lion because of these points of view can change the lion.
Familiarity with a certain animal brings with it different feelings about that animal. Some people love camels, others are completely disinterested in them. To some, rabbits are pets but lambs are food. You can only behave within the framework of your own experience. Be it learnt through hands-on real life experience; or acquired through movies, books and internet; or handed down through cultural norms and standards.
There do, of course, exist categories, way outside of your own boundaries of experience. For example, how do you see a lion?
To someone out there, a lion is a beast who could devour his livelihood, therefore the lion is an impediment towards him being able to afford his upcoming marriage.
Someone else sees a lion as an ordinary sighting along his everyday route to work.
There are those who take guests to photograph lions in their safari vehicles, they see lions as valuable alive, as it keeps on generating money.
There are many who see lions as a farm animals, there to be culled for their body parts when they reach a certain size.
Others see lions as ego-objects, glory items to be boasted about.
A few Africans see lions as majestic icons, something to be proud of, almost as sacred.
To someone, lions are wild animals who ought to be free in their wild habitat.
Others see them as money making machines that attract tourists.
None of these view points change the lion. However, how we treat the lion because of these points of view can change the lion.
This, I believe would be so, if every person were first to look into the eyes of a lion.
The way we treat an animal, unfortunately, is not inspired by the actual being itself, but by our attitudes regarding that animal in direct relationship to ourselves. It is all relative to ourselves. To humans.
I think a large part of this is how we classify each individual animal in the first place. If we are talking about companion animals, we don't mind them being kept in small places like apartments and houses. Neither do we mind that they are constantly told to not do this or that, to come when called, sit on command and to only walk in wide open spaces while tethered to a lead. When thinking of horses, we seem happy to allow them to be saddled, bridled, paddocked, ridden, bred with and sold on when too small, or too big or too expensive to keep.
Within the classification of domestic animals alone, we accept many divides such as: companion animals, working animals, indoor animals, outdoor animals, on the furniture animals, visit them once a week animals with a whole host of variables regarding acceptable feeding standards.
When it comes to us eating animals, we first divide them into two categories, before subdividing them further. The initial two categories being whether we care for the animal or not. I mean on a human 'caring out of love for that animal' level.
When it comes to us eating animals, we first divide them into two categories, before subdividing them further. The initial two categories being whether we care for the animal or not. I mean on a human 'caring out of love for that animal' level.
In this I admit that I still practice speciesism. I do see individuals of different species as less or more important than others. I am consciously aware of this shortcoming. It plays along with the rest of 'my questions in my head' loop. Should we allow animals in captivity to live less than ideal lives? Should I be okay with eating chicken when I will not eat sheep? Why do I feel that people consuming game meat is better for the planet than consuming cows? What right do I have to be confused by my friend eating beef but refusing to sleep in a hotel room that has a cow hide on the floor?
Many shades of grey. Using animals. Caring for animals we use. Only eating animals we haven't met in person. Shouting out for animal rights, but only the rights which suite us.
South Africa, my country, has decided to classify lions as livestock. A whole list of precious wild life has been reclassified as livestock. This has caused an international outcry of desperate confusion and disagreement. (We are horrified. Yet we keep other, not so precious, animals as livestock). However, back to the point, South Africa has taken a step in exactly the opposite direction from the trend throughout the world. Whereas people in general are becoming ever more cognizant of animals as sentient beings resulting in a steady progression away from the demeaning maltreatment of them, SA has taken a leap backwards into deeper disdain for animals.
The fraternity whose bias is towards treating lions as livestock, are using the excuse that having control over influencing the genetic superiority of a species, will result in an improved species and therefore be to the betterment of the animal. I am only going to challenge this proposition in respect to lions.
Keeping lions in captivity in no way betters the lives, the pedigree or the conservation of lions in the wild.
Control would have to be maintained to prevent inbreeding. Imagine if you will, a breeder buying themselves a 'starter pack' of 1 male and 4 females. Within one breeding cycle, all cubs would be related. So lets say the breeder starts with two sets. So a male with 4 females x 2 enclosures. After the first breeding cycle (4 month gestation period) the farmer removes the cubs from the parental enclosure so that the females will go into oestrus and breed again. The cubs are grouped together in second enclosures. (4 enclosures now exist). The Adults breed again. 4-5 months later the cubs are moved into new enclosures (6 enclosures now exist). All lions in camps 1,3,5 are related and all lions in camps 2,4,6 are related. So farmer swaps the two males adults around. 4 Months later 2 new cub scamps are needed (now there are 8 camps) 4 months later there are 10 camps.
This within a period of 1 year. The farmer can still only use the original adults for breeding as the eldest cubs are still a a year and a half or more away from breeding. He already has 10 camps. He will need more camps every 4 months for new born cubs plus he will also need to separate male and female cubs within this second year, which will require yet more camps. With the current situation, half of the existing progeny are related.
The number of camps required to keep a well ordered, genetically clean breeding operation, grows exponentially every few months.
It is not easy for a farmer to maintain genetic purity. It is not easy to keep males and females separate. But it has to be done in order for the argument to be valid.
The numbers we are talking about in the above description are without any of the offspring reaching an age were they too begin to procreate. Once the second generation begin breeding, the number of enclosures needed, the food to feed them all, and veterinary costs explode. Every enclosure has to be a minimum of 1ha for 2 lions with an additional 1/2ha per additional lion. Every enclosure requires fresh water, shade and shelter.
So are these breeders doing this to acquire genetically superior lions? If so, will they rather then, leave the cubs with the mothers for 2 years so that the numbers of offspring are kept within reason and the young get the full, far superior benefits of maternal feeding? Will the breeders, allow only 100% non-related lions to mate? Will the breeder build large enough enclosures to ensure 1/2Ha per lion? Will the government insist on compliance?
Historically, breeding farms over breed, inbreed, can't afford large enough enclosures so have over crowding and have resulting malnutrition, genetic deformities, hypovitaminosis, starvation and inferior animal welfare conditions.
Historically, both excess lions (resulting from over breeding) and inferior lions (resulting from unregulated inbreeding and inferior nutrition) are euthanized for body parts. Will this continue to be the case? Will all breeders subscribe to the codes of genetic purity?
What are the farmers breeding for? Is the purpose to create genetically pure lions for hunting? For genetically superior bones, fat and trophies? Or are they hoodwinking the government into believing that they are, all several 100 of them, breeding 1000's of lions to repopulate wild places?
Many shades of grey. Using animals. Caring for animals we use. Only eating animals we haven't met in person. Shouting out for animal rights, but only the rights which suite us.
South Africa, my country, has decided to classify lions as livestock. A whole list of precious wild life has been reclassified as livestock. This has caused an international outcry of desperate confusion and disagreement. (We are horrified. Yet we keep other, not so precious, animals as livestock). However, back to the point, South Africa has taken a step in exactly the opposite direction from the trend throughout the world. Whereas people in general are becoming ever more cognizant of animals as sentient beings resulting in a steady progression away from the demeaning maltreatment of them, SA has taken a leap backwards into deeper disdain for animals.
The fraternity whose bias is towards treating lions as livestock, are using the excuse that having control over influencing the genetic superiority of a species, will result in an improved species and therefore be to the betterment of the animal. I am only going to challenge this proposition in respect to lions.
Keeping lions in captivity in no way betters the lives, the pedigree or the conservation of lions in the wild.
Control would have to be maintained to prevent inbreeding. Imagine if you will, a breeder buying themselves a 'starter pack' of 1 male and 4 females. Within one breeding cycle, all cubs would be related. So lets say the breeder starts with two sets. So a male with 4 females x 2 enclosures. After the first breeding cycle (4 month gestation period) the farmer removes the cubs from the parental enclosure so that the females will go into oestrus and breed again. The cubs are grouped together in second enclosures. (4 enclosures now exist). The Adults breed again. 4-5 months later the cubs are moved into new enclosures (6 enclosures now exist). All lions in camps 1,3,5 are related and all lions in camps 2,4,6 are related. So farmer swaps the two males adults around. 4 Months later 2 new cub scamps are needed (now there are 8 camps) 4 months later there are 10 camps.
This within a period of 1 year. The farmer can still only use the original adults for breeding as the eldest cubs are still a a year and a half or more away from breeding. He already has 10 camps. He will need more camps every 4 months for new born cubs plus he will also need to separate male and female cubs within this second year, which will require yet more camps. With the current situation, half of the existing progeny are related.
The number of camps required to keep a well ordered, genetically clean breeding operation, grows exponentially every few months.
It is not easy for a farmer to maintain genetic purity. It is not easy to keep males and females separate. But it has to be done in order for the argument to be valid.
The numbers we are talking about in the above description are without any of the offspring reaching an age were they too begin to procreate. Once the second generation begin breeding, the number of enclosures needed, the food to feed them all, and veterinary costs explode. Every enclosure has to be a minimum of 1ha for 2 lions with an additional 1/2ha per additional lion. Every enclosure requires fresh water, shade and shelter.
So are these breeders doing this to acquire genetically superior lions? If so, will they rather then, leave the cubs with the mothers for 2 years so that the numbers of offspring are kept within reason and the young get the full, far superior benefits of maternal feeding? Will the breeders, allow only 100% non-related lions to mate? Will the breeder build large enough enclosures to ensure 1/2Ha per lion? Will the government insist on compliance?
Historically, breeding farms over breed, inbreed, can't afford large enough enclosures so have over crowding and have resulting malnutrition, genetic deformities, hypovitaminosis, starvation and inferior animal welfare conditions.
Historically, both excess lions (resulting from over breeding) and inferior lions (resulting from unregulated inbreeding and inferior nutrition) are euthanized for body parts. Will this continue to be the case? Will all breeders subscribe to the codes of genetic purity?
What are the farmers breeding for? Is the purpose to create genetically pure lions for hunting? For genetically superior bones, fat and trophies? Or are they hoodwinking the government into believing that they are, all several 100 of them, breeding 1000's of lions to repopulate wild places?
Quote from lion breeder, "Look at these lions, they are happy, they don't have to hunt for themselves, food is just delivered to them and they are just lazing around all day".
Comments
Post a Comment