Shechita & Halal. Identifiable On All Meat & Meat Products Yes/No.

[Robin-H 11]

9 minutes ago, Eater Sundae said:

No. My point was that a wild animal has a much more stressful life, regardless of how it dies.

 

Which is better, constant stress and fear, even if ended by a quick and unexpected shot to the head, or a pleasant, stress-free life followed by short term stress near the end? Also, I reckon dispatchers in slaughterhouses will be more consistent and reliable than hunters.

 

Should we get rid of slaughterhouses, and rely on hunters with high powered rifles to pick off cows, one by one, while out of sight?

Wild animals have a much more stressful life yes, but then we can't do anything about that. 

 

My argument was that if given the choice, I would rather be picked off with a high powered out of sight rifle, than rounded up, crammed in a truck, transported to a slaughterhouse, penned and restrained, and get a bolt gun through the head. The fact that wild animals lead stressful lives doesn't change that.. 

 

We can't stop wild animals being stressed. We can stop farm animals having terrible and stressful deaths. 

 

And yea, if I was a cow I much prefer that I was picked off by a hunter with a  high powered rifle than go to a slaughterhouse. 

[Guest makapaka]

9 hours ago, Robin-H said:

That’s not true. Population control for some species is necessary now that their natural predators no longer live in this country. 

 

I would also absolutely rather be shot in the head if I had no prior warning at all than I think probably any other way of dying. I would certainly prefer it to say, breaking a leg and slowly starving to death because I couldn’t feed myself, or being mauled to death by a larger animal. Wild animals killed instantly by a hunter I think probably have the best death possible. 

 

I’m not sure why the rest of your post is relevant to my comments. I’ve not distinguished between Halal and non halal slaughter (indeed made a point to mention that I wasn’t).

 

My comment was in response to what seemed like you saying there was no difference to an animal between the two options myself and others outlined (killed instantly in the wild and transported to a slaughterhouse). I don’t believe that to be true for the reasons I stated. 

Population control for the benefit of who?

 

So Humans are doing these animals a favour by killing them rather than them just being left alone to live a natural life?  How arrogant.

 

The rest of the post is relevant as that is the topic under discsussion.

 

[Obelix 11]

10 hours ago, Robin-H said:

That’s not true. Population control for some species is necessary now that their natural predators no longer live in this country. 

 

I would also absolutely rather be shot in the head if I had no prior warning at all than I think probably any other way of dying. I would certainly prefer it to say, breaking a leg and slowly starving to death because I couldn’t feed myself, or being mauled to death by a larger animal. Wild animals killed instantly by a hunter I think probably have the best death possible. 

 

I’m not sure why the rest of your post is relevant to my comments. I’ve not distinguished between Halal and non halal slaughter (indeed made a point to mention that I wasn’t).

 

My comment was in response to what seemed like you saying there was no difference to an animal between the two options myself and others outlined (killed instantly in the wild and transported to a slaughterhouse). I don’t believe that to be true for the reasons I stated. 

A point to note is that you don't shoot deer in the head as a first shot - practice in this country is a heart and lungs shot which will kill slower than a slaughterhouse. The brain of a deer is not large and if you are off a little bit on aim you will cause a non fatal injury that introduces tremendous suffering. The braodside chest shot is preferable and should kill within a couple of minutes.

Does a deer in the wild have a better life than a farmed animal? It depends on how ethically it is farmed ultimately. They probably have a poorer death if you count from the time of the shot but they dont have the stress involed in being moved to slaughter.

2 hours ago, Eater Sundae said:

Should we get rid of slaughterhouses, and rely on hunters with high powered rifles to pick off cows, one by one, while out of sight?

IF you want ethical meat, find a farmer that slaughters on his premises and looks after his stock well.

 

Rather a tricky prospect though these days with the centralisation of slaughter houses.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

6 minutes ago, Obelix said:

IF you want ethical meat, find a farmer that slaughters on his premises and looks after his stock well.

Which unfortunately you will have to pay for.

 

Just like buying Nike trainers and £2 Primark t-shirts, you need to accept responsibility for those exploited to provide you with those items at those prices.

 

(By the way, it’s nice to see that this thread has now become a grown up discussion of animal welfare, and not just how bad Muslims are.)

[lil-minx92 10]

45 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Which unfortunately you will have to pay for.

 

Just like buying Nike trainers and £2 Primark t-shirts, you need to accept responsibility for those exploited to provide you with those items at those prices.

 

(By the way, it’s nice to see that this thread has now become a grown up discussion of animal welfare, and not just how bad Muslims are.)

My last pair of Nike cost over £100 so I like to think they were ethically produced! A £2 T-shirt cant be.

[Robin-H 11]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

Population control for the benefit of who?

 

So Humans are doing these animals a favour by killing them rather than them just being left alone to live a natural life?  How arrogant.

 

The rest of the post is relevant as that is the topic under discsussion.

 

Population control is largely for the benefit of nature. Not us. Yes, controlling numbers reduces damage to crops, and reduces road traffic accidents, but it also prevents huge amounts of damage to woodland etc. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/culling-deer-no-brainer-woodland

 

"The deer population of the UK (as in much of the rest of Europe, large sections of the US, Japan and Australia at least) is rising rapidly, for not entirely clear reasons, and is currently one of the most serious threats to our woods. Deer destroy woodlands – they damage trees, devour seedlings, prevent decent coppicing, eliminate a number of key (and much loved) plants like oxlip and bluebells, reduce cover for several endangered birds – for example nightingales – and encourage bracken, rough grass and littered clearings." 

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

21 minutes ago, lil-minx92 said:

My last pair of Nike cost over £100 so I like to think they were ethically produced! A £2 T-shirt cant be.

Nike workers outside the US earn about $15 per week (about £13 per week unless the pound has fallen even further).

 

Now that is higher than the average wage in those areas but conditions are generally poor and hours are long. I read somewhere that a worker is paid on average between 7p and 10p per trainer. The mark up on branded trainers is massive.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

Population control is largely for the benefit of nature. Not us. Yes, controlling numbers reduces damage to crops, and reduces road traffic accidents, but it also prevents huge amounts of damage to woodland etc. 

 

1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

Population control is largely for the benefit of nature. Not us. Yes, controlling numbers reduces damage to crops, and reduces road traffic accidents, but it also prevents huge amounts of damage to woodland etc. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/culling-deer-no-brainer-woodland

 

"The deer population of the UK (as in much of the rest of Europe, large sections of the US, Japan and Australia at least) is rising rapidly, for not entirely clear reasons, and is currently one of the most serious threats to our woods. Deer destroy woodlands – they damage trees, devour seedlings, prevent decent coppicing, eliminate a number of key (and much loved) plants like oxlip and bluebells, reduce cover for several endangered birds – for example nightingales – and encourage bracken, rough grass and littered clearings." 

 

 

 

"The deer population of the UK (as in much of the rest of Europe, large sections of the US, Japan and Australia at least) is rising rapidly, for not entirely clear reasons, and is currently one of the most serious threats to our woods. Deer destroy woodlands – they damage trees, devour seedlings, prevent decent coppicing, eliminate a number of key (and much loved) plants like oxlip and bluebells, reduce cover for several endangered birds – for example nightingales – and encourage bracken, rough grass and littered clearings." 

 

 

Humans culling deer is for benefit of nature......what on earth would nature do without us eh?

[Pettytom 1]

15 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Humans culling deer is for benefit of nature......what on earth would nature do without us eh?

I guess we could reintroduce some top predators and rebalance our food webs in that way. 

 

Wolves and lynx anyone?

[Guest makapaka]

18 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I guess we could reintroduce some top predators and rebalance our food webs in that way. 

 

Wolves and lynx anyone?

Absolutely-would be an excellent approach.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

20 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Wolves and lynx anyone?

Hasn’t Lynx done enough harm to the environment with every teenage boy using it as a replacement for having a shower? 😵

[Robin-H 11]

40 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Humans culling deer is for benefit of nature......what on earth would nature do without us eh?

Nature would of course find a balance eventually, but there would be a lot of damage and harm to other wildlife in the meantime. 

 

There are a myriad of species in this country that exist in habitats that are created by humans, and need humans to maintain that habitat. If all humans disappeared, farmland would gradually turn back into woodland, and over time, many many species of plant or animal would be driven out. 

 

We humans generally don't want large-scale changes to the habitats and wildlife that exist in the UK (or other places) and so try to preserve things as they are. That requires human intervention, 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Robin-H