Eating ethical meat

[ADigitalArtist]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals (like the incredibly destructive Asian carp, or invasive pythons and turtles)? Does it make a difference to you if the utter necessity for culling is there, and using the meat would cut down on waste and build a market for helping fish and game remove destructive species?

As a non-vegetarian would you be willing to add in these sources of fresh meats, preventing waste and helping lower ecological threats, in place of a burger or steak? Have you already tried any of these? (Turtle, snake, carp, overpopulated culled animals besides deer)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As a vegetarian or vegan on that path for ethical concerns, would you be more willing to partake of meat if it's an invasive species which is taken to prevent damage to other animals (like the incredibly destructive Asian carp, or invasive pythons and turtles)? Does it make a difference to you if the utter necessity for culling is there, and using the meat would cut down on waste and build a market for helping fish and game remove destructive species?

As a non-vegetarian would you be willing to add in these sources of fresh meats, preventing waste and helping lower ecological threats, in place of a burger or steak? Have you already tried any of these? (Turtle, snake, carp, overpopulated culled animals besides deer)

As an omnivore, with no prejudice against either source, I believe we are given dominion over both for our use- meaning all food and all mankind over the entire planet.

I.e. I don't think potatoes should be reserved for Americans, just because they are non-indigenous/ invasive species elsewhere!?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As an omnivore, with no prejudice against either source, I believe we are given dominion over both for our use- meaning all food and all mankind over the entire planet.

I.e. I don't think potatoes should be reserved for Americans, just because they are non-indigenous/ invasive species elsewhere!?

I'm not talking about introduced plants and animals in an enclosed farm setting, though. I'm talking about invasive species which do tons of ecological damage. Making those invasive sources part of our diet, encouraging hunters and gatherers to take up and use or sell these food sources both helps preserve ecology and reduces waste. Like the Burmese and rock pythons that are destroying native birds and reptiles in the Everglades. Things like that.

 

[Quintessence]

I just want to say I love you forever now for this thread.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh, I suppose I should note that study of invasive species was one of the things of particular interest to me in graduate school when studying conservation and ecology and such. There are a few programs here and there trying to encourage humans to use non-native invasive species that are particularly problematic as food sources. An example of this is the Pacific Lionfish that is tearing up various regions on the East Coast of the United States. There are, unfortunately, logistical, economic, and cultural problems to seeing this species on the dinner plates of folks on the coast. Well... that and the species is kinda venomous and you have to be careful about hunting it, but there are folks developing some cool methods to deal with this.

Of course, the inside joke amongst invasion biologists is that there is one invasive species that tops them all, and that's humans. But we can't very well suggest starting to eat those animals... >_>;

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not talking about introduced plants and animals in an enclosed farm setting, though. I'm talking about invasive species which do tons of ecological damage. Making those invasive sources part of our diet, encouraging hunters and gatherers to take up and use or sell these food sources both helps preserve ecology and reduces waste. Like the Burmese and rock pythons that are destroying native birds and reptiles in the Everglades. Things like that.

As mentioned by other posters 'invasive' or 'damaging are very subjective terms. Nature invades and damages itself in constant running battles between various species. But I'd say hunters know best what makes good hunting and eating. If 'encouraging' means spending money regulating and/or subsidizing various hunting practices, that's increasing waste, not reducing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As mentioned by other posters 'invasive' or 'damaging are very subjective terms. Nature invades and damages itself in constant running battles between various species. But I'd say hunters know best what makes good hunting and eating. If 'encouraging' means spending money regulating and/or subsidizing various hunting practices, that's increasing waste, not reducing.

What other posters? All I see is you and Quintessence who seems to agree with me. Humorously mentioning that we should probably not try and eat Lionfish as an exception due to it being poisonous.
And I'd say that Fish and Game usually know better than hunters, and they are as mentioned encouraging ways to get invasive species on the dinner plate. Besides, plenty of us (though I'm a fisher, not a hunter) already do turn 'trash fish' into both food and fertilizer and try to waste as little as possible, and put money towards hunting and using those resources in innovative ways.
However, I was pretty clear in the OP that I was asking a personal question about individual choice to adopt a behavior, not legislation, regulation, subsidization etc.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course, the inside joke amongst invasion biologists is that there is one invasive species that tops them all, and that's humans. But we can't very well suggest starting to eat those animals... >_>;

That is true. I considered talking about that a bit in the OP. Not cannibalization, lol, but about invasiveness being a human issue and not the fault of the animal. But even so, it's not the fault of the native species being wiped out by the invasive ones either.

I've eaten some invasives. Had some snake meat and Asian carp, that's about it though.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm a vegetarian, I don't need to try any of your weird foods.

 

[illykitty]

Not sure, I'm on the fence with that. The problem to me, with eating animals, is that I can't kill an animal, so how can I partake in it? It would feel hypocritical and produce some cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, like you said, they're invasive species (sometimes it's our fault they ended up this way) and it's dead so it would be wasteful.

I have no answer to this hypothetical question, it's likely I'd only be able to answer if it happened in real life and I took a decision.

 

[james bond]

To answer your question, I eat what tastes good and try to go organic, free range and natural as much as I can. I avoid any mutation or GM foods. If a species is invasive, then I'd want to get rid of it, but it's a fine line. There may be reasons for why these creatures exist. Don't be quick to judge and judge only when you have to, i.e. they are invading and damaging your turf. I don't like ravens much, but it's a necessary bird. The ones I like to get rid of are starlings, quick death if possible, but the state of California is the only one who can poison these birds. Sometimes they wait too long. I just try to shoot them with air guns in the country. I'm not the greatest hunter or fisherman, so only go with experienced friends or groups. I enjoy it and love the outdoors, but am too amateur to be good at it. I'm better at confronting bad guys. Another guy I know is ex-military and the quickest draw I know. He is confident and takes chances. I suppose the guys he faces could rat him out, but these guys won't do it. That's worse than death to them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no problem with it. With turtle, that would be weird since I have a pet turtle. I prefer not knowing how my pets taste.

 

[VioletVortex]

To me, "ethical meat" means meat that has been produced on a small scale, as opposed to the torturous large scale production used by the greedy capitalist meat companies. Unfortunately, almost all meat companies are like that, and I can't do **** about it. I like meat, so I don't worry to much about whether or not it is ethical.

I do feel a touch of guilt about supporting scum like that though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What other posters? All I see is you and Quintessence who seems to agree with me. Humorously mentioning that we should probably not try and eat Lionfish as an exception due to it being poisonous.
And I'd say that Fish and Game usually know better than hunters, and they are as mentioned encouraging ways to get invasive species on the dinner plate. Besides, plenty of us (though I'm a fisher, not a hunter) already do turn 'trash fish' into both food and fertilizer and try to waste as little as possible, and put money towards hunting and using those resources in innovative ways.
However, I was pretty clear in the OP that I was asking a personal question about individual choice to adopt a behavior, not legislation, regulation, subsidization etc.

Well I agree with you, that personal choice should take precedence over legislation here. Fish and Game, DNR, the Feds, are welcome to stand on their soapbox and tell us what they 'think'.. as long as it ends there. In my experience government workers are the last people on Earth to look to for practical wisdom.

But in practice 'invasive species' is a very malleable and useful term for those who coined it. Just an anecdote, but there used to be acres of beautiful forest near me. It was privately owned by a family for generations, and periodically logged- they took the oldest trees, and also cleared the scrub, leaving a very pleasant healthy woodland behind in a sustainable cycle.

The local government banned logging, confiscated the property, then immediately stripped all of it because supposedly it was 'invasive'- a million years ago maybe, who knows- so too for all the wildlife living there apparently, all for a quick buck to pay down their debts. Anyone who has ever worked in government, local, state or otherwise, is perfectly aware of the cynical business model.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well I agree with you, that personal choice should take precedence over legislation here. Fish and Game, DNR, the Feds, are welcome to stand on their soapbox and tell us what they 'think'.. as long as it ends there. In my experience government workers are the last people on Earth to look to for practical wisdom.

But in practice 'invasive species' is a very malleable and useful term for those who coined it. Just an anecdote, but there used to be acres of beautiful forest near me. It was privately owned by a family for generations, and periodically logged- they took the oldest trees, and also cleared the scrub, leaving a very pleasant healthy woodland behind in a sustainable cycle.

The local government banned logging, confiscated the property, then immediately stripped all of it because supposedly it was 'invasive'- a million years ago maybe, who knows- so too for all the wildlife living there apparently, all for a quick buck to pay down their debts. Anyone who has ever worked in government, local, state or otherwise, is perfectly aware of the cynical business model.

That sounds like quite a story. Probably told to you by the family, not the other side I bet. I have worked in Fish and Game, by the by, in the Pacific NW where we interacted with loggers as well as home and business violations. I've seen the other side of the equation. Where people who say that they are 'sustainable maintaining healthy wood' don't have a damn idea what they're doing. Ruin waterways with erosion, silt and pollutants from illegal cutting, cattle ranching, poisoning 'unsightly' but necessary water plants, and invasive but pretty plants like butterfly bushes and Himalayan blackberries or pets like red eared slider turtles. And really just putting personal traditionalism/I'm just doing what my pappy did/I should be able to do what I want on my own land because I'm a myopic jackarse--over known findings.

But hey, that's a conversation for another thread.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There may be reasons for why these creatures exist. Don't be quick to judge and judge only when you have to, i.e. they are invading and damaging your turf. I don't like ravens much, but it's a necessary bird.

Oh I'm not talking about extermination of invasive species from the Earth, just from places they were introduced to and cause damage to native species. Like the once-pet-snakes that are killing scores of native birds and reptiles in the Everglades.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Of course, the inside joke amongst invasion biologists is that there is one invasive species that tops them all, and that's humans. But we can't very well suggest starting to eat those animals... >_>

Perhaps with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

But with the obesity epidemic in the developed world, it would be very fatty meat.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not a story

That sounds like quite a story. Probably told to you by the family, not the other side I bet. I have worked in Fish and Game, by the by, in the Pacific NW where we interacted with loggers as well as home and business violations. I've seen the other side of the equation. Where people who say that they are 'sustainable maintaining healthy wood' don't have a damn idea what they're doing. Ruin waterways with erosion, silt and pollutants from illegal cutting, cattle ranching, poisoning 'unsightly' but necessary water plants, and invasive but pretty plants like butterfly bushes and Himalayan blackberries or pets like red eared slider turtles. And really just putting personal traditionalism/I'm just doing what my pappy did/I should be able to do what I want on my own land because I'm a myopic jackarse--over known findings.

But hey, that's a conversation for another thread.

It's not a story I heard from either side, just my first hand observation of an area people (and wildlife) used to enjoy. and as I said, it's anecdotal. maybe they do great work in other places/states. But it's truly depressing what they did. The private owners also used to allow people to enjoy the property, riding horses, walking their dogs, cycling, and other such 'violations' with very little 'erosion'... Until all these things were banned, enforced and patrolled by government trucks and atvs tearing up what used to be unobtrusive trails.

Have you ever owned and looked after, loved your own land? I think you would have a far less hateful view of ordinary landowners if you did

 

[psychoslice]

Ethical to who ?, you or the animal that can't speak ?.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Have you ever owned and looked after, loved your own land? I think you would have a far less hateful view of ordinary landowners if you did

Yeah, I have. Granted, it was only a five acre farm. But I also had family with larger and worked at a large stable too. I don't have a hateful view of ordinary landowners. But I also don't think they're comparably innocent when it comes to matters of ecology, or education about it. And I've seen them chafe at the slightest bit of oversight, and outright lie about persecution when knowingly violating protections for wildlife and habitat.

Again, though, a subject for another thread.