- cross-posted to:
- vegan@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- vegan@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll go ahead and add “Eaten by apex predator” to the list of insane hamster deaths.
I’d like to subscribe to your “Insane Hamster Deaths” newsletter.
I’m just morbidly curious about what sort of situations the little guys might find themselves in.
Might also ask yourself how OP has been conveniently present for so many hamster deaths…
OP is the apex predator he mentioned
I like this. Maybe it sounds bad but when I was a kid a neighbor paid me to kill all his chickens after a hurricane because it was hot and their chicken house was gone. I would have much rather he drove them to the zoo to be fed to the animals there.
Growing up on a farm we killed, plucked and processed a few hundred chickens each year. Kept us and several families in town fed with good quality meat over the winter.
It’s not a bad thing to be that close to your own food production.
These were laying hens though. They would have been better off as zoo food than put in my freezer as crab bait. I don’t think it’s bad to be close to food production. I’m a farmer.
15 laying hens hardly take up much space for laying. Surprising they didn’t just rig up a quick place for them to find cover and let them wander the yard until they figured out a more permanent solution. With hurricane debris around, repurposing wood that’s around shouldn’t be hard to find. Hell some people I’ve seen just throw the wood they bought to cover windows down by the road for trash to pick up. They could have found a downed tree and an ax and they would have hadenough to build a quick structure. Chickens don’t ask for much
For one thing, you were probably really sure to keep the meat from being contaminated with animal feces, or from eating obviously sick animals.
You don’t want to eat chickens that are older or that are unhealthy
Define unhealthy, we definitely dont eat sick birds, but before we knew how much to feed them, we had a LOT of chicken lard. What’s wrong with eating older birds? They’re chewy, sure, but they can still make a tasty soup.
chicken lard
Schmaltz.
Lard is rendered pork fat, chicken fat is called schmaltz.
Wow, I didn’t think there would be so many crazy psychos in the comments.
I can get that people might not feel as much empathy with animals than humans (get, not approve) but most of the comments are kitten-drowning level.
You get a pet, which is supposed to be a companion and basically part of your family, and you don’t mind them being torn to shreds?
Okay then, I guess if your kid has a terminal cancer we can also feed him to the tiger? After all in the end it’s just a bunch of meat.
Not my kid, but if I’m terminal I’m gonna add “killed by some food-safe means and then fed to tigers in front of zoo patrons” to my potential death plans.
“The funeral will be at the civic building at 10am, and the viewing at 12:00 by the tiger sanctuary in Edgewater Zoo”
it’s probably a bad idea for everybody else, as now there’s a captive tiger, that is one that will be around humans forever, that also already are human meat, which is a suboptimal combination
My comment was mostly a joke but that is a fair point. No tiger-pit for body disposal then
If you have a terminal illness they won’t take you as they only want “healthy animals”.
I dunno if they’re psychos, exactly, I’m mostly seeing interesting takes, like the chicken coop that blew away or the fisherman. Varying degrees of “how close are you to this animal,” especially since critters like mice could be a lovely pet or food for an equally lovely snake.
But yeah, couple people don’t turn off their dark humor either, but that’s just the internet. I don’t mind it, I imagine only 1% are actually psychopaths (which is iirc the statistical average, except in business where it’s 4%. And I guess politics, now).
Then again, my instance blocks certain other instances, too. Lol
Nobody’s suggesting that beloved pets get donated just for the sake of feeding the animals. But if you have a pet you’re planning to get rid of anyway, for whatever reason, some people would prefer to see the pet’s death contribute a final something back. Put it in the same logic as organ donation. Nobody WANTS to see their loved one’s corpse cut open and such, but knowing it helped somebody else in a small way can give some closure.
Getting rid of doesn’t equate to killing unless you’re incapable of planning and managing for the future.
If I’m dying, give me to the birds. But if I’ve, stopped entertaining you, then fuck you.
In many cases, getting rid of a pet does involve killing the pet, as there is only so much space in animal shelters and inflow is a lot more than adoptions. It’s unfortunate, but that’s how it is.
Okay then, I guess if your kid has a terminal cancer we can also feed him to the tiger? After all in the end it’s just a bunch of meat.
That’s a weird comparison, and it’s honestly a sign that you are struggling with separating the two on an emotional level. Which is ironic based on your opening sentence.
Alternatively, you’re too good at separating humans and animals on emotional level, to the extreme degree.
Well the animals are being euthenized then fed to the animals to diversify their diets. If assisted suicide was legal here and I elected for it, I would have no qualms with checking a box that said feed my meat sack to the tigers. Although they might not want to do that as it may encourage the idea that the handlers/vets look a lot like food.
I wish this was a “burial” option over making some creepy guy in a suit richer than he already is because you need just the right box for grandpa’s meat sac.
The comparable situation would be if your family grew tired of you, and some day decide to euthanize you and feed to tigers.
To which your answer is probably “well, I’m a human, you can’t do this to me, I don’t want to be killed against my will”, and we will be back to square one.No, you’re making this about a humans ability to kill the animal, not what should be done with the dead carcus. The animals fate is already sealed, it’s dead whether or not it goes to the zoo. Just means it is either thrown in a furnace or processed some other way.
If you don’t like that humans get to choose whar happens to the animals, I understand… but that’s something that should be protested or brought separately to your politicians.
This is more like saying people shouldn’t be able to elect to donate organs.
Edit: or rather your family deciding to donate those organs to a someone who needs them after you’re dead.
It’s a bit less about what happens to the body - that I don’t give a shit about - it’s about what happens to the live creature. It’s not about accepting your dead pets, it’s about accepting your alive pets to be killed, and I fundamentally don’t like that, no matter will they kill them and fed the corpses to tigers, or burn it like kill shelters do.
I agree with the other response - I don’t care about my meat sack once it’s no longer operational. Harvest my useful organs for donation, then feed the rest to the kitties.
The difference between humans and other animals is that we understand the concept of death and can make our post-life wishes known.
If my children told me they wanted to be fed to the tigers I’d probably still be horrified by the image of it but I wouldn’t push back.
Our pets can’t communicate their wishes to us, and in all likelihood they don’t care what happens to them when they’re dead. Putting their meat to some kind of use seems far more ethical to me than turning it into ash or sticking it in the ground.
It’s not about what happens to the body, if it was “bring us your dead pets we will feed them to tigers”, I wouldn’t be against it. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of surrendering your pet to be killed, be it a kill-shelter, or a zoo.
but that’s the humane thing to do, it’s not cool to force the animal to suffer from disease or old age until their bodies give out…
like, this is standard practice, you put your pets down when they’re too sick to live worthy lives.
They don’t feed diseased animals to the tigers
in the end it’s just a bunch of meat
That’s why it’s back on the menu, boys! The circle of life is brutal. I think everyone in these comments is just externally processing horror at the idea of sending their own pets.
Right? Fucking bunch of irrational horror-filled replies.
You get a pet, which is supposed to be a companion and basically part of your family, and you don’t mind them being torn to shreds?
This is a fair way to feel about it, but if the question is only what is done with a body after it has been euthanized it seems more like a cultural consideration than an ethical one. Like there are cultures with strong feelings about treatment of human corpses to the point where organ donation is taboo, but that doesn’t mean being ok with family members being organ donors is some awful thing.
There’s a larger question about how pets and other animals are treated, and the thought of someone euthanizing a healthy pet for petty reasons is really disturbing (like stories you sometimes hear about this being done as a way to emotionally abuse someone), but that isn’t exactly the fault of the zoo or its practices.
Yeah some of these comments were just disgusting. Do better Lemmy
It is worth noting that the article says they are euthanizing the animals before feeding. So it’s not like they take a terrified pet and let the tiger rip it apart alive.
Still, not a fan of this…
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder ‘why, why, why?’ Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand
Fluffy meowed and meowed, but didn’t get to eat. So, Fluffy scratched and clawed, but then got turned to meat.
One of my favorite lines of all time.
hee, that was fresh.
The tiger got to eat and they need a meat based diet.
Option A: Feed them animals that have to bee euthanized and die either way.
Option B: Bury the animal that had to be euthanized and on top of it kill another animal so the tiger can eat.
Option A means less animals killed. Now of course we can talk about whether zoos should exist in the first place, for which there are good arguments that they should not.
Right in the article it says “The animals are gently euthanized by trained staff”
They are tossed in to be torn appart. Iirc predators love to go balls first if the prey does not mean too much effort for them.
No where does it say that in the article, and twice it says they are euthanized beforehand, so I’m just going to have to assume you are making things up and spreading lies for your own agenda unless you can prove otherwise
Can’t not be serious even for a moment with these folks.
Will they accept corrupt politians or CEOs from other nations?
Would they accept donatinons of politicians?
Or billionaires
Maybe don’t keep animals captive if you need to petition people bring their pets for food. Wtf. Zoos are a mistake.
WTF is this take. It’s not that they can’t afford food, they’re trying to keep their food supply more ethical.
“In zoos, we have a responsibility to imitate the natural food chain of the animals — in terms of both animal welfare and professional integrity,” Aalborg Zoo said in a post on social media.
Zoos shouldn’t even exist, they’re inherently unethical. Asking people to donate family members they don’t want to have them killed for food is insanity.
This is an outdated take. Modern zoos play important roles in species preservation. Also public outreach and perception does wonders for conservation efforts worldwide.
Pets get put to sleep ALL the time, for a wide variety of reasons. The zoo is offering a chance to make the death more meaningful and contribute something back. If it’s not for you, that’s fine, but there’s no reason to shit on it. It will benefit others, and nobody loses from it.
I used to very much feel that way. I was incensed that we’d keep animals in tiny boxes, which must be existentially destructive to the psyches of these creatures.
Recent visits to moderns zoos and conservatories have shown me that zoology has seriously evolved from when I was younger. I’m not trying to say you shouldn’t feel the way you do, just maybe take a look at what they’re up to now, I think the underlying approach has changed for the better.
I’m know there are still lots of for-profit zoos around the world, however, that treat the creatures like hell. And in that case I don’t defend that even remotely. That’s where I’d be in total agreement with your sentiment.
If you’re American or Canadian or Australian (maybe others?) the secret is to make sure you visit “Accredited” zoos and aquariums.
They have regular inspections and assessments to ensure they meet Requirments for enclosure space sizes and maintenance and cleanliness quality, behaviour and mental enrichment for the animals (of which this would be something, providing natural prey instead of ground meat), health checks and veterinary care, documentation of all of the above, etc.
If somewhere isn’t accredited is risky as to whether or not the animals are properly cared for.
It is AZA in America, CAZA in Canada, and AAZA in Australia. There may be others for other countries but those are the ones I’m familiar with.
(Source: former zookeeper, AZA)
We are in the for-profit zoos
donate family members
They didn’t ask for your granny.
Ahh yes, the classic tiger meal - euthanized Yorkshire terrier.
Seeing as they specifically mentioned rabbit, chicken or guinea pig… You might want to check the breeding cert on that terrier of yours.
Removed by mod
Responsible snake owners don’t feed their snak live mice
Who’s feeding anything live in this discussion?
Do they take landlords?
No, only some species of sealords.
sadly the big three stopped making half bloods
Showing this to my cats to see if they stop scratching the sofa
Put a blanket over the place that she scratches and/or a scratching pole somewhere near the sofa.
Generally the more scratching poles (or carpets on the floor) they have to scratch, the less they mess with furniture.
“They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there”
They mention animals that are frequently raised as livestock. Chickens, Rabbits, Guinea Pigs are all mentioned. Horse is the only unusual one to me. I’d find it much more upsetting if they were accepting cats and dogs.
-Coincidentally I watched two YT videos yesterday. One was about some homesteaders that were dispatching chickens they raised for meat to share with their village. The other was about some small-time farmers that raise guinea-pigs (among other things) that were used for lawn-mowing. The farmers just anounced in that video that the guinea pigs will also be used as a food source.
Horse is not unusual as meat in the Netherlands.
It wasn’t unusual in the UK either.
Horse is common dog food in Australia
They eat horse in Korea as well.
few parts of japan
Removed by mod
Still sounds just as bad but then you have to wipe off the mashed-up pastry bits.
“Slyng ‘lang øre’ over til løven. Den skal jo også æde.”
deleted by creator
“Can we…can we watch? It’s just, Sprinkles, he’s…he’s a really bad dog. Dumb as a post, humps everything and everyone, snaps at you if you try to pet him. I’d really like to see a tiger just go to town on this awful, awful dog.”
*Kristi Noem has entered the chat…
She’s frothing at the mouth at the thought of getting American zoos to do this
To be fair to the zoo, everything they are asking for aside from the horses is available from RodentPro. I don’t like the idea of taking public donations like this because I’d worry about some weirdo poisoning something.
Animals with known medical histories will sometimes get “reused” after they expire. Time, money, and effort was put into these animals that didn’t make it, and in the wild, they would have served this purpose anyway. But those animals aren’t pets either.
Really the only news here is the public solicitation. I don’t think it’s the best look for the zoo, I don’t know their financial situation, but I can’t imagine they will be flooded with animals to make it worth the people this will turn off. The only thing we ask the public for is donations to buy food, canned or bagged commercial pet foods, or donations of fish that people catch.
I mean, Laura Loomer has literally called for 65 million people to be fed to alligators, so this would practically qualify as a moderate position by current GOP standards.
can I send an unwanted child?
Eric?
No, the other one
The other Eric?
Only if at least one of the parents was a horse
Mom?
I find it quite interesting how polarised this topic is.
Removed by mod
I mean you get this same argument when it comes to people saying that life needs to be protected above all else, and ignoring people’s desire for access to euthanasia. I know that i personally would not want to go on living if my quality of life was suddenly diminished beyond a certain point, especially if it was going to be an additional burden on my loved ones. Obviously pets can’t make this decision or communicate it, but i don’t think you have any right judging people making that choice for their own beloved animals. Putting an animal down can be an act of compassion. But some people understand that and other people are cunts. :)
you didn’t read what they wrote…
basically, her dog had gotten sick. Nothing major, but it required a bit more care than a healthy dog would
isn’t “quality of life was suddenly diminished beyond a certain point”. It’s how every being on earth works. People literally think that there’s no obligation to their animal to do anything other than give them food and water. As soon as the animal gets sick, or requires even a slight change outside of the norm they go to put it down. That’s not an act of compassion in any sense of the word. It’s laziness or malice on the part of the owner.
Removed by mod
