Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Should we start eating Tigers?

I watched a show a while back that talked about how we should go about increasing the number of indangered animals - like Tigers. The idea is that if we were to give them a monitary value that people would have a reason to help them along and step in to stop the poatching.

It worked with minks and the American Buffalo. These animals were once seen as "running out" and placed on the indangered list. Once people were allowed to farm them and sell them for food, bones, skins, whatever, the numbers all jumped in to millions...

Think of the millions of Chickens, Cows, Fish and other animals that we farm for food. Are we running low on ANY of them? No. Yet "protected" animals, like tigers, have numbers that drop all the time. So, why not start farming them - eating them, using the bones & skins?? Giving people a reason to better their numbers??

Your thougts?

Answer Question

Asked by SabrinaMBowen at 10:33 PM on May. 29, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 40 (122,988 Credits)
Answers (14)
  • the reason the American Buffalo was almost hunted to extinction is because the US government gave them a monitary value in the efforts to wipe them out and in the same stroke the native americans. . .Just an FYI

    Answer by chrissmom734 at 10:38 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • i'm still trying to figure out why we should or shouldn't eat dunkin donuts..(previous thread that blew my mind..)
    my thoughts are, and its raw..why do we care about certain animals, and not others? sure, in the past (waaaay past!), we used products of animals either for food, shelter, clothing, etc.,..but none of that is really necessary now, is it? my frank opinion is, its a dog eat dog world..i'd rather save the humans, than the animals.

    Answer by thehairnazi at 10:56 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • actually the American buffalo (Tatanka,Sioux ) was hunted to extinction(or close to) due to it's hide... not for food purposes, the monertary amount came only from the hide, not any other part of the animal by the U.S government..
    The Native Amecians used all of the animal when hunted and only hunted when needed...

    As for other animals I think it depends on the animal. Just recently the Wolf was removed from the endangered list and now some states are starting their hunting of them up again.

    Basically (JMO) some animals are primarly used for food and are farm raised (such as deer, fish, cattled, chickens etc even buffalo is farmed raised), but for the more exotic animals (such as tigers, lions, zebras and elephant to name a few) should be left alone.
    It is not like we can not show, or teach others to farm raise the animals needed for survival.
    only my thoughts on it

    Answer by gmasboy at 11:00 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • my frank opinion is, its a dog eat dog world..i'd rather save the humans, than the animals...---

    Not to be rude... but being of that mind set does off set the balance of nature.... each creature is here for a purpose all the down to the earth worm...
    What I am saying is that certain animals are meant to be part of the food chain for either or both man and beast and we (as humans) I don't think, have the right to change that....JMO

    Answer by gmasboy at 11:07 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • I will eat anything...I mean ANYTHING..

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:07 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • I don't know... true, we are not running short on cows, but they are really not 'wild animals' anymore. In the same way, there is a difference between a wild tiger and what would result if we bred them in captivity for our selected characteristics. Because we really wouldn't want to farm wild tigers, kwim? We would want to breed them to be docile, we would want to breed them to be fat (more hide on a fat tiger, right?), we would want to breed them for colour variations... ultimately you would end up with a domesticated animal that descended from tigers but was not really the same as the wild ancestor.

    Answer by Freela at 11:10 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • my point is, i find it rather ludicrous to go all out for saving the whales/whatever..when there are starving humans right at your front door, locally/globally. if the only food source left was a tiger, and i had a starving family..guess who gets to eat?

    Answer by thehairnazi at 11:11 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • As an example, modern dogs are descended from wild dogs (wolves, coyotes, etc.) But after being selectively bred by humans, they are distinct from their wild ancestors. Hence there are no wild chihuahuas! Given enough time, we would do the same with tigers, just as we've done when we domesticated the canines, the cows, the chickens, etc. We wouldn't be preserving a wild species, we would be selectively breeding a domesticated species, kwim?

    Answer by Freela at 11:15 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • I think I saw this on 20/20 a couple weeks back. It was interesting. I haven't formed an opinion on it though.

    Answer by ReneeK3 at 11:35 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • I don't know.....horses are pretty much extinct in the wild. There's only one true non-domesticated wild horse left (in Mongolia) and they are very endangered. Domesticating them did not help the wild ones at all.

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 11:36 PM on May. 29, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.