Here’s the Friday open comments post.
Today’s suggested topic is ‘private ownership to protect endangered species.’ That might include private purchases of land, ‘adoption’ of animals, our even reductions in restrictions on owning and eating otherwise endangered animals.
The use of pseudonyms and anonymous postings will be fine.
Although the comments template has a space for a name, email address, and website, those who want to leave a field blank can do so. Comments will be moderated, against profanity or trolls. Otherwise, have at it.
I’ll keep the post open through Sunday afternoon.
keeping lions for food would make people care less about them as natural creatures. their lives would be miserable and they’d have no more respect than pigs have now. after a while they wouldn’t seem special at all and would be neglected and mistreated
It would be too hard to raise big cats for food, although it might work for smaller animals.
If the goal is to save a species by saving its DNA, then it makes sense to keep currently endangered animals on farms for restaurants. The specific lions would have bad lives, but their DNA would survive.
No way! The number of lions would be much larger if they were raised domestically. BUT it’s still not a job anyone would take! Some of them would probably kill each other unless they were kept apart.
That’s right, what the person wrote about lions not seeming special after they were farmed.
People eat tuna all the time, but no one thinks a tuna is special.
They’re just food, and only worthwhile for profit.
Profit is what would keep wild animals alive in private preserves or for food. Sick or dead animals would cost more than they’d be worth. A profit motive makes caruing for property meaningful.
Hello, Mr. Adams
Your plan would only work for small animals, fish, and birds. Others have noted that it would be too hard to raise big cats like farm animals. There are already restaurants that offer exotic meats, and it might be possible to expand that concept for other species.
I like Stossel’s show, and I liked his take when he was at ABC news. I think he’s going to far to think that lion burgers would be a way to keep lions (at least their DNA) plentiful.
With smaller animals there would still need to be a demand to eat them, and they’re aren’t that many animals that have that exotic appeal. Most endangered species are probably unknown.
If other private uses were possible, like an expanded opportunities for private zoos or exhibits, there’d be a real opprtunity in a counrty of 300 million potential tourists. That’s probably a best bet, and worth giving a try.
Hi John — Real true about how the buffalo were exterminated. The government encouraged the killing of buffalo to drive Indians into submission and then to reservations. Buffalo didn’t just die because people developed the West They died because government leaders encouraged choking off the Indians food supply.
people who did this would be risking thier lives from animal rights crusaders it would be safer to be in a cage with the lions
Umm…The Phantom Stranger does not relate to this Friday’s Forum. Unless we are total vegans…whats’s the issue…we all consume meat, fish, or fowl in some form. As for the The Phantom Stranger, over the ages, a diet of whey and ale as sufficed.
Well, this is certainly a more left-field sort of topic. 🙂 I’m not sure it’s possible to save all species by encouraging more, rather than less, ownership. I’d be willing to experiment, with a reduction in animal ownership restrictions.
Setting aside the prospect of lion burgers, I’d go with a diet that included ale, surely. Couldn’t imagine, either, a fish fry without some beer.
But as for endangered fish like snail darters, for example, I think that if it were possible to sell then as a delicacy, there’d been some enterprising fishery that would be raising countless thousands of them.
They might not always be found in the wild, but they’d be found pickled and on someone’s plate, with all the preserved DNA any scientist might need as leftovers.