Wouldn't it make sense to eat endangered animals??

Question

If we could convince people that penguins or polar bears were good eating, then farmers would find some way to start raising them, and then we would have a lot of them. Cows, chickens, pigs... they all seem to be thriving in the world. Demand would lead to supply.. no?

The point is not to raise a few to try to reintroduce them into their own environment, because there is little funding for that. HOWEVER, if billions of people wanted to EAT them, then there would be plenty of people willing to raise them for profit. As I said, look at how well we do with chickens. People that worry about eating animals or how they "feel" in captivity don't have anything constructive to add to my idea of saving endangered creatures, they are just full of platitudes.

I am going to re-ask this question another day with this addition. How about if we start supporting WEARING rare animals as well as eating them? Those PETA nuts are always running around throwing red paint on people with fur. If, on the other hand, we PROMOTED wearing endangered animals we could raise them for food, wear them for warmth and satisfy our nutty need to have dead animals on our bodies and hanging on our walls...?

Answer 1

I know what your saying but the animals we eat are land grazing animals, it means cuz they eat grass and vegthey are cheap to raise and profits can be made when they are sold for their meat, look at pigs-a pig os worth a fortune cuz pigs will eat anything and you an eat almost any part of them. But most endangered animals are preditors/carnivours, there would be little-no profit to be made from them cuz they would cost so much to raise. Also cows and other animals that we eat have been bred for hundreds of years to basically make them into food on legs, meaning they are fatter slower and stronger than they evey would have been before humans domesticated them, nowadays a heard of cows will happily walk to their own slaughter. -it takes hundreds of years of breeding for an animal to become like this.

Answer 2

I see where you're going with this question. If you can breed these on a large scale, they won't be endangered anymore.

You might be able to raise penquins, polar bears and other species like this but the cost would be too much to sustain on a commercial scale.

From what I'm seeing penguins aren't endangered. Lean meat is the trend today and penguin meat is fat, not as lean as turkey or chicken.

"They are very fat, so a method that melts the fat off is better, like a roast. The blood is very rich in oxygen so the meat turns an un-apetizing dark as it cooks. The breast can make decent steaks. For doing an omelet, you need to remove some of the white of the egg otherwise it's not tasty enough; but the overall taste is the same than a normal omelet. Am I joking ? Maybe... Just remember that many an explorer can trace his survival to scrambled penguin eggs. Hardly a necessity nowadays. "


As far as polar bears, heart worms, meat too tough and they have a tendency to eat anything that gets to close to them, so you or the farmer might end up on the polar bear's plate. Again, the major problems would be the cost and coaxing the bears into a reproduction assembly line.

Answer 3

I assume your main objective is not to provide an additional source of food, but to conserve the endangered species by making their survival economically beneficial to humans.

Considering the points about commercial viability of mass producing, say polar bears, there could be an alternative way - maybe a variant of eco tourism.

Say you create a national park for polar bears, and in addition to the normal safaris etc, maybe issue 50 hunting licenses a year for a hefty fee. There would definitely be some people who would want a polar bear head in their sitting room. This money can then be utilized to ensure better protection against poaching.

And the final solution could be what;s happening to Mountain Gorillas now. Although their numbers in the wild are dwindling, there is a sufficiently large critical mass with a good gene pool in zoos around the world, which will ensure that the species does not become technically extinct. Perhaps this can be replicated for polar bears, penguins, Californian condors, et al.

Answer 4

You've got a good point, and it -has- worked. Look at the Bison (or buffalo if you want to call them that.), where we had depleted them for generations, we figure out that we can make money off of them and farm them and wow, we've got bison again. Worked for alligators too, when they were put on the endangered species list, there were many people who thought we'd run out of them. Put some in captivity, get them to breed, there you go.

The thing is, there has to be a pre-existing demand for at least a part or two from the animal. Everyone knew bison were good eating, they're close enough to cattle, let's do it. Alligators too, just because they were endangered didn't stop people wanting purses/shoes/etc. made from their hides. Their meat isn't too bad, either, and even though in the wild, maybe one out of a hundred or so make it to adulthood, all that changes in captivity, we'll never run out of gators now.

I'm not sure there's too much demand for the meat of polar bears or penguins, though... Manatee is a different story, again, we have a species that was eaten on a regular basis by Native Americans before the Europeans got here, and even the European settlers were known to eat "sea cows". I've pondered this situation, there's still a few old-timers around who remember manatee, and say it's better than steak. Can we make money on them, though? Doubtful, because an average female manatee only gives birth every 3 - 5 years... too slow of a reproductive system to be farming them. You'd have to have a certain percentage of the offspring going back into the wild somewhere, people aren't going to wait around and pay who knows how much for a manatee steak.

You've got a point, we do seem to save what we can make money from, but it depends on how quick your turnover is and how profitable the animal is, we'll never see whales or elephants on the menu legally, either.

Answer 5

- there are many more endangered animals than we could possibly want to eat, so it could only work for very few species.
- There are plenty of endangered animals which are not good to eat, I would say most (don't forget there are endangered insects e.g. butterflies, also e.g. toads, frogs, salamanders which can contain toxins)
- wild animals are much more difficult to keep than domestic animals. Not many animals are suitable to be kept as domestic animals, that's why we have only a few kinds.
Many endangered animals are meat eaters. It is not economical to eat meat eaters. Also it increases the chance of transmitting parasites and diseases.
- if an endangered animal is protected by protecting its habitat, you are not only protecting a single species but many more. An endangered animal species can often be regarded as indicator species, a species which reacts more sensitive to biotope degradation. If it is not protected, then with further biotop degradation more and more animal species in that habitat will become endangered. So just taking a single species and trying to domesticate it will not solve much of a problem.
- keeping species in captivity exerts a different selection pressure on the members of the species than living in their natural habitat. This will lead to a chance of the species (usually less aggressive/shy, tendency to color variation) which does not contribute to their survival in the wild. Domestication changes the species, and then it is not any more the species you set out to rescue.

Answer 6

It would make the type of sense which puts hens in tiny cages for egg production.
If endangered animals are farmed then their quality of life would take an enourmous downturn.

Besides if some people eat endangered speices, there is no indication that they would be farmed.

Thinking like that suggests that the only animals which should survive are the ones humans wish to abuse.

The sea horse is endangered, it doesn't stop Chinese catching them for their illogical believes.

Answer 7

Ugh, I hope that is just a rumor! It is so cruel to kill endangered animals like that. If it is true, then I'm not sure what animals are at risk. Why do people like sushi over there so much, anyway?

Answer 8

There are 1.4 billion heads of cattle in the world today. They are extinct in the wild. There are no plans to reintroduce cattle, generally Bos taurus, into the wild. So if they won't do it for the bull and the cow (male and female cattle) even though bulls are one of the strongest, toughest, and most deadly of land animals and one of the most admirable, then why would they reintroduce the Iberian lynx? Or various subspecies of the tiger? Or the clouded leopard? Does that make sense to you? Besides, there are no plans to start farming rare tigers for their pelts.

Answer 9

Think about this.
An extinct animal changes the world. Many animals eat them and if their prey dies, the predator dies also. Also, think about the pyramid. there are cube of animals all making a pyramid, and if you remove one, the pyramid falls right?
First of all, a polar bear or penguin is not endangered.
it is not okay to eat carnivorous animals. we only eat vegetarian animals because they have lots of vitamins. a tiger or bear doesn't and if you think about it, it would be disgusting. so think about these thoughts. farm animals are raised, even if you don't notice. chickens can not be in the wild because chickens were evolved from a species that were probobly a farm animal. this goes to the cows and other FARM animals. so they don't belong in the wild, they are farm animals. hope i helped.

Answer 10

if they were bred for domestic use they would not be called endangered
but pengiuns have a lot of fat
and Polar bears like eating people

come to think of it we are endangered as well
that sounds like a much better solution ,bring back canibalism .it would take care of over`population ,take the pressure of food production and water shortage ,and make more natural resources available to the ones who dont get eaten
the more i think about it the better it sounds

less polution .less wars .less expanding populations that deforrest to practice irresponsible agriculture which leads to desertification

cars would be cheaper ,with so many owners missing

,the Envronment would sigh with relief ,
i think i have just solved the planets mayor problems in one go

what are you doing for dinner ????