How does this make you feel
>Last week, a young Franciscana dolphin was killed on a beach in Argentina as a consequence of rough handling by throngs of eager tourists. The animal, along with another dolphin, had reportedly been yanked from the water so people could take photos.
>As if the loss of life for the sake of photographs wasn't troubling enough, Franciscana dolphins are listed as a "vulnerable" species, found only in the waters of southeastern South America.
>No , this one wasn't smart, he got close to the humans thinking they were friendly
>implying most of them aren't white tourists
One thing is to make a photo at a safe distance hell even spoiling a bit the photo with a piece of paper with the date ala 4chan is ok.
The other thing is just result of the whole social media shit. The good part is that sometimes instafuckers risk their lives just to get a photo with thousands of likes. So it's something.
>Possibility of asphixiation because cetaceans close their blowholes in extremely stressful situation, which is the case.
>Being crushed by the weight of his whole body, although it's a calf and probably that one is irrelevant.
The fella had one hell of a time before dying...
>spics on /an/
This was supposed to be the board where we talk about animals, not with animals.
The one a while back about tourists killing thousands of baby turtles by ambushing the site where the mothers came to shore and layed the eggs, then the assholes dug up all the eggs and stuff? Yeah, that was a bad. This is nothing compared to that.
I think /an/ is generally against fucking with animals for the sake of stupid shit.
If someone was jumping on a colony of ants for selfies I would be pissed too, I mean why bother?
Selfie culture is cancer.
I hate all these god damn articles always posting "endangered" they can at least state the real facts instead of branching off one another's bullshit. I saw somewhere that said the dolphins were washing up on the beach already dying and people just decided to pull them out but idk.
>Killing farm animals for food is not the same as killing endangered species for selfies, you dirty coloured hippie.
It often really is though.
You don't need either to live a healthy life.
In the former case it's intentional and in the latter it's stupidity.
i suppose that at least for free range animals there may be possibility of higher quality of life
World hunger deaths are from poverty, almost never from an actual shortage of food in existence.
There's more than enough food to feed the entire world, and then some. The systems of distribution are broken.
On a global scale, there is no actual shortage of edible plant products.
I'm 22 man. I just don't participate in any social media bullshit. I don't Facebook, tweet, insta, Vine, or tumbl. Every moment I share with others, we share together. We don't have to fucking upload it for the rest of the world to give us approval.
Just live in the moment man. You don't need to be constantly connected to social media.
We've got a weird situation in the US because the government pays farmers to grow grain we can't use.
For example we export about 20% of our grain right off the top. So if animals eat 70% and we export 20% and use 30% to make ethanol you'll see we've used 120% of our grain harvest.
the reason there's an overlap is because grain usually gets used twice. We ferment a flat 30% of our grain harvest to make ethanol, then feed the leftover mash from the fermentation process to animals. This adds to the 40% of grain fed directly to animals to make 70%. But that's not even entirely accurate.
most of the 30% we distill and make into gasoline is just the stems and leaves from grain plants that were grown to feed people.
so that 30% used for ethanol and the additional 40% used for animal feed is ALSO used to feed people and to export.
it gets really confusing not just because we're using the same plants for two or three different purposes, but we're also using different parts of those plants for many different purposes.
but if we didn't feed it to animals and export it and turn it into ethanol and eat it then the government would still buy it and toss it in the ocean. Because we pay farmers to keep farming whether we need the food or not.
>We've got a weird situation in the US because the government pays farmers to grow grain we can't use.
>we've used 120% of our grain harvest
>but if we didn't feed it to animals and export it and turn it into ethanol and eat it
>if we didn't use grain for this, that, this and that which uses all the grain grown
>we pay farmers to keep farming whether we need the [it] or not.
>the government pays farmers to grow grain we can't use
Yeah how so? This misinformation has to die already.
it's true in certain frames of reference.
for example if we count calories rather than pounds it's probably true.
It's more likely to be true with foods where we don't eat most of the plant. For example grains where most of the plant is wasted.
it's also true in cases where the animal is eating weeds or wild pasture in places that can't be farmed.
Vegetarians and environmentalists love to pretend we have to choose between growing plants and animals, but in real practice we can and do grow both on the same land since waste parts of plants are often fed to livestock.
>they're not all rangeland cattle.
in the US over half of cattle graze on FS and BLM land.
this doesn't count all the cattle grazing on private property.
so yes, most cattle spend the last week or two of their lives eating grain, but the first two years are spent eating grass and weeds.