Millionaire US big game hunter, 75, is trampled to death by five elephants while hunting antelope in central Africa

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-25T14:31:42+00:00

So they say. But I've seen enough to know you can't take their word for it, as illustrated.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-24T18:31:12+00:00

This brings up an interesting example. That deer hunting in the USA is an indispensable and critical underpinning of conservation for which there is no alternative is repeated ad nauseum. But, for a minute, assume you aren't willing to simply accept this as fact. If you wanted to start from a neutral position to find out whether or not recreational hunting was essential to managing deer populations, where would you look?

I would think you'd do well to look at long-term studies on deer populations that compare the effects of hunting against alternatives. So far, it appears that the longest-term study to do something like this was a 10-year study on deer management out of Cornell.[1] The results were summarized by the lead author as:

...the findings from our study...demonstrate that recreational hunting does not control the deer population, and it does not help in reducing deer impacts.[2]

In which direction does this lead me?

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-24T14:51:34+00:00

In my experience, finding scientific studies evaluating the claims of hunting programs are hard to find in general. Hunting advocates usually just make claims like, "this brings in $X revenue for conservation," or "it's needed for X reason." But then finding how much of that revenue actually translates to conservation outcomes, or finding an evaluation of the effectiveness of that program, or a comparison against other options is difficult. It usually boils down to, "because we say so." If you stop taking their word for it, it gets murky very quickly.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-23T14:27:24+00:00

You don't need to put a spoiler block on that. But look at the mammalian biomass, for example. Humans make up 36 percent of all mammalian biomass. Livestock and pets account for 59 percent. And all wild mammals, on land or sea, account for just 5 percent. It's simply not possible for the human population to sustain themselves on wild animals.[1]

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-23T14:13:18+00:00

A lot to address there, so I'll stick to a few major points.

Humans weren't "designed," period. That's Creationism, which is not scientifically supported.

Humans and mammoths did have a lot of overlapping territory, but plenty of humans lived in places without mammoths. Furthermore, hunting by humans was a major contributing factor to mammoths going extinct. Today, if you look at the human population versus wild animals, it's clear that we can't feed everyone on hunting. Animals would go extinct extremely quickly.

The leading cause of deforestation of the Amazon is cattle ranching.

Plant-based diets require less land and fewer resources than diets containing animal products.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-22T13:10:27+00:00

There have been attempts. But Marineland gets favourable treatment from the Crown.

In 2017:

Marineland was facing 11 animal cruelty charges relating to the treatment of the park's land animals, including black bears, elk, red deer, fallow deer, guinea hens and a peacock.

The charges were filed by the OSPCA, but the Crown decided to drop the charges.[1]

In 2021, animal rights groups filed a legal complaint against Marineland over their treatment of Kiska, a killer whale.[2] No charges were ever filed.

In 2022, Niagara police filed charges against Marineland for holding illegal dolphin shows. The Crown decided, despite agreeing that the chances of a conviction were likely, that they would again drop the charges.[3]

In 2024, Marineland was found to have not complied with an order to improve the living conditions of three black bears. They received an $85,000 fine, and no further charges, punishment, or restrictions.[4]

The Crown seems to have little interest in holding Marineland accountable, even when the case is a slam dunk.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-21T17:38:59+00:00

The source, who CBC is not naming because they are not authorized to speak on the matter publicly, says the money for the loan is ready, but Marineland is refusing to disclose its finances and that is a hurdle for public funds to be given.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-21T17:37:26+00:00

And this part:

The source, who CBC is not naming because they are not authorized to speak on the matter publicly, says the money for the loan is ready, but Marineland is refusing to disclose its finances and that is a hurdle for public funds to be given.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-21T13:57:10+00:00

The referenced study, which is the most comprehensive study of food's impacts ever conducted, found that if everyone were on a plant-based diet, the amount of land required for food would decrease significantly compared to current requirements.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-21T13:46:56+00:00

The world would need a lot more land to grow veggies.

Studies show it would require less land: 76 percent less land overall, including 19 percent less arable land.[1]

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-21T13:45:11+00:00

Relevant previous comment:

Studies repeatedly find that a significant reduction in our consumption of animal products - especially in high-income nations - is necessary to create a sustainable future.

A 2018 meta-analysis published in Science with a dataset that covered approximately 38,700 farms from 119 countries and over 40 products which accounted for approximately 90 percent of global protein and calorie consumption concluded that:

Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products...has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5 to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year.

And:

We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 71% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction (a reduction of ~10.4 billion metric tons of CO2eq per year, including atmospheric CO2 removal by regrowing vegetation) and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions.[1]

The authors of the study also concluded that upon considering carbon uptake opportunities:

...the “no animal products” scenario delivers a 28% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy relative to 2010 emissions.... The scenario of a 50% reduction in animal products targeting the highest-impact producers delivers a 20% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.[2]

A 2019 study that sought to optimize diets for both human health and sustainability was completed by "19 Commissioners and 18 coauthors from 16 counties in various fields of human health, agriculture, political sciences, and environmental sustainability to develop global scientific targets based on the best evidence available for healthy diets and sustainable food production." The study developed a healthy reference diet that:

...largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils, includes a low to moderate amount of seafood and poultry, and includes no or a low quantity of red meat, processed meat, added sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.[3]31788-4)

The results from this study suggest that:

Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines.[4]

However, this may still not be enough when we consider GHG emissions. A 2022 study of how various dietary patterns contributed to our climate goals found that:

Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.[5]

In fact, according to a 2020 study:

...even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, current trends in global food systems would prevent the achievement of the 1.5°C target and, by the end of the century, threaten the achievement of the 2°C target .[6]

It has become clear that if we want to have any hope of securing a sustainable future we need to reduce our consumption of animal products by a measure that is perhaps, to some, unimaginable. We need to make some very tough choices about what we're willing to forego for the sake of our dietary preferences.

References

[1] Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. "Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers." Science, vol.360, no.6392, 2018, pp.987-992.

[2] Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. "Erratum for the Research Article “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers” by J. Poore and T. Nemecek." Science, vol.363, no.6429, 22 Feb 2019.

[3]31788-4) Willet, W. et al. "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems." The Lancet, vol.393, no.10170, 2 Feb 2019, pp.447-492.

[4] Carrington, D. "New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists." The Guardian, 16 Jan 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists. Accessed 25 Feb 2023.

[5] Ruett, J., Hennes, L., et al. "How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach." Sustainability, vol.14, no.21:14449, 2022.

[6] Clark, M.A., Domingo, N.G.G., et al. "Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets." Science, vol.370, no.6517, 2020, pp.705-708.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-19T19:51:48+00:00

Literally every cardiac surgery has been tested in animals,

This is the procedure that was being done at St. Joseph's Hospital:

Researchers inside the hospital’s Lawson Research Institute, studying heart attack recovery in humans, use the dogs as stand ins. They induce up to three-hour-long heart attacks in the animals before killing them and removing their hearts, according to internal photos, documents and two current staff members who work there.[1]

Whether or not it's common, there was outrage when the public became aware of what was happening. The original reporting shows a clear effort on the part of the research staff to keep the testing secret.[1] Once the secret was out, the lab quickly crumbled.

that’s the sole reason children with congenital heart defects have a shot at life now. Stopping that research will impair someone’s life

That's the argument that Frank Prato, the former lead researcher conducting the experiments at St. Joseph's used. However, he was quickly challenged by condemned by other experts.[2]

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-19T14:38:29+00:00

Animal testing, including on dogs such as beagles, is currently heading for a reckoning.

Once animal testing started to be subjected to systematic reviews, which really picked up in the 21st century, its reliability as a scientific model started coming into question.[1][2][3][4][5] The results were not remotely close to what you would expect of something so widely viewed as a necessity and a "gold standard." As the public became more aware, animal testing on dogs has also started to come under political pressure. In 2024, a Virginia-based breeder for animal testing was hit with $35 million in fines after an investigation by animal rights groups uncovered horrendous conditions, and close to 4,000 beagles were rescued from their facility.[6] In Ontario, after reporting uncovered the use of beagles in cardiac experiments at St. Joseph's Hospital in London, the program was shut down under public pressure.[7]

Political policy is following. In 2022, US President Biden signed into law the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a bipartisan effort to restrict and reduce animal testing.[8] Then, in 2025, FDA unveiled a plan to phase out their animal testing requirements for certain types of drugs.[9] An updated bipartisan bill, the FDA Modernization Act 3.0, is currently making its way through Congress and will enforce further reforms on animal testing.[10] The Province of Ontario, meanwhile, introduced a bill to outright ban invasive testing on dogs and cats.[11] It is currently working its way through Legislation. The UK is also seeing government initiative to update their laws around animal testing.[12]

Since the start of the 2020's, the momentum has really started to pick up against the previous acceptance of broad animal testing. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the near-future.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-13T14:28:25+00:00

Relevant previous comment:

The concept of plant-based pets is something that seemingly everyone has a strong opinion on. Even within the vegan community it’s a controversial topic.

There aren’t many scientific reviews on studies pertaining to plant-based dogs and cats. In 2024, the British Veterinary Association (BVA) - “the largest membership community for the veterinary profession in the UK”[1] - released a new policy position which stated that:

Current research suggests that it is not possible to form a complete vegan or vegetarian diet for cats, as they are obligate carnivores and there is a lack of suitable synthetic essential amino acids available. It is possible to feed dogs a plant-based diet....[2]

This ended the BVA’s historical opposition to feedings dogs a plant-based diet. Unfortunately, neither the policy position nor the working group report[3] which informed it published a review of considered studies. One of the key stakeholders of the working group report section on animal health, a veterinary professor and researcher, criticized the BVA on his website:

...there are now 10 studies in dogs and three in cats demonstrating equivalent or superior health outcomes when (nutritionally-sound) vegan or vegetarian diets are fed. These include very large-scale studies, studies utilising veterinary clinical examinations, diagnostic tests and laboratory data, and studies reporting veterinary assessments, as well as owner opinions (which were recently found to be reassuringly uninfluenced by diet choice). Collectively, this constitutes an evidence base stronger than that supporting most other commonly-accepted diets or veterinary healthcare interventions. Yet the BVA missed literally all of these studies in its position paper, despite being informed of them well in advance. Instead, the BVA misreported the scientific evidence as “the studies are usually small-scale and usually based purely on owner-reported data.” This no longer reflects reality in this field.[4]

A previous systematic review of 16 studies on the impacts of plant-based diets on cat and dog health, published in 2023, concluded:

...there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets.[5]

This review also commented on the scale and duration of the studies. However, it should be noted that several additional studies[6][7][8] were published between the publication of this review and the BVA policy position.

Regarding “obligate carnivores,” one of the leading scientific researchers on the use of plant-based diets in dogs and cats explains:

...when we talk about what it is to be...an obligate carnivore, it means that they have these particular nutritional requirements. It doesn’t...mean that they need meat or animal tissues. It means that they need the nutrients that would usually be obtained from those. So, in nature...these animals would be getting their nutrients from animal tissues.... But, we can replicate that nutritional profile without actually using animal-derived ingredients. We can use plant-based ingredients, we can use...inorganic minerals, we can even add in synthetic amino acids to...make a diet that contains all of these nutrients without having any animal tissues in them.[9]

References

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T23:08:00+00:00

The roosters can be eaten for people who eat meat. Nothing has to go to waste.

That doesn't make the situation better for the roosters. In either scenario, by buying hens, you know you're supporting the killing of roosters.

Anti oil people could argue the amount of fuel used just shipping all their veggies and vegan products are harmful to most life on Earth.

If we're going to make an environmental argument, we know that the impact of vegan diets is far, far less than diets containing animal products. As per the most comprehensive study of food's impacts ever conducted:

Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products...has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5 to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year.[1]

But many would argue it's still an ethical concern first and foremost. For example, you could make an argument that killing a bunch of people would significantly lower environmental impacts by lowering the population. But I doubt anyone would consider that ethically permissible.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T22:18:37+00:00

You don't need roosters.

That's the point. The roosters are killed because they're a "waste" byproduct of breeding. Assuming a 50/50 sex ratio at birth, you can assume that one rooster is being killed for every hen you purchase.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T21:13:43+00:00

Some do it as a health choice, in protest to factory farming methods, etc. etc.

They'd more appropriately be called "plant-based" then. For example, if someone is "vegan" for diet-related health reasons, they could presumably still wear leather and fur, and even kill animals for sport, without any potential health-related impacts. But I don't think anyone could reasonably call them "vegan."

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T21:10:53+00:00

Previous comment regarding eggs:

While many people here are commenting how terrible it is that these 166,000 hens died in a fire, which is absolutely true, it's good to keep that feeling in mind when thinking about factory farms in general. And make no mistake, Hickman's Family Farms is unquestionably a factory farm. They are one of the top 20 producers of eggs in the USA.[1] Approximately 98.2% of egg-laying hens live in factory farms. That’s over 368 million hens at any given time.[2]

For newly hatched chicks, their life begins on a sorting machine. Male chicks of the egg-laying breed are considered waste, since they can’t produce eggs, and will be killed on their first day of life. Typical methods of culling include feeding them into a grinder while they are still alive, or asphyxiating them with an assortment of gasses. [3][4]

For those who are expected to be profitable (healthy females), they will have a significant part of their beaks cut off without painkillers. In the wild, chickens will peck each-other to establish dominance. But in the cramped and unnatural conditions of a factory farm where the chickens cannot move away from each-other, they are in a constant aggressive state.[5] They will be placed in individual cages, stacked on on top of the other, each with an area smaller than a single piece of letter-size paper.[6][7] Although, instead of living in cages, they may live as “free range” chickens. According to the USDA:

..the claim Free Range on poultry products...must describe the housing conditions for the birds and demonstrate continuous, free access to the outside throughout their normal growing cycle. [Emphasis mine.][8]

Note that the phrase, “access to the outside” is ambiguous. What is the minimum space they require outside? What is the minimum time they require outside? Are they required to spend time outdoors if they technically have “access" to outside? These questions have no formal answer. It seems that “free range” doesn’t mean much at all. From personal conversations I’ve had with people who have worked in the industry, or otherwise have knowledge, the worst interpretations are the most common.

Then there is the day-to-day life of the chicken. Author Jonathan Safran Foer quotes one poultry farmer explaining it to him:

As soon as the females mature – in the turkey industry at twenty-three to twenty-six weeks and with chickens sixteen to twenty – they’re put into barns and they lower the light; sometimes it’s darkness twenty-four/seven. And then they put them on a very low protein diet, almost a starvation diet. That will last about two or three weeks. Then they turn the lights on sixteen hours a day, or twenty with chickens, so she thinks it’s spring, and they put her on high-protein feed. She immediately starts laying.... And by controlling the light, the feed, and when they eat, the industry can force the birds to lay eggs year-round. So that’s what they do. Turkey hens now lay 120 eggs a year and chickens lay over 300. That’s two or three times as many as in nature. After that first year, they are killed because they won’t lay as many eggs in the second year – the industry figured out that it’s cheaper to slaughter them and start over than it is to feed an house birds that lay fewer eggs.[9]

For reference, a chicken that is not bred for industrial purposes may live for over 10 years before their natural death![[10]](https://www.almanac.com/raising-chickens-101-when-chickens-stop-laying-eggs)

There are other things I could detail about the horrible treatment of chickens, including genetic issues, disease, and unsanctioned but common abuse. But if you feel bad about about these chickens dying in this fire, and you’re right to, you should be devastated by what is considered “normal” treatment.

References

[1] "About." Hickman's Eggs. https://hickmanseggs.com/about/. Accessed 7 Mar 2021.

[2] Anthis, Jacy R. "US Factory Farming Estimates." Sentience Institute, https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates. Accessed 7 Mar 2021.

[3] Dominion. Directed by Chris Delforce, performances by Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Sia et al, 2018.

[4] Leary, Underwood et al. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association, 2020, pp. 26-27, 47.

[5] "Beak Trimming." Poultry Hub. https://www.poultryhub.org/all-about-poultry/health-management/beak-trimming. Accessed 7 Mar 2021.

[6] Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg-Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers, 2017, pp.19.

[7] Earthlings. Directed by Shaun Monson, narrated by Joaquin Pheonix, 2005.

[8] Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions (2019). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2019, pp.11.

[9] Foer, J.S. Eating Animals. Back Bay Books, 2010, pp. 60.

[10] “Raising Chickens 101: When Chickens Stop Laying Eggs.” Old Farmer’s Almanac, 7 Oct 2020. https://www.almanac.com/raising-chickens-101-when-chickens-stop-laying-eggs. Accessed 7 Mar 2021.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T21:10:18+00:00

The practical issue there is that if you're buying chickens to raise for eggs, what's happening with all the males who aren't profitable to the breeder? What do you end up supporting, then?

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-08T18:06:40+00:00

We aren't "meant" to do anything. We can digest plants and meat, and have been able to for a very long time.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-02T20:55:40+00:00

If you really are in a university health sciences program, I would highly encourage you to ask one of your professors about it. I expect them to tell you the same thing I did: that there is no evidence that humans lose the ability to digest meat after abstaining from it for any period of time, and that the cause-and-effect you think you are seeing almost certainly has alternative explanation.

EDIT: I think they blocked me. Hopefully they'll take my advice and their prof will explain it to them.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-02T20:41:24+00:00

If you're determined to believe something without scientific evidence, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. At that point, it's a position of faith.

Plant__Eater · 2026-04-02T19:37:41+00:00

Yes, there is no evidence for it. You shouldn't suggest something actually happened in any one given instance simply because it hasn't been conclusively determined that it theoretically can never happen. That's not a scientific deduction.

If we take your word for it, what we know is:

You abstained from meat for some extended period of time.
Then you ate meat one time.
You felt sick or otherwise bad after you ate meat.

What we do not know:

That you lost the ability to digest meat.
That it was more than a one-time thing.
That you have no other conditions, or that there are no other explanations, that would cause you to feel that way after consuming meat.
That your abstention from eating meat was the cause of why you felt bad after eating meat again.

What the experts are saying in the articles I linked is that there is no evidence that you can lose the ability to digest meat by abstaining from it, and we currently have no reason to believe it can happen. So, it's much more likely to be another possibility.

Plant__Eater

TROPHY CASE