a question of ethics and welfare.

[saint-spoon]

If you had to kill and eat one or the other would you chose an intensively reared chicken that has had a very short and not particularly nice life or would you chose a wild animal that was listed as being endangered? I ask this question because it appears that whilst we are highly attuned to the plight of our domestic livestock we continue to pillages the seas and many of our native fish are now becoming endangered.

[wendy]

Prefer to eat veggies if that was an option.
But given no other choice. It would be the intensively reared one. This coming from someone who campaigns to stop it from happening . But we desperately need to protect endangered species.
Wendy

[newto]

mmmm. difficult one. depends on the reasons why.........

would be the chicken if was just a straight ethical choice....

but if ,say it was for need for food...possibly the fish, as the chicken could provide eggs, and food for another time.

( Yes I know the fish could provide more food too. but thats long term)

for pure choice, I think I´d find it easier to kill the fish......

[Totally Scrambled]

I'm starting from the premise that it is a question of survival. You don't eat, you starve and not just what you fancy for supper.
On a purely practical side, survival wise, it has to be the chook. It's in a shed so dead easy to catch, whereas an endangered species is thin on the ground so will be hard to find, catch and kill.
From an ethical point of view it again has to be the chook as we can control it's life and reproduction so there are more chooks for later. They are bred for one purpose only, which is for food, so they're the ones to go for every time.
Dom

[p.penn]

I agree as the intensively reared chook wouldn't be alive int he first place if it wasn't to be eaten, whereas the wild one would. I haven't put that very well but I know what I mean.

As they are specially bred, they are sort of excess to the natural world and so it won't be depleted further. Breeding is controlled according to demand.

That sort of explains how I feel. I think.

[Meredith]

I'd be vegetarian but if it really were a case of survival, I would go for the chicken for the same reasons as everyone else.

[Stig]

I'd choose the veg option as well!

[Totally Scrambled]

Didn't think there was a veg option
Dom

[wendy]

Haha Stig.... no cop outs. Otherwise I would have done so

[Steve the Gas]

I say leave the wildlife alone- unless a prob............ so the chook. Reproduce quickly etc etc.

[bluebell]

S-S, notice you ask about choosing chicken or endangered fish. However, aren't there some types of fish which are intensively farmed? I know when I've bought salmon before I've come across some which has been farmed in some way. I obviously (as you can tell) don't know a lot about farmed fisheries - apart from Salmon what other fish are farmed?

In answer to your question by the way, I don't eat meat, but I sure as heck wouldn't eat the endangered fish neither.

[foghornleghorn2]

I'll have the chicken please.

[roddelmae]

A lot of the problem with catching fish and consequentially making them an endangered species is caused by the idiotic fisheries policy imposed by the government and the EC, where the fishermen have to throw back 50% of their catch because it's the wrong fish and keeping them would exceed their quota. This is a stupid waste of food; you cannot control what fish go into your net, or say to the fish, you'll have to go away because I'm not allowed to catch you. The only ones benefitting from this are the seagulls.