Percentages of british adults who found each activity involving animals acceptable or unacceptable

I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.

The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.

If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you've culled, it's absolutely unethical. But if you're using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you're hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I'd argue that's the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.

Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There's a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It's obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.
- Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation
I agree but I do have a little issue with the "wasting resources" part, that's a very anthropocentric view to take. There's an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There's obviously a lot of "ifs" involved but I wouldn't generalise by saying that because a human didn't get to eat it the resource was "wasted".

It's unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we're obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we've inherited.
Chronic Wasting Disease is a particularly scary prion disease that is highly dependent on deer population density.
- IMO this makes "wasting" the meat more acceptable, because the consumption of wild venison could lead to an outbreak of this in humans
I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don't particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.

Wild boars are also quite a nuisance.
wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical.

Why is leaving the carcass to degrade naturally unethical? Is it better for the nutrients in the meat to end up in a water treatment plant or dumped into a river? Or do you prefer most of the nutrients to be used exclusively by humans?

I'm guessing farmed meat isn't on the list, because adding it becomes an anchor that throws everything else off. It's easily more brutal than a circus but has single-digit non-participation, and people don't want to look inconsistent.

I wonder now, what happens to the results if you put the question about factory farming at either the beginning or the very end?

My guess is that when at the beginning, the percentages would shift significantly into the acceptable range because of the not wanting to look inconsistent.
- Oh bother I can't remember who did the study, but Earthling Ed in his book talks about it, whereby participants were either served meat or not during questions regarding diet, and those who were eating meat became almost obtusely against vegan diets. I tried searching for it just now but can't think of the right keywords to find it.

I used to be cool with the idea of elephant riding, seemed cool and it’s not like such a big animal is even going to notice a human on its shoulders. Then I was at a ren fair or something like one that had an elephant to ride. When we got in line for it I saw just what they do to get an elephant to walk around. I think you have to be a real piece of shit to poke an animal with a sharp stick all day for a job.

They're also quite intelligent and are likely to be extremely aware of their captive situation. It's basically slavery.
I went to an elephant sanctuary in Thailand. They explained that riding elephants is incredibly stressful for the elephant's back, and that in order to train them to obey, torture is usually involved.

I'm against zoos as well. I know some do good work with rehabilitation and such (and we should support them), but a lot just capture animals for our enjoyment. Even if they're not explicitly mistreated, it's pretty cruel to just keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives.
The MD renn fest had an elephant.

There was a divide between the folks who thought “ohhhh it fine” and the rest of us who thought “elephants don’t live in Maryland and definitely don’t give rides to screaming children, willingly”

The MD renn fest elephant was also used as Trump advertising at other events, which did NOT help the communities view here in MD.

There was a noticeable boycott until they stopped abusing the elephants at the MD renn fest.
I once visited a local market in Indonesia pre dawn, when the locals did their shopping before every stall turned into tourist trinkets. And at a pig salesman watched the guy put a pigglet into a bag and the customer just swing it over their shoulder and walked off. Another lady there asked the sales guy "what about animal rights", the guy shrugged and answered "lady, we don't even have human rights"... This was an eye opener for me on how these things work outside my West European bubble.
If you look too closely at any way humans use animals, it gets sad really fast.

Surprised how many people were opposed to hunting deer with guns. I know that's super popular in some places.

It makes more sense as the survey was conducted on British adults.
- Ah, makes sense. In Texas, everyone does that lol.
I wonder if this odd result is from the question not specifying trophy hunting vs. food hunting. If you eat meat it wouldn't make sense to be against food hunting, but it would make sense if you think they're hunting deer just to hang a big antler head on your wall
- Good point. Most vegetarians and vegans I’ve met have had relatively favorable views of hunting for food, compared to animal agriculture, since it’s such a more sustainable and ethical way to acquire meat
It’s British adults, not Americans. Private gun ownership is uncommon-to-rare, and hunting even less so.

It’s British adults, so you need to read almost everything through the lens of classism and/or class jealousy. Most hunting in the UK is done by the upper class - there are genuine outdoorsmen hunting types but the norm is posh folk hunting for sport.
- "class jealousy"
  
  😂
- I have major doubts a majority percentage of American gun-owners use their guns for hunting. It's more likely they don't use them at all (for collector's purposes) or just take them to a range. So the only consideration here should be the declared hunters but I'd need stats on the rates for each country.
- Nice bullshit, American.
  
  The real reason (from someone who actually lives here) is that hunting isn't really a part of our culture anymore.

I think far less than 41% of the population actually won't wear leather. Also, apparently riding a donkey is worse than riding a horse, and dog races are worse than horse races.

Note they merge 'somewhat unacceptable' and 'unacceptable' into the bars, which is.... a choice.
Dog races are worse than horse races, mostly because the dogs are trained to be more-or-less psychotic. Horses, you can see as understanding the competition they're in and being (at least mostly) willing participants.
- Can you explain about the dogs? I thought that while they aren't always treated well, running and chasing things is natural for them.

Pretty surprised at the difference between leather and fur. Poor cows need better PR.

Sounds like they need fur.
- Scottish Highland cow: Am I a joke to you?

Who the fuck is in the 6% who are fine with dog fighting?

Winners of dog fight bets probably
- I think the 6% includes winners, losers, and attendees with no dog in the fight, as well as those who just admire the cruelty of it without personally having ever taken part.
Some people see no inherent value in animals aside from the utility they have for humans. It allows them to justify whatever we do to animals as long as it provides some perceived benefit to us.

I would suspect this train of thought leads some to conclude that dog fighting is ok since it provides entertainment to people, in the same way that farming animals is ok because it provides food that people enjoy eating.

Now you and I know that dogs, like most other animals, are sentient. They have a subjective experience that allows them to feel fear, loss, pain, happiness and love. This is why I (and I suspect you) believe dogs should not be forced to fight each other for our amusement.

As pointed out in the graphic, most people feel that at least some commodification of animals is morally justifiable. It's up to you where you would draw the line.
Dark triads

I don't understand the opposition to mobile zoos of reptiles/snakes. Are people just voting 'ick' factor, or is there something horrifying I've missed?

I don't think you've missed anything. Reptiles are particularly good for mobile zoos as many don't stress easily and don't require (or in some cases actively hate) large enclosures. Tegus, Monitors, and more intelligent lizards actually seem to enjoy, or at least show interest in, people and new places.

As long as the keeper is responsible and takes good care of the animals I don't know what exactly the problem is
- Most of these kinds of mobile reptile zoos are educational as well.

I don't like how they had four data points, but combined them into only two.

This kind of graphics is easily read with only two options.
- Yes, but I didn't think having four options would greatly detract from it either. In fact, I'm very curious about the line between somewhat acceptable and completely acceptable. Like, how clear is that divide? Was there a neutral option between the two, or were they forced to choose for or against?

Where is "eating animals from livestock"?

And especially eating horses?

Totally common where I live.
- Same, horse and rabbit meat are common here too.

I’m surprised that deer hunting is shown as so unacceptable here. Who was sampled for this, and where do they live? I’m guessing not the Midwest lol

The demographics sampled are adults from the UK.

TIL you only need a 26% approval rate for a controversial practice to be widely legal and accepted.

I don't understand why there are any who oppose riding horses

Is it bad for them or something?

Same as with sheep, I guess. It's not really their choice to be there with a guy on top.

Vegans take that to it's logical conclusion and won't even eat honey, but I have a (edit: non-literal, I'm still veg) bone to pick with them about the nature of the life of a wild animal.
- I've owned horses. Trust me, if they don't want to be rode then they'll make it clear to you. I've had a horse decide that we're done and just lay down in a stream with me still on their back before.
  
  All the horses I've have the pleasure of interacting with always seems eager to go out for a ride at any and every opporitunity. But at the same time I'm sure that less about the actual riding and more that they know they always get a thorough brushing and treats before and after.

People have a bigger issue with fish in an aquarium than animals on a zoo, that's so weird seeing as aquarius usually have giant tanks that replicate natural habitat where zoos just have poor animals in pens that are always too small. Fucking weird

I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people are against fishing.

I'm by no means a vegan, but it has always weirded me out how people see no problem of dragging an animal out of the water by using a hook in the animal's mouth. Even weirder is it when people then throw the fish back into the sea to be "ethical". It's just plain recreational torture at that point.
- Agreed. I have no issue with fishing for food, so long as you put the creature out of it's misery quickly (unlike a lot of commercial fishing)... but injuring then throwing it back "for sport" seems mean.

Not a fan of duck hunting...

it's that fucking dog mocking you

So funny thing about fur, in the larger scheme of things, real fur is 100% more ethical than synthetic. Even in the worst factory farms conditions, real fur is natural and will eventually biodegrade, while synthetic fur is made of chemicals and will be around forever leeching pollutants.

Most I understand but the opposition to "wearing clothes made from animal fur" seems a little misinformed.

Where do they think wool comes from?

Sheep are generally shorn, "fur" animals are generally skinned. I'm sure that makes all the difference
"fur clothing" means that the fur is still attached to the skin, regular wool products are shaved from the sheep which is about as traumatic as forcing a grumpy teenager to take a shower.
- The problem is that commercial sheep farms compete for the lowest price, which means that those who actually care for the welfare of their animals are at an disadvantage to those who keep sheep in very bad conditions, and will be forced out of the market sooner or later. Customers and distributors usually have no clue how the animals were actually treated, they just see the price and choose the lowest, of course.
  
  And while you might not need to kill the sheep to get the wool, they're killed when their "productiveness" drops below profitablity anyways. In the wool industry that's after about 5-7 years.
  
  Just because such animal products could theoretically be produced in a humane way, that's not what happens in practice under capitalism. The vulnerable are always exploited as much as possible for financial interests and animals have no voice, no lobby and no lawyers.
Animal haircuts Vs animal scalping