Stream

Sami Wolf

Discussion  - 
 
 
Facts about Jaguars and Gepards

Leopards

Leopards weigh 70-180 pounds with a body length of 4-6 feet.

Leopards are strong tree climbers—they can even climb a tree while carrying a prey their own weight. Leopards often carry their prey up trees to prevent other animals, such as hyenas, from sharing their kill. They also store their food in trees (though sometimes they store their food on ground under leaves or brush).

Leopards hunt on land and in water—they are great swimmers.

Leopards are nocturnal predators.

Leopards are solitary animals.

Leopards stalk their prey until they are a few feet away and pounce the prey—they do not usually miss. If they do miss, then the prey is lucky since the leopard does not normally chase its prey.

Cubs stay with their mother for 22 months.

Jaguars

Jaguars weigh 200-250 pounds with a body length of 5-7 feet.

Jaguars are the largest cats living in the wild in North and South America—and 3rd largest cat, after lions and tigers.

Jaguars can live up to 25 years in captivity. In the wild the jaguar’s average lifespan is 12-15 years.

The name jaguar means, “A wild beast that can kill its prey with a single bound.”

Jaguars kill with either a bite to the neck or a crushing paw strike.

Jaguars are nocturnal predators.

Jaguars are solitary animals.

The Aztecs and Mayans worshiped jaguars.


Differences between Jaguars and Leopards

Both jaguars and leopards have very similar skin; however, the minor distinction is the jaguar skin’s rosettes are larger than the leopard’s. (See photos below.)

Jaguars are more mascular and weigh more than the leopards.

Jaguar’s head is more square and larger than the leopard’s head.
2
Add a comment...
7
Sebastian Herbst's profile photo
 
Danke schön für die Daumen hoch würde mich auch über ein abbo auf YouTube freuen
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...
37
8
WILLIAM PULGARIN GIRALDO's profile photoMichelle Rodriguez's profile photosnejana sinben's profile photoMadeleine Weyermann's profile photo
2 comments
 
A real star.
Add a comment...
1
1
Miriam Olmo's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
 
Curious Owl
20
3
Aparnna Manoj's profile photoConceição Costa's profile photoлара фалкон's profile photoMiriam Olmo's profile photo
 
 ее глаза как небеса, а ведь небо видит только черным...
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...
 
Bom dia! Aqui esta uma homenagem para esses lindos animais muitas vezes atrocidades pela maldade humana.
 ·  Translate
Humano que se diz inteligente e perspicaz, Um ser indefenso, de amá-lo é incapaz. Pratica maus-tratos aos inofensivos animais, Indivíduo de má índole, maléfico e falaz. Agride os animais com brutal violência, Arma embo...
1
Add a comment...

Erika Váradi

Discussion  - 
6
Aendra E. Woll's profile photoErika Váradi's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Aendra E. Woll KIöszönöm, szép estét kívánok én is...  :)
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Hideki Kaneko

Discussion  - 
 
ツバメの季節
 ·  Translate
4
Add a comment...
 
Cute in its own way. A crocodile on the banks of the Daintree River, Queensland, Australia - just waiting for lunch.
www.imogenwarrenphotography.net
18
1
Robin Mason's profile photo
Add a comment...
15
2
K Schenk's profile photoT-B AKA True-Brownii's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
An Oliver Python native in #Australia , eat a #crocodile, it is so #shocking. the #Nature is quite #Frightening
1
2
لیلا شهبازی's profile photoUri Palatnik's profile photo
Add a comment...

Naseer Khan

Discussion  - 
 
Friendship 4ever. ★★★
9
1
Trixli M.'s profile photo
Add a comment...

Paul Meulman

Discussion  - 
19
5
Christian Gilbart's profile photoMarie Therese Lebre's profile photoCatherine Bizien's profile photoSuveka Suvi's profile photo
 
SUPERBE, J'ADORE...
Add a comment...

Daeyong Choi

Discussion  - 
 
wow ~ so fast !
20
1
Arturo Rubio's profile photoCatherine Bizien's profile photoGwynn Kawakami's profile photo
2 comments
 
IMPRESSIONANT!!!!!!!!
Add a comment...

Codcast Channel

Discussion  - 
 
 
E' solo questione di proporzioni...

It's a question of proportions.

#codcastchannel
 ·  Translate
14
1
陳佳亨's profile photoCorrie Commandeur's profile photosnejana sinben's profile photo
3 comments
 
Prachtig dier!
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Damien Wilson

Discussion  - 
 
 
Did you Know?

Squirrels plant thousands of new trees each year simply by forgetting where they put their acorns.
11
2
陳佳亨's profile photoAmanda Etheridge's profile photoCorrie Commandeur's profile photo
 
Ze verspreiden zaden!
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...
 
Does It Matter What/Where Animals Eat?

It's a strange assertion that +Fretful Farmer farmer is making in this conversation, it basically boiling down to the notion that if we just feed animals the right things, then forcibly taking their lives is somehow (magically) justified. Obviously, how an individual is treated or what he or she is fed doesn't justify killing him or her, no matter how "good" or "bad" it is, eh? But then, folks will argue for some strange notions while avoiding thinking about all of that directly.

As always, I'm keenly interested in your take on the issue: what's your go-to response to the notion that "grass fed beef" is somehow "better"?
 
+Fretfull Farmer: "What do you propose is done with farmland (and the farmers who maintain that land) that is dedicated to the production of grass-fed beef? Couldn't that be perceived as a waste of resources not to take advantage of a source of food that we can't consume and use it to produce a food that we can consume?"

Hmm... The thing is, in order to create that particular "food" (i.e. the bodies of sentient beings), one has to kill those individuals. Having a desire to use the land for something doesn't seem to provide sufficient ethical justification for the act of needlessly killing those beings.

So... I don't really know what will happen with those tracts of land, but it will be an interesting problem to have once we get there, eh?


+Fretful Farmer: "When you say that each pound of edible flesh can only be produced with four to thirteen pounds of plants, which plants are you considering? Are you considering the vegetation that humans can readily digest, or grass that naturally grows and is not digestible for humans?"

Those estimates range from grains to grasses, and from chickens to cows. For the most part, those figures come from CAFO confined beings, which is to say that the foods their eating are predominantly purpose-raised crops (soy, corn, etc.). Because there are orders of magnitude more calories going in to CAFOs than are coming out of them, it's clear that as we phase out of eating animals, we'll be producing food far in excess of our present needs. Of course, farmers aren't going to raise what they can't sell, so they'll be switching to crops that with market demand.

When you consider that factory farming now accounts for more than 99 percent of all farmed animals raised and slaughtered (at least in the States; ref: goo.gl/GAN2fT), the percentage that are grass fed is trivial by comparison. As such, the question of whether the figures I offered include the grass fed animals doesn't seem applicable. Heck, one could say "yes" or "no" to that, and it still wouldn't change the numbers, eh?


+Fretful Farmer: "If I am being deliberate in choosing food that was raised ethically, then consuming meat is not needless. I am sustaining myself. My consumption of meat has less to do with taste, community traditions, and habits than it does with well-rounded nutrition for me and my family."

Hmm... Respectfully: no. The thing that makes consuming animals needless is not whether or not they were well treated before they were killed. Rather, it is that humans not only don't need to eat animals, but there have been individuals, communities, and societies that have been thriving without doing so for as long as there have been humans. As such, humans have no physiological "need" to eat the bodies of other animals. In modern life, the only reason we do so because like the taste, or because we've been taught to do so by our parents; obviously, neither of these motivations rises to a level of "need" which justifies forcibly taking the life of a sentient individual, eh?

So, as it effects you personally, you actually are fully capable of sustaining yourself without eating animals, and thriving while you do so, and there plenty of evidence to support this. As I understand it, this means you can claim that you have the right, both socially and religiously, to choose to eat sentient beings. But it doesn't appear like you can claim that you need to do so.

Does that seem like an unreasonable stance for me to take in your view, +Fretful Farmer?


—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—


This post is one in a series in which excerpts of discussions on veganism from other threads are reposted (or paraphrased) for the sake of expanding the conversation. As always, your thoughts and questions are welcome. See the full collection via the  #spommveganchats  hash (or perhaps with a more robust search, such as goo.gl/PAF46f or goo.gl/JoxZC ).

(for anyone requiring/desiring more context, the original conversation can be found at goo.gl/UYA9mH )

#farmers   #grassfed   #ethics  
3
Add a comment...