Re: Temple Dogs, etc.
In China, they eat dogs, and especially in winter, because they believe that it is something healthy to fend off the cold and sickness.
If the family dog bites someone, by evening, it will be gone and given to the neighbor as a gift dinner or something like that.
I like using the "common household items" as substitutes when I can, and I don't have a cow about using lead on flies, because I don't think there's enough to harm. I suppose I could shift to alternative if persuaded, but I pretty much go along with others about the to each his own.
I'm really a pansy about baby harp seals and all that, but I am also a realist about a certain kind of animal rights "activism" that creeps into sports.
Basically, a lot of those "activist" idea are drawn from "Buddhism". That's where Animal Rights Activists get their basic philosophy. Ordinary people get sucked into it because they aren't critical thinkers. Even fishermen and hunters get sucked into a lot of it by vague terminology, like use of the word "respect".
Realistically, "respect" has vague meanings, but it can go so far as to mean "fall down and worship," "light incense and candles," "pray" and just about anything else you can think of. Those are are silly, in the cultural sense, for North Americans.
There is no such thing as a law that says I must "respect" something (We respect "rights" of others, but it is just a synonym for "obey the law"; but sportsmen honestly feel that they should "respect" what they hunt, and thus they end up getting used as pawns in the Animal Rights Activism, because their terminology agrees with the language of Animal Rights Activists. I may "catch & release" or keep and eat, but that has nothing to do with "worshipping" or "respecting" the creature.
Fishermen get caught up in vague sentiments, and the most ardent advocates of Fishing will insist that they "respect" and demand that others "respect" fish, game and so forth.
Nice guys, but very confusing.
Once the vague terminology is thrown out by Sportsmen, the "ethical" comments begin to get more reasonable and practical.
There's a big difference between sentimental terms like "respect" and more practical terms like "preserving natural resources".
Ultimately, it becomes very confusing in the light of modern Scientific Knowledge, because when you think of it, there is nothing in the Scientific Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's "Survival---of--the--Fittest") which says that only one species in the world should be "ethical" and that allows all other animal species to be "unethical" and "disrespecting" of life, but at the same time, people as a species are to be charged with being "unethical".
There is a strong need for sportsmen to move away from vague sentimental language, and to avoid what philosopher's term "The Naturalistic Fallacy" which is getting some kind of a Moral or Ethical conclusion, from some basic fact, such as a Scientific Fact (an "is"). We don't get an "ought" or a "should" from an "is".
That's The Naturalistic Fallacy.