When you think about it…should the rich be judged by different standards where animals are concerned?
Several weeks ago, a news article announced that Prince William bought hundreds of birds for his brother to shoot. The gift was in recognition of Prince Harry’s 27th birthday.
Just because someone has the means to do whatever he or she wants, does that mean the person lives by a different standard when it comes to protecting the lives of animals? Because of wealth, position, celebrity status, or station in life, are those who possess the means exempt from certain values others of us aspire to?
For those of extreme wealth who prefer to kill for the sport of killing—not for any subsistence living that might come from the flesh of the animals shot, their mantra is often “It’s tradition.” It appears tradition often trumps logic or compassion. However, the “We’ve always done it this way” approach simply cannot stand the scrutiny of today’s press for living a more humane, compassionate lifestyle .
Even when a rich person professes to doing good deeds with his or her money, the result may be more catastrophic, than helpful. Witness Bob Parsons of GoDaddy attempting to defend his shooting of an elephant as a philanthropic deed done to feed villagers and protect their crops. Yet, he spent about $60,000 to $70,000 on the trip itself, including huge hunting fees to the government. None of that money will ever be seen by the villagers to help them out of poverty and degradation.
Of course, there are some people who are exceptionally wealthy, have status and power, are in the public eye, and do work diligently for animal welfare causes—Bridget Bardot, Pamela Anderson, Bob Barker, Steven Segal, Madeleine Pickens, Betty White, Paul McCartney, among many others.
When you think about it…the rich who take the lives of other species may be truly poor in compassion for their fellow travelers on this planet Earth.