Well not with that attitude they won't~
no, it'd be far more humane to at least leave their fate in their own hands. predators are resourceful and its hardly a barren wasteland out there. and your train of thought is worrying - people are starving all over the world, would you deem it humane to just kill them? hopefully not! sure, it's an unfortunate situation but what you're proposing just seems like a laughably desperate attempt to justify the slaughter - 'it's for their own good.' how trite.Please don't take this the wrong way, but... so you're saying you'd rather that the farmers protect their livestock and let predators starve to death? I'm not saying I've got this issue all figured out, but there are some realities. Those predators must eat. Predators don't attack livestock unless they must. If they don't eat those cattle, or horses, or other livestock, should they just starve to death? Just throwing the question out there for discussion but, wouldn't it be more humane to kill them?
I can ask you the same question. Would you kill pandas and endangered animals for food? How about other humans? No? You wouldn't? Isn't that what you are doing by eating a certain species of animal?I wonder somewhere in the distant future where we can synthetically and from non organ resources create all our food, would people start vegans as "plant killers"? Where does it stop?
Who gave you the right to determine what's OK to kill and what's not?
Which does not in anyway cheapen the aspiration or excuse moral lazyness or laxness.itt people realize that it's impossible to satisfy every moral guideline that they might have due to scarcity of resources