FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Thats a pretty flawed arguement from peta yet again, if anyone did get poisoned from tuna its likely from the heavy metals they pick up as a result of our own bloody societies pollution.

As for fishing and hunting for any reason other than food , im against it. I dont think theres really any reason to kill anything unless its pest control or food related. Hunting something with a gun or a fishing rod isnt really a challenge in my book.Its for retards. I have fished, but then I ate them, I have shot birds, and I ate them too. I couldnt say it was taxing enough to be a skill worthy of animal suffering. My thinking about hunting animals is pretty much the same as an american indians, if you cant eat it , and it aint bothering you, leave it the hell alone. Just because you eat something doesnt mean you cant respect it. Respect is a nice frame of mind that hopefully leads to intelligent study, and that hopefully leads to avoiding overexploitation.

Unlike most so-called sportsmen I have actually run around hills and woods after deer, and an escaped lynx , various birds, mammals , and caught them with nothing more than a grasper and towels!And that was with the purpose of nursing them back to health. So hunters on the whole seem like a pretty sad bunch to me. Blasting the hell out of anything that moves doesnt quite equate to the natural urge of a predator to be red in tooth and claw. Its a power trip, nothing more. Show me a hunter who can bring down a tiger with his bare hands and teeth and I might be impressed!

I have to say though , on a list of people to persecute, line fishermen would be some way down the list to me, far further down than people who ruin 2000 year old sponges with dragnets and kill millions of tonnes of fish to get only 5% of that weight in prawns for example. Granted someone shark fishing or marlin fishing might end up in the water if they were stood right next to me, but the point is that my actions are ecologically minded, not based wholly on preventing suffering from predation. Predation is natural and to be against it is ridiculous.Put it this way, if someone is fishing for an endangered species like a marlin , they better be starving, or theyre gonna get punched. Human ego is never reason enough for an animal to die.

I also think the arguement over whether animals feel pain or not is completely ridiculous, its plain that almost any creature bigger than an amoeba can feel pain or at least registers a nervous, electrical or pressure related response to damage. Of course fish feel pain, I think its less a question of them feeling pain, more a question of us having the sense and empathy enough to realise that because a creature has a different functionality of nervous system that it doesnt have to be similar to ours to feel pain. Its our intellectual abilities that provide the challenge, the science of pain responses is largely proven in black and white. It all seems pretty clear to me anyway.

We find pain unpleasant, and thusly assume its good to prevent it, but technically we are just informing ourselves of damage. That we interpret it emotionally rather than purely physically just means we are wimps, not that other creatures dont feel pain, or that we can rationalise that we feel more pain than they do. I dont think any organism thinks that recieving damage is a good thing.

I think the idea that animals dont feel pain like humans do is a way for the feeble-minded to have a justifiable excuse for causing them pain without guilt or moral responsibilty for it. Personally If i want to eat an animal im gonna kill it and eat it whether it causes it pain or not. Its about time that people just stopped being so pathetic and dealt with that side of their nature.That innate sense of selfishness is integral to being a human being, and its a survival tool. The wish to preserve the variety of life around you that youre not actually intending to eat is also a survival tool.That most people cannot either understand or find the will to implement the changes required for us to make less impact of our surrounding is a sad indictment of the pathetic race we are becoming.The wish to harm animals uneccesarily or make excuses to alleviate yourself of associated guilt is to my mind, sign of mental instability and weakness.

I sometimes think these PETA types are totally counterproductive to animal kindness or the spread thereof. Its hard enough to explain to people living in our insular societies so disconnected from the idea that mankind are still animals, and to persuade them to display empathy with nature to make reasonable decisions concerning our environments, ecosystems, and the animals within it, as it is! Ive no problem with a creatures divine right to take life to sustain itself, im far more worried about the incessant spread of humanity,pointless industry, mindless consumerism, over consumption, pollution, deforestation, extinctions, and the fact that humans havent got sense enough to keep it in their pants when were obviously overpopulated which causes 99.9% of all the problems.

All PETA do is make people think that others who care for animals and the environment and who want to stop the casual abuse of animals are fringe group loonies.

That we are NOT.

Unlike PETA, I prefer to lay blame precisely where it should be, at the feet of the consumer urges of our society, the governments that profess to guide us, and in the hearts of people who never look beyond personal gain. I think care of animals and an awareness of the environment is something that should be part of everyones growth both spiritually and as a part of normal human maturity. That is not something promoted by facile statements, undermining integrity and attacking certain groups. As most fishermen will tell you the actual fishing is a small part, most of it is sitting somewhere quiet, near nature and often away from urban settings with no-one but your closest friends, and there are other ways that could be achieved without fishing, and that could be negotiated over time.

I dont think PETA have heard of leading by example, do you?


and racso- one thing ive learned when dealing with any species except introduced species or species where we have eliminated the natural predators- is that their numbers are self regulating, and even mass die offs are within natures remit. When they go out of balance its usually either something weve done, or is something that we havent documented yet. Generally it all works out.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 02-Dec-2005 11:25

So far the thread is staying in the boundries of the site. We have having a discussion where yep we have opinions, and yes some of us feel strongly, but it is a debate and comment post, no more or less.

I will keep editing comments like such and such needs to die etc. That is just pointless. Real opinions that do not stray too far towards poilitical comments etc will be kept.

Just wanted to share and really figure out what they are raising a fuss about in regards to people getting brain damage from eating fish.

Empty chairs at empty tables, the room silent, forlorn.

Peta has been going after the wrong crowd for years, if they feel hooking a fish is cruel, instead of trying to educate people that do not care, they need to approach amunition makers and lobby them, if we had bullets that were accurate under water we wouldn't need hooks.

That is just hilarious, really fishing is like life. How many times do we pick up the phone, answer an email, respond to an ad where there is a sales pitch and come out losing in the end? Not every fish will bite. Therefore in theory the stupid ones will get caught and ate, the smart ones will live and breed.

I liked the deer comment, here in Iowa they do not sell enough deer tags to maintain the population, let alone shirnk it, so there is no risk of decreasing the population, only the risk of losing the ones too stupid to hide.

I was unaware that you could have pointless discussion in the recovery room, but whatever.

I hate PETA and all, but not all great apes were fashioned as omnivores >.>. Most of the larger hominids were primarily vegetarian up until erectus.



Last edited by koi keeper at 02-Dec-2005 09:55

Cory, I don´t see it quite that way.

I rather think that if you are a friend of the animals and wants what´s best for them, then DON´T EAT THEIR FOOD!

---

So here I am once more...

The moment I see the words "focus group" appearing anywhere in campaign literature, I know it's bound to be a half-baked pile of festering donkey droppings.

A properly run focus group has a valuable place in social science research and campaign orientation.

To just dismiss it like that without a valid, structured reason why, is just a bit lazy, to say the least.



-------------------------------------------------
I like to think that whoever designed marine life was thinking of it as basically an entertainment medium. That would explain some of the things down there, some of the unearthly biological contraptions

Lol, thats true enough, the kangaroo is to australians what the rabbit is to europeans. Do you guys always have to do everything bigger ?

actualy, sheep are an interesting one. The clearing of bushland for grazing land has caused a boom in the kangaroo population to the point where we are culling over one million per year (1.4M from memory)
There are very few natural predators for the kangaroo over here, their population is largely controlled by the environment. We go and alter that, and wham! population explosion!
As much as I hate the thought of culling, I hate the thought of slow starvation more. *sigh*


For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

Exactly what I meant, nicely illustrated.

Money , money, money, more money, and then if were lucky, a bit of retrospective morality. Too late of course by then.

Farmers hand in hand with government policies are nearly always to blame for the loss of predators where herd animals are raised. Certainly australia has a history of this much as almost all other countries do. The close browsing level of sheep also means its harder for other browsers to compete too.

" Its noticeable that Australians arent really worried about the ecological damage caused by the overexploitation of grasslands by sheep.The sheep too are an introduced species. We see the sheep as acceptable, and the rabbits as not. Funny isnt it?"

sheep make us enough money to turn a blind eye (30% of the worlds wool comes from Australia). Ground lice (sheep) arent as bad as cattle (in my opinion anyway). Hard hooved animals introduced to Australia are causing lots of trouble with erosion.

Well, I'll jump in here just to say......PETA is such a credible organization, I mean come on....Pamela Anderson naked wearing only lettuce......who doesn't snap to at that?

What I love about PETA is how they want to protest restaurants for not treating the animals humanely that they're fixing to kill!! What the ______??? "Treat that chicken humanely before you wring its neck and deep fat fry it!!" PETA came down here to "Northern Mexico" (where dogs and cats can be considered food sometimes ) and tried to stage a protest at a local KFC.......not only were shown the street, but I think they were were also shown a close-up view of the tip of the restaurant owner's boot!

I wouldn't let my child anywhere near that crap, and the article posted by Sirbrooks tells you all you need to know about PETA....but still, Pam Anderson!!

---

~~Melissa~~
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

Yeah , theres still damage a rabbit can do in Australia, in those sorts of ecosystems they can be a mightmare,theyve pretty much already done all the damage they can do in the UK though.The UK's mammalian population wasnt that diverse anyway, and to be honest there wasnt much reason to worry. Australia is a different kettle of fish. Mammals generally outcompete australian marsupials, a lot of which are totally unique to that continent so theres a lot of rabbit ,cat,rat,fox, dog , and even chicken exterminating to be done. Its noticeable that Australians arent really worried about the ecological damage caused by the overexploitation of grasslands by sheep.The sheep too are an introduced species. We see the sheep as acceptable, and the rabbits as not. Funny isnt it?

Last edited by longhairedgit at 06-Dec-2005 06:47

Last edited by longhairedgit at 06-Dec-2005 06:48

South Park summed it all up perfectly.

-- Gomer

The comment was actually about rabbits in Australia and here they are a huge pest, along with the introduced foxes and feral cats. They compete for food with some of our smaller animals, they destroy some of our native flora (which also helps to feed our fauna) and they also cost our farmers because their livestock also compete the rabbits for food.
Wild rabbits, foxes and feral cats need to be totally eradicated from the Australian countryside or we will lose much more than we have already

The feral rabbit issue is actually acomplicated example. Rabbits introduced to the uk the by the gauls and romans for example have been in the uk so long that they have actually filled the ecological niche of the hare (indigenous species) . The spread of farming and roads, disturbance etc will mean that short of retracting urban spread and ending farming its unlikely that the hare would ever return in number even if the rabbit population were eliminated. Thereby exterminating rabbits only serves to destroy the creatures that are now dependant on them for a living.

Much the same could be said of the red squirrel/grey squirrel issue. Evidence has shown from many studies that grey squirrels actually prefer slightly different biotopes than reds, are more adaptable and generally dont compete for the same nest sites. Greys are bigger and more aggressive, easily capable of displacing reds if they so wish, but since they dont actually compete for the same things this doesnt usually happen. In areas of scotland reds have been monitored cohabiting within larger woods in totally stable numbers, their numbers appear to have changed very little over the last 100 years! The fact is that red squirrels require "old Growth" forest (IE pristine , uncoppiced forest with no artificial clearances 200-400 YEARS OLD ! ) Greys are more generalist in their lifestyle and can cope just about anywhere there is food. So basically the decline of the red squirrel is almost completely down to us fundamentally to do with our forestry and farming, and our decline in old growth forest.
Even if we eliminated greys, the chances are that the reds wouldnt be back.There just isnt suitable forest left. So aside from a little bark damage to trees and a little nest robbing,theres really very little reason to persecute the greys, it only harms the species that feed on them. But then I doubt most animal agencies would know that.

Its just that kind of complexity that people need to look into before making judgements. Even government authorities have problems assimilating such information, the people harder to convice than that once a predjudice has set in , and then you get the PETA's of the world.

I think PETA is more about the unthinking perpetuation of segregational and clique hate culture than it is about learning or caring. Wise people look elsewhere. Too many people make decisions before they are qualified to have an opinion.

Personally I worry about the extinction issues, and the loss of habitat first. Morals have more scope for discussion, and that is where there is an area open to debate, when you have either direct or complicitious damage to any ecosystem you look at that first. And for that we turn to biologists, scientists,and naturalists, and ecologists. PETA isnt really in the frontline of Jack.

I understand people when they feel they are not being listened to - they may think desperate times require desperate measures, but the wise man knows that in an age of legal and financial resistance that the science behind every arguement must be solid. You must look to people who will give you that to make a difference, or do it yourself. PETA due to the very nature of their campaigning cannot help you in this, no matter how many celebrities are on board. Once the organisational credibility takes a tumble everyone associated gets the same deal. I wouldnt say pamela anderson was an authority on animal care- would you? Yet she is at the forefront of PETA'S promotional campaigns. If they managed to get David Attenborough I might start to listen. Dont confuse icons with authority, its just not the same thing. Id go for a naturalist over someone with inflatable breasts. David may not be more attractive, but at least hes more real .

Morals are like religion, one rarely justifiable over another,just get the idiots , extremists, and knee-jerk reactionalists out the way and things go much smoother.Integrity is what its all about. Peta have fervour, not integrity.Its useful to bring attention to problems as some groups often do, but noticeably its not these groups that actually solve the problems. That is the domain, of you and I, governments, and scientists.

If someone holds an arguement before you, listen , take note , take appropriate action. But only if you are qualified emotionally, and with the finest knowledge base behind you. PETA may highlight a problem, but its your responsibilty to find out the truth. Not everyone you speak to is an authority, often I find those that shout loudest know the least. Never be led.

We live in a world where most people have no sense of self, rarely leave their houses, and believe everything they watch on television.Some people even send soap stars wedding gifts for gods sake. We are a nation of armchair philosophers.Almost nothing you will see on the tv, radio,newspapers or internet does not have an agenda behind it, and the dangers of secondary evidence are many. If in doubt about anything, get out there, go see for yourself, and then make your decision. I think thats your absolute minimum responsibilty in issues that affect human and animal lives. Besides which, if you do find a worthy cause you may find that you have already become more pro-active by doing that.Take nothing for granted, especially pressure groups which openly have agendas. The one thing you cannot know for sure is the nature of that agenda.

The more you know, the less you know, and everything with a pinch of salt.



Last edited by longhairedgit at 05-Dec-2005 04:20

Aren't rabbits feral there, anyways? If so, you're techincally helping the environment, no?

Yes noodles, they are and the government were encouraging people to hunt them. My dad would also make a small amount of much needed money from the pelts as well so there wasn't much that didn't go to waste.

Real education comes from simple truths, and those truths don't need twisting and made into disgusting slanderous comic art. And I as a TRUE animal lover would never give a cent to an organisation that would resort to that

Well put Katieb - I agree and couldn't have put it better.

The way to change people's minds is through consistent and well formed argument.

GFG


_______________________________________
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
Harvey S. Firestone

If we arent calm and rational, then that makes us aggressive and irrational, which will get us no where. It was only recently that laws were passed to protect marine mammals. It took a lot of time and hard work on the part of scientists and photographers to comvince the world that dolphins and whales needed protecting. PETA has done little to improve the AR cause, and if we resort to their tactics or allow them to win, the cause will never reach its goal. We need to be outspoken, but informative and compassionate. People have overcome a lot in history and it sometimes took hundreds of years to conquer injustices and we can do it again now.

I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

"whoah - it never says that explicitly

Your daddy kills animals if he goes fishing. That is a statement of fact, just written in emotive language"

It is not a statement of fact. The manner in which said org uses the graphic is obviously intending to impart such a murderous impression, and unless you are completely oblivious (not you in particular, just a figure of speech), you WOULD take it in this manner. Besides, last I checked, you can just as easily release the fish, amirite?

"What do you do when nobody will listen? How many of the groups that are now "calm and rational" will cease to be calm and rational as they are ignored more forcefully?

In an increasingly hollow age, calm and rational will work less and less well. After all, are the Establishment calm and rational about the issues they seek to address? No!"

So promoting chaos is a good idea? Last I checked, most even minded and intelligent indivduals of "the now" seem to find PETA to be a completely ludicrous proposition. All major leaps and bounds that I know to be intimately intertwined with governmental action, such as civil and womens rights were done so in more logical manner than PETA seems to intend to do. The "vocal and irrational" mindset, though present, never really achieved much and only served to turn individuals away from these acts.

Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 04-Dec-2005 17:42

"I said that i find this concerted campaign against environmental groups, who are consistendly discredited, until, in many cases, overwhelming evidence proves they are right, a serious issue. And yes, the same thing happened to the Feminist movement, but not, IMO, the gay rights movement."

So basically you agree that new ideas take a long to be accepted as "normal" and mainstream.

Groups such as PETA are such an easy target, even if the comic ad doesn't explicitly say your Dad is a murderer it implies as much and therefore gives excellent ammunition to people who think all animal rights people are crazies.

GFG

_______________________________________
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
Harvey S. Firestone

whoah - it never says that explicitly

Your daddy kills animals if he goes fishing. That is a statement of fact, just written in emotive language

-------------------------------------------------
I like to think that whoever designed marine life was thinking of it as basically an entertainment medium. That would explain some of the things down there, some of the unearthly biological contraptions

so if calm and rational doesent work....tell some kids their parents are murderers?

umm, gfg - that's not what i said


I said that i find this concerted campaign against environmental groups, who are consistendly discredited, until, in many cases, overwhelming evidence proves they are right, a serious issue. And yes, the same thing happened to the Feminist movement, but not, IMO, the gay rights movement. However, interestingly, the feminist movement was quite linked to the fledgling environmental movements of the day.

KatieB - what happens when "calm and rational" no longer works? Amnesty International has consistently been calm and rational, and is now mostly sidelined. The mainstream STWC was calm and rational, and the point (which is now so tragically being proved) was not made.

What do you do when nobody will listen? How many of the groups that are now "calm and rational" will cease to be calm and rational as they are ignored more forcefully?

In an increasingly hollow age, calm and rational will work less and less well. After all, are the Establishment calm and rational about the issues they seek to address? No!

(the above is not to be taken in any way as demonstrating my personal attitude towards PETA)

Last edited by tiny_clanger at 04-Dec-2005 15:19

-------------------------------------------------
I like to think that whoever designed marine life was thinking of it as basically an entertainment medium. That would explain some of the things down there, some of the unearthly biological contraptions

Katieb, I was referring to Tiny Clanger's view that the animal rights are discredited more tham other groups, I disgree and was pointing out it takes a long time for new ideas to be accepted.

And I do think that many people think the idea of animals having rights is ridiculous, other wise the movement educating people to think differently would not be neccessary.

GFG

_______________________________________
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
Harvey S. Firestone

"I would disagree with that, think about the Gay rights movement or the way Femminists of the 1960s were treated. these issues were once considered ridculous."

I don't think anyone thinks Animal Rights is a ridculous issue these days. However PETA is the most vocal AR group and give the good groups a bad image. No one wants chickens to be stomped on or dogs to be bred to fight each other. What we need to do, is to make sure people know PETA is nuts. We need to inform the public of abuses that still occur today in a calm and intelligent manner. We've come a long way, we can't let groups like PETA stop us now.

I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

id rather talk to the founder of the ALF than PETA, theyve always been kinda but still that would traumatize kids and could have some major reprecussions, such as if a kid has a few fish in a tank and he sees this comic he will get frightened that daddy will tear apart his betta or other fish that he will try and release the fish into the wild. andd besides PETA kills more animals than it saves.]
Animals arent defensless they are each armed with unique weapons such as beaks, teeth, spines, hooves, and you get the point, all i am sayin is that thhis is an extremely controversal comic that will tramatise kids in to hating their parents, there is also a comic called "your mommy kills animals" and it shows a mom hacking a rabbit apart. PETA is sad. Kid+PETA=