Cruelty?

[five bellies]

Not really dogs are a domesticated animal and thrive off the company of their human friends, or should do.

 

 

Normaly my old dog is the only one pleased to see me when I get home!

[corydoras]

a Hypocryte because I keep a dog,

Not at all. I used to have a GSD and I would love to have another, but at the moment I have neither the time nor the space so it would not be fair on the dog. Edited August 18, 2007 by corydoras

[zedhead]

as pointed out, the author of the article is wrong or wide of the mark on many issues, and I feel that her somewhat limited knowledge of the subject should speak for itself. Her agendas seem to be very lifestyle oriented, ergo she doesnt know whats accurate but wants to subscribe to certain views.

 

I do take the subject very seriously as I hold strong opinons on animal cruelty - for instance why go on fox hunts when enough get splatted on the roads, but which ever side of the fence you sit on regarding these issues, accurate knowledge of the fundamentals are a must, and she clearly doesnt possess any.

 

I wouldnt have even bothered drawing it to our attention leon.

[Steve Walker]

Ok last question guys. Why does one species have rights, and all the others don't. That sounds a bit arbitrary to me, and speaking as an atheist it all seems a bit dogmatic too.

 

Because the only species that has them is the only species that respects them! They're just an artefact of our social system; you may as well ask why ants will only allow one species into their nest.

 

Humans are very peculiar, though, in their efforts to protect other species. I was thinking about the ethics of extinction last time I was fishing. Specifically, having just been attacked by horseflies, I was pondering whether I would push the big red button to make them (and mosquitoes for that matter) extinct. Then I thought that the more interesting question was why it wasn't a no-brainer.

[GlennB]

Humans are very peculiar, though, in their efforts to protect other species. I was thinking about the ethics of extinction last time I was fishing. Specifically, having just been attacked by horseflies, I was pondering whether I would push the big red button to make them (and mosquitoes for that matter) extinct. Then I thought that the more interesting question was why it wasn't a no-brainer.

 

"Meddle at your peril" would be my motto.

 

We'd probably find that mosquitoes are the staple diet of certain birds and/or bats. Without mozzies the bat and bird populations might suffer, leaving the gate open for some other pesky critter to thrive. Or the bats and birds would resort to eating something beneficial to humans. Dunno.

 

If one's not careful, one can end up poisoning large lakes just to get rid of the pesky pike

 

Mind you, I sympathise. I totally detest mozzies - the evil little blood-sucking b#stards. Fleas too - it's not as if anything eats fleas, so how would the "big red button" treatment on fleas distort the ecosystem?

[Steve Walker]

That was my conclusion; that I was worried about the law of Unintended Consequences, not that I thought there was any moral reason not to. I think there would be consequences in the food webs, particularly in the case of mosquitoes, and also in their role as vectors of disease. They spread myxi, for one thing, so rabbits might benefit.

[Anderoo]

Some interesting and intelligent posts here, and I find myself agreeing with most of them. Getting back to the original point, I think this whole issue depends on how the crabs are treated when they're caught. If they're dropped in a bucket, admired and released without any damage, then obviously that's fine. If some are tested to destruction (and remember we're talking mainly about little boys here - I'm sure we all know what evil geniuses they can be) then that's not OK. It's the same with fishing - fishing itself is not cruel if the fish is treated with respect.

 

I agree with Corydoras - just because we're all anglers it doesn't mean that we have to have knee-jerk reactions to anything that may be construed as anti-whatever. Aside from the fact we go fishing we're also human beings in society, and are therefore responsible for deciding what is acceptable in that society. IF (IF) the crabs are being pulled apart, society has a responsibility to try to prevent it. Sadly we live in a society where the most common way of dealing with situations like this is to ban them rather than encouraging good behaviour via education.

 

I also agree with Steve Walker - animal welfare should be the aim. There is no such thing as animal rights except as a human construct. We, as intelligent and sentient beings, have a responsibility to treat living creatures with care and respect. We are also intelligent enough to know that they would not do the same for us in return and (hopefully) generous enough in spirit for that not to matter.

 

I've said it many time now, but animal rights is what will get fishing banned. I've also said this many times - what we anglers think doesn't matter.

[corydoras]

Humans are very peculiar, though, in their efforts to protect other species. I was thinking about the ethics of extinction last time I was fishing. Specifically, having just been attacked by horseflies, I was pondering whether I would push the big red button to make them (and mosquitoes for that matter) extinct. Then I thought that the more interesting question was why it wasn't a no-brainer.

That's maybe because we are the only animal to understand that bio-diversity is in our interest.

[Steve Walker]

Yes, I think you're probably right. Although, there is certainly an irrationality to it. I sometimes wonder whether, in sheer Darwinian terms, our species is approaching the equivalent of Rome under Nero.

[UK_Ozzie]

Thank god for supermarkets then hey or we'd be treating fish with a little more contempt.

 

Anglers care for fish, caring for their surroundings therefore caring for other surrounding animals.

 

Without that yesterday hunting psyche there'd be a lot more shopping carts and a lot less fish in the water.

 

Groups like PETA may have good intentions but they haven't a f****** clue what they're talking about.

 

Fruit loops with more estrogen than testosterone. For many of us it was only 60 years ago that keeping chickens, hunting for food and necking our own game was human necessity.

 

There wasn't a frozen section supermarket.

 

Humans don't flick a switch and their whole biological evolutionary development shuts down.

 

PETA are a cult of people who can't think for themselves. A bandwagon of followers who support a business entity to make people money not save the world.

 

Many people who post topics like this are trolls. and s**** stirrers good reason why the topics should be deleted straight away pending their validity.