PLFXpert 0 #76 January 8, 2010 QuoteI think the SS isn't really that upset about getting rammed either - though many express a lack of sympathy, it garners them substantial publicity. And from what I read, that ship of their's was a high performance craft - was it actually unable to get out of the way? Or is the latest tactic in what is a publicity game to shame the whaling nations? (Will that work? Japan has been remarkably resistant to outsider pressure - Nanking being another example) This is an entirely different discussion--one for the Anti-Whaling thread. You are welcome to bring it there, but I think you'll find the discussion short-lived as I agree with you.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #77 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuote I don't believe in animal cruelty, but on the other hand I am left speechless by the number of people that I meet that are unable to separate their emotional/rational treatment of a pet from that of a human child. I find it deeply disturbing and honestly without wishing to offend bordering on mental illness when someone truly accepts and treats a pet cat or dog as a child of their own. >>I don't believe in animal cruelty ------ Huh????? What part is difficult to understand? He's saying that: on the one hand, he believes that people should never be cruel to animals; but nevertheless, he does not believe that pets are the equivalent of human children, and he finds people who do treat their pets as though the pets were their human children to be rather odd. At least that's what I think he's saying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 559 #78 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote I don't believe in animal cruelty, but on the other hand I am left speechless by the number of people that I meet that are unable to separate their emotional/rational treatment of a pet from that of a human child. I find it deeply disturbing and honestly without wishing to offend bordering on mental illness when someone truly accepts and treats a pet cat or dog as a child of their own. >>I don't believe in animal cruelty ------ Huh????? What part is difficult to understand? He's saying that: on the one hand, he believes that people should never be cruel to animals; but nevertheless, he does not believe that pets are the equivalent of human children, and he finds people who do treat their pets as though the pets were their human children to be rather odd. At least that's what I think he's saying. spot on thanks.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #79 January 8, 2010 QuoteIf a poacher was about to shoot the last breeding pair of (black rhinos, giant pandas, white tigers, insert other species here) and the only way to stop him was to shoot him, then shoot him. But what if the poacher wanted to kill the last black rhino to feed his children to keep them alive? I say rhino burgers for the kids. Not all poachers are big white hunters looking for trophies. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #80 January 8, 2010 QuoteNot all poachers are big white hunters So now we're being racist toward small black people. This is just unbearable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #81 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Not all poachers are big white hunters So now we're being racist toward small black people. This is just unbearable. Talk about trying to high jack a thread!!! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #82 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf a poacher was about to shoot the last breeding pair of (black rhinos, giant pandas, white tigers, insert other species here) and the only way to stop him was to shoot him, then shoot him. But what if the poacher wanted to kill the last black rhino to feed his children to keep them alive? I say rhino burgers for the kids. Not all poachers are big white hunters looking for trophies. This of course is not theoretical. In Africa today there are people hunting gorillas to feed their families. Do you really think it is OK to hunt them to extinction because there are (and always have been and always will be) hungry people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #83 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf a poacher was about to shoot the last breeding pair of (black rhinos, giant pandas, white tigers, insert other species here) and the only way to stop him was to shoot him, then shoot him. But what if the poacher wanted to kill the last black rhino to feed his children to keep them alive? I say rhino burgers for the kids. Not all poachers are big white hunters looking for trophies. This of course is not theoretical. In Africa today there are people hunting gorillas to feed their families. Do you really think it is OK to hunt them to extinction because there are (and always have been and always will be) hungry people? Are the practices of people hunting for food (subsistence) driving gorillas to extinction? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #84 January 8, 2010 Would you want a gorilla to move into your neighborhood? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #85 January 8, 2010 Not even a little bit. a) humans ARE animals b) many humans are less worthy of protection than most animals of other species c) some animals of other species are more important to me than most humans Given a choice between protecting a human versus some other animal, I'd generally side with the human, but the exceptions are far too many to list. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #86 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuotePlease explain. i don't know your view but yes it is. As I see it there are to basic "starting points" depending on your stance. 1) Humans are at the top of the evolutionary chain, or 2) God made humans "special" Why must one begin at either of those starting points? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #87 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuote Quote Yes, because they are animals And we are not animals? if we are not animals then what are we? Human beings. Didn't you get the memo? Most humans are animals. Sure, we have our share of vegetables, but I don't recall ever meeting a mineral. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #88 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes, because they are animals And we are not animals? if we are not animals then what are we? Human beings. Didn't you get the memo? Most humans are animals. Sure, we have our share of vegetables, but I don't recall ever meeting a mineral. I dunno ... I've met a few that are golden. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #89 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes, because they are animals And we are not animals? if we are not animals then what are we? Human beings. Didn't you get the memo? Most humans are animals. Sure, we have our share of vegetables, but I don't recall ever meeting a mineral. I dunno ... I've met a few that are golden. /Marg Nice. I was expecting someone to tell me how they once met Oliver Stone. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #90 January 8, 2010 Quote Are the practices of people hunting for food (subsistence) driving gorillas to extinction? /Marg Although the cash crop poaching biz and troop feeding requirements from various wars has been perhaps a larger problem, yes, subsistence hunting is a serious threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #91 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuote Are the practices of people hunting for food (subsistence) driving gorillas to extinction? Although the cash crop poaching biz and troop feeding requirements from various wars has been perhaps a larger problem, yes, subsistence hunting is a serious threat. That -- the contribution of subsistence hunting over poaching and other threats, such as elimination of habitat/deforestation, civil war & insurgencies in the specific case of the mountain gorillas in Congo, introduction of human diseases, etc -- surprises me. But ...okay, sometimes unexpected variables can still have unexpectedly large consequences. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #92 January 8, 2010 The problem is that they are on the brink. The reason an individual is removed from the gene pool becomes irrelevant; the fact that they are removed is the only cogent issue. The same is true for polar bears and Inuit hunting of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 January 8, 2010 Quote That -- the contribution of subsistence hunting over poaching and other threats, such as elimination of habitat/deforestation, civil war & insurgencies in the specific case of the mountain gorillas in Congo, introduction of human diseases, etc -- surprises me. But ...okay, sometimes unexpected variables can still have unexpectedly large consequences. /Marg Habitat elimination tends to focus animals into pockets, rather than wide expanses, making it very easy to hunt an entire enclave into nothing. Now once you get a species down to this sort of dire strait, not hunting them may just prolong the end, but certainly it prevents any chance of a rebound. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #94 January 8, 2010 >But what if the poacher wanted to kill the last black rhino to feed >his children to keep them alive? I say rhino burgers for the kids. Why? If that's really the last rhino, and that's their only source of food, those kids are going to die anyway. Why not protect that rhino so it can breed a few rhinolets before killing it off? That way the species _and_ those kids survive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #95 January 8, 2010 QuoteQuote That -- the contribution of subsistence hunting over poaching and other threats, such as elimination of habitat/deforestation, civil war & insurgencies in the specific case of the mountain gorillas in Congo, introduction of human diseases, etc -- surprises me. But ...okay, sometimes unexpected variables can still have unexpectedly large consequences. Habitat elimination tends to focus animals into pockets, rather than wide expanses, making it very easy to hunt an entire enclave into nothing. Now once you get a species down to this sort of dire strait, not hunting them may just prolong the end, but certainly it prevents any chance of a rebound. Doesn't that argument suggest that the driver is not subsistence hunting? It seems to be at what level one wants to pinpoint the problem -- when eradication of a species or sub-species population appears to be inevitable -- or identifying the drivers/factors that get to that point before eradication appears to be inevitable. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #96 January 8, 2010 Quote Doesn't that argument suggest that the driver is not subsistence hunting? It seems to be at what level one wants to pinpoint the problem -- when eradication of a species or sub-species population appears to be inevitable -- or identifying the drivers/factors that get to that point before eradication appears to be inevitable. /Marg In some cases, subsistence hunting may actually be the major driver. There's a lot more people. And for a species with a long generation (primates, tuna as another example), every loss is big. Whereas a short lived species like salmon or squid may tolerate a very high take. Their reproductive process results in thousands of eggs, not ~1 offspring per year like with mammals. The offspring also are self reliant. If you shoot a mammal, its children may also perish as a result. In other cases, no, the bigger picture items are the primary force. However, those can be more nebulous. One town being built with timber doesn't change the balance. 100 towns using timber from that forest - significant. Or the ongoing global warming debate. Collective actions lead to negative result. But it's very hard to curb those actions. You can get 50% to get onboard, and you'll still sinking deeper. But shooting a gorilla - that's a pretty obvious direct impact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 January 8, 2010 Quote Nice. I was expecting someone to tell me how they once met Oliver Stone. or Sharon Stone or Remington Steele, or Rock Hudson, or Fred Flintstone we can do this all day ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #98 January 8, 2010 Quote In some cases, subsistence hunting may actually be the major driver. That has been one of the arguments w/r/t eradication of large game species in the Americas, e.g., Wooly Mammoths. Quote But shooting a gorilla - that's a pretty obvious direct impact. But is it a bigger impact, i.e., what are the relative numbers of poaching versus subsistence hunting? (Putting aside the other potential drivers for the moment.) Trying to find some data, rather than conjecture (as much fun as the latter may be ): here’s one study that asserts 300 gorillas a year killed by poachers in central Africa – don’t know the veracity of that report. This story states that “A big reason why hunting used to pale next to habitat destruction is that as recently as the 1990s animals were killed mostly for subsistence, with locals taking only what they needed to live.” “The problem now is that hunting, even of supposedly protected animals, is a global, multimillion-dollar business. Eating bushmeat ‘is now a status symbol,’ says Thomas Brooks of Conservation International. ‘It's not a subsistence issue. It's not a poverty issue. It's considered supersexy to eat bushmeat.’” This study from 1994 notes 62 gorillas killed in one year for subsistence (table top p 152) . The authors of that report *do* cite subsistence hunting as a cause of low density of gorillas in the area surveyed (p. 157-158), an area in which they state does not have other confounding factors (deforestation, poaching, civil war), so that may be the strongest argument for the argument that subsistence hunting is a threat. Of course, low density does not equal extinction. This study, from 2009, states: “Hunting is the major driver of large mammal decline in Central African forests. In slowly reproducing species even low hunting pressure leaves spatial gradients with wildlife density increasing with distance from transport routes and human settlements. We conducted an ape survey in the mountainous Moukalaba Doudou National Park, Gabon, to evaluate whether potential population gradients would emanate from the three human population centers in the region or the villages surrounding the park. “The results indicate that Moukalaba’s ape population is more impacted by commercial than subsistence hunting and suggest that park management should focus conservation efforts on the human population centers.” In that area poaching was found to be a bigger factor. Laughed at the recommendation too -- it's not the gorillas that are the problem but the humans. Still not sure … and am still skeptical that subsistence hunting is the primary or even secondary threat to survival of gorilla populations. Like most of these issues, imo, it's not one simple factor that is all to blame or is the 'silver bullet' solution. Some can be much more important tho.' But I’ve learned some new stuff about the different factors threatening gorillas, so that’s cool. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #99 January 8, 2010 Quote we can do this all day What would be the fun in that? Oh yeah...Amber Lynn, Scarlett Johannson, and Jewel. Does Kevin Garnett count? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote we can do this all day What would be the fun in that? Oh yeah...Amber Lynn, Scarlett Johannson, and Jewel. Does Kevin Garnett count? Blues, Dave "One of these things is not like the others..." Street> Kid RockMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
