IMHO, I don't think it's a matter of cruelty or food. First of, large predatory sharks simply don't taste good. Why in the world would you eat something that tastes basically like piss? Especially if your neck of the ocean can support a shark that big with fish for it to eat. Also, sharks are the top of the food chain in the ocean (IMO humans aren't), and with all the mercury in the ocean, it's got to be the absolute worse thing to eat (highest concentration of mercury, basically you're poisoning yourself). The only reason I see anyone going after luring a shark of that size is to kill it, perhaps because of competition (it's eating all your fish), it's a threat, or for sport/enjoyment. If you're dragging a live dog in the water to lure a shark for sport or enjoyment, you deserve to be shot. It's absolutely unnecessary and outright wrong to subject a living organism to that kind of treatment (both the dog and shark), just because you get a thrill doing so. Killing for fun, torturing for fun, that's sadistic in my book, and I would consider you go into a clinic for correction procedures. Fox hunting falls into this category. You basically chase a fox to the ground on horseback till dies of exhaustion, doesn't taste good (very sour meat), and you're doing it for fun; unnecessary. It's plain wasteful. If the shark is competing for resources, remember, it's one shark vs. your whole neighborhood of fishermen. One shark is not going to out eat a bunch of humans (sharks don't eat very much, and most of what they eat a human wouldn't touch with a stick. On top of that, your neighbor fisherman probably catches more fish than that shark, so he's more of a competitor.). Besides, if your sealine is seal infested, that shark will take care of your poor fishing problem as seals will eat many more fish than a single shark and the shark will find the seal more appetizing than some tiny little hard to catch mackerel. If that shark is eating your neighbors and your family, fine, go kill it, but don't drag a healthy dog in the water (fish guts, i.e. chum, carcasses, rotten meat, all of which is unfit for human consumption, work better at attracting sharks than any dog). If your dog is sick/dying, I guess you can use it, but if he is your pet be humane and kill him before you do so (and if he REALLY IS your pet, I hope you have the humanity not use him as shark bait). Also, don't "petnap" someone's pet to use as sharkbait, that's illegal and morally wrong. There are unwritten rules people follow when people kill animals. If that animal is a threat to the human population, you either move, relocate the animal, or you kill it (large predatory animals as well as bugs that transmit disease, and little poisonous animals, fall into this category). If you're going to kill an animal that is not a threat to you, you better eat it (rabbits, fowl, pigs, deer, cow, are all fair game in my book). Otherwise, leave them alone. Also, a little off topic, but anyone ever go hunting before? Ever have to clean your own kills? It's pretty nasty what you find inside or on them sometimes (ticks, worms, other parasites). You're cutting through your venison steak and you find a tapeworm... not nice... rare occurrance, but happens. Sometimes stuff like that makes me appreciate the amount of care farmers give to their livestock to keep them parasite free and sometimes I almost don't mind the chemicals or the killing process (the less time there is between the death of the cow and packaging, the less chance of flies and maggots getting to the meat). But I guess you have to choose between what's visually appetizing (without nasty surprises) and what's "healthy" for you. IMO, there are worse things then having a few trace doses of pesticide (smoking, drugs, too much alcohol, etc). -Lemur 6
The point people have been making is that these fishermen most probably do not hunt sharks for kicks. I think they probably get very little time to do anything just for kicks at all, and if they do, I suspect it doesn't involve activities they do for a living anyway. Sharks are probably hunted because they are perceived as a direct threat to the fishermen, and because there is money in it (if there wasn't, they would not go through the hassle). Sure, shark doesn't taste great, but I bet there is a whole market for shark meat, collagen, cartillage, oil and other body parts. We're going around in circles a bit. We have analysed the moral rights and wrongs, and the economical motivations of fishermen to do this (not to mention whether they actually do, or whether this might be an urban myth). In the end, yes it's wrong, and no, we may not be in a position to admonish them and tell them what to do. We are not exactly pure-as-the-driven-snow ourselves, and our comfortable lives are far removed from their realities.
Feel free to make a thread about this, I've save my counter-arguements for another thread(if one ever gets created).
Anyone who thinks this isn't "that big a deal" obviously hasn't ever had a dog as a pet and doesn't realise how horrific a picture like that is to someone who has. As mad as it sounds to those without a dog, my dog is as much a member of my family as anyone, and as much as a friend to me as any human friend in fact, probably more than any human friend. They aren't just some dumb piece of flesh and fur that wanders around giving preconditioned, predicatble responses to various situations. They are intelligent, concious beings. I simply can't access a part of my mind that could cope with the emotions produced by the thought of my dog having to go through this.
I'm not too big a fan of pork sausages, but give me one full of cow or anything else anyday. If i liked the taste I probably would be though so I see what you're getting at but the fact that one animal is suffering doesn't invalidate the suffering of another. Or in otherwords: The following transmission is broadcast in leet through the medium of expressive poor analogy for the hard of understanding... "Omgz Help Police!!111one I just got teh stabbed. Arrgh gawd!11 so un1337!" - "Pfft, LOL! big dealxx0r, I kn3w a d00d yestardayz, he got teh shotterx0red 'n nearly fragged. Now that's un1337 ROFLMAOLz!111oneoneseventynine" <diez>
No, but neither can you justify protecting one animal on grounds of sentience and intelligence while you are not nearly as bothered about the suffering of another animal that is arguably more sentient and intelligent.
I think it's funny that most people that bark on and on about how unhealthy commercially processed meats usually drink, if not smoke. I believe animals were put here by God for the use of mankind, BUT I also believe that with this came our own responsibility to be good stewards over them. I don't really think that a live dog belongs in the ocean with a hook through it's face just to bait JAWS. There's plenty of things from the shark's own habitat that would make fitting live bait. Stuff the shark probably likes eating a little more. I can't imagine that dog's hard bones feel too great when sharkypal is used to the squishy fishy bones. - serial_
Pigs are quite tasty. If I were conditioned to think that dogs were tasty (i.e. if I were fed dog since I was little and I found it tasty then), then I'd probably not mind killing and eating dog. However, pig or dog, to torture and/or kill for purposes not for eating or some other useful purpose is... wasteful. -Lemur 6
I can't justify it. What i do know is that trying to protect 1 animal is better than protecting none at all. Show me a pig petition and I'll sign it.
Hypocritical? Yes and no. I'm not a vegatarian by any means, though not the biggest fan of flesh (chicken and pigs excluded. Hmmmm.. bacon). I don't think it's neccassairly just that dogs are cuter. Humans and dogs have been bonding for a very long time. I mean, I cared for my Iguanas, but they never jumped in front of something to protect me. I think that counts for something.
And there's the rub, is it? We can keep bright, intelligent pigs in the most atrocious circumstances and then massacre them by the thousands, but they can't kill a few cute looking dogs. Bit like how we are telling developing countries they should go easy on their rainforests, coral reefs and air pollution because we have blown our local ecology in our drive for industrialisation. Obviously it is OK for us to reap the economic benefits from this sacrifice, but we don't want them to develop economically, because we would like some nature left for us to have our exotic safari holidays in, please. Bit like a bunch of lefty middle-class intellectuals will sit around the table enjoying their free-range chicken with some organically-grown Chardonnay while discussing how some poor struggling farmers in Asia shouldn't have a tractor because that would destroy their "cultural heritage and traditional way of life", and would result in more pollution. A house-trained wild pig would do the same thing, which is my argument all along. Dogs are nothing special in that regard. Let's ditch the sentimentality here. We decided a long time ago that certain animals taste good, and that others make better tools than they do food. So we keep the former as livestock, and the latter as utility animals or, if we can afford the luxury, pets (i.e. a nice safe relationship to fulfill our attachment needs). Sometimes we use animals as both (as in case of oxen, or horses, or dairy animals), but as soon as they have outlived their usefulness, they become product. When the chips are down and we are starving, even our faithful, doe-eyed dog will become dinner. It does in cultures where people and starvation go back a long time in history. This does not mean that I endorse using dogs as shark bait. But we will have to examine our own behaviour towards animals a bit before we can come up with a compelling reason to berate some poor-ass fisherman in Reunion who has been brutalised by poverty and hardship for long enough to feel somewhat indifferent to a pooch.
I don't know about that, but I agree their very smart and can be social. Not saying dogs are alone here but I do think their the best "companion" animal on average by far. Though I'm sure if I raised a piglet, bacon would be ruined forever. Chickens on the other hand...
copy of the email i sent her (the petition creator is a "her"): the petition has been on the net for 6 mos with 12 signatures. wow. just wow. PS #6 is a dumbass. these tests are to prove the danger or TASERs, or at least know the effects. people have died from tasers, yet they are still touted as a safe weapon. how many deaths will she need to be alright with sacrificing a pig? pps, like the new sig? VVV
Increased knowledge of a weapon's harmful effects will not prevent its abuse. I think it is pretty obvious already that Tasers are not the safe option people once thought they were. As your own experiences prove, there is no safe way of applying high voltage to the human body. Doing more experiments on pigs is not going to tell us anything new or different. But that is not the point. The incidences you quote in your e-mail are of Taser abuse. The person depolying them has little care for the harm they might do. They are not going to stop using them because yet another pig study proved that they are harmful. Governments are not going to stop deploying them for that reason either (I mean, they still deploy guns, don't they?). What the person abusing the Taser does care about, is that it leaves no clear distinguising marks on the body. It's a way of hurting someone without leaving conclusive and incriminating evidence. If pig studies can actually serve to support forensic evidence on the distinguishing characteristics of Taser death (as opposed to death from other causes), then it makes good sense to conduct these studies. In that respect what news I can gather via Google states: So it looks like this study, in effect, tries to gather forensic evidence. If forensic specialists are able to tell for a fact whether a person died as a result of injudicious Taser use, people may think twice of pulling the trigger.
Actually they can shock you through conduction of electricity over a channel of air particles ionised by a laser beam.
I apologize if this makes me an insensitive, hell-bound *******, but that sentence cracked me up. Not sure why, but it did.
