In The News

[Aspie]

 I wonder what orca tastes like

[Rong]

Styrofoam. Lol

[Xenodog]

The obvious double standard is a huge disparity but the attitude of "If all animals are treated shit then oh well" is just flat out dumb.
Besides, there are two standards of animal anyway and there's no other way of looking at it. Domestic species or subspecies of animals bred by humans that without them wouldn't exist, and wild animals. If we stopped eating pigs, they wouldn't all go to a fictional piggy sanctuary or be released somewhere, the likelihood is they'd be mass euthanized. They were brought into existence itself and continue to exist for human purposes.

That's not the attitude I advocated, nor is it an attitude I can identify with. My point was that we clearly transfer human emotions onto animals, depending on which animal they are, how they look, pet or wild etc. We have a value system of sorts and 'pet-class animals' will always outvalue domestic/production animals. Not because the animals themselves give a shit about how we catagorise them - it's purely our own f'd-up concepts of some animals being worth more than others.

I'll bet all the douches bitching about a certain giraf ending its days in the lions cage recently, had no trouble enjoying their Big Mac that same day, not giving a shit about what poor life that cow they just ate a piece of lived.

The giraffe was different I.M.O.
Most people weren't annoyed it was fed to lions, but that it was needlessly killed over a space issue and that another zoo had already offered to take it in, which is something to be irritated about I.M.O.

[Aspie]

awwww snap

[Predaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpC3LRDbdYY#ws

[BANE]

Yeah but cows are purely meat animals. They're just perpetual meat machines. They're bred to feed us. They're useless outside of any sort of controlled environment except as food for some other animal.

They're so stupid and useless they'd try and bargain with a coyote for a milking; they literally need to be milked.

[Eva]

The giraffe was different I.M.O.
Most people weren't annoyed it was fed to lions, but that it was needlessly killed over a space issue and that another zoo had already offered to take it in, which is something to be irritated about I.M.O.

Had it been a scorpion with no name and no cute face and image, no one would have given a shit. Plain and simple. Besides, I'm not seeing a single one of the most prominent people voicing their unhappiness with the giraf incident, doing anything whatsoever to make adjustsments to the international guidelines/laws that caused it all in the first place. Why? Because they reacted to the emotions they transfered to the animal and not the animal itself and when the animal had died, so did their cause/crusade shortly thereafter.

[Cvalda]

Had it been a scorpion with no name and no cute face and image, no one would have given a shit. Plain and simple.

There's kind of a vast chasm of intelligence and relatability between a scorpion that lays dozens of eggs at a time and a higher mammal, just saying.

[Xenodog]

The giraffe was different I.M.O.
Most people weren't annoyed it was fed to lions, but that it was needlessly killed over a space issue and that another zoo had already offered to take it in, which is something to be irritated about I.M.O.

Had it been a scorpion with no name and no cute face and image, no one would have given a shit. Plain and simple. Besides, I'm not seeing a single one of the most prominent people voicing their unhappiness with the giraf incident, doing anything whatsoever to make adjustsments to the international guidelines/laws that caused it all in the first place. Why? Because they reacted to the emotions they transfered to the animal and not the animal itself and when the animal had died, so did their cause/crusade shortly thereafter.

Perhaps not, but Cvalda's point is valid. A single giraffe is worth more to it's species than single scorpion. And a single scorpion is a hell of a lot easier to rehome.
And no, prominent voices didn't speak out because it wasn't a threatened species and so was a regrettable but unimportant loss in the grand scheme of things.
I'm also pretty sure the crusade ended after it's death because there wasn't much chance of it coming back to life.

[Vertigo]

What a post, Vertigo. f**king wanted to stand up and clap.

http://i.imgur.com/QHwg0gH.gif

Spoiler

My opinion, there's a major ethical difference between keeping a marine animal in captivity, as opposed to a land animal. In a good zoo, animal life expectancy typically shoots up astronomically, thanks to individual care, a regular and healthy diet, immediate access to medical attention, and the rarity of intra-species infighting. A lion would be very lucky to make it to ten years in the wild, and they hardly ever last any longer than that - in captivity, that number doubles. Good zoos also do what they can to keep their charges mentally engaged and stimulated, and the animals often form bonds with their keepers and enjoy their company.

But with sealife, an aquarium is no substitute for the real ocean. Animal lifespans are shortened in captivity - the conditions of the water aren't what they're adapted to, and their health fails as a consequence. Often this is due to toxins like chlorine, sometimes it's an absence of microfauna that perform some obscure function in the animal's body, and sometimes it's stress. These are animals which are often adapted for migration: the vast majority of zoo animals are territorial, or are content to stick within a small area if food and social conditions are acceptable, but a fish or cetacean can travel thousands of miles in a year. Confinement does bad things to them, and there's no tank big enough. Captive cetaceans are prone to psychosis, which is why keepers are occasionally attacked and killed - something that never happens in the wild unless the animals are provoked. In the case of sharks, they have such a ridiculously sensitive battery of senses that a captive environment is simply too much stimuli, and puts them into a constant state of stress. This is why great whites fare so poorly in aquariums.

[close]

Some nice arguments, although I don't think we can transfer human based opinions of what makes 'a good life' and the opposite onto animals so easily. I don't think animals think of longivity, considering most of them by far have no concept of mortality, not least their own. How could they develop one and be expected to project its implications onto themselves?

Well, hence my trying to use purely objective rationale. Whether the animal is having a comparatively good time or not is subject to debate, but when it comes to health and wellbeing, it's fairly clear-cut.

On zoos themselves, I agree with Gerald Durrel's thoughts in Stationary Ark, in that zoos should be conservation first, education second and not about human entertainment.

Yup. It tends to get overlooked, but the best zoos contribute vast chunks of their income to conservation efforts in the wild, even before considering what they provide in terms of 'ark' protection against extinction, and the various benefits public education provides. One of my local zoos makes such a huge contribution that they only break even financially, despite being very successful. All the profit goes to wildlife conservation.

One thing I'd just like to add to my last post - aquariums aren't necessarily a force for bad. Many of them do just as much for conservation as the best zoos. Also, the capture of cetaceans is illegal in the western world - in a few years, the only whales and dolphins left in seaparks will either have been born in captivity, or be injured animals that couldn't survive in the wild.
While I don't think an aquarium is an optimal environment for many marine animals, the people who run them often have their hearts in the right place and do a lot of good in the world. Though unfortunately, as with zoos, there are occasional bad apples.

[Eva]

I better shut up, because it seems I'm making the same point over and over and we keep talking past eachother with each new post. Rather pointless to keep going.

[Topazora]

The law is being written based on the documentary Black Fish, which is a very one sided and biased piece, and credibility is being questioned.  Quite frankly, I am loathed to think a state senator would create a law based on what he's seen in a questionable documentary, and the idea that these people can create documentaries and have laws made based on their ideas alone.

Have you seen it?

It's not particularly well made, but its case is pretty open and shut. Rebuttals to it run mostly along the lines of apologizing for or being willfully dishonest in the interest of a crass corporation that profits off of animal suffering, so...

Yeah, I saw it, and it really does hit you emotionally.  That's what scares me, is when people start making judgments and start taking actions based on emotion without knowing all the facts.
Like I said, I don't know how Seaworld is treating their animals or how the animals are effected the aquariums.  My problem with Blackfish is that its very one sided and that Seaworld does nothing for the welfare of animals.  And actually, Seaworld does make a lot of contributions to study and protection of sea animals.
Now granted, the law only says that orcas can not be made to perform or be bred.  Which seems kinda odd to me, since if captivity is what's making it difficult for the orcas to live, then only going half way would only make it worse.  Why not just go all the way, like didn't New York actually ban killer whale captivity?
I don't think Blackfish is just lies and slander, but nor do I think Seaworld is just a make-animals-suffer-for-money.  Its never black and white like that.

[Xenodog]

The law is being written based on the documentary Black Fish, which is a very one sided and biased piece, and credibility is being questioned.  Quite frankly, I am loathed to think a state senator would create a law based on what he's seen in a questionable documentary, and the idea that these people can create documentaries and have laws made based on their ideas alone.

Have you seen it?

It's not particularly well made, but its case is pretty open and shut. Rebuttals to it run mostly along the lines of apologizing for or being willfully dishonest in the interest of a crass corporation that profits off of animal suffering, so...

Yeah, I saw it, and it really does hit you emotionally.  That's what scares me, is when people start making judgments and start taking actions based on emotion without knowing all the facts.
Like I said, I don't know how Seaworld is treating their animals or how the animals are effected the aquariums.  My problem with Blackfish is that its very one sided and that Seaworld does nothing for the welfare of animals.  And actually, Seaworld does make a lot of contributions to study and protection of sea animals.
Now granted, the law only says that orcas can not be made to perform or be bred.  Which seems kinda odd to me, since if captivity is what's making it difficult for the orcas to live, then only going half way would only make it worse.  Why not just go all the way, like didn't New York actually ban killer whale captivity?
I don't think Blackfish is just lies and slander, but nor do I think Seaworld is just a make-animals-suffer-for-money. Its never black and white like that.

*Awful Orca colour pun*

[Topazora]

The law is being written based on the documentary Black Fish, which is a very one sided and biased piece, and credibility is being questioned.  Quite frankly, I am loathed to think a state senator would create a law based on what he's seen in a questionable documentary, and the idea that these people can create documentaries and have laws made based on their ideas alone.

Have you seen it?

It's not particularly well made, but its case is pretty open and shut. Rebuttals to it run mostly along the lines of apologizing for or being willfully dishonest in the interest of a crass corporation that profits off of animal suffering, so...

Yeah, I saw it, and it really does hit you emotionally.  That's what scares me, is when people start making judgments and start taking actions based on emotion without knowing all the facts.
Like I said, I don't know how Seaworld is treating their animals or how the animals are effected the aquariums.  My problem with Blackfish is that its very one sided and that Seaworld does nothing for the welfare of animals.  And actually, Seaworld does make a lot of contributions to study and protection of sea animals.
Now granted, the law only says that orcas can not be made to perform or be bred.  Which seems kinda odd to me, since if captivity is what's making it difficult for the orcas to live, then only going half way would only make it worse.  Why not just go all the way, like didn't New York actually ban killer whale captivity?
I don't think Blackfish is just lies and slander, but nor do I think Seaworld is just a make-animals-suffer-for-money. Its never black and white like that.

*Awful Orca colour pun*

oh my goodness, pun not intended 

[Cvalda]

Yeah, I saw it, and it really does hit you emotionally.  That's what scares me, is when people start making judgments and start taking actions based on emotion without knowing all the facts.
Like I said, I don't know how Seaworld is treating their animals or how the animals are effected the aquariums.  My problem with Blackfish is that its very one sided and that Seaworld does nothing for the welfare of animals.

Sea World refused to participate in the film, so not exactly the filmmaker's fault it's one sided.