Animal rights

[Zingari]

it is indeed a giant Dougal... and ive just remembered my favourite episode.... Ecky Thump!!

For anyone who hasnt experienced the genius of the Goodies, give it a google and have a look, great laughs.

yes i remember that one now , it was a spoof on the kung fu films .

i'd try and watch them again , but i know they'd be nowhere near as funny as i thought they were

[ozleicester]

WTF... This absurd "fishing boat" has arrived in Australia.

http://www.greenpeac...super-trawlers/

10 frightening facts about super trawlers

From Europe to Africa, Greenpeace is campaigning for super trawlers like the Margiris to be removed from the seas. Our campaign has reached Australia now that one of the world’s largest and most notorious super trawlers, the Margiris, is heading for our shores.

Click on the image to see the full size infographic

Here are ten reasons why we must stop the Margiris and all super trawlers coming to Australia before they destroy our marine environment and our coastal communities.

• The Margiris is more than twice the size of any boat to have fished Australian waters.
  Super trawlers can be up to 144 metres long, and use trawl nets up to 600 metres long. The average Australian commercial fishing boat is around 25 metres long.
  
• Super trawlers can catch the equivalent weight of 20 buses in fish per day.
  The Margiris can process up to 250 tonnes of fish per day and can store over 6000 tonnes (545 buses) of frozen fish – that means they can fish for months on end without coming into port.
  
• Super trawlers kill turtles, dolphins, seals and other marine animals.
  This indiscriminate fishing method has a high level of bycatch, that is, unwanted marine life. In the past 15 years, bycatch from 20 super trawlers fishing off West Africa has killed an estimated 1,500 critically endangered turtles, more than 18,000 giant rays, and more than 60,000 sharks.
  
• Super trawlers destroy jobs.
  These vessels use sophisticated technology and few crew members, while taking the majority of the fish. In Europe, small-scale local fishermen have only been allocated 20% of the fishing opportunities despite the fact that they represent 80% of all fishermen in Europe.
  
• Super trawlers have a criminal track record
  The Margiris and other super trawlers were ordered out of Western Sahara watersafter it was found they were breaching international law in 2011.
  
• Super trawlers collapsed the South Pacific fishery.
  Scientists said there were so many jack mackerel in the South Pacific that the fishery was impossible to overfish. Super trawlers, including the Margiris, fished so much that in 2006 the fishery collapsed to 10% of healthy stocks. Fisheries managers are calling for fishing to be cut by half with some scientists arguing for a five year total ban.
  
• Super trawlers wiped out West Africa’s commercial fish stocks
  Since super trawlers, including the Margiris, started fishing off the West Coast of Africa,most commercial fish stocks have become ‘fully exploited’ or ‘over-exploited’. i.e. There are no more fish.
  
• Senegal banned all foreign trawlers from its waters
  This was a result of 52,000 local fishermen threatening to take direct action against the owners of foreign trawlers, due to the damage super trawlers have caused to their fish stocks. The Senegalese president then closed the fishery entirely for six months to aid recovery.
  
• If the little fish go, so do the big fish..
  The Margiris will target Redbait, blue mackerel and red mackerel, which are important species in the food chain. They are food for animals including the bottlenose dolphin, fur seals and larger fish such as southern bluefin tuna and sharks.
  
• Super trawlers have already harmed Tasmania’s fish
  Large surface schools of the fish to be targeted by the Margiris - jack mackerel - were once common off Tasmania until they were overfished by trawlers more than 20 years ago. These surface schools soon disappeared and have not been seen since. The Margiris are now targeting the deeper schools of jack mackerel.
  

Ha ...

Moments ago, the Environment and Fisheries Ministers held a press conference in Canberra to announce that the huge fishing super trawler, the Abel Tasman (a.k.a the FV Margiris), will be banned from Australian waters for two years.

The super trawler was readying to leave port, set to trawl our oceans with a net longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

A huge congratulations to GetUp member, Rebecca Hubbard, who started the 'Stop the Super Trawler' campaign on GetUp's community campaigning platform CommunityRun! Over the last month, Rebecca's campaign grew to 93,864 petition signatures, over 18,000 emails to the Fisheries Minister, a series of rallies on the ground, and a huge national print advertising campaign calling on the Minister to stop the trawler. Thanks go to Rebecca, our allies at Environment Tasmania, Greenpeace, and the 14 other conservation and fishing groups who worked on this!

This is what GetUp is all about. As Minister Burke said in this morning's press conference, "no doubt there has been a massive public focus on this". He heard from politicians across Australia who responded to the community concern over the super trawler. Congratulations.

This afternoon, Minister Tony Burke will introduce legislation that bans supertrawlers for up to two years, and allow his office to conduct scientific research before approving or blocking such fishing in our waters in future. Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig also announced a review of the 20 year old fisheries management legislation, in light of concerns about super trawlers devastating fish stocks.

[Zingari]

I don't think anyone on here is arguing against over fishing , we want the stocks carefully managed to keep them healthy for the future.

This is not really anything to do with animal rights , more to do with our own long term survival

Edited 11 September 2012 by Zingari

[ozleicester]

I don't think anyone on here is arguing against over fishing , we want the stocks carefully managed to keep them healthy for the future.

This is not really anything to do with animal rights , more to do with our own long term survival

The reason i originally posted it in the animal rights topic is that the nets catch more than just fish, and while i cant see the difference between a fish and a whale or turtle etc. Many others can and see the indiscriminate killing of mammals etc as an issue.

Though to be honest.. its about killing millions of fish...which is most certainly about animal rights.

[Zingari]

The reason i originally posted it in the animal rights topic is that the nets catch more than just fish, and while i cant see the difference between a fish and a whale or turtle etc. Many others can and see the indiscriminate killing of mammals etc as an issue.

Though to be honest.. its about killing millions of fish...which is most certainly about animal rights.

i don't think the main objections are against the killing of fish though , it about depletion of the stocks and collateral damage to other lifeforms

Edited 11 September 2012 by Zingari

[Captain...]

Its not preachy, its an expression of belief that differs from the mainstream. The discussion then becomes a battle of whos best, people seem to become threatened by it and get personal.

My simple opinion is that killing animals to eat is cruel, people can come up with a million reasons why they eat them and and can wander off topic as far as they want, nothing they say changes the fact that they kill and eat another sentient being purely for their own pleasure and without any real concern. Yes you can fight all you like for them to be kept in larger cages (before they are killed), or are given better ways of transportation (before they are killed), or are treated better in the slaughterhouses (before they are killed)... at the end of it, killing something unnecessarily is cruel and an outdated concept that we should have evolved past.

I do admit to claiming evolutionary superiority in regard to the eating of animals, in the same way that im sure most people if they stop and think....claim superiority over racists, homophobes etc.

Im willing to acknowledge there must be areas that others are more evolved than i and when they are pointed out to me, i try to change my attitudes and actions to reflect what a forward thinking society does.

Is killing for pleasure cruel? - the only answer must be YES

If there is an alternative, should we make use of it? - the only answer is YES

Stop

Misusing

The word

Evolved

It makes you sound stupid, and invalidates all your good points.

[ozleicester]

Stop

Misusing

The word

Evolved

It makes you sound stupid, and invalidates all your good points.

If the only thing you have picked up from the preceding 27 pages is my misuse (in your opinion) of the word evolved then just stick with your emoticons.

perhaps you would like to explain my alleged misuse.

[MooseBreath]

Had some lovely marinated chicken thighs last night.

Edited 11 September 2012 by MooseBreath

[ozleicester]

Had some lovely marinated chicken thighs last night.

How proud you must be.

[Captain...]

If the only thing you have picked up from the preceding 27 pages is my misuse (in your opinion) of the word evolved then just stick with your emoticons.

perhaps you would like to explain my alleged misuse.

I have done, if you want to read back over the rest of the 27 pages you will see me explaining it clearly, and you admitting you are wrong and that you should use the word progressed.

Evolution is about genetic change amongst species normally brought about by sudden environmental changes resulting in different characteristics become desirable and aid survival.

You are not a different species, you are genetically no different to meat eaters, you have made a conscious choice based on facts, and that is your right, but using the word evolved and evolution is just wrong. Not mentioning the fact that by becoming herbivores we would be taking an evolutionary step backwards because it would limit our resources and potential food supply and therefore inhibit our ability to survive in times of crisis.

Now you can process meat, so you haven't evolved into some sort of grass eating vegan mutant, you don't have 5 stomachs, you still have incisors for tearing flesh.

So just, please, stop using the word evolved and evolution incorrectly, when vegans can get nutrients from grass or other plants that omnivores can't then we can talk about evolution.

[MooseBreath]

How proud you must be.

Wouldn't say I'm proud but certainly the reward of eating those juicy, succulent thighs far outweighed any guilt I felt about killing a chicken. I'll be doing it again for sure.

[Charl91]

I might agree in the case of fox hunting, but I disagree that killing animals to eat is for pleasure purposes only. Eating meat is for survival purposes - just because you can get other nutrients from different places, doesn't change that fact that eating meat is natural for survival. It's not for pleasure purposes only as it gives us plenty of health benefits - Smoking is for pleasure purposes only, playing snakes and ladders is, eating meat isn't. The fact that some people prefer to get their protein/iron etc. from other sources is neither here nor there.

I accept that we are part of nature, and I have no qualms about eating a cow in the same way that a lion has no qualms eating a Buffalo. It's how the food chain works. Killing animals of other species for food IS natural - it's the guilt about doing so which is not.

I could criticise you for eating vegetables instead of not eating animals that have died naturally. If you eat an animal that has died of old age, then you are not actually killing anything, whereas if you are eating plants, then you are destroying a living organism (sentient or not). There's always someone that can go one step further. Why stop at only sentient living beings? Doesn't every living thing have the right to live?

Edited 11 September 2012 by Charl91

[Zingari]

How about the jolly good fellows of FT coming up with an acceptable and workable animal rights compromise for the foreseeable future that we can all ( or big majority ) agree on ?

Encouragement of vegetable diets

More humane treatment and strict controls in farming

Etc etc

Anyone come up with the full manifesto ?

Edited 11 September 2012 by Zingari

[Captain...]

How about the jolly good fellows of FT coming up with an acceptable and workable animal rights compromise for the foreseeable future that we can all ( or big majority ) agree on ?

Encouragement of vegetable diets

More humane treatment and strict controls in farming

Etc etc

Anyone come up with the full manifesto ?

First step is stop subsidising meat farming, or at least don't subsidise battery farms, if you want to eat meat you have to appreciate the cost of it, and the cost is high, with subsidies to farmers we don't see that cost.

I don't eat a lot of meat, and when I do I tend to not eat crap processed meat, I will often buy cheaper meat, such as Sainsbury's off cuts of Salmon, the same meat, just a different shape to what we think it should be.

No meat should be wasted, I don't know how prevalent this is at the butchering level, but I regularly see meat reduced and thrown away at supermarkets and at home. All bones and off cuts should be sold/used to make stock, or dog food or whatever (I hate waste in general).

Only buy British.

Just a few to get started

[OzFox]

Then you make an exception. After all, there's not so many triplets that it would add too much to the global population. Again, there would be problems with it (such as people wanting a boy/a girl), though advancement in science could probably help with that.

However, look at the alternatives. Our population grows by 50% about every 40 years. At the rate we're growing, in the next 100 years, our population will have doubled to 12 Billion or so. It's not going to be too long before it becomes unsustainable - probably not in our lifetime, but also probably not too far in the future. Without change, the only outcomes I could possibly is most of the human population being wiped out by either disease, war or starvation.

Too put it into perspective, in the 1600's, Englands population was about 1 million. It's now over 50 million. At that rate, in the year 2,400, England will have a population of about 2.4 Billion.

The only problem is people are much too short sighted too actually think long term.

You sound like a candidate for the Optimum Population Trust (patron David Attenborough). They had a "Stop at Two" campaign a few years ago. I've done my bit and stopped at none

http://www.populationmatters.org/

[Charl91]

Increase the price of meat and keep the animals in better conditions. Simples.

[MooseBreath]

I see no reason why I should be forced to compromise with a vegetarian. Continue to press for humane treatment of animals and that would be it from me. There is absolutely no justification for financially punishing people for eating meat. It is not a crime nor is it even slightly immoral.

Edited 11 September 2012 by MooseBreath

[Charl91]

You sound like a candidate for the Optimum Population Trust (patron David Attenborough). They had a "Stop at Two" campaign a few years ago. I've done my bit and stopped at none

http://www.populationmatters.org/

Yeah, I do think it's very important, not just for our future, but the future of every living thing on the planet.

[Captain...]

Increase the price of meat and keep the animals in better conditions. Simples.

Don't forget teaching people how to cook, and changing the whole live to work attitude in the UK so people have time to cook, it is much easier to stick chicken nuggets and chips in the oven, than peel chop and cook raw veggies.

Saying that I do hate the bags of pre cut veggies, the amount of extra time effort and resources needed to do that, not to mention the waste products from it, is just insane, then the fact people will pay up to 3 times the price for pre-cut carrots than buying them loose, is just baffling.

[Charl91]

I see absolutely no reason why I should be forced to compromise with a vegetarian. Continue to press for humane treatment of animals and that would be it from me. There is absolutely no justification for financially punishing people for eating meat. It is not a crime nor is it even slightly immoral.

This is nothing to do with compromising with vegetarians. If you wanted animals to be treated humanely and to be kept in better living conditions, then the cost of meat would undoubtably go up. Basic supply and demand.

[21st Century Fox]

Just out of interest, in the vegetarian utopia what happens to the far flung, less hospitable parts of the world that can't naturally cultivate their own source of vegetation? i.e. Inuits.

[Captain...]

I see no reason why I should be forced to compromise with a vegetarian. Continue to press for humane treatment of animals and that would be it from me. There is absolutely no justification for financially punishing people for eating meat. It is not a crime nor is it even slightly immoral.

It is not financial punishment, it is paying a fair price and not having it subsidised by the government, which uses our money to do so.

This would need to be a global effort though to stop other governments subsidising their products for cheaper export.

[Charl91]

Don't forget teaching people how to cook, and changing the whole live to work attitude in the UK so people have time to cook, it is much easier to stick chicken nuggets and chips in the oven, than peel chop and cook raw veggies.

Saying that I do hate the bags of pre cut veggies, the amount of extra time effort and resources needed to do that, not to mention the waste products from it, is just insane, then the fact people will pay up to 3 times the price for pre-cut carrots than buying them loose, is just baffling.

You're right - however, I am fine with chicken nuggets, because it uses the bits that would probably otherwise be thrown away. Waste not, want not!

[Captain...]

Just out of interest, in the vegetarian utopia what happens to the far flung, less hospitable parts of the world that can't naturally cultivate their own source of vegetation? i.e. Inuits.

They die, we celebrate, the population is going down...

Or maybe they just need to hurry up and evolve

You're right - however, I am fine with chicken nuggets, because it uses the bits that would probably otherwise be thrown away. Waste not, want not!

As long as that is all they use.

[OzFox]

Just out of interest, in the vegetarian utopia what happens to the far flung, less hospitable parts of the world that can't naturally cultivate their own source of vegetation? i.e. Inuits.

Haven't you heard about the greening of Greenland? It's like the Caribbean up there these days