Animal rights

[leicsmac]

Exaggeration, the main weapon in the arsenal of any good animal rights activist, your certainly getting better at this! All you need now is an animal of your own to lock up so you tick the hypocrite box and I think you're about there. 

 

Aren't ad hominems a bit below you, Pabs?

 

Of course PETA massively exaggerate with their message about exactly what conditions animals are kept in in zoos, and the situation is improving...but Sea World in particular is a pretty poor substitute for natural habitat.

[Darkon84]

I think to completley ridicule PETA is a little too far. They are very extreme to say the least, and shock tactics are apparent throughout anything they do, but they do help to prevent some barbaric activity all around the globe. I do agree thet they're not at all balanced however.

As for Zoos, it's very much swings and roundabouts. In an ideal world the animals would be living in their natural habitat, free from human hands. However, because of the distruction of their home and species they, in some respects, are better off being cared for at a zoo/safari park. I stand by that most zoos simply don't have the capacity to give most animals the freedom and space that they need though.

 

Fair enough, perhaps I was a little strong with my ridicule, but I tend to find them generally over the top and any good work they may do is overshadowed by shock tactics and shouting things in articles with no hint of any actually facts or studies to back themselves up (like the two posted above).

In an ideal world, yes, the animals would be wild and free and live happily ever after. However, this isn't the case and because of mistakes and misunderstandings that we as a race have done throughout time, we have been left with a whole different situation. There are good people, and there are magnificent schemes that zoos work on and have been proved to provide good results. That's the thing there, there are real results to show that these conservation and breeding programmes actually work, so it just annoys me when I read articles like those PETA ones which provide zero research etc and are basically a waste of time and predominantly made up.

[Darkon84]

Aren't ad hominems a bit below you, Pabs?

 

Of course PETA massively exaggerate with their message about exactly what conditions animals are kept in in zoos, and the situation is improving...but Sea World in particular is a pretty poor substitute for natural habitat.

 

I'll generally argue for the role of (good and maintained to specifically set standards) zoos, but Sea World is a joke. The lines in the PETA articles about the animals escaping made it sound like they had all worked together to formulate an escape plan and make a bid for freedom to go and live happily ever after elsewhere. Like 'The Great Escape' for animals .

[Manwell Pablo]

Aren't ad hominems a bit below you, Pabs?

 

Of course PETA massively exaggerate with their message about exactly what conditions animals are kept in in zoos, and the situation is improving...but Sea World in particular is a pretty poor substitute for natural habitat.

 

Erm, no.

 

Granted, it's not akin to living in a coffin though is it. 

Edited 9 October 2014 by Manwell Pablo

[Samilktray]

Sea life centres have never sat well with me at all. How can it be healthy for a shark to be swimming around in what may aswell be a bath.

[David Guiza]

Exaggeration, the main weapon in the arsenal of any good animal rights activist, your certainly getting better at this! All you need now is an animal of your own to lock up so you tick the hypocrite box and I think you're about there. 

I don't own any animals so I guess i'm not quite the hypocrite you wish me to be just yet. Exaggeration or not, their living space is horrendous. Whales and dolphins, for example, can be known to swim over a 100miles a day; not entirely sure how they're supposed to manage that in a sea life centre. But who cares as long as some bratty kids can point and be amazed by them, eh?

 

 

Fair enough, perhaps I was a little strong with my ridicule, but I tend to find them generally over the top and any good work they may do is overshadowed by shock tactics and shouting things in articles with no hint of any actually facts or studies to back themselves up (like the two posted above).

In an ideal world, yes, the animals would be wild and free and live happily ever after. However, this isn't the case and because of mistakes and misunderstandings that we as a race have done throughout time, we have been left with a whole different situation. There are good people, and there are magnificent schemes that zoos work on and have been proved to provide good results. That's the thing there, there are real results to show that these conservation and breeding programmes actually work, so it just annoys me when I read articles like those PETA ones which provide zero research etc and are basically a waste of time and predominantly made up.

Very good post. PETA are there to provoke thought and reaction, in many ways like a tabloid newspaper I guess - as long as they continue to produce results and prevent cruelty then they're doing their job.

And you're right, essentially it's man making up for anothers man's mistake. I just don't think some zoos, through no fault of their own, have the capabilities to house some of the animals that they do.

[Darkon84]

I don't own any animals so I guess i'm not quite the hypocrite you wish me to be just yet. Exaggeration or not, their living space is horrendous. Whales and dolphins, for example, can be known to swim over a 100miles a day; not entirely sure how they're supposed to manage that in a sea life centre. But who cares as long as some bratty kids can point and be amazed by them, eh?

 

 

Very good post. PETA are there to provoke thought and reaction, in many ways like a tabloid newspaper I guess - as long as they continue to produce results and prevent cruelty then they're doing their job.

And you're right, essentially it's man making up for anothers man's mistake. I just don't think some zoos, through no fault of their own, have the capabilities to house some of the animals that they do.

 

I guess I haven't looked at it like that before, a propagandist tabloid newspaper just drawing attention to a subject. Though maybe it's just me that finds it hugely off putting and hard to take seriously when it's so obviously over the top. If they were to tone things down a bit in their reporting, provide solid facts, and not harass/vandalise, more people would take them seriously. Think we can put PETA to bed now anyway .

That's essentially it. Huge mistakes have been made, but at least something is trying to be done, and it's actually being proved to work. True, not every single zoo has the animal's best interests at heart, and these places (usually) tend to be in the less developed world where the sense of natural responsibility and stewardship isn't there, mainly because of funding. As bad as it is that these places exist, there are good people from a wide array of charities, organisations and individual people who campaign, raise money etc to save the creatures, and implement education on the subject. And just to come back to the article one last time, I'm actually offended that they put such accusations at the feet of UK zoos, when we tend to be among world leaders in terms of welfare, conservation, breeding, re-introduction and education on the subject.

 

Rant over, time a cuppa I think!

[leicsmac]

Erm, no.

 

Granted, it's not akin to living in a coffin though is it. 

 

 

Well, you could have said that the first time. 

 

As to the general topic, I agree with most of the points that Darkon and DG have made above.

[Manwell Pablo]

I don't own any animals so I guess i'm not quite the hypocrite you wish me to be just yet. Exaggeration or not, their living space is horrendous. Whales and dolphins, for example, can be known to swim over a 100miles a day; not entirely sure how they're supposed to manage that in a sea life centre. But who cares as long as some bratty kids can point and be amazed by them, eh?

 

 

Very good post. PETA are there to provoke thought and reaction, in many ways like a tabloid newspaper I guess - as long as they continue to produce results and prevent cruelty then they're doing their job.

And you're right, essentially it's man making up for anothers man's mistake. I just don't think some zoos, through no fault of their own, have the capabilities to house some of the animals that they do.

 

More of a shot at Oz than you, I find him moaning about Zoo's when owning a creature that's not allowed outside, hilarious. Their living space might not be up to standard there is no need to exaggerate though is there (apart from the fact that your arguing in favor of animal rights of course as it seems to run with the territory) 

 

Now this is what I really don't like (really, really don't like)  and it's something that priks done before as well. Bringing "Bratty" "Snot nosed" kids into it making them out to be some sort evil entity when discussing issues surrounding zoos, children are amazed by animals because they haven't seen them before and far too young to grasp the debate around (and that's what it is, not a black and white right or wrong issue) animals in captivity. So whilst  painting all children who attend zoo's and sea life centers as spoilt horrible little kids who don't care about the suffering of animals and there to point and laugh at them as the poor creatures moan and cry for freedom might suit the psuedo image of the concentration camp for animals the animal rights activists like to paint zoo's out to be, truth is their innocent, ignorant, and fascinated. The truth of the matter is you were probably one of those children once, as was he, so wind your neck in. 

Edited 9 October 2014 by Manwell Pablo

[David Guiza]

More of a shot at Oz than you, I find him moaning about Zoo's when owning a creature that's not allowed outside, hilarious. Their living space might not be up to standard there is no need to exaggerate though is there (apart from the fact that your arguing in favor of animal rights of course as it seems to run with the territory) 

 

Now this is what I really don't like (really, really don't like)  and it's something that priks done before as well. Bringing "Bratty" "Snot nosed" kids into it making them out to be some sort evil entity when discussing issues surrounding zoos, children are amazed by animals because they haven't seen them before and far too young to grasp the debate around (and that's what it is, not a black and white right or wrong issue) animals in captivity. So whilst  painting all children who attend zoo's and sea life centers as spoilt horrible little kids who don't care about the suffering of animals and there to point and laugh at them as the poor creatures moan and cry for freedom might suit the psuedo image of the concentration camp for animals the animal rights activists like to paint zoo's out to be, truth is their innocent, ignorant, and fascinated. The truth of the matter is you were probably one of those children once, as was he, so wind your neck in. 

That's a very reasoned and controlled response from you there, Manwell.

My point was that the industry of sea life/sea world etc are funded by the paying customers, if people stopped paying for this 'entertainment' then it would cease to exist, supply and demand. I never said that 'bratty kids' were the cause of animal suffering, or anything of the sorts. It was simply a remark about the igorance of people who support this kind of treatment by paying to go and see it.

I think I could make a safe assumption that many of the paying visitors to these places are families, as with many things of this type. Consequently the suffering of the animals is for the benefit of these families. Obviously the children themselves are naive and harmless, that clearly wasn't the point I was making. 

Clearly my point was that the human enjoyment of yourself, myself, bratty kids etc, should not be something that outweighs the suffering of the animals.

Edited 9 October 2014 by David Guiza

[Manwell Pablo]

That's a very reasoned and controlled response from you there, Manwell.

My point was that the industry of sea life/sea world etc are funded by the paying customers, if people stopped paying for this 'entertainment' then it would cease to exist, supply and demand. I never said that 'bratty kids' were the cause of animal suffering, or anything of the sorts. It was simply a remark about the igorance of people who support this kind of treatment by paying to go and see it.

I think I could make a safe assumption that many of the paying visitors to these places are families, as with many things of this type. Consequently the suffering of the animals is for the benefit of these families. Obviously the children themselves are naive and harmless, that clearly wasn't the point I was making. 

Clearly my point was that the human enjoyment of yourself, myself, bratty kids etc, should not be something that outweighs the suffering of the animals.

 

I know what your point is I'm disagreeing with the way you put it across, it's so full of typical vegetarian debating tactics, (shock value exaggeration and falsification) that it is literally infuriating (although the above is much better). As for the actual debate we've been there and done it about three times so I so no need to do it again (hence why this thread should of been closed over a year ago)  

Edited 9 October 2014 by Manwell Pablo

[David Guiza]

I know what your point is I'm disagreeing with the way you put it across, it's so full of typical vegetarian debating tactics, (shock value exaggeration and falsification) that it is literally infuriating (although the above is much better). As for the actual debate we've been there and done it about three times so I so no need to do it again (hence why this thread should of been closed over a year ago)  

We're clearly never going to agree, but I take your point. I don't think it's 'typical vegetarian' to exaggerate during a debate though; I think that's a trait of many people during an argument. Sometimes shock tactics are the only way people will listen, PETA's timeline for example is not something i'd wish anyone with an easy stomach to view - but it gets the job done.

[Manwell Pablo]

We're clearly never going to agree, but I take your point. I don't think it's 'typical vegetarian' to exaggerate during a debate though; I think that's a trait of many people during an argument. Sometimes shock tactics are the only way people will listen, PETA's timeline for example is not something i'd wish anyone with an easy stomach to view - but it gets the job done.

 

I'd say it's a tactic used by many different groups but is a big one employed animal rights activists. My last word on the subject as this made me laugh as well

 

• Elephants in zoos generally live less than half as long as their wild counterparts.

, we wont mention many other species live longer in captivity though eh, and that many of the animals born in Zoo's wouldn't have made it past their first birthday in the wild. 

[OzFox]

we wont mention many other species live longer in captivity though eh, and that many of the animals born in Zoo's wouldn't have made it past their first birthday in the wild.

Was about to say 'But are they truly happy?' Then I read this:

What we do know so far is that evidence suggests wild animals can be as happy in captivity as they are in nature, assuming they are treated well. Confinement alone doesn’t mean an animal is automatically worse off. If we give an animal all the good things they would have in the wild (food and water, fellow members of their species, a certain amount of space) and take away that stresses or hurts them (predators, parasites, extreme weather), then it can live just as happily in an enclosure. Zoo animals with proper care and enrichment, for example, have similar hormone profiles, live longer, eat better, and are healthier than their wild counterparts. Why? Because life in the wild is hard. In captivity, it’s easy.

http://www.ecology.com/2011/10/20/bambi-bessie-wild-animals-happier/

[Manwell Pablo]

Was about to say 'But are they truly happy?' Then I read this:

What we do know so far is that evidence suggests wild animals can be as happy in captivity as they are in nature, assuming they are treated well. Confinement alone doesn’t mean an animal is automatically worse off. If we give an animal all the good things they would have in the wild (food and water, fellow members of their species, a certain amount of space) and take away that stresses or hurts them (predators, parasites, extreme weather), then it can live just as happily in an enclosure. Zoo animals with proper care and enrichment, for example, have similar hormone profiles, live longer, eat better, and are healthier than their wild counterparts. Why? Because life in the wild is hard. In captivity, it’s easy.

http://www.ecology.com/2011/10/20/bambi-bessie-wild-animals-happier/

 

We've had this argument. And I've said exactly this, you get the old "how would you like it if I locked you up like a chimpanzee" from the resident lettuce chomper, well if the alternative is sleeping in a tree in the amazon, having no protection from elements, having to scrounge for food which is hardly ever enough to stop myself and my family being permanently hungry whilst being hunted by some of the most dangerous predators in the world, show me the way to Twycross. 

[David Guiza]

We've had this argument. And I've said exactly this, you get the old "how would you like it if I locked you up like a chimpanzee" from the resident lettuce chomper, well if the alternative is sleeping in a tree in the amazon, having no protection from elements, having to scrounge for food which is hardly ever enough to stop myself and my family being permanently hungry whilst being hunted by some of the most dangerous predators in the world, show me the way to Twycross. 

Of course they're safer, humans would also be safer if they we were caged up and waited on hand and foot - but there's more to an animals existance than not being mauled by a bigger and stronger animal.  

Take a lion or a tiger for example, born to kill and hunt - or a bird of prey that can barely stretch its wings because of it's cramped conditions.

[OzFox]

We've had this argument. And I've said exactly this, you get the old "how would you like it if I locked you up like a chimpanzee" from the resident lettuce chomper, well if the alternative is sleeping in a tree in the amazon, having no protection from elements, having to scrounge for food which is hardly ever enough to stop myself and my family being permanently hungry whilst being hunted by some of the most dangerous predators in the world, show me the way to Twycross.

I think the key phrase though is 'a certain amount of space'. It's difficult if not impossible to replicate the habitats of animals like whales, bears, big cats etc that roam hundreds of miles so I can't imagine they'd be too chuffed to be confined

Remember looking at the polar bear at Chessington years ago, stuck in a concrete pit next to a roller coaster, pacing up and down the pen from one wall to another. Amazing what zoos got away with back then

[Manwell Pablo]

Of course they're safer, humans would also be safer if they we were caged up and waited on hand and foot - but there's more to an animals existance than not being mauled by a bigger and stronger animal.  

Take a lion or a tiger for example, born to kill and hunt - or a bird of prey that can barely stretch its wings because of it's cramped conditions.

 

Not to the same degree at all humans live in relative comfort and are already provided for by society, Chimpanzee's live between 10-20 years longer in captivity. I somewhat doubt the average lifespan of a human being (currently at 80) would increase that much.

 

Yes there is surviving which is often an uncomfortable (pretty much all they do, besides reproduce) hard and difficult existence of hunger and hardship. Being a wild animal aint exactly much fun no matter what species of creature you are. I do wonder whether these activists stopped to think if animals would still "roam for 100's of miles" if they didn't need to in order to find food. 

 

I'm not saying being confined doesn't have it's downsides especially if your a dumb animal who's only hobby was not dying on a daily basis but on the whole their are pro's as well as con's.

Edited 9 October 2014 by Manwell Pablo

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

How about a human zoos for all murderers and rapists etc. I know they would take up a lot of space, but they would fit the bill, rather than the poor animals.

 

Many zoos are doing their best for animal welfare, and conserving the species, but many are purely for financial gain.

 

Bottom line; I hate mankind in general.

[ozleicester]

Zoos - Caring for and prolonging the lives of animals... 

 

http://www.thelocal.ch/20141007/zurich-zoo-eatery-serves-meat-from-its-animals

[Darkon84]

Zoos - Caring for and prolonging the lives of animals... 

 

http://www.thelocal.ch/20141007/zurich-zoo-eatery-serves-meat-from-its-animals

 

Should you actually decide to read a little deeper in to this, rather than a knee jerk headline, you might actually be surprised. Rather than just a zoo, the Zurich Wildnispark is actually a wildlife park, set in large natural habitat and forest, with more than enough room to accommodate them. They have a high rating in terms of welfare and care for the animals at the park.

Overpopulation is a problem, and something you have moaned about before in parks and zoos etc. Now, what happens here is that the birth rate for certain animals is higher than can be accommodated and so, IF they animals cannot be relocated, they are made use of. I know you will never ever see eating meat as a good thing, but in terms of resources, you have to understand surely that it really isn't a big deal. In fact it's efficient and good on their carbon footprint. These animals aren't being strung up and beaten to death slowly by a blind kid with a stick, they are killed quickly and efficiently.

 

The restaurant actually looks bloody good. Quite fancy some wild boar now, it's delicious!

[DennisNedry]

On Saturday I went into Leicester, ended up having lunch before walking towards the clock tower and noticed all of the food stalls selling world foods.

 

Was gutted that I'd already eaten, as I saw a stall selling Wild Boar, Venison and even crocodile, all of which I want to try. 

 

I'd had a Kangaroo burger before. Tastes good but not as nice as good old beef.

[purpleronnie]

How about a human zoos for all murderers and rapists etc. I know they would take up a lot of space, but they would fit the bill, rather than the poor animals.

 

Many zoos are doing their best for animal welfare, and conserving the species, but many are purely for financial gain.

 

Bottom line; I hate mankind in general.

DT are you really this miserable or just trolling?    You seem to concentrate on just the negative in people, ignoring the beauty and joy of human race.

Edited 21 October 2014 by purpleronnie

[Jaspa]

[The Doctor]

Men who don't eat meat have lowered sperm counts

 

Interesting...