PETA and Fish ethics

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
xxmoorishmanxx said:
Im a tenth level aquarist with a magic ring and i have slayed three evil kracans :roll:


hahaha!!!

I am a 4th level Nerd. I know The name of the Producer of Star wars Episode 1, but I do not know who the DP was.
 
I think PETA is borderline religious fanaticism. Really, that's about the only way I can describe their views on many topics. There are about a million worthwhile causes associated with animal cruelty they could be dealing with but instead we get "Don't fish because it hurts the fish". Way to make us sane people who care about animals look bad.

As far as buddhism and other religions who try to live without killing animals, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Much love to you guys. Plus they understand that it's part of their religious experience and thus not everyone is going to agree with them, and that's fine.

I'm a level 9 Rumble Pit and level 6 team skirmish gamer on Halo2 so there!!! :snipersmile:
 
Well. See here's my opinion.

If PETA was targetting only the "catch and release" practices (Which the article suggests, but the actual advertisement might go further), I would tend to agree with them. Just hooking them, dehooking them, and throwing them back is pretty cruel in the end and they have a point.

But fishing with the intention to eat is completely different. I disagree with sports hunting as well.. If you're just killing to well.. kill... What's the point? But if you're going to eat it and therefore not just waste it, go for it.

And last but not least, I found this quote hilarious:

article said:
An issue of Fish and Fisheries cited more than 500 research papers proving that fish are intelligent animals with long-term memories who can use tools and even build structures.

Someone find me said "fish-built" structures.
 
Not sure how they use tools. Aside from their mouth and their fins to push stuff. The structures I can think of would be gobys diging tunnels and dens in the substrate.

If PETA would target themselves at what I would classify as truly inhumane acts aganst animals like the bolke who tied a dog to their cars bumper and drove around the block for fun. Or the people who malnurish horses, etc.

But when they go around preventing things that can be proven to acutally control the population density and thus keep the existing populations healthy is beyond my understanding. Last night a news report on the local news talked about the increased deer populations and the resulting increase in car/deer accidents not only causing property damage but also loss of human lives. Hard core PETA supporters would disallow or diagree with increasing hunting season but IMO even realistic supportes would see that such things is acutally in the benifit of both human and deer. Excess populations will result in increases disease and starvation amongst the species resulting in even more deaths that are much more drawn out than a death from a hunter during hunting season.

I fully agree hunting just for the hunt or in search of a display piece is incorrect. And I urge anyone whom reads this that does hunt. If you dont use the meat yourself please take it to a bucher shop and have it ground up into chuck and give it to a needy orginization or a needy family.
 
Hunting is good for the environment. The Hunting/conservation group Ducks Unlimited has done more to preserve the natural wetland environments of ducks and geese then our own government has.

Deer Hunting is also a good thing, and often times, a very nessicary thing. Overpopulation of Deer can lead to starvation, disease, and also increased auto accidents from deer who run out into the path of a car. It is our responsibility to control the deer population for our sake, and theirs.

I used to hate guys who use the "catch and realease" method when it came to fishing. That is, I hated them until one day, me and my buddy caught 38 fish in under an hour of fishing. We released all but 5 that day ( 52 fish total between us. he says he caught 35 of them but I don't belive him!) :p Anyways, the fish we released back into the wild lived to swim another day. and maybe later someone else would catch them and they can eat them.
 
Deer Hunting is also a good thing, and often times, a very nessicary thing. Overpopulation of Deer can lead to starvation, disease, and also increased auto accidents from deer who run out into the path of a car. It is our responsibility to control the deer population for our sake, and theirs.

yeh, well... it was the overhunting of wolves that caused this problem, especially in places like Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina (maybe not north carolina, I can't remember exactly, but I think that is what happened here). Deer wouldn't need to be hunted so much if we'd left nature alone. Still, can't undo what was done so hunting deer in these areas is necessary. It'd be a lot more inhumane to let them all die of disease, starvation, and cars (more expensive on that third one considering you have to pay a fine for hitting a deer in NC).

One form of hunting that is very good is fox hunting (on horseback with hounds). People don't realize it, but the only fox that gets caught is normally a sick one or injured. All healthy ones get away for the most part. Infact, you learn to recognize which fox you are chasing because they make it a game and each one seems to have different strategey. One fox would always run a figure eight to lose the hounds. Another made a huge circle, then went up a tree and while the hounds were going crazy on the ground searching for his scent (this was after 3 times of circling), someone spotted him up in the tree. It looked like he was laughing at us :roll: . Oh, and one more. We were chasing a fox once and a person who is suppose to be up ahead of the hounds (by a lot, as in, not in site) was going along the edge of an open feild. They spotted the fox doing all sorts of zigzags and circles in the feild, then went to the top of a hill and sat watching. When the hounds got there, they went crazy trying to figure out where the scent was going. The fox watched for a bit, then turned and trotted away! Smart little thing. :D
 
PETA; it's what you wrap your steak in! :wink:


PETA: It's inhumane to eat another animal.
notPETA: Animals eat other animals everywhere on the planet every second of every day.
PETA: it's ok for them, it's their nature. They don't have grocery stores or farms.
notPETA: It's in our nature to eat to. We have grocery stores and farms because we, as a race, have developed a need to support society. Farmers support society by freeing other members of society to engage in non-food rearing ventures.
PETA: animals don't have a choice. They don't know the difference between right and wrong. They eat what nature has given them.
notPETA: They have a choice. A bear is quite capable of eating blackberries, digging up wild onions etc. You say animals are smart and have feelings. i agree. And if a bear is currently eating berries from a bush, and a salmon misses its jump from the river and lands on the ground next to the bear, you think it's going to eat the fish? It has a choice, it could continue to eat the berries. In fact, it quite likely will continue to eat the berries, right after it finishes eating the fish. Why? because its food. The fish has feelings, the bear hs feelings. There's no difference between a bear eating a fish, and me eating a fish. Food is food. You have a problem with it because you have attached a misguided moral agenda to a natural and necessary part of life. Living things must eat. Period. Life feeds on life. This is necessary. You says its ok for other animals because animals see other animals as food. Thats how I see most other animals. I don't have an emotional attachment to the cow on the farm or the fish in the river. Cow = Food. Fish = Food. Snuggles = friend. Why the distinction? Because I have an emotional atttachment to Snuggles. Thats the only distinction that makes any sense. You don't eat companions, but you eat food. Raised a cow since birth, given it a name and consider it a pet? Thats a companion. you don't eat companions. Raised a cow since birth cause you need something to eat. That's not a companion, thats food.
PETA: I don't like you anymore!
[/rant]

But I fully support your desire to be a vegitarian. Misguided or not.

That leaves more steak for me. :twisted:
 
mmmmm.... steak, love it! I tried being a vegitarian once, I respect my veggie friends because they could do it, and I can't. What I don't like is when they try to preach and push veggie-ism on you.
 
I love rare steak. You know how the blood kinda collects in the front part of your bottom lip, and you kinda suck it down? Its a burst of yummy flavor.
 
Funny Story:

Shawn Hannity, famous conservitive radio talk show host gave one of his producers ( a vegan) a 300.00 certificate for live lobsters to be delivered to her door to make some yummy meals.

She orders the Lobsters, and when they arrive she decides she is going to set them free. She drives down to her local park's pond. (this is in the middle of the winter mind you) She has to punch a hole through the Ice before she can put them in one by one. On top of all of that, she didn't bother to cut the rubberbands off of their pinchers before she let them go.

"I meant well." she says. Well, whatever makes her feel good about her self I guess.

:|
 
I'm not sure what the exact level of intelligence is with fish... but a lot of freshwater fish I've ever fished for are dumb enough to keep trying to bite, sometimes even after being caught. I think most of what they do is instinct only.
I got the simpsons joke... that was a great episode.
 
I wouldn't classify them as "intelilgent", but they have, IMO from experiences in this hobby, memory and the ability to learn behaviour. I differentiate the two in that, to me, intelligence is the ability to reason and solve problems without prior example. My fish, it's as obvious as day and night to me, know when i'm coming over to the tank to feed them. But if you put food in a loose covered box, I don't think they would have the intelligence to figure out how to open it to get the food.

And earleir when I said they have feelings, I was refering to the senses. They feel hot, cold, pain, hunger and fear (in a very natural sense). They don't have emotions. I think a lot of people confuse the aibility to feel with having emotions. They are very different. It's instinct for a fish to fear a shark. It's what keeps them from becoming dinner. But they aren't "cowering in fear" they're fleeing to survive. And when the shark passes, they come out and return to their normal life of feeding, spawning and avoiding becoming dinner. ahhh... the life of a fish :mrgreen:
 
"I meant well." she says. Well, whatever makes her feel good about her self I guess.

I hate hearing stuff like this. its people like this whom introduce the walking cat fish in FL and the snakehead in MD and nonindigious species off the east cost in the atlantic. In 10 years the lion fish population in the atlantic ocean will rival that of native species. In 10 more years their population may very well be so numberious native species being to become extinct due to a preditor with no natural enemy.

But if you put food in a loose covered box, I don't think they would have the intelligence to figure out how to open it to get the food.

Octipi have been show to exibit such intelegence. Of course the PETA documents dont say anything about octpi I dont belive.
 
I have two thoughts on the way this thread is going.
1) The problem I have is overfishing and not using all you can out of the fish.
ie shark fin soup, and the like if you kill it use it all.
2) have you ever seen a fat vegan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom