Changing The Militant Image Of Animal Rights Activists

[Princess Kae-Leah]

People who are into animal rights get a bad rap for being very militant and pushy, something I certainly admit to being guilty of myself. I feel bad sometimes because I feel like in the past I got off on the wrong fluke with other mers because they didn't share my passion for those issues, people I could've perhaps been friends with had circumstances been a little different. I've gotten to the point now that I personally believe that vegetarians, vegans, and others concerned about animal welfare and the environment should at least try to be respectful, polite, and kind to everyone, as after all humans are animals too, so being kind to people IS being kind to animals technically. The whole ideology of animal welfare is, at least to me, based on the principles of being as kind and compassionate as possible and "doing no harm", so I think it's very unfortunate indeed that animal rights activists have a reputation of...not being very nice. We need to kill with kindness, not scare people away with pushiness and militancy(sp?). PETA has undeniably introduced a lot of people to animal rights, but unfortunately they have also embraced sexism, ableism, body-shaming, and other forms of negative energy in their campaigns. I love Sea Shepherd's work, but let's face it...Paul Watson sure ain't gonna will any Mr. Congeniality awards any time soon. We need to remember that the old saying "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is there for a reason.

[Theobromine]

I definitely agree with you...but unfortunately some, if not many, animal-rights activists ARE too militant. And I say this as a bleeding-heart animal lover. PETA is not JUST ableist and sexist...they have been proven to actually kill far more innocent animals than they actually save. In many cases they've even been found to be STEALING PEOPLE'S PETS RIGHT OFF THEIR FRONT PORCHES AND EUTHANIZING THEM. I find this to absolutely horrifying and disgusting. My pets are my children and I love them more than anything in the world. The fact that there are people out there who specifically go out of their way to kill pets makes me sick. I won't even link to the articles I've seen because they're too upsetting, but you guys can google them if you want to.

I absolutely believe in protecting animals. But some people just go about it the wrong way. And activism without facts or reason actually does more harm than good. Like animal activists that break into places to set animals free...without thinking about the fact that those animals might not be native and have nowhere to go and no way of surviving in their new environment. Or people (again, the PETA types) who go around saying that animals are better off dead than in captivity. That is disgusting, presumptuous, absolutely untrue bullshit. Yes, SOME captivity situations may be bad, if the animals are not properly cared for, but that in no way applies to ALL captivity. What about all those well-loved, spoiled pets that are kept in safe warm houses and given the best food and veterinary care possible? They are living the dream life! And domesticated animals couldn't be released into the wild anyway. Additionally, most zoos and aquariums (AZA accredited ones) are in fact GREAT places for animals to live. They are extremely well cared for by keepers who love them and dedicate their lives to making sure they are happy and healthy. They have access to excellent on-site veterinarians, and they are fed the most nutritious and high-quality diets possible (personal zookeeper and aquarist experience here). Too many people have this knee-jerk reaction that zoos=captivity=bad, but they don't know all the facts. So many of those animals would not even survive if released into the wild; these days most of them are bred in captivity anyway, not wild-captured, and they would be potentially subjected to predators and disease and habitat loss and famine in the wild. In zoos, they are very carefully protected from all of these dangers. They are also able to inspire people and educate them about endangered species and habitat loss; they can provide valuable observational data to zookeepers and scientists who can use the information to find better ways to care for and protect them, and they are used in breeding programs specifically to preserve endangered species. Many species have been saved from certain extinction by the Species Survival Plans (breeding programs) instituted by zoos. I could write a whole other article about this actually, but I'll just leave it here for now.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that if you're really an animal rights activist, make sure you LEARN about the animals :) Research the facts, listen to the experts, avoid knee-jerk reactions, and think about what is really best for the animals, not just what sounds best from our perspective. Zookeepers and scientists are NOT in it for the money, I assure you! They do what they do because of their passion for the subject, and for facts and knowledge. So the BEST thing animal activists can do is to be informed, and to help educate other people. You're definitely right about catching more flies with honey than vinegar, but you'll also gather more followers with facts than with pitchforks and torches :)

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Yeah I don't agree with PETA's excessive euthanasia either, nor I do I think ALL captivity is bad, I think it depends on the type of animal and the situation, at the very least I don't agree with breaking into zoos and freeing the animals etc.

[Theobromine]

Oh I know, I wasn't suggesting that you're militant like that. Just that there are horrible people out there who give the rest of us a bad name.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

The closest I get to being that militant is I like the idea of a story about mermaids freeing all the fish from fishing nets and crabs and lobsters from traps and sometimes I fantasize about doing that kinda thing if I was a real mermaid because I think the whole process of fishing seems really painful and stressful for the animals, BUT in real life I would never do that kind of militant direct action because I've seen Orange Is The New Black and I never wanna do anything to get me sent to prison haha ;)

[Theobromine]

Oh hey man, fantasizing about freeing animals from traps is different! I totally fantasize about that too!

[TritonsGuard]

May I ask, could you elaborate on what your stance is in regards to the rights of animals? I am not certain as to where you stand on the issue, and before I give my opinion, I want to give you the chance to explain your own.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

May I ask, could you elaborate on what your stance is in regards to the rights of animals? I am not certain as to where you stand on the issue, and before I give my opinion, I want to give you the chance to explain your own.
Well, I was pretty infamous on this forum for my stance on not eating any seafood for the sake of protecting the ocean ecosystem, but I'm also against sport hunting, factory farms, most kinds of fish farming, wearing fur and real leather, animal testing, puppy mills, dog fighting, etc. However, I realize it's not always realistic and practical for everyone to go vegetarian/vegan over night and some people in remote places like the Inuit in Northern Canada don't much choice but to hunt for subsistence, so I don't really completely agree with the extreme "total animal liberation NOW!" stance of some of the most militant animal rights organizations, but I support a gradual shift toward no longer using animals for food, clothing, and other purposes over the next few decades, so I support things like stopping or at least reducing government subsidies on the fishing and animal farming industries, much stricter regulations on those industries, and promoting a reduction of animal consumption through campaigns like Meatless Mondays. Hope that helps answer your question! :)

[TritonsGuard]

Thank you. There is one more thing I would like to ask before I tell you my stance. What is your belief system based upon? What is the reason you give as to why you believe things should be the way you envision?

[Princess Kae-Leah]

My reasoning for believing what I do is twofold. First of all, I'm a huge environmentalist and I feel in most cases animal rights and conservation are pretty intertwined. After all, factory farming hurts the environment as well as the animals, and commercial fishing can destroy entire ecosystems and take food away from carnivorous animals like cetaceans and sharks that unlike most humans have no choice but to eat fish to survive. Second of all, I just believe in compassion for all living things, I don't like to see animals die and suffer for the sake of profit, though I realize it isn't always realistic to expect those industries to completely stop overnight. Also, as a mermaid activist, I feel a special connection with marine life especially. While it may not technically be cannibalism for merfolk to eat fish, since many species of fish do in fact eat other fish, I personally feel as a mer a sense of kinship so I'd rather take the "fish are friends, not food" mindset

[TritonsGuard]

Thank you again. Still a bit unclear about your stance (You have not told me of weather or not you believe some life has more value then others), but since you have been kind enough to explain to me your position, I will do the same.

But first, it is not cannibalism unless the animal eats another animal of its own species. A tuna eating a sardine is no more a cannibal then a leopard eating a gazelle. So if a mermaid were a fish, which would be debatable seeing as they are half human, eating fish would not be cannibalism, unless she ate another mermaid or merman. Not a pleasant thought.

I do agree with you about many things. I do not believe in over consumption of nature or damaging it for no good reason, or beyond repair. It is cruel, wasteful, ignorant, and down right stupid.
However, you and I vastly differ in views on life and nature. My opinion, like yours, is based on my core beliefs and ethics, and those are Christianity, a code of conduct similar to Chivalry, and a warrior's mentality. The big difference between you and I is that I believe there is a time to kill. In my religion, God gave us permission to eat meat. Even Jesus ate meat.
I would like to address what you said of dolphins and as you say "they have no choice." Where you see a tragedy in its predation, I see the magnificence of its nature and the beauty of its design. Dolphins and sharks are doing what they were meant to do, and without that, they would not be what they are. Their speed, agility, sonar and smell, teeth, and team work and stealth make them a superb hunters and that will always be a part of who they are. Even if they could eat vegetation, they would not give it up. I have a little terrier, very cute, very friendly, and full of energy. He has never been in the wild, and has never had to kill to survive. His food dish was always full and accessible. Yet some days when he is outside running, I'll find him with a squirrel or some other small animal in his mouth. He also walks differently then usual. He looks happy. It looks like he felt the same way that I do when I win a game. Do I discipline him? No. I give him a treat so he will drop it and I can dispose of it (I don't want to clean up the mess). Then I pat him on the head because he was doing what he was meant to do in nature, and rather then try to take it out of him, I encourage him to do so in a good way, and accept him for what he is, a predator, and a cute one at that.


Next, As a warrior, I believe we have a right to fight to defend what we hold dear from those that would seek to take it. Right now I am betting that you are a vegetarian. If not, please correct me. Even so, you might want that you are still endorsing an industry that is killing for profit, and I am not talking about the live stock on the farm. When you look out at a crop, you see what we all see, food and lots of it. Animals see the same thing, and will do all they can to get in. Try as we may to keep them out, to quote Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way." Every day thousands of crows, rabbits, deer, and other animals get into the area where your food grows. Once they're in, they gorge themselves, and many more come in through whatever way the first one got in. To counter this farmers get hunters to shoot and take animals off the farm, and some will have the hunters clear out the area around the farm to try to prevent them from getting inside in the first place. If they did not do this, the price of vegetables would skyrocket, and even if the government put a price ceiling on them, there would not be enough food. In nature, what is yours is only that which you defend, and we as humans (or Mers) are in that game. If you do not fight back, others animals "will" take it.
Does that mean we should exterminate the competition completely? No. We know better then that. We are wiser now. We, and that includes us hunters, know we cannot take from nature without being careful. That is why the environments in the US and Canada are getting better. We replant areas that we chop down. We don't pump our sewage into the ocean anymore.

One of the things that makes me mad about environmentalists in general is that they never celebrate their victories. The environment in America is much better then it was a few decades ago, and the environmentalists never praise that. As long as beings capable of thought are on this earth, an environmentalist's work will never be done. If they do not show gratitude for what they have accomplished, they are dooming their entire cause to eternal depression.


There is more to what I believe, but I think I've said enough for now. Sorry if you do not like what heard, but this is the person that I am, and I am not sorry for that.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I guess I can understand some of your points there. I mean, yes some animals are natural predators and that's a big part of their innate nature. Still, I admit I'm a pacifist at heart. I hate war and violence. I love the idea of "the lion lying down with the lamb", so while I recognize that the food chain is a natural part of life that can't be completely denied, that doesn't mean I have to always like the idea. I do find the intelligence and teamwork of cetaceans amazing, and I find it very interesting that female lions do the hunting, there's plenty of aspects to the way animals predate that are fascinating. It's necessary for their survival and I know keeping a balanced ecosystem is very important, so predation might be a natural way of keeping populations in check, but I'm still a bit squeamish at the idea at times.

Yes, I'm aware that there are issues with farming crops, animals do get killed for eating farmer's crops, and I think there definitely needs to be reforms done in that area. I think for the time being it's pretty much impossible to live a truly 100% cruelty-free or eco-friendly lifestyle, just about every industry under the sun has its issues. I am a pragmaticist to some extent

In some ways I do feel like celebrating certain victories, as I keep seeing statistics, for example, that both seafood and meat consumption are down in the US. Vegetarian/vegan alternative products to meat and dairy are more readily available and inexpensive than ever. Meatless Mondays programs have made into some public schools. Curbside recycling programs are improving. Lower-emission cars are available. Labels on food and personal care products have improved, consumers are more concerned than ever about knowing what goes into their products and where it comes from. We still have a long way to go, but we have admittedly come a long way too, which is why I honestly believe in 50 years or so just about everyone will be vegetarian or at least eat quite a bit less meat than we do now.

As for as do I believe that some life is more valuable than others? Well, I mean I think it's hard to deny that some animals are more intelligent than others, and perhaps it's fair to say that the life of an endangered species is more worthy serious of concern than an animal that is not endangered, for the sake of conservation, but ultimately every life has some value, and taking a life is not something to take lightly. I try to not kill insects, and when it comes to pest animals such as rodents, I think they should be relocated instead of killed.

Am I a vegetarian? Yeah, pretty much. I do not eat either red meat or seafood, and I use soy milk instead of dairy milk in my cereal and coffee. I am not yet 100% vegan and I still eat some processed foods, so I don't claim to be the greenest eater ever. This thread is not about me claiming to be some eco-saint, if anything I know more than ever than we need to be practical and realistic, and some extreme animal rights groups need to reconsider some of their methods. I no longer really believe in getting up on my high seahorse(aren't sea puns fun ;)) and presenting myself as some flawless example everyone must follow, as we're all hypocrites to some extent. Living as cruelty-free of a lifestyle as possible, is a process, a transition, it's not something that can always realistically happen over night, and I believe every change, every choice people make to help the animals and the planet is important, it doesn't have to always be all or nothing, at least for the time being.

You seem like a very intelligent, respectful, level-headed person who has put a lot of thought into your beliefs, and I think that's good. I think respectful and polite dialogue is very important, so I thank you for respectfully giving me the chance to share my views without being harsh or disrespectful. :)

[TritonsGuard]

Thank you for the complement. I let others talk first out of respect. It guarantees they get their perspective out before there is any vendetta (not everyone is as respectful as you have been). Because I have not said anything they don't like yet, they tell me their side without trying to attack me. Also, it is a bit of an olive branch. It lets them know that I am going to treat them as ladies and gentlemen. I strive to be a gentleman myself, but I never say that I am. I'd feel as if I would be bragging, which is not gentleman like.

You too seem to have your head on your shoulders. I am glad you are trying to promote your cause in a more peaceful way. I have seen far too many on that side that take the more forceful approach. I can also relate to you in that as a Christian I have seen many of my brethren try the same tactics in attempts to turn them to Christ. I was one of them once, and I can tell you, it does not work. In many cases, it just pushes them away. I can't force them no matter how important I believe it is.

As you probably already guessed, I am not a vegetarian, but I am also no fool. I will never take more then what nature can handle. I also feel a connection with nature, but it is as a role. That role is that of an omnivore, which means I am a part time predator. However, just like the dog I spoke of earlier, most of the time I am friendly. Nature does not play by my rules. I can get some of them, like my dog, to be my friend, but to think all animals will culminate around me with love can be a very dangerous thought. There is an island off the cost of Florida that tried that with Alligators. They allowed no hunting, opting for relocation instead, even for aggressive adults. Two decades past with few problems, but then all that changed. Large gators were being spotted in peoples yards on a regular basis and they were not fearful of humans. Pets started to disappear. The gators would not leave because people were feeding them, so they associated them with food. There were attacks and at least one person was killed. It got so bad they had to call a hunt to get the gator population under control by killing the ones that were aggressive, and over 4 Ft, but they were finding ones that were well over 12. They did not wipe out the alligators nor did they reduce them to unhealthy levels, but simply took measures to make sure people could live safely.

Also, there is one thing you and I may agree on, poaching is abhorrent. You may not think it at first, but hunters hate poachers. Unless they are killing an animal for safety purposes, hunters try to give their prey a fighting chance, and that means most of the time the animal gets away, or was never spotted in the first place. Hunters are okay with that, poachers are not. They use tools and methods that make it so easy, it is no fair for the animal. They also take without thought. Hunters want healthy places to hunt. If you take without reason, there will be no next season. Even if they were not able to find anything, the forests, wet lands, and other environments are beautiful to behold. Poachers don't care of that. Most poachers that are turned in were done so by hunters. Going back a few posts, If I were a real merman, I would take pleasure in finding them and reporting those slim balls in.

Alright, there's my post for the day.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Hunting is a very tough issue for me, because on one hand from a strictly environmental standpoint I can see how hunting for wild game can have a smaller footprint than factory farming, and certain species like deer are said to be overpopulated anyway, and I realize there are some cultures who do their best to hunt in a respectful and sustainable manner. There are some parts of the world too where they don't have much of a choice but to hunt to survive. Raina has educated me that in Northern Canada, store-bought food is very very expensive, for example a carton of milk costs $15+ and produce is often spoiled by the time it arrives there, plus it takes a lot of fossil fuels to transport food there in the first place, so yeah in situations like that I may not like the idea, but I can understand why they would hunt. I'm sure there are even some people in less extreme climates that are poor and use hunting as a cheap way to provide food for their family. I do realize that hunting legally if it's actually for food and not sport/trophies is not exactly the same thing as illegally poaching.
However...I still can't honestly say I like the idea. Hunting is regulated, at least to some extent, but I still see plenty of problems with hunting culture. One of the Duck Dynasty guys was quoted as saying nothing makes him happier than blowing a head off a duck. I'm just not OK with that kind of sadistic attitude, taking a life is serious, it shouldn't be fun and games, yet while I realize not all hunters hunt strictly for sport, trophy/sport hunting is still legal to some extent in many parts of the world and for many animals. In the Arctic, people go to trophy-hunt polar bears, people go to Africa to shoot many wild animals, including some endangered species, and despite being top predators that are vital to the ecosystem, it's legal in some places to fish for sharks.
As for as invasive species and such go, I think in most cases culls are unnecessary. There are plenty of humane alternatives to consider, such as if for example deer are over-populated in an area, a trap-neuter-release program. A lot of people are scared of shark attacks and as such try to justify a shark-fishing season, yet the truth is that WAY more humans kill sharks than sharks kill people. At most only like a dozen people are killed worldwide by sharks, will some statistics claim as much as 100 million sharks are killed by people. I think some culls are motivated more by selfish human interests than for the good of the ecosystem, for example, here in the Pacific Northwest, some sea lions were killed because the salmon fishing industry didn't like that the sea lions were eating "their fish". Similar reasons have motivated the commercial seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. I do not think people have a right to kill animals for just trying to survive, since unlike them we can survive without eating fish.

[TritonsGuard]

I can see what you mean about not liking the idea of a life being taken. Though I am okay with it, not everyone is comfortable with the subject of death, but I can see it affects some people more then others. Almost ten years ago, I had just become a lifeguard. Six weeks in, I witnessed something that most guards never in their whole career experience, a heart attack victim. We hooked him up to the AED and shocked him. I could see the monitor on the side of the device, and his heart rhythm was not good. After the second time we shocked him, I could only see a flat line on the monitor. At that moment, that man was clinically dead, but we shocked him one more time. He had a faint pulse and shallow breathing afterward. A lady who worked at the front desk was in tears over it all, and it made me feel guilty because I felt like I could get back to work if they wanted me to. For me, it was a part of my job, though one that I will never forget, but for her, it shook her hard to see him that way. Seeing death if only for a moment affected her greatly

One thing that may be good news to you is that even hunters that hunt for trophies don't do so for only that reason. Almost all hunters use every part of the animal they can. If they don't eat the meat themselves, they donate it to places like soup kitchens. In fact, in places with a lot of deer, soup kitchens get a major part of their food supply from hunters that donated venison.

When it comes to other methods of controlling deer populations, nothing has worked as good as hunting. An animal rights organization did try a spay/neuter and release program, but after a short while, they stopped. The cost per deer was staggering. Even if they could get it to work though, it would be dangerous for the deer populations. If there is a rough winter now days, hunting can just be held off for a season or two while the deer recover, and they'll be fine since they all can reproduce. However, if a lot of the deer are sterile, they will not bounce back fast enough. If there are two bad winters back to back, there could be a very big problem for them. Plus in the mean time, people will still hit them on the road costing millions of dollars, causing thousands of serious injuries, and several hundred deaths every year.

I agree that we do kill more sharks then they kill us by a large number, and in the past, it was even bigger. In those days, after a shark attack, they would kill every shark they could find in the area, and I also am with you in saying "it was wrong, wasteful, and very stupid." Now days, when there is a shark attack, we don't have that nee-jerk reaction anymore, because we know that the myth of "the rogue shark" is false, and that the shark just mistook the person for its normal prey. I'm glad we know better now.
I'm not sure where you got 100 million or if you meant yearly, but I don't think we are taking that many. There are very few fish species that would not be wiped out from a kill rate that high, and none of them are large. However, I totally disagree with shark fining for many reasons. Firstly, they don't kill the animal. If you hunt something, kill it. You don't cut it up while it's alive. Secondly, it's wasteful. People should use as much of the animal as possible: meat, fins, skin, teeth. The more you use, the less you have to kill. Lastly, it's poaching, and you know how I feel about that.

You said that you hate violence and war, and I respect that. There are many who feel as you do, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, this is another area were you and I differ. Maybe it is because I'm a boy, perhaps it is within all of us to some degree, but whatever the reason, on some level, I like violence. Not senseless violence, but rule based competition or doing so for a good cause. The feeling of winning a sparring match or crossing swords in a fencing bout is exhilarating to me. There is a video I saw of a guy who I feel was very much justified in fighting back There was a guy going to an event with his fiancé . As they waited with the crowd outside, a few men came over to them and assaulted his fiancé. This, obviously, made him very mad, and he fought them off by himself. Even though he would have much rather had his girl not get hurt, the feeling he got from beating those that did her harm, and in front of a cheering crowd, made him feel in his words like a champion. Guys and some girls like violence. It's in our nature, and many times it does get the better of us. Fortunately, morality and codes of conduct keep most of us in check. Most people only go hunting for a few days a year, and don't stroll around looking for a fight. I will never tell you that you have to like violence, but sometimes it is necessary.

There's more, but I've already said a mouth full.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Now I actually don't have a problem with fencing at all, as a sport. I do dislike violence in general, but I actually find fencing interesting because I'm a big fan of the anime/manga Revolutionary Girl Utena, which is ultimately about fencing. I cosplay as Utena and carry a plastic sword. I hate living things dying and suffering unnecessarily, and I hate guns and weapons in real life, but unlike hunting fencing as a sport and cosplaying as a character while holding a fake sword does not usually kill anyone.

Yes I mean 100 million sharks killed yearly. I can't vouch for its total accuracy but I believe that number is commonly repeated by animal welfare and conservation groups

[Echidna]

I'm not getting into the "hunting is needed to keep numbers stable"-discussion, because if HUNTERS hadn't wiped out all the natural predators of (for example) deer, hunting would not be needed.

Which is, WHY the predators were wiped out in the first place- so hunters would have something to kill, and a neat excuse why they feel the need to torture and kill another creature.


Anyway, I dislike the label "militant" which is used when people feel strongly about something, yet is mostly applied to environmentalists of some sort.
You should see the passion (rather hatred) that gets poured out by smokers who try to justify their god-given right to expose others to their smoke.
Yet I've never seen anyone of them called "militant smoker" :p

What about militant hunters? Militant fishers? Militant puppy-kickers?

The reason why people can get very wound up about these issues is that it's something global, terribly important which affects us all and our very survival, yet few seem willing to do something, or even acknowledge it.

One person alone can only do so much to help- spreading awareness, starting petitions, boycotting certain products, leading a certain lifestyle.
But we can't really go out and put a stop to a practice that we beyond all doubt know is destroying an ecosystem.

This inevitably leads to great frustration over time, especially with jurisdictions and governments in place that will do almost anything if the bribe check is high enough.

I often hear people say they want to be convinced with patience and tolerance and nice speeches rather than cold truths and (for them) undesirable facts.
But I've seen so many immature, unteachable people over the years that I fear if someone refuses to see sense on their own, they are a lost cause.

[TritonsGuard]

They were killed off because the hunters wanted something to kill? I don't know were you got that fact (please show me if you can), but no.
Firstly, if you are saying that if wolves and cougars returned, they would eventually balance out, I agree. The deer population would go down as the predator population went up. At some point there would be too many carnivores for the amount of prey, but starvation would thin the their numbers or they would move to a new area, and the deer would go up. This would go on for a while until it reaches an equilibrium. This is how it was before we got here, and it worked well, but you are leaving out one very important piece of the puzzle. We are here, and that changes the situation dramatically.
Let me ask this. Say you wanted to go for a swim in your tail, and you had two areas you could go. The first had been recently hunted. The other is off limits to hunting and is a known for its large alligators. Which one would you choose? I told a story earlier about what happened on an island that thought they could live in peace with the gators. It didn't end well.
The land carnivores were cleared from human areas for the same reason I explained earlier as to why the alligators needed to be hunted on the island. The difference is that now you are talking about terrestrial predators not semi aquatic ones. Carnivores, especially land ones, don't like competition, weather it be for prey or territory or breeding rivals, and defend their turf fiercely some times to the death. They did try reintroducing wolves into areas that had cities and where deer were numerous. For a time, things were fine, until they hit the peak where there was not enough prey. They didn't starve out, they moved, to the human areas. It started on the out skirts were they ate garbage and livestock. Since people were feeding them, they lost their fear of people. Animals that are not afraid of you don't see you as a friend, they just aren't scared of you anymore. Since they could not be hunted, there was no reason for them to be scared of people, so they went into territory that was owned by humans and took over it. They ate their livestock, garbage, pets (wolves kill dogs on site), and made it too dangerous to live there. There were several attacks but fortunately no deaths. For the most part people are smart enough to get to safety when confronted with wolves.
The reason that we kill predators off in human areas is to make them safe for us and our animals. Wolves and other predators do the same thing to clear out the competition, so they have food, water, and a safe place to breed, den, and raise their young. Predators do go into other predators' territory and if the other is weaker or does not put up a fight, the new one claims the area as his own and protects it himself. That is what they see us as, competition (regardless of weather you eat meat or not. They only see you as an obstacle). Them fearing us is a good thing for both them and us. It means that we are safe from them, and they know to run so they don't get shot. There are areas for them that we let them live on that will not be hunted or developed on, and if they stay there, they will be fine. But they do intrude, and we expect them to. They are animals, and on those occasions, they need to be afraid again.

Hunters in the past did indeed act foolishly. You are right about that. They wiped out several animals and nearly did so for many more. We know better now and for at least half a century, have been much more careful. Hunting did not stop a few decades ago and only just recently start back up. It has been here all along, and yet species, even hunted ones, recovered. Why? Because hunting was regulated, and hunters themselves agree it is for the better. One of the good things it did was raise a lot of money for conservation. Hunting licenses are expensive, and a lot of that money goes towards keeping the environment healthy. Same thing with hunting gear. A certain percentage of the money generated goes to conservation. In fact, excuse me if I say this, the hunting industry gives so much to conservation that it surpasses what animal rights organizations give.
Also, hunters are not just brainless, toothless hillbillies and rednecks that the media likes to portray us as. We are teacher, lawyers, plumbers, programmers, and busyness men and women of all ages.

If you don't mind me asking, who do you consider "militant hunter, fisher, and puppy kickers?" I not sure what group you speak of. If it is poaching, you already know I hate that. What exactly were you talking about?

[TritonsGuard]

Fencing is fun, but it is very different from what people think it is. So much of it is footwork. In fact, some say fencing is 70 percent in the feet. Right now I'm into "historic fencing," which is fencing as a martial art. It uses a lot of different swords from periods through out history. My favorites are the German Longsword (a two handed sword) and the Rapier. The Longwood is a lot lighter then the movies make it seem (only about 3.5 lb.), and is very versatile. Here is a link if you want to see what it looks like. It just the techniques in this video, so I don't think you will object to anything. Neither of theses guys are me just so you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

The rapier is a lot more brutal in real life. Most people think of it as an elegant weapon to be used with great finesse. It is, but it is designed to be very devastating. The point is made to go through any place on the body including the head. Another link if you wan to see. Again only the techniques though it does show the manual pictures, and neither of these guys are me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccg472EKsNY

I'd be careful about stating the number 100 million if you can't find where it came from. We do still kill a lot of sharks, but I doubt it is that many.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Anyway, I dislike the label "militant" which is used when people feel strongly about something, yet is mostly applied to environmentalists of some sort.
You should see the passion (rather hatred) that gets poured out by smokers who try to justify their god-given right to expose others to their smoke.
Yet I've never seen anyone of them called "militant smoker" :p

What about militant hunters? Militant fishers? Militant puppy-kickers?


I do think many militant hunters and militant fishers exist. As much as I hate the idea of hunting in general, there is a line to be drawn between "normal" hunters who obey the regulations, don't hunt endangered species, and eat the meat/aren't wasteful and what might be labeled "militant hunters". I'm thinking of those prolific big game trophy hunters who travel all over the world killing wild animals, some of which are endangered and many of which are in any case top predators that are vital for a balanced ecosystem, for no reason except to collect "trophies". I think the key element here is sadism, I would call a "militant hunter" someone who enjoys killing for the sake of killing, who enjoys the power trip from killing a bunch of dangerous wild animals and showing it off. Where what might be classified as "normal hunters" who are law-abiding, not wasteful, and have at least some degree of respect for nature are not always genuinely cruel people, but are simply products of their culture/environment. I can understand that if someone grew up in an area where hunting was very common and no one saw anything wrong with it, of course there's a good chance they won't think differently. I try to keep in mind sometimes that animal rights is still in some ways a fairly new idea, most AR organizations have only been around for a few decades at most, so realistically of course it'll take a while for things to completely change.

[TritonsGuard]

When people address an organization as militant, they mean that the people in question are trying to force their vision of how things should be on others in ways that are frowned upon (illegal, harassing, blocking out other opinions). I hate smoking too, but if they are staying in a smoking area, not shaming others, or taking down flyers put up by those opposing their view, they are not being militant. Not saying any of you are doing this, but animal right activists have been known to do things like that.

Endangered species. No wants to see them go extinct, but sometimes they are killed for good reasons.
In rural areas, there are people that own a lot of land, and earn their living on it. Many people's whole lives are invested in the land their land. However, there is a big problem if an endangered animal appears on their property. If an official sees that an endangered species, that place becomes protected from any development, even if it is never seen there again. That means if there an animal on the list seen on your land, you can't do anything on it anymore. You can't build, farm, you can't even set up a swing set or rake the leaves. Worst of all, the government does not give you compensation for it because they say they have not technically taken your land, they just forbid you from doing anything with it. That is not just stupid, it's un-constitutional. Now you have lost everything that you have worked all your life for and they won't pay you for it. So a lot of people out there if they see an endangered species on their land will do what has been called the "triple S." Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. They don't want to see the animal go extinct, but for them, it's not worth risking your livelihood. If you are wondering why they can't just relocate them, ask the federal government. Farmers and many others have been trying to do that for years with no success.
The second good reason is for conservation money. Remember when I told you about how hunting generates a lot of money for conservation? Well in order to hunt an endangered animal it is extremely expensive ($10,000 to $20,000 for the just the chance to take one animal. And those like the rhino that they were auctioning off that needed to be put out of its misery, $250,000 to $1 million) and a large portion of it goes to conservation. You may be thinking it is counter productive to hunt something you are trying to bring back, but it isn't, cause they only allow a certain amount to be taken, not enough to affect the health of the species. Most of the money is put into taking care of the animals and making sure they are healthy. There was a man who started a preserve like this in Texas. He started out with around 500 antelope from Africa. After about a decade, he had around 3,000 and getting more. I think he even released some back in to Africa. Unfortunately (I'm not saying you guys), animal rights groups worked to get it banned. Now he has a huge plot of land that he can do nothing on. He can't even get them moved to the animals home continent, even if he could, it would be way too expensive. There is not much he can do but let loose the predators.

Another problem I have with environmentalists is they don't realize that if you try to raise animals up by pushing humans down, they will inevitably claw their way back, and many times the activists end up with a worse situation then before. Humans are here, so there are two things you can do. Fight them, or deal with them. It is possible for us both to get something out of this, I already showed explained one above. Is that not better then it would been to have those 3000 (and eventually more) animals and having a lot of them transported back to where they came from?

Lastly, most hunters are not blood thirsty. They get most of their pleasure from tracking and stocking, but also from going through the forest with friends and maybe their dog. Coming home for a barbecue with your family and friends, donating some of the meat to the soup kitchen, and getting a rug or antlers. There are blood thirsty hunters, but not many of them, and even if they are, they too for the most part obey the law. For those that don't are the poachers, and hunters hate them.

[Echidna]

If you don't mind me asking, who do you consider "militant hunter, fisher, and puppy kickers?" I not sure what group you speak of. If it is poaching, you already know I hate that. What exactly were you talking about?

Kae-Leah explained that very well.

There is also a huge portion of "hunters" that become super aggressive as soon as you don't agree with them.
Up to the point that they level their gun at you (didn't happen to me personally, but it was really unneccessary).

I also said I didn't want to discuss this at length, because I can tell from all that you wrote about this topic, no matter what I say, you likely won't change your views one bit.

I have seen (and argued with) a fair share of hunters.
What is common to all of them is
1) they have this innate aggression and bloodthirstiness which they deny having, but it's there
2) they will always have loads of reasons why their hobby is necessary, but none of them are really valid
3) most will use any opportunity to kill something as long as they can get away with it.

The "rangers" here claim to protect the wildlife and thus shoot any stray dog or cat they see.
Even if said dog is on a leash and its owner walks 2 paces behind him, and the cat is around 20 metres away from the owner's backyard sitting in the sun.
(Yep, that happens often.)

I'm going to address your mention of natural predators and why they did have to be removed for human's safety though.
You are barking at the wrong tree in that regard, mate.
Trying to use the big-ol' scare card here on me? :p

I was born in Romania.
The people there have lived since forever close together with wild wolves, bears, cougars, lynxes, you name it.
Lately, many of the larger predators have left the woods and come to forage in the outlying towns (garbage bins are easier than hunting).
Want to know just how many humans, including children, fell victim to those dangerous, savage beasts?

Zero.
But I bet you already knew that.

I'm not saying it didn't happen ever elsewhere, btw.
Alligators can be very dangerous. So can bears.
But generally, if people aren't idiots and know how to behave, nothing happens.

So how about instead of wiping out entire species so humans can be dumb and completely removed from nature, teach them how to live with animals again.
Because it's totally possible.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Amen, Echidna! Very well-said:thumbs-up:
Humanity just needs to be educated about what precautions to take around wild animals, and always keep in mind that we but one of many species on this planet.

[TritonsGuard]

If you wish to leave, then do so. It is your right to walk away if you want, and I will not hold it against you if you do. There is no win or lose in this discussion, and if it has turned into that, for either of us then it should end.
However, if you wish to continue, by all means, read on.

First of all, if anyone points a gun at you in anything other then self defense, then he or she is committing a crime and needs to be in jail. If they are doing that, get it on tape. It would help your cause out a lot. That being said, I am not that person, and I will never harm you over words, even if you accuse me of lying or being deceptive. Get to that in a bit.

I'll go down your list
1. I did not deny I had aggression. In fact, I even stated that I like combat to an extent, and that I fantasize about being a hero by combat. And yes the tracking and stocking of prey does give us a thrill, and the kill does give us some satisfaction in that we accomplished something very difficult. I was not even exposed to hunting till I was much older then most (late 20's), yet I still liked it.

2. Other then what you just posted you have offered no rebuke of what I have said so far. She and you gave me your views, I gave you mine, you and she gave statements an asked questions, and I gave my answers, but you never really went back until now, which I will address in a bit.

3. Really? I'm frequently around a lot of guys with guns way out in the middle of nowhere. If we shot anything, no one would know, but I have never seen anyone shoot anything living outside of hunting trips. If we did as you said, we would be eating squirrel everyday, and there would be no doves or ravens in the area.

If the rangers are shooting pets, get it on camera. You take them down very quickly.

Scare card? I merely told what happened. What you just did is give what is called a "straw man argument." Please don't accuse me of something when there is reasonable doubt that I did do it. Let's keep this civilized.

Perhaps I didn't speak clearly on a few my points. I already said that it was foolish in the past to try to exterminate the carnivores, and now we are the ones keeping deer in check, but reintroducing them will require people to put a few things in place. Things that places like Louisiana (and your birth country, which I'll get to in a minute) have.
Louisiana has more gators then Florida, and massively more then the island I spoke of, yet it has never had any problems with them. Why? Because they kill all aggressive gators (the ones that lost their fear of people, or are eating our animals), they keep them away from swimming areas, and they hunt them if there are too many. What I mean by too many is there numbers grow so large, there is too little prey for that many gators. If animals can't find food in there natural habitat, they venture closer to people. For instance, I found seagulls eating at my town's dump, and it is around a hundred miles from the ocean and in the middle of a desert. Even though we don't need to do anything about this since we don't have to worry about aggressive seagulls, it proves my point that animals go where there is food.

As for Romania, hitherto, I knew only what popular culture here in the states tells us about it. That one of your rulers from the middle ages, Vlad Draculea (A.K.A. Vlad the Impaler), was the inspiration for the titular character in Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula." Needless to say, I knew nothing about anything in Romania. However, in the last day or so I have done some research. Let me start by saying, your birth country is gorgeous. Romania has a very rich history, the architecture is truly amazing, and it has a fascinating culture. I probably going to be looking more into it for while because it is quite interesting. I may want to go there someday. Thank you very much for turning my attention towards it.
You stated that Romania does not have a predator problem, but you also gave me the notion that you were saying there was no there hunting either. I am not going to accuse you of any kind of deception. You may not know this, so you might want to take a look. In fact there is quite a bit of hunting in Romania. It took only one google search and I got a lot of sites dedicated to setting up hunting trips in Romania and a Wikipedia page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_in_Romania
Although it is not a quotable source, there are not many places that have a Wikipedia page dedicated to hunting in their country, and a decent one at that. It seems it has a rich and regale history in hunting as well. Did you know that Romania started a regulated hunting policy 70 years before the states did? That means they have had a big head start on balancing things out. What they are doing is hunting the predators at the same time as the herbivores, so there are few times when there are too many of either. Also, they hunt aggressive or nuisance animals such as wolves.
http://www.hunting-in-romania.com/wolf.html
Bear are hunted too.
http://hunting-in-romania.com/bear.html
I would not be surprised if there was more hunting in Romania then in any one of the states in our union. This sounds more like my idea of living with the animals then yours. You might want to come up with a better place to reference
What the area in the states that I spoke of earlier did not do is what your country is doing, and what I believe should be doing, hunting to balance things out.
Also, it is not just about attacks. It is about damage and loss. People lose livestock, crops can be broken into, and although most people know better then to approach a wild predator, it can trap them in or out of their home. And if you drug them and take them somewhere else, it's going to happen to someone else, cause they now think that humans around means easy food and no threat.

I know you hate what I am saying, and if you want me to leave this page, I will. Just let me know on your next post. You can even have the last word if you want. I'm just giving my 2 cents. I'm glad that you are trying to put a better face on animal rights, but part of that is to be polite to others, even those that have a different view. I'm trying to give you that respect.

I if I hurt your feelings, but I am not sorry for who I am.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Lastly, most hunters are not blood thirsty. They get most of their pleasure from tracking and stocking, but also from going through the forest with friends and maybe their dog. Coming home for a barbecue with your family and friends, donating some of the meat to the soup kitchen, and getting a rug or antlers. There are blood thirsty hunters, but not many of them, and even if they are, they too for the most part obey the law. For those that don't are the poachers, and hunters hate them.

My issue honestly with that point is that one can get the same kind of enjoyment without killing animals. It's great to enjoy going out in nature, I know that's why so many people enjoy hunting and fishing, but why can't you do that without killing anything? Like instead of someone going fishing, why can't a person go out in a rowboat on the lake and read a book instead? Instead of hunting and killing wild animals, why can't someone dabble in wildlife photography instead and shoot animals with a camera and not a gun, or get a sketchbook and draw the animals and nature around them?

Donating to soup kitchens is wonderful. I'm a big supporter of charity work too myself, as an avid Toys For Tots volunteer buying and donating around 20 toys each year. Can't they donate food to charity without killing wild animals?

I do understand how rewarding that "thrill of the hunt" feeling can be, as I collect vintage fashion dolls from thrift stores and doll shows. I love finding a valuable vintage Barbie in a thrift store after finding nothing worth buying for months. I also like to collect vintage Disney VHS tapes. If hunters enjoy that thrill of the hunt, why not instead satisfy that urge by collecting an item you enjoy, whether it be stamps, baseball cards, vinyl records, whatever? Buying old stuff from thrift stores and flea markets is not only fun and often pretty inexpensive, it's can be pretty eco-friendly too because every time you buy an old used item, you're potentially saving it from a landfill. Vintage toys and many other items are made from non-biodegradable plastics that we really should do our best to keep out of landfills, so vintage collecting can be a sustainable as well as enjoyable hobby.

I think it's very sad indeed if the most effective way to raise money for conservation is by people paying ridiculous sums of money to kill endangered animals. There is just no need to kill a lion or a rhino, I'm sorry but I just don't understand the mentality of someone wanting to shoot such majestic animals.

One of the very few arguments in favor of hunting that actually does make some degree of sense to me is the argument that hunting or fishing wild animals yourself has less impact on the environment and/or might cause less suffering than factory farming livestock and commercial fishing, provided of course that one carefully obeys all the regulations, is not wasteful, kills it as humanely as possible, and hunts and fishes only species that are not endangered in any way. I think if someone must eat meat and seafood, I admit that killing one deer per year and having it be your main source of meat is certainly more sustainable than eating factory-farmed meat regularly. Likewise if someone must eat fish, catching it yourself on a rod or spearfishing means little or no bycatch loss and no fuel from shipping and processing commercial seafood.

[TritonsGuard]

Do you all want me to answer this, because this conversation seems to be getting heated? You have been very nice, and I thank you for that, but Echidna seems to be getting very angry. I don't want this to get out of hand. I entered this wanting to present my ideas with respect to others and you all to respect mine. That's why I hear you out, why I show were I agree with you, how sometimes our goals can both be met, and why I never assume or place any blame on you as an individual. Already I am seeing signs that if we continue, both our causes will drowned in our anger. I want to wait for her answer, but if she does not or if she wants me to go, I'll send you a message.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Do you all want me to answer this, because this conversation seems to be getting heated? You have been very nice, and I thank you for that, but Echidna seems to be getting very angry. I don't want this to get out of hand. I entered this wanting to present my ideas with respect to others and you all to respect mine. That's why I hear you out, why I show were I agree with you, how sometimes our goals can both be met, and why I never assume or place any blame on you as an individual. Already I am seeing signs that if we continue, both our causes will drowned in our anger. I want to wait for her answer, but if she does not or if she wants me to go, I'll send you a message.

You're welcome for me being nice haha ;). The whole reason I started this thread in the first place is I wish to attempt to change people's perception of animal rights activists by presenting a friendly and reasonable image. Thank you as well for hearing me out and admitting the few times when you do agree with me :).
As for Echidna, I respect how passionate she is about these issues, admittedly especially since she and I seem to be on pretty much the same page on most issues, but I'm sorry if she has made you uncomfortable. I think throughout this whole discussion I have always remained calm, polite, and rational, but Echidna doesn't seem to enjoy hearing your side at all, to state the obvious. I think what that really comes down to is she has already argued and debated with hunters several times in the past, so she's already very familiar with all the usual pro-hunting talking points so she got frustrated

[TritonsGuard]

Yes that might be so. I have argued against those on the other side and gotten frustrated before. When things don't go well for any of us, we get mad. However, I have tried to keep in mind that all of you, including her, are entitled to your own opinion and thus deserve respect. If I don't give you that, it is no more then a flame war, and then everyone's mad. I don't like being part of stuff that just makes people want to reach through the internet and strangle the person on the other side. I want to make it clear, I am not mad at you at all. You have put forth your posts with dignity and respect. You said you were different before this. From how you have presented yourself to me, you are a good person, with great control over your reactions. It couldn't have been easy to look over what I've said, I know it wasn't for me at times to read yours, but you kept your self control. That is something I believe is praise worthy. I only hope I have given you the same respect. Another reason I came here was also to see if you were telling the truth that you were willing to be polite and patient, and you have done so.

I don't know if that means anything to you coming from me, but well done.

[Echidna]

Thanks Tritonsguard, for looking into my birth country.
I am not angry. You are making good points and are considerate in discussion.

Of course I know there is loads of hunting going on in Romania :p
I never said there wasn't.
(Most of it is rich tourists from western Europe, who wish to kill larger prey than what they have in their countries. Romania is one of the few spots in Europe with large predators left.)

What I meant was there is no effort to EXTERMINATE the large predators as a species, which happened in most western European countries with the argument that people otherwise wouldn't be safe.
This argument is obviously false.
Economical considerations, as you now mentioned, played a larger role in that (sheep, cattle).

Now environmentalists have the stance that wild animals have the same right to be there as anyone else, so if you are a farmer and lose livestock and produce, that's not to be helped.
It should not be legalization to go out and exterminate your "competition".
This mindset, btw, has led to the almost extermination of seals, whales, dolphins, etc in the seas bordering Europe.

Humans have taken almost all land here that beforehand belonged to nature, and turned it into concrete wastelands and fields. Only small patches of forest remain.

It's no wonder animals have a hard time to survive.
The answer to this should NOT be to thin the numbers of animals even more, so we don't feel their presence and remain "undisturbed".
One should rather allot them more space to live naturally.
If humans take away too much space, of course there are going to be conflicts. But humans are the source of the conflict, and not vice versa.

Lastly, I'd like to say that our different viewpoints and experiences with hunting (as I said, the aggressive gun-pointing happens almost as often as the killing of pets here, and the latter is completely legal) has a lot to do with different countries.

Obviously, the situation is different in a large, animal-rich, in comparison sparsely populated country and a completely packed one such as Germany (where I'm living at the moment).

Still, there are many examples of hunters paying a fortune to travel to Africa just to shoot an elephant or other large, rare animal. Happens in other countries also.
You cannot tell me this can in any way be justified with "reasons" other than WANTING to kill something.

So, let's agree to disagree about the motivation.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I want to make it clear, I am not mad at you at all. You have put forth your posts with dignity and respect. You said you were different before this. From how you have presented yourself to me, you are a good person, with great control over your reactions. It couldn't have been easy to look over what I've said, I know it wasn't for me at times to read yours, but you kept your self control. That is something I believe is praise worthy. I only hope I have given you the same respect. Another reason I came here was also to see if you were telling the truth that you were willing to be polite and patient, and you have done so.

I don't know if that means anything to you coming from me, but well done.

Gee thanks :hug:

[Ashe]

I was a huge supporter of animal rights and explained animal cruelty to people who didn't quite understand. I was told that people who are meat didn't really care about animals and were animal murderers. This hurt a lot for me as I had been eating meat all my life and hadn't realty thought about it. For a few years I was in an out of being a vegetarian and I really wanted to go vegan, but everytime I went without meat for a few months, I would get really sick. I would get headaches after a couple of weeks and terrible stomach aches. I went to my doctor and he said that while vegetarianism is great for some, that wasn't the case with me. Since then, I eat meat but only on occasion when it is served to me, I try not to go out of my way to eat it.

After that incident I joined a animal rights forum and all was well until I shared that I wasn't a vegetarian or vegan. I was verbally attacked while people called me an animal killer and a fake. There were a few who told them all to chill out, but for the most part I had earned myself the title of an animal killer. The worst part is, someone PMed me saying that they were sorry for the mess and that I wasn't the only one they had done this to. I was so angry and ashamed of myself (why should I be ashamed?) that I just left without ever visiting again. I really feel like I was driven out of the forum because of my diet - the one that I medically need to stick to if I don't want to get lightheaded from not enough protein (no, tofu didn't work).

Another her thing that irks me is when radicals push their beliefs onto others. It's like religion. Do whatever you want, but I will likely want no part in it. As an example, I invited some girls out to lunch. The majority of the girls decided on a big pepperoni pizza and I was going to order a vegetarian pizza for the vegetarian girl. It didn't even take a second thought, deciding to order that pizza for her as I was still in and out of vegetarianism. She didn't care, however because she was very adamant about us all not eating meat in front of her. I can understand if it was us who were invited to her house for lunch or if it was some sort of animal fundraiser. It was very rude.

Kae Leah, I remember some of the things that you said years ago and it definitely got on my nerves, especially after the forum episode. I know you're totally alright now and I'm glad you're admitting and apologizing for some of those things. However, if animal rights activists want people to support them, they need to not be such assholes when others can't do everything they can. I might have a reputation as an 'animal killer.' But they've earned reputations as I extremely rude and demanding. I'm definitely not one to be labeling people and especially not groups of people, but it is what I see and what many others see as well.

You ou fight for a great cause, but if you really want to change the militant image of animal activists, you're going to have to work extremely hard.

Sorry for the bit of a rant

[SeaGlass Siren]

I'm kind of in Kalani's position at the moment though i was looking for the right words to describe it without writing a book about it.

The way I see it there's nothing wrong with respecting where your food came from and knowing everyone/everything is "connected in the great Circle of Life" so to speak. I just don't condone the use of name calling and labelling, and there is definitely a problem when someone tries to fuck up the whole system by overhunting/overfishing... hunting shit they shouldn't be hunting, but also abusing animals in cages and force feeding them shit so they become plump and fat for our consumption.

People are still gonna be eating meat but the animal reserves some right to live a happy healthy life before they become someone's meal.

[Ashe]

Exactly what I think, Seaglass. Animal abuse is completely wrong and I fight against that. It's cruel and disgusting, same with overfishing and hunting animals for sport.

But as for eating animals, here's how I think about it. We are animals. We are omnivores. We eat meat. Are you going to punish or harass a lion for eating a gazelle? Or an eagle for eating a pigeon?

No you won't. Let me eat meat so I don't get sick, and I will do my best to make sure that the conditions in which it was kept and killed were humane. That's it.

[SeaGlass Siren]

just like how i prefer to live a long healthy happy life before i get eaten by maggots in my casket :o

[AniaR]

I havent gotten to read the other replies yet so I apologize if I touch on some overlap.

For me it's a lot like religion. You've got people who are perfectly fine being religious. They may chat with you about it even because it's important to them and a big part of their life, but they don't disrespect you, push it on you, and you respect them for it too. And because of that you'll likely ask them a little more about their religion. You might be more open minded and tolerable about it too.

The same thing goes for me with animal rights/ vegans/ vegetarians. I actually look up to most of them. I am always striving to do personally better within my limitations and be more responsible. But I will puncha bitch for just assuming I can live the way they do or projecting it on to me. You HAVE to give considerations to people's context. For instance, I have several illnesses that restrict what I eat drastically. I just can't stop eating meat. But I have changed my life to be as ethical as possible given the circumstances and have many meatless days. Some people poverty is a HUGE factor. They eat what is cheap and there. Not everyone is as privileged to have a choice, and I think that's a big thing some vegans/vegetarians miss. Some has to do with location and combined issues like poverty.

Like how I often talk about Nunavut and the Inuit. Rampant poverty and starvation. 5 times the national average of suicide. Those people only just came off the land in the 60s! other aboriginal groups have been colonized for centuries. Our government tried to assimilate them and erase their identity through conform residential schools. People were beaten. Then we turn around and decide after all that trauma and beating their culture of them that oh nope, hee you can have your culture back have fun figuring out how to live in the north poll. (IN canada you had a higher chance of dying in one of these schools than in the world wars) I am very empathetic to the pain those people are in. 75% of pregnant moms go days without food. It's not even over population it's a shitty government. So I do get touchy when people lump them in with say, Taiji who comes up with BS answers for why they cull dolphins. I have so many peers who teach in Nunavut. One documented the hunting, carving up, and eating of a polar bear. Seem barbaric to us because polar bears are painted as endangered (though they actually arent statistically. They are an at risk species due to melting ice) but you know what I saw? I saw a community of starving adults and starving kids come together (which is taboo since the 60's in their culture. there is quite the identity clash between young and old so the young don't learn from the old often) all work on this animal, all eat it and all families have food. The old women taught the young girls how to tan the hide, collect the inside parts, and re purpose literally everything. Your expensive synthetic boots will do you no good in the North. Not when a seal hide or polar bear fur will keep you dry, warm, and doesnt cost anything or create carbon emissions to create. I got very upset when I saw Captain Paul Rodgers post on his page a bunch of racist stuff about the inuit because way back in the 70s he once saw one inuit kill a walrus and not use all of it. (the people are starving and poor and will sell anything they can to a tourist. If you don't like that reality you need to help them CHANGE it with support and pressure on our government. Not be racist toward all Inuit because in your DECADES of experience you once saw one guy do one thing). I got into it with him on it and backed up everything with studies and evidence and he refused to relent. I got banned from his page and sent a nasty letter to which I received a formal apology from a different admin on his team and the ban lifted.

Paul may do a lot of good but I will NEVER respect him. When I work with kids I cant approach every bad apple like they're a bad apple! I gotta look at the context, what made this kid this way, how can I change it. Could you imagine if I argued with a parent insisting their kid was just a shit head? And then extrapolated that to all kids are shit heads? The logic makes no sense. BUt my example with Paul is just a drop in the bucket for why people take so much issue with certain figureheads in the environmental community.

I see where he comes from too. man is super passionate. No animal left behind. He's angry because he hates the suffering. It's admirable. But if you want respect, and more importantly if you want people on your side, you NEED to pick and choose your battles.

Sometimes the handful of seals killed each year so Inuits can have a pair of boots that will last a lifetime, out weighs the big corporation mass producing a cheap product using sweat shops and adding to the carbon emissions. It's all about balance.

And dont get me started on peeta. They've been proven time and time again to do more harm than good, and be hypocritical.

I think you guys get it worse in America. Your corporations do everything they can to convince people global warming is not happening. In Canada we aren't like that. We know it's happening but we're a bit more apathetic. If you show us science we'll believe you. but in America you can have science coming out your ears and someone will just call you a witch. The problem is Canada as a whole has the population of California. We do not have the population to create mass change in the world like America does. We can barely protect our own country from our militant prime minister (who just a few years ago essentially erased every single law in the country that protected water, so he could do the pipe line BS!)

See we're all ranting, we are all passionate.

BUT THE ONLY WAY we can change the image is to work together collaboratively, compromise on some of our ideals for the sake of others, and learn what to fight for and what it's ok to let go.

[SeaGlass Siren]

Privilege.
the key word is Privilege.

[AniaR]

OK I just wanna give some photos for context. you know that the same photos from like the 1970s are circulated for the seal hunt still today as if that was still what was happening now? the same baby white seal and blood everywhere. People see that super old photo (which there's some suspicion it was actually stage to create the desired effect) and they extrapolate that to everything.

Well, it's just not a good representation.

NOTHING GORY IN THESE PHOTOS BUT TRIGGER WARNING FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE UPSET BY THE USE OF FUR.



My classmate when to the most northern community to teach. Here is one of the elders helping her make her own pair of seal boots (that my friend has worn now for three years). The women actually have no teeth as elders because in their youth they would chew the skins to help tan them.

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/t31.0-8/856514_540989656879_319065592_o.jpg

It's still cut to this day with an ulu: a knife made of caribou horn or bone and salvaged metal.

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/487307_540989726739_147505532_n.jpg?oh=01ad3129a3d 3378277753b1a84600083&oe=56590268

It is sewn together with caribou sinew because it creates a tight seal and expands when wet.

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/t31.0-8/s960x960/857155_540989926339_2068814269_o.jpg

A finished pair of mitts from the same piece used to create the boots.

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/857377_540990011169_853059826_o.jpgwearing the mits is the coldest temps in the north on record
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/941156_544171036369_1099963126_n.jpg?oh=7a081695dd 95dec78c2713d08fcf236b&oe=564FAB80

So the pros:
animal was eaten
all parts were used (bones end up used for arts and crafts which the inuit sell to tourists, along with buttons and jewellery)
no carbon emission
created a pair of mitts and boots that will last for at least a decade and work better than man made items, are sustainable, dont support corporations, or any kind of sweat shop
while you may not like the idea of hunting for culture, the INuit are an example of how the stamping out of their culture is directly creating a 5 times the average suicide rate. So having this experience of an elder passing down the skills is part of the culture and helps negate that to a small degree. It keeps their history and culture and tradition alive. The nice thing is, it's not like they're just randomly killing animals trying to claim that. they actually sustain themselves with animals.

cons:
an animal died (and honestly today they shoot them, much more humane when you think of old days when they clubbed or speared them)


I know I am kinda beating people over the head with this I just want to give it as an example of how you really gotta look at context. I mean, we think these things are isolated but they aren't. I grew up in poverty. My dad hunted dear and bear and that's what we ate. He kept the pelts and made winter blankets. He used the other remains as bait for other animals that we ate and used. He also taught me there was a balance. We think we're in this modern world all the time where everyone has a choice but with poverty rates as high as they are all over... we just arent.

Even shit like go shoot an animal in africa and pay money... it's terrible, but it's a result of POVERTY. Animals being exploited to negate the poverty. If we want these things to change it's about empowering others so they HAVE a choice at all.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I definitely agree that people need to be educated about the Inuit. I thank you for opening my eyes to a tragic and very unique situation by North American standards that needs more attention. I mean, there are plenty of articles online about the cost of food there. Apparently a carton of milk, for example, costs $15, and produce is also very expensive and often spoiled by the time it reaches there. It would be very difficult if not impossible for them to go vegetarian or vegan even if they wanted to. In a situation like that, I can't honestly blame them for hunting for food. I have a lot of respect for the work Sea Shepherd does, but I don't agree there with Paul's unfair generalizations and total lack of empathy and sensitivity for their situation. I may not like the idea of hunting any animals, especially marine mammals like seals and narwhal, but I think in cases like that SUBSISTENCE hunting should be allowed, provided they're not wasteful, and do it in as humane and sustainable manner as possible, which it sounds like they do in general. I'm staunchly opposed to the fur trade, but I don't see a big issue with them using furs from the animals they hunted and ate for their personal use. In general although I'm against wearing fur and leather, I can understand to some extent the argument that the production of synthetics like pleather and faux fur does have a footprint and is often done in overseas sweatshops. I can't in good conscience endorse them participating in the international fur trade, if they want to sell surplus pelts for income, but I'm much more concerned about fur farms, and I do realize that when you're that poor, they don't have many other options, so I can't say they're *evil* or anything for doing that. Times are very tough up there.

On a positive note though, I think more and more animal welfare and environmental groups are making an effort to better educated and sensitive on this issue. HSUS and IFAW both have made it clear on their websites that while they campaign against the unnecessary large-scale seal cull in Atlantic Canada, they do not campaign against Inuit small-scale subsistence seal hunting. I witnessed several Inuit on HSUS's Facebook page expressing their concerns, and the admins politely and respectfully explained that they do no oppose Inuit subsistence hunting. Now, I know, HSUS isn't a perfect organization by any means though, as it has come out that they do not always use the money they raise effectively, but I really appreciate that they try to put a much more polite and dignified face on animal rights than PETA's ridiculous and problematic media-whoring.

Raina, I do think you made a valid point comparing vegan/vegetarians/animal rights to religion. I once got very upset when someone compared me to a Bible thumper, but I can see now that there is a similarity sometimes in not being willing to take no for an answer or being respectful of other views. Now, I'm much less focused on converting others and more focused inwardly on what I can do to improve my own lifestyle to be more animal-friendly and eco-friendly. My best friend Lisa admits to me that she occasionally eats seafood and is not at all concerned with environmentalism, and I've never pushed my beliefs on her because, well, frankly I love her to death. We have so much in common otherwise(we're both openly asexual, we both love mermaids, neither one of us can swim, we're both Disney and magical girl anime fangirls, etc., the list goes on and on, we're so much alike it's scary ;)) and she's been such an overwhelmingly positive influence in my life(seriously, I cannot stress enough that most of my progress of my social skills and mental state improving since I was first active on here is due to her) that I can live with the fact that she doesn't share my passion in that regard. When she came up to visit me, I told her that I don't mind if she eats something like clam chowder where the seafood isn't very visible and doesn't smell much in front of me, which I felt was a fair compromise if seeing someone eating something that was clearly a dead sea creature in front of me was upsetting.

[AniaR]

Good for you KL so much growth!!

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Good for you KL so much growth!!

:hug::group hug::mermaid kiss:

[Princess Kae-Leah]

And dont get me started on peeta. They've been proven time and time again to do more harm than good, and be hypocritical.
.

A few months ago I unliked PETA's page, and now when I make fact sheets on AR issues for my mer-page I try to avoid using PETA as a source. They do have some well-written, seemingly fact-based points on their website that are very convenient to copy/paste into a FB note, but they're so hypocritical about issues like euthanasia and have such a negative reputation that if you want to persuade people to your cause, most see the name PETA and run in the other direction as fast as they can. I mean, all animal rights and environmental groups have their detractors of course, but PETA's probably the most infamous. One of my most recent fact sheets was "15 Statistics Showing Meat And Seafood Consumption On The Decline", I have a long list of sources which include the websites of several pretty legit newspapers, the US Department of Agriculture, the National Fisheries Institute, and farming and fishing industry websites.

Another thought: I think Paul Watson's problem is he's a hard-core, self-proclaimed misanthrope. He freely admits to absolutely hating humanity for the damage they've done to this planet, and as a direct result has very little empathy for any person, regardless of background. I mean of course I can understand why some hard-core environmentalists and animal rights activists feel that way, but I've gotten to the point personally where my motto is "no more negative energy". Maybe I'm naive and idealistic, but I think love is ultimately more powerful than hate. I want to be a force of light and love to all living creatures, including, yes, other people. I spend a lot of money and time donating to Toys For Tots because I want to give love to children in need and use my personal interest in dolls and toys in an altruistic way. I'm not claiming to be perfect or anything, everyone struggles and I think we're all ultimately hypocrites to some extent. I don't really identify with any particular religion, but I have this kind of vaguely defined spiritual and moral code I try to live by that is based on the ideals of compassion, peace, and harmony.

http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2015/04/03/the-dilemma-of-toxic-cultures-on-a-toxic-planet-698
This article is well-written and he makes some valid points that I agree with, but his blind spot on issues of poverty and privilege is clear in this paragraph:
"The Inuit in the High Arctic defend the eating of whales and seals by saying it is an important part of their culture, yet in the face of data on dangerous toxicity levels in the meat they consume, it is their lives and the lives of their children that will be sacrificed for their culture. Survival means adaptation and adaptation means changing cultural practices or moving geographically to avoid a toxic environment."
No mention whatsoever about the ridiculously high cost of store-bought food, making in sound like instead they're just eating seals and whales because they want to and it's their culture. Although he's perhaps a bit more tactful here than I know he sometimes is, he fails to realize that to the Inuit, the choice is often between mercury-contaminated seal meat and no food at all. The mercury contamination in seafood has always been one of the reasons why I've promoted not eating it either, so of course I personally think it's great if some of the many people who do have the privilege of choosing what to eat see this article and reconsider their eating habits, but...informing the Inuit of the dangers of consuming marine mammals won't do much good if we don't help provide them with other food options.

[Mermaid Momo]

Kalani and Raina summed it up very well. The main reason why I don't really like animal rights activists is because of the way most of them ram them down your throat, or pass around misinformation ( like this picture: WARNING, CAN BE UPSETTING BUT IT'S FAKE (http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/4/b/d/j/e/image.related.StuffPortrait.238x286.14b9nq.png/1428883523623.jpg)) This picture insuates that shearing sheep hurts them when in fact, sheep need to be sheared because if you didn't know, sheep don't shed. Which means if they aren't sheared, they'll end up like this cutie shrek, who was up in the mountains for a few years before his next shearing
http://mernetwork.com/index/attachment.php?attachmentid=31605&stc=1

And on top of that, a lot of animal rights activist I've encountered show now concern for other lives besides that of animals (one example is of when a little black girl was shot in her crib by the police and an animal rights group said that that wasn't condemable but then posted a picture of an officer holding down a dog and said that that was unacceptable.) Also when the quinoa or however you spelled it, industry and farms where shown to be basically slave labor and the vegans and animal rights activists (especially PETA ) said that it was a small price to pay to save the animals. like what? Also comparing animals rights to the holocaust, or slavery, or other terrible events in history. Just no. it's offensive and belittling to the people who faced those hardships and the people it still effects.

And lastly, the disregard the they have for their privilege, a lot of them just shout at you that you need to go vegan, that everyone can go vegan but they don't understand that vegan diets are the most expensive diets ever, especially for those living in poverty. I'd rater spend $1 on that cheeseburger than $5 on some salad tbh. And like Raina said with her inuit example, meat and meat products are a part of cultures, food is a part of a culture, and I'll be damned if I let my culture get erased because someone didn't like that I ate a pig. Sure, I make sure my meat lives a nice and happy life before I eat it, and that is really what animal rights activist should be focusing on imo, making sure that the conditions animals are kept in are humane, and that they don't suffer, advocate for more free range chickens, that cattle should have a certain amount of space and time of day to roam, etc. instead of shoving down everyone's throats that they're murders for including meat in their diets.

[Ciriun]

Just wanted to chime in a little here since I saw in some earlier posts mentions of invasive species. I'm not sure there really is a way to control them without killing them somehow since one of the defining characteristics of invasive species is the lack of predators in their new environment. A somewhat personal example would be the zebra mussels in many of the lakes around here.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Yeah that PETA ad about wool was criticized even on a vegetarian forum I sometimes lurk on called Veggieboards. There was a heated debate even among vegetarians/vegans about PETA's questionable tactics. Some of these people even said they're against the wool industry, as they don't believe in wearing animal parts, but felt that spreading misinformation in order to get people's attention was unnecessary. I just posted above that I had unliked PETA's FB page a few months ago and try to no longer use them as a source for facts and statistics when I put together a fact sheet on an AR or eco issue, because they have such a terrible reputation as an organization that most people just see the name PETA and refuse the read and think about the info.

I do agree too that animal rights and environmental activists are for the most part very bad at intersectionality, which I think is the main thing we need to reform. The messages of groups like especially PETA and to some degree Sea Shepherd seems to be best-suited to middle-class, able-bodied, white people. PETA has promoted the myth that dairy consumption is linked to autism in an ad, has also indulged in body-shaming and misogyny in their ads, and insensitively compared the horrors of factory farms and slaughterhouses to the Holocaust and slavery. Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd is a self-proclaimed misanthrope who really doesn't give a crap about people's feelings, so he's said some very insensitive things about the Japanese and indigenous peoples. As smart and educated as he is about the ocean and its creatures, he clearly doesn't understand the severity of the Inuit of Northern Canada's situation. The SSCS article I linked above makes some fair points but he ignorantly believes that the Inuit just eat seals and other marine mammals simply because it's their culture, not because store-bought food is probably more expensive than anywhere else in the world and the vast majority of people there are very poor so they don't have a choice but to hunt to survive. Someone really needs to send him up there so he can see it with his own eyes.

I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to go vegan over night either. I'm not even 100% vegan, I eat a mostly lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, but I do try to limit my dairy consumption by use soy milk in my cereal and coffee instead of dairy milk. For the longest time I was convinced I couldn't live without chicken for my health so it's been a very slow and steady transition for me. I definitely realize there are people with health problems such as food allergies that make going vegetarian or vegan very difficult if not impossible.

I do think it's possible that I'll eventually see a mostly vegetarian world in my lifetime, as many legit statistics claim that both meat and seafood consumption are on the decline in the US at least. Beef consumption fell in 2012 to 57.3 pounds per person, compared to 94.4 pounds per person in 1976, and the average US consumer ate 14.6 pounds of seafood in 2012, down from 16.5 pounds in 2006, a drop of nearly 14 percent. Even though it may not be very realistic or practical to expect everyone to go completely vegetarian/vegan and entire industries to shut down overnight, because people are more educated than ever about the impact meat and seafood consumption has on the environment, their health, and of course the animals, more and more people are reducing their intake of animal products. Campaigns like Meatless Mondays have been very successful. In Los Angeles, HSUS convinced the school district to switch to Meatless Mondays back in 2012. Today, the program alone is saving more than 700,000 meat-based meals from being served each week. If things continue at the right they're going, it won't be surprising if almost everyone in the US is at least semi-vegetarian in a few decades.

[Madison MerFaerie]

First I just wanted to say that it’s important to make the distinction between animal welfare vs animal rights because there is a difference. You can research it if you want, but the example that I like to use when I talk about it is this:


An animal rights activist disagrees with the consumption of animals. They want no animals used for scientific/medical research*. Some of the most extreme fringes even think that keeping pets is wrong.


A supporter of animal welfare is ok with meat consumption (even if they are vegetarian or vegan themselves), but would prefer to see the animals live cage-free or free-range. The general thought is that if the animal is to be used (food, research*, whatever else), there needs to be strict regulations for their care, and that they need to live as good of a life as possible while being utilized or until they die.


Like I said, it’s a very broad generalization, but it’s my favorite example because it seems to get the point across and get people thinking about these issues critically.


I personally believe in animal welfare. I want ALL the animals to live great lives before they die. I am ok with their use, but I would be dishonest if I didn’t mention that I have a stake in this argument other than thinking cheeseburgers are delicious. I’m molecular biologist turned veterinarian, so the use/research/captivity/ownership of animals is the reason that I have a job. So yeah, there’s that.


I work at a mixed animal practice. The other two docs at our practice see small animals and cows, and I see small animals only. (I ain’t about that large animal life, but I am totally fine with shameless plugging so if you live in south central Wisconsin BRING ME YO FURRY FRIENDS!) I see the best of the best and the worst of the worst DAILY. For my own sanity, I have to draw an emotional line between human life and animal life, and this is something that hardcore animal rights activists typically don’t do. My job has taught me that every animal has their time to die (whether it be naturally, via euthanasia, for food, or for the good of research*), but we can absolutely do our best to care for them while they are here. It’s literally my job to care for them while they are here.


It’s a better use of my time and expertise to try to help dispel myths about animal husbandry, use, and research. So about changing the militant image: I think lot of activists are very quick to yell “cruelty” without actually grasping the situation. Raina made a great post illustrating this! I feel like a lot of activists (cough PETA and HSUS cough) can generate buzz really quickly and be really loud about things they know little to nothing about, and then propagate half-truths and straight up lies. There’s nothing more frustrating to me than that.


*When I say research, I don’t mean using animals to test out cosmetics. Humans can test their own damn lipstick and leave the critters out of it. I’m talking about scientific and medical research only!

Thanks for facilitating an interesting discussion Kae-Leah! :D

[SeaGlass Siren]

thank you for clarifying madison!

[AniaR]

Great informative posts ladies!

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Right now a cause I'm promoting on my mer-page that I think is both practical and makes a difference is Meatless Mondays. Maybe not everyone can go 100% vegetarian/vegan overnight but just about everyone can practice Meatless Mondays and go vegetarian one day a week. Some public schools are already having Meatless Monday programs and it's worked out well.

[SeaGlass Siren]

I took it a step further and only eat meat on Mondays and weekends.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Fantastic, SeaGlass Siren!! :yay::thumbs-up::thumbs up::clap::highfive::mermaid kiss:

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Sorry to beat a dead whale, but I think I found the article by Paul Watson that upset Raina so much.

http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2008/12/02/a-conversation-with-the-narwhal-butchers-191

My response to some of his more problematic statements:
"Inuit killers roared and laughed barbarously as they inflicted torturous death upon these gentle creatures"-um, no, I don't think it's fair at all to make assumptions about how the Inuit hunters acted and felt when killing without seeing the incident with his own eyes. While I absolutely hate the idea of killing 500 narwhals too, I don't see much evidence that they killed them simply for their own sadistic enjoyment. They were probably trying to provide food for their family and community, sad as it is that such a beautiful and intelligent animal has to be used for food. What a tough, tragic situation :(

"It is also true that I do not respect a culture that slaughters wildlife to sell to the outside world in exchange for material benefits like snowmobiles, rifles, television, appliances etc. There is no traditional hunting for survival anymore - there is only the capitulation of the Inuit to the fur industry and as guides and bearers to rich white hunters who are motivated out of perverse desires to kill large predators like the polar bear. The Inuit want the materialistic benefits of the industrialized society and they still want to slaughter wildlife."-The problem with this statement is it makes it sound like most Inuit live a comfortable lifestyle, when statistics say otherwise. I agree that trophy hunting polar bears, or any other animal for that matter, is unacceptable, but to say there's no hunting for survival any more is false, due to a huge percentage of Inuit being food insecure.

"500 Narwhals Mr. Audla! You can't eat them all. It is the long "unicorn" tooth you want because that's where the money is and you will be making a great deal of money off this slaughter. Or do you deny this also?"-I too question if killing 500 was truly necessary for subsistence. I won't deny that the very idea makes me really uncomfortable, but I'm still not completely convinced they'll be making "a great deal of money" off of it. I agree with him that the ivory trade is very wrong, I personally think international trade in any kind of ivory should stop, but the high poverty levels there certainly do not paint a picture of making a huge profit off of the sale of narwhal ivory.

"Don't give me that mealy mouthed tripe about respect. What the men with the rifles did to those intelligent and gentle sentient creatures was NOT respect by any stretch of the imagination. Justify it any way you wish to appease your conscience but what occurred was not respect - it was a savage display of human arrogance."-Like Raina said before, he just isn't thinking of about WHY they would do something so horrible as killing narwhals. I too have a hard time understanding sometimes how hunting could be considered respectful, but I see that he's again making harsh, unfair assumptions about their mindset.

[AniaR]

What I saw was a Facebook post not this. Does he even have proof this event happened?!? Even the Inuit can't go kill 500 narwhale without the government stepping in or there being multitudes of media coverage...

All we have are his quotes. No video. No audio. No other proof these people even said these things. It is like he's writing a parody and reminds me of old time war propaganda....

[Princess Kae-Leah]

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/canada-allows-killing-of-over-500-narwhals.html
Many narwhal got trapped and they decided the best solution was to cull them. Paul was upset because he felt they could've made more of an effort to rescue them

[AniaR]

Paul keeps claiming on his site that what Inuit do is illegal, but Inuit have their own land agreement (like a treaty)so actually preventing their access to their right is illegal.

I can't defend and pretend every Inuit is sustainable but there is so much misinformation on their site about them that I can disprove with two clicks of my mouse it is sickening. He is painting a very racist and generalized picture and intentionally misleading people. This is the kinda thing that hurts the cause cus how can you believe him about other things??

Canada is the second biggest country in the world. I just looked up that 400 pilot whales may be eaten annually.( an old old generalized stat not backed up by clear evidence) so even in thinking that... Nunavut and the territories are the biggest part of my country. I don't think people realize quite how spread out all of this is. Its not like taiji going into a cove and killing whole families type deal.

I'm not saying its ideal just he's intentionally misrepresenting and it makes me mad



Edit: also Inuit in Alaska aren't subjected to the same things as Inuit in canada FYI. And they have access to the same resources Alaskans do, and our Inuit do not. Paul likes to combine the two groups. They are american and Canadian Inuit and very different.

[AniaR]

I missed your post cuz I edited mine. That was a government decision so be pissed at them, not racist! Geesh. And again I maintain he has no proof his conversations happened. It is very taboo for Inuit to tall to white people, especially elders. I find his quotes incredibly hard to believe

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Edit: also Inuit in Alaska aren't subjected to the same things as Inuit in canada FYI. And they have access to the same resources Alaskans do, and our Inuit do not. Paul likes to combine the two groups. They are american and Canadian Inuit and very different.

I noticed that too and thought about it. Alaska isn't nearly as isolated as Nunavut is. The population of Alaska is is over 700,000 where the pop. of Nunavut I think I read is just over 30,000. The city of Anchorage alone has a population of over 200,000. They have a few highly developed industries there, such as fishing and oil. While food can be more expensive and less fresh there than the "lower 48", due to the larger population they have access to a lot of conveniences the folks in Nunavut do not, like you said. Didn't you say before there isn't even hospitals in Nunavut? Life in Alaska is really not that different from anywhere else in America overall. I totally agree it's not fair to lump those two groups together. Someone really needs to send Paul up to Nunavut so he can see the poverty and high prices with his own eyes.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I missed your post cuz I edited mine. That was a government decision so be pissed at them, not racist!

Yeah he should've directed his anger at the government, not the Inuit. It sounds like to me that the Inuit didn't choose this, but due to food insecurity they were willing to accept the opportunity to hunt the whales and eat them.

As for whether or not the conversation actually happened, it seems the head of some Inuit organization sent Paul an email about an earlier article he wrote, correcting his misrepresentation and that was his response. A very harsh and disrespectful response that makes extremely unfair assumptions about the Inuit's motives. That's my main issue, unless you witness something with your own eyes, you can't just make assumptions about what motivates an action. Paul's failing here is he's being very judgmental.

[Echidna]

Inuit usually have around 4 children on average, which means their number doubles every generation.
Thus, the amount of food they require- whether bought or killed- doubles every generation as well.

Not keen to say this, because people get really up in arms if it's mentioned, but I said it already in another thread:

Subsistence hunting for a stable, environment-adapted number of people is one thing.
It becomes a problem when said number steadily increases incongruently.
Nature is a delicate balance, always has been.
The environment can only bear a certain number of predators.
If the predators overpopulate their region, they will wipe out their prey and subsequently starve themselves.

Everyone understands that (see all the wonderful "culling is necessary, so is sterilization" info), but as soon as humans are involved, the concept is abandoned.

All over the world, human population is growing in an insane fashion
http://mernetwork.com/index/attachment.php?attachmentid=31714&stc=1

the result is the depletion of all natural sources, be it space, farmable land, or animals.

If the human species wants to survive, they cannot go "oh noes, we need to double the number of animals killed every few years- whatever will we do when they die out".

Humans lack a natural predator, therefore they must control their numbers themselves, or all ecology systems will collapse.

And this goes for all humans on the planet- so don't pull your "racist"-card out again.

[AniaR]

Didn't you say before there isn't even hospitals in Nunavut?

There are a few but most have to fly as far as HERE to get help! The higher population places have them, but don't have enough staff. Also when someone gets lost they send search and rescue from Halifax!


Inuit usually have around 4 children on average, which means their number doubles every generation.
Thus, the amount of food they require- whether bought or killed- doubles every generation as well.

Inuit have 5 times the national average of suicides. edit: most recent stats put it at 13 times! More people are dying by suicide alone than being born. According to the actual studies (not Paul's made up stuff) the numbers of animals killed by inuit are not increasing, many are decreasing, and many are staying the same. I really don't want you to think their surviving on animals has anything to do with their population exploding or something, because it 100% does not. These people are scattered across the largest part of the SECOND BIGGEST country in the world. I often find non-canadians do not grasp how giant Canada is. You have communities of a few 100, a few 1000 and that's about it. The capital of the entire place has less than 7000 people. It's absolutely not a case of too many people not enough food.

Of the 1,172,790 people who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person in the 2006 Census, about 4%, or 50,485, reported that they were Inuit. That's less people than in my CITY. (390,000+ in Halifax alone) for their whole entire nation strung across the giant North.
^stat from Canadian census.

[Echidna]

^^
If your figures are correct, then indeed what I said does not apply to Inuit in this case.

I was also more generally speaking btw.
I know many native tribes are decreasing in numbers. Inuit just make more headlines because of the whale hunting.

Canadians, Australians and other denizens of sparsely populated areas probably have a hard time imagining the world's population is rapidly increasing, and that their few numbers can make a difference to the environment where they live.
Keep in mind though that especially in such environments where surviving is harsh, few numbers can already make an impact.

Unrelated to anything else that has been said;
people who live on a diet rich with fish, dolphin, whale and other marine mammal are not doing themselves a favour because of the high mercury levels, which leads to many health and mental problems.

Either way, I regard the Inuit as the people who have gotten the shortest end of the stick- their normal food sources have been thinned and poisoned by others.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

There are a few but most have to fly as far as HERE to get help! The higher population places have them, but don't have enough staff. Also when someone gets lost they send search and rescue from Halifax!



Inuit have 5 times the national average of suicides. edit: most recent stats put it at 13 times! More people are dying by suicide alone than being born.


That is so sad! What do you think can be done to prevent it?

[Princess Kae-Leah]

^^
Unrelated to anything else that has been said;
people who live on a diet rich with fish, dolphin, whale and other marine mammal are not doing themselves a favour because of the high mercury levels, which leads to many health and mental problems.

Either way, I regard the Inuit as the people who have gotten the shortest end of the stick- their normal food sources have been thinned and poisoned by others.

Paul actually touched in that in a recent article too, but the problem there is when store-bought food is VERY expensive(a carton of milk can cost $15, for example) and often spoiled by the time it reaches there, for many Inuit the choice is essentially between mercury-poisoned seafood and no food at all. Raina can share some legit statistics about the high rate of food insecurity there.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I can I totally understand if people can't go vegetarian or vegan because they're allergic to soy because the only reason I've been able to transition to a vegetarian diet is because soy really agrees with me. I thought in the past that I was dependent on a bit of chicken for protein, but I now can get protein from soy milk, which I put on my cereal, in my coffee, I make Carnation Instant Breakfast with it, and I get a soy protein booster in Jamba Juice. I'm very dependent on soy as a vegetarian source of protein.

[SeaGlass Siren]

You can make tofu so many different ways too ;0

[AniaR]

there's no verdict yet actually on whether or not the Inuit diet (that contains higher level of mercury than normal) is effecting them in one way or another. Important to remember the spread of mercury is much more recent development, and previous studies of older generations put them at better health than most people due to their diet. There was a study in 2000 that actually showed that by dietary standards Inuit were one of the healthiest people on earth.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

the study notes that wild animal fats are incredibly different than the fats of farmed animals. (which side bar here: I read a study that suggested I developed interstitial cystitis as a result of switching to farmed meat after living off wild meat for so long! only one single study, but an interesting thought)

Many studies suggest that because they eat wild and the fats are different and processed differently, they don't end up with the main illnesses like heart disease that kills us all down south https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet



Inuit actually consume more carbohydrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates) than most nutritionists have assumed.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Hui1985-14) Because Inuit frequently eat their meat raw and fresh, or freshly frozen, they can obtain more carbohydrates from their meat, as dietary glycogen, than Westerners can.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Hui1985-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Rabinowitch-1936-15) The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis), into carbohydrates.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Hui1985-14) Furthermore, the blubber, organs, muscle and skin of the marine mammals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammal) that the Inuit ate have significant glycogen stores which assist those animals when oxygen is depleted on prolonged dives.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Pfeiffer1997-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Lockyer1991-17)[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-HochachkaStorey1975-18) For instance, when blubber is analyzed by direct carbohydrate measurements, it has been shown to contain as much as 8—30% carbohydrates.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Lockyer1991-17) While postmortem glycogen levels are often depleted through the onset of rigor mortis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis), marine mammals have a much delayed onset of rigor mortis, even in warm conditions, presumably due to the high content of oxymyoglobin in the muscle that may permit aerobic metabolism to continue slowly for some time after the death of the animal.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Lockyer1991-17)[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-LawrieLedward2014-19) Additionally, in cold conditions, glycogen's depletion is halted at -18 °C (-0.4 °F) and lower temperatures in comminuted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comminution) meat.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-BechtelAUTHOR2012-20)[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-21)
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie) from fat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat), 30-35% from protein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) and 15-20% of their calories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie) from carbohydrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate), largely in the form of glycogen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen) from the raw meat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_meat) they consumed.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-22) This high fat content provides valuable energy and prevents protein poisoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation), which historically was sometimes a problem in late winter when game animals grew lean through winter starvation. It has been suggested that because the fats of the Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monounsaturated_fat) and rich in omega-3 fatty acids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid), the diet does not pose the same health risks as a typical Western high-fat diet.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-paradox-23) However, evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_artery_disease) as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke).[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-FodorHelis2014-24)[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-Slate082014-25)
Vitamins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin) and minerals which are typically derived from plant sources are nonetheless present in most Inuit diets. Vitamins A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A) and D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D) are present in the oils and livers of cold-water fishes and mammals. Vitamin C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C) is obtained through sources such as caribou liver, kelp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelp), whale skin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muktuk), and seal brain; because these foods are typically eaten raw or frozen, the vitamin C they contain, which would be destroyed by cooking, is instead preserved.[26]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#cite_note-26)

Other interesting articles on the topic:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2008/07/inuit-lessons-from-arctic.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8871682

[deepblue]

I can I totally understand if people can't go vegetarian or vegan because they're allergic to soy because the only reason I've been able to transition to a vegetarian diet is because soy really agrees with me. I thought in the past that I was dependent on a bit of chicken for protein, but I now can get protein from soy milk, which I put on my cereal, in my coffee, I make Carnation Instant Breakfast with it, and I get a soy protein booster in Jamba Juice. I'm very dependent on soy as a vegetarian source of protein.

I think that is a huge misconception about soy being some kind of requirement though- plenty of vegans and vegetarians do not use soy at all. Totally possible not to, whether because it's an allergy or a choice for other reasons, or perhaps you just don't like it. I could seriously live without it, we rarely use soy products in our home. I do like tofu scramble but I just don't use it for anything else personally. I don't use any isolated soy proteins myself because the process by which the protein is isolated causes me to be allergic to it - the same goes for isolated pea protein and rice. But it's not a problem, as I'm not really all that into convenience foods, and get plenty of protein from tons of other sources. I prefer whole, unprocessed foods, anyway.

So, the idea that people can't go vegetarian or vegan because of soy doesn't really hold water and too many make the choice for that reason because they're misinformed, often due to older information that's still out there.That said, soy a heck of a handy complete protein with all the amino acids.

There is such an assumption about soy being part and parcel of being veg that you can find tons of articles and blog entries on how easy it is to live without it.

[AniaR]

I can't eat any meat alternatives or many of the veggies and legumes used to create complete protiens or complete amino acids.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I can't eat any meat alternatives or many of the veggies and legumes used to create complete protiens or complete amino acids.

In your case, I have no issue with you not being veg*an as you're pretty much out of luck when it comes to your food allergies and other health problems preventing you from eating the available alternatives. Yes it's possible to be veg*an without soy but VERY difficult, as soy is pretty much the backbone of most meat alternatives, it's not just soy milk. I don't eat much legumes myself, but I eat a lot of stuff like ramen(McDougall's vegan instant ramen is pretty expensive, but a great alternative to the highly processed cheap ramen which often contain trace amounts of chicken and/or seafood) and fried rice which include small vegetables such as peas and corn so it isn't just pure carbs. I also take a synthetic multivitamin every day, which I know not everyone can process well. A vegetarian/vegan diet does require some planning and knowledge of nutrition to do right, and even I don't claim my diet is 100% ideal as I still might not get enough protein and eat too many carbs.

[AniaR]

yeah I also can't take any multivitamins or synthetic vitamins (which all B vitamins are!) haha so I am so out of luck. til they find a cure for my illnesses!

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I think the eco-quiz I shared about how animal-friendly one is is an example of not being too militant, as one doesn't have to be 100% vegetarian or vegan to score well, they just need to limit their animal product consumption.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I think I'm considered fairly extreme in my animal rights and environmental views compared to most folks here, but even I read Alicia Silverstone's blog sometimes and think "she can live that way?". She avoids plastics, processed food, and more to the extent that it seems downright impractical and cut off from mainstream society. It's like she never buys a mainstream brand of anything. She won't let her son play with plastic toys, even used ones from thrift stores, and her brand of veganism is closer to macrobiotics, with just about any kind of processed food shunned. If that's how she wants to live, good for her, but it doesn't strike me as a very easy or practical lifestyle to promote to the masses.

[Echidna]

Well, plastics- especially those for children's toys- are full of plasticides and toxins, so I find it very understandable if people wish to avoid that, completely unrelated to how it's made from fossil fuels.

[SeaGlass Siren]

Odd though considering her computer was probably made from things that contribute to her carbon footprint. But I mean :p
the whole point is to reduce your carbon footprint and watch what you buy to alleviate the shit going on with the environment. If she can do all of that clearly it's doable. Difficult, but doable.
i don't have the capacity to do all of that. :|

[Echidna]

I can do without most electric devices (in fact, my dream is still getting to some lonely island and living stone-age like :p ), but I haven't found a way to replace a computer/internet (I don't have a smartphone and probably won't ever get one) which is pretty much mandatory nowadays, especially if you work via the internet....yeah.

Cooking stove and water heater is another hard one.

[SeaGlass Siren]

Well if you're on an island and it's not below freezing I'm sure it's doable. Firepit, flat rock or a makeshift pot.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I think a great book about plastics is Plastic: A Toxic Love Story by Susan Frienkel. It's very well-researched and interesting, detailing both the environmental and toxicity issues with plastics while at the same time showing how at times plastics can be useful for certain things.

[Merman Dan]

I can do without most electric devices (in fact, my dream is still getting to some lonely island and living stone-age like :p ), but I haven't found a way to replace a computer/internet

That is what satellites are for!
Iridium GO for iPhone (https://www.iridium.com/iridiumgo.aspx)
Iridium Pilot (https://www.iridium.com/Iridium-Pilot-Sea-the-Difference.aspx)

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Well, plastics- especially those for children's toys- are full of plasticides and toxins, so I find it very understandable if people wish to avoid that, completely unrelated to how it's made from fossil fuels.

Well Alicia did inspire me, as a Toys For Tots volunteer to do more research about the companies whose toys I buy to donate and the potential toxins in plastic toys. What I found was very much a mixed bag to be sure. The Washington Toxics Coalition did a report called "Not So Squeaky Clean" in 2007 testing various toys for phthalates. All Mattel toys tested, as well as a Gotz doll made in Europe, were found phthalate-free, but several squeaky bath toys and a couple cheap baby dolls contained high amounts of phthalates. Apparently the European Union has stricter regulations than the US about toxins in plastic toys so European companies are usually the safest bet. The report stated that because Mattel does a lot of exporting to Europe, they generally obey the EU regulations.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/where-does-greenpeace-stand-on-seal-hunting/

Greenpeace shows a good example of intersectionality with a very level-headed stance on the seal issue.

"Greenpeace is completely against the commercial hunting of seals for profit. We always will be. But the large-scale, commercial hunt is a world away from the traditional practices of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. In fact, Indigenous communities have shown time and again that they understand how to protect the Arctic ecosystem they call home, and their hunting practices have never been a threat to seal or whale populations. They do not hunt seal pups, and their hunt is conducted with respect for the animal. They hunt because it is a crucial way to sustain themselves and their families in the harsh Arctic environment. We respect their right to continue this tradition. I’ve visited many communities in the Arctic over the last decade and have seen both how Indigenous Peoples conduct the hunt and how extremely important it is for them. It is not just a matter of culture, it is a matter of survival. Many Indigenous communities in the far north rely on seal products for food, warmth and clothing. They sell some of these products so they can sustain their livelihoods and keep their families alive through the harsh Arctic winter. On the other hand, the Canadian Government continues to allow the killing of upwards of half a million seal pups a year. This Government has a long history of sacrificing the health of our oceans for the short-term interests of the fishing and sealing industry. This is why we started our sealing campaign in the 1970s — and why we still oppose the commercial hunt. But when Greenpeace and others campaigned against the seal hunt in the 1970s and 1980s, we didn’t adequately distinguish between the inhumane and cruel industrial hunt and the traditional one. The results were devastating to many Arctic Indigenous communities. Hunting and fishing in this harsh landscape is, for many, their only means of survival"

As to be expected, Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd shared his two cents on Greenpeace's updated stance-
http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2016/01/26/greenpeace-has-gone-over-to-the-dark-side-with-their-endorsement-for-the-sealing-industry-752

"Greenpeace has now crossed the line with their endorsement of seal fur as "sustainable." I initiated and led the first Greenpeace campaigns against sealing from 1975 until 1977. I really never thought I would see the day when Greenpeace would sell out to the sealing industry. Jon Burgwald speaking for Greenpeace has announced that Greenpeace supports "sustainable" sealing. There is no such thing. Seals are threatened by rapidly diminishing fish populations and pollution. Our Ocean is dying and Greenpeace seems to be in abject denial of this reality. We need seals to help maintain a healthy marine eco-system. Greenpeace is now playing into the hands of the fur industry and the Canadian interest in marketing seal fur to China. The organization is now giving comfort to the seal butchers in supporting one of the most brutal and bloody mass massacres of wildlife on the planet. Greenpeace does not oppose the slaughter of pilot whales in the Faroes or the brutal massacre of dolphins in Taiji, Japan and now this. How long before Greenpeace endorses the illegal whaling operations by Japan which they still raise funds for campaigns that they never actually do? The last time a Greenpeace ship sailed to the Southern Ocean to defend whales was 2007 yet the money begging mail-outs continue to be churned out asking for donations to save the whales. We risked our lives to save seals from the clubs of the sealers. I was personally beaten by sealers and jailed for intervening against the seal slaughter. I was dragged through icy waters and across a blood soaked deck through a gauntlet of sealers on a sealing ship in 1977. They kicked and hit me with their clubs, spit on me and pushed my face into the blood and the gore and Greenpeace exploited those images to raise funds at the time and now they dismiss that sacrifice and the hard work and dangerous risks taken by Greenpeacers back then without even the courtesy of an apology to us who carried their banner. And now Greenpeace refers to seal fur as eco-friendly. What next, an endorsement for Monsanto? These people calling themselves Greenpeace today never took any risks for the seals, were never arrested, they have never even been to the ice floes to see the brutality with their own eyes."

I feel like Greenpeace's stance has been taken out of context as they made it very clear that they do not support the large-scale annual seal cull.

Paul ends his statement above with his link :
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/wait-it-is-ok-to-wear-seal-skin-549602883956

I didn't watch the whole video, but I do sorta agree with him that promoting the sale and wear of fur is not something I can in good conscience get behind, and the title/headline of that video does give the impression of promoting seal fur in general, BUT I don't think Greenpeace's stance is really "yay seal fur" as much as trying to be sensitive to the harsh reality of life way up north.

[AniaR]

Ugh I can't stand Paul. I asked him about this personally and got a very racist reply.

Yay for Greenpeace. They have nothing to gain by supporting Inuit. How is it a sellout. I challenge Paul to go live in Nunavut with only access to what the inuit have.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[AniaR]

Not to mention Inuit selling fur is not commercial....

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[TritonsGuard]

I've never trusted Greenpeace, but Patrick Moore (one of Greenpeace's founders) does a better job of explaining why it is no longer a good organization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60

[AniaR]

Just seems like extremists vs rationalists to me TBH.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Just seems like extremists vs rationalists to me TBH.

Yep, yep.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

A thought that just occurred to me: why isn't the Religious Right in favor of the environment and animal welfare? I mean if someone truly believes that God created the earth and its creatures, then wouldn't taking good care of the planet and animals be honoring God? I mean sure you can perhaps make a case that you don't have to be a vegetarian to be a Christian, since even Jesus probably ate meat, but they should at least be against inhumane factory farms, trophy hunting, and stuff like dog fighting and cock fighting, since they talk so much about being "pro-life" and as well as be for reducing pollution and climate change. Wouldn't making the planet as healthy and beautiful as possible be showing upmost respect to God's creation, in their view?

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I'm a member of a Facebook group for Sea Shepherd supporters and while I generally enjoy the group and agree with at least 90%+ of what's posted, I did spot some racist comments recently about the Japanese: "the whole country is lowlife scum...". That's a bit upsetting to me because as much as I obviously hate hate hate whaling and dolphin slaughter, I otherwise love the Japanese language and culture. Studying the Japanese language is a passion of mine, I have Japanese friends, and I love love love manga and anime.

[SeaGlass Siren]

A thought that just occurred to me: why isn't the Religious Right in favor of the environment and animal welfare? I mean if someone truly believes that God created the earth and its creatures, then wouldn't taking good care of the planet and animals be honoring God?


I have mormon friends who do believe what you said :0

[Princess Kae-Leah]

This is my response to some racist comments in the SSCS group saying all Japanese are bad/support whaling, send me good vibes that it goes over well:
"I'm a Sea Shepherd supporter, vegetarian, and of course strongly opposed to Japan's whaling, dolphin slaughter, and unsustainable fishing practices and am all for stopping the cruelty, but I don't think it's fair to say *all* individual Japanese support whaling. In a survey of the Japanese public carried out in April of 2014, 24% of the public indicated that they are against the continuation of so-called "scientific" whaling. 37% of respondents "do not eat whale". We have every right to be angry with the Japanese government and the whalers and dolphin murderers themselves and if someone wishes to boycott everything Japanese, they're well within their rights, but let's just not say that the *entire country* is behind it. Even Captain Paul Watson himself has said that they have Japanese crew members." I linked to this study: http://mansfieldfdn.org/.../M.-Strausz-AOPD-Commentary... (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmansfieldfdn.org%2Fmfdn2011%2 Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FM.-Strausz-AOPD-Commentary-Whaling-in-Context-Final.pdf&h=uAQExKIrm)

[TritonsGuard]

Princess Kae-leah Although I can't speak for all Christians nor everyone on the right, I can give you some reasons that they have.

Firstly, why do we seem to not care about the environment? We do. We just don't put our faith label on it. We don't say "I'm a Christian, and I am for stopping animal cruelty." We don't because we shouldn't have to. Why should we have to? Many of us on the right like to do things to help the environment within our own lives or the lives of those around us. We believe change is best if it happens locally and gradually, and that revolution of the masses can cause major harm. Some of the things we do are: not littering, trying not to waste, set quotas for animals we hunt, using the meat we hunt, and giving people a reason to protect the environment besides because it could do harm to us in the future. In short, our thought on the environment is be careful, considerate, and rational. We also try to persuade rather then force of law. Many of these methods I just listed are either too soft or against the thoughts of many environmentalists on the left. We also see humans as higher then animals. Thus helping people is a higher priority. Animal farming feeds a lot of people, so it is a better option. Most of us believe that meat is a natural part of our diet, and is essential to our health (of course we know that it can be detrimental if not in the right moderation). We are against animal fighting competitions. I don't know anyone on the right that is for them. If an animal fight ring was busted, many of us would be fine with them being put in jail for a long time. It is not a big problem right now, so we see it as low on the list of things needing to be done. Most importantly of all, nature is God's gift to us but we must always remember that is only just that. To care too much for the creation and too little for the creator is to make nature an idol. Keeping God's gift of nature is pleasing to him, but bringing another person to him is far greater.


When it comes to whales and dolphins, I would have to research it before I could make a reasonable opinion. To me, if you hunt something, you should follow three rules. The first is never hunt it to the point that you are hurting the species. Make sure that what you are doing is sustainable. Secondly, Kill the animal as quickly as possible. Thirdly, use as much of the animal as you can. If they are following all three, chances are that things will be just fine, but ignoring any of them, there is a great chance they are doing harm. From what I saw, I am not sure if they were violating the first rule, but the second and third I am pretty certain they are. So I would say on that alone it is not something I would support at all.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Ugh, I posted an article about how in Japan 200 pregnant whales were killed, and someone responded with "the US should bomb Japan". While it should go pretty much without saying that I strongly believe what happened is very wrong and should be stopped, I just can't get on board with wishing violence on an entire country for the actions of a relative few. It's completely unnecessary and actually pretty freaking racist. I actually banned this person from my mer-page, something I don't do very often because I'm about love, love for animals, love for the planet, love for other people, not hate and negativity.

[TritonsGuard]

I applaud you for doing what you did, and not at all is it because I believe it puts you on my side of this subject. I would have done the same thing if one advocated violence of the opposition in furtherance of a cause I stood for. By not tolerating that kind of behavior, you have shown yourself to be civil. That is something I greatly respect, even from someone I don't always agree with.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

Here are some topics where I think my personal views don't completely fall in line with the militant vegan/ARA party line:
*Some vegans/ARAs think horsebackriding is always inherently cruel and abusive. I've never been into horse-riding myself, so I'm far from an expert on that particular issue, but I dunno, it just seems very extreme to assume horses never enjoy it or that all riders are abusive, as some people into horsebackriding seem to really love their horses. I think it certainly CAN be abusive though, and am open to hearing all sides on that issue, as I feel on the fence, so to speak.
*I personally avoid real fur and real leather like the plague, but I'm more on the fence about wool and silk. I've heard a lot on both sides about wool, and there was some controversy a while back about a PETA campaign that exaggerated the cruelty in the wool industry, and I appreciate that sheep don't directly have to die to give wool, but I'm still not entirely 100% comfortable with wearing an animal's hair as clothing.
*Honey and bee products such as beeswax are avoided by ethical vegans, but I personally would rather use skin care products and lip balm made from beeswax than a bunch of weird synthetic chemicals(big fan of Burt's Bee products here!), although I do prefer synthetics no matter what where some other stuff is concerned that aforementioned fur/leather, especially since while I respect insects as very vital creatures to the ecosystem, they're the animals I have the least sentimental attachment to. I can understand the ethical consistency argument of avoiding all animal-derived products like honey/beeswax and silk, but I guess I'm a little bit speciesist as it doesn't bother me quite as much as products derived from mammals, fish, birds, etc. Some say beekeeping is actually beneficial to the environment, while some say that it's really not, so I guess again I'm kind of on the fence about that issue.
*I find it kind of ableist to be against well-treated service animals, as I know what an important role service animals can play in disabled people's lives.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

A book I think EVERYONE should read is "The Reducetarian Solution", a collection of many really interesting essays by a wide variety of people that instead of a militant, all-or-nothing approach pragmatically advocates for eating at least *less* meat and animal products for many reasons included environmental, animal welfare, and health. There's a lot of interesting info in it, and the tone in most of the essays is engaging.

[BlueCorvidae]

This has been an interesting read, but I feel like some of you guys need an Adam Ruins Everything about trophy hunting. Enjoy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUA8i5S0YMU

[AniaR]

Excellent video

Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app

[Derek Broussard]

I'm really glad this thread was revived.

I'm definitely a "militant" animal rights activist.... kinda, maybe not as extreme as some of my peers. But I do believe at this stage in the Anthropocene extinctions (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121101-a-looming-mass-extinction), That we must fight for our environment. The US government has already announced that it believes the greatest threat to it's nation in the near future will be wars over natural resources. in 300 years less than 75% of our worlds biomass will be extinct. By 2050 we are predicted to have a complete collapse of our oceans fish stock (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787.full). Seeing how the ocean gives us 70% of the o2 we breath, what happens when the oceans ecosystems fail? (hint: humans can only sustain life within a 3% loss of o2) .

Humans have been impacting the earths ecosystem pretty much since day 1. Even before the industrial age we have destroyed habitats. Nearly all of Australia was burned to the ground by the natives (http://theconversation.com/how-aboriginal-burning-changed-australias-climate-4454) upon its discovery. The Sea Cow was hunted to extinction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17148336) in 20 years of it being discovered. Our Idealogy of Dominance over the world and of nature goes, far back and its a belief that we are wrongly taught as young children.

Do you know why our current religions are? Christianity was spread mostly by luck. Constantine had 4 options of religions to make the "official" religion of the Byzantine empire. He chose Christianity for reasons we don't know. Islam too, was a small religion that could very well have stayed isolated.

Now these religions through a lot of chance and constant warfare (http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html)have stayed prominent. Humans fight for our beliefs and for wealth. The winners beliefs, traditions, and customs are the ones that spread. So why don't we fight for the environment? Is there really any thing more important than the air we breath, than the water we drink? I can't think of anything.


I do think that militant environmental and animal rights could save the planet. Lets look at the Somali Pirates. While they are not environmentalist, they have helped the ocean and turned to piracy because of environmental reasons. After the collapse of the Somali government nations from around the world decided to use their coastal waters as a free haven for unlimited fishing. Fast boats, unparalleled technology in fishing gear, the Somali fisherman just couldn't keep up. It wasn't long until the waters reachable by the locals was overfished. They then turned to piracy. The pirates attacked a couple tuna boats and soon there was a travel warning into those waters. Fishing vessels decided to avoid the area...and then fish stocks rebounded by 800%.

I use the pirates as an example for a few reasons.
1. In the near future we will be forced war over natural resources.
2. That when given, conflict to protect the environment.. does have results.
3. In a small scale the ocean rebounded very quickly ( another example would be the Baja peninsula) . How much could the ocean improve if we all fought for the planet.

I truly believe that in order to save the planet we will have to fight for it. The time to "live and let live" has passed. In 20 or 30 years we will see a rise in Eco-warriors. Who knows, maybe we will even see eco-nations.

[Derek Broussard]

The cause of extinction is loss of habitat and poaching. Trophy hunting isn't even a problem so why mention it. Does it really help protect the animals that much... no not really. Eco tourism has had a huge amount of success turning hunters, fishers, and poachers into environmentalist. Again, Baja as the example (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/baja-mexico-marine-conservation-tourism-fish-sharks-whales/). Trophy hunting doesn't have to be in the mix. Just because it can have a positive side doesn't mean that it is the best, or most moral option.

Loss of habitat is mainly cause by animal agriculture. It takes millions of acres to feed our livestocks. Especially in countries where they still let "the cows roam free". Stopping the industry is what is good for the animals. Not promoting a fringe lifestyle that doesn't put nearly as much money to ecotourism as a whole.


This has been an interesting read, but I feel like some of you guys need an Adam Ruins Everything about trophy hunting. Enjoy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUA8i5S0YMU

[BlueCorvidae]

I like this forum and all, but a lot of times it seems like people reply to me without watching what I linked or reading what I posted. 😓

[Derek Broussard]

yes, I've watched it. Once when the video came out, and then again when you posted it. Infact my first sentence is a direct quote from the video. as far as reading what you posted...not much to respond to. So I responded with my own debate.

[AniaR]

I think in any scenario, there are always going to be that outliers. For me, sustenance hunting is always going to be needed until we as a nation address food insecurity. And that is so much MORE than just how much does food cost.

As Derek knows I have been working to phase meat out but it has been a challenge with my metabolic disorder and health issues. I've ended up malnourished and on IVs. Even after hiring both a nutritionist and a dietitian both struggled to meal plan for me/grocery plan. (and that's WITH meat) I tend to eat the same thing over and over at this point.

But I do agree with Derek in that at this point, we are well beyond live and let live.We are in sinking ship mode.

As far as the trophy hunting video, I actually agree with it but that's not to say I am OK with it. Again, we need to address the issues that are causing this to begin with. An extended family member of mine is a conservation scientist. He is either up North with polar bears, or in various parts of Africa with big cats. The conservation science community is actually pretty split on trophy hunting- you'd be surprised how many agree with the video.

For me it's mainly about the environment. But the older I get the more I am becoming attached to animals and really can't bare the thought of hurting them. I'm hopeful in the years to come to at LEAST go vegetarian and eventually full vegan. I wish I could just be rich and hire a personal chef and give them my food lists hahahaha if I eat something my body cant metabolize, it corrupts my soft tissue and turns it into scar tissue. I am full of scar tissue on my organs which causes inflammation and autoimmune issue and in some cases a great deal of pain. It also impeded the functionality of some of the organs.

For now though I keep doing meatless days and trying to buy sustainably. I'm also really concerned about plastic pollution too

[Mermaid Kane]

Its sad what we've done to the planet. I'm sure many (if not all) alien species (if they actually exist, although I believe they do) ran into the same problem. It may be the impossible ''Wall'' of the Fermi paradox that nothing can get past. Species may just corrupt their planet beyond repair before they have the science to understand the issue and stomp the brakes, and then don't leave the planet fast enough or unsuccessfully colonize other planets. It may already be too late.

[Echidna]

I prefer to think most alien species don't match humans in stupidity.
I mean, come on.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that resources are limited, yet the populace all over the planet (with very few exceptions) is rapidly growing.
While this problem has been known for decades, no government in the world has actually tackled it (China tried for a while, but the results are still lacking somewhat), on the contrary, many countries even openly SUPPORT rampant procreation.

If you look back into human prehistory, it is pretty much a proven fact that the entire pleistocene megafauna (from cave lions/bears to mammoths and everything else larger than a rabbit) was wiped out by humans through completely idiotic "hunting" methods (i.e. killing an entire herd each time).

While there were here and there some tribes about who knew how to exist in a subsistent way, they were always a minority (and usually deplaced or killed by the...unwise human species).
Majority of humans can only be likened to parasites multiplying on a host til it collapses and dies.
This is a thing, ticks and other parasites (also viruses) behave this way, but there is a difference:
those parasites can actually find a new host after they kill their current one.
Humans will die WITH their host , but they are still too dumb to change their behaviour.

I have kind of given up on it tbh.

[BlueCorvidae]

yes, I've watched it. Once when the video came out, and then again when you posted it. Infact my first sentence is a direct quote from the video. as far as reading what you posted...not much to respond to. So I responded with my own debate.
Ah, I misunderstood your intentions with your last post. When you said "It's not a problem so why mention it?" I thought that you were responding to me since you quoted me and all. Now I get that you were just adding to my response rather than trying to rebut me with my own point. My mistake! :$


I prefer to think most alien species don't match humans in stupidity.
I mean, come on.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that resources are limited, yet the populace all over the planet (with very few exceptions) is rapidly growing.
While this problem has been known for decades, no government in the world has actually tackled it (China tried for a while, but the results are still lacking somewhat), on the contrary, many countries even openly SUPPORT rampant procreation.

If you look back into human prehistory, it is pretty much a proven fact that the entire pleistocene megafauna (from cave lions/bears to mammoths and everything else larger than a rabbit) was wiped out by humans through completely idiotic "hunting" methods (i.e. killing an entire herd each time).

While there were here and there some tribes about who knew how to exist in a subsistent way, they were always a minority (and usually deplaced or killed by the...unwise human species).
Majority of humans can only be likened to parasites multiplying on a host til it collapses and dies.
This is a thing, ticks and other parasites (also viruses) behave this way, but there is a difference:
those parasites can actually find a new host after they kill their current one.
Humans will die WITH their host , but they are still too dumb to change their behaviour.

I have kind of given up on it tbh.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel I should point out that we are not killing the planet. We are killing ourselves. We have yet to do anything to the ocean or the land where life cannot regrow from it, though it may be uninhabitable to us and the creatures that we're used to living with. Yes, we're going to kill off a lot of different species if we keep going the way we are, but life always finds a way. When we are dying of cancer from the smog and the radiation, new life that is immune to our poison is going to evolve and thrive. It's already happening, in the areas around Chernobyl that are too radioactive for us, wildlife flourishes.

Environmentalism isn't truly about saving the planet, it is strong enough to withstand our bullshit and it's not within our power to destroy. It's about saving ourselves and life as we've come to understand it. Most of us just haven't realized it yet.

[AniaR]

We've actually killed spots in the ocean. They're called dead spots

Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app

[AniaR]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app

[Mermaid Kane]

I prefer to think most alien species don't match humans in stupidity.
I mean, come on.

The Fermi Paradox is summarized by one question; Where is everyone? The universe is massive, with billions of planets in the habitable zone. Many have existed for billions or millions of years longer. So, where are the aliens? Either they are visiting, and the general populace doesn't get to know, we are under protection until we are advanced enough, or there is a Great Wall in evolution that nothing, or very little, gets past.

It may be planetary destruction.

What makes you think a sentient species on a different planet would develop a sense of nature faster then us? There is no reason to think they would be smarter then us just because we seem ''stupid''. They would likely have their own religions and inaccurate ideas about their world, i.e. flat earth, just like us. Nothing can instantly become nature conscious. Animals don't understand the world, and if they start t rise, they would likely make similar mistakes.

Anyways, I agree. We're dead ass meat.

[AniaR]

The Drake Equation [emoji41]

Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app

[Mermaid Kane]

The Drake Equation

Very familiar with this theory, its quite interesting. However, it is a SWAG theory, and is not entirely reliable.

And, of course, I am not saying there isn't a interstellar species out there. I'm just saying planetary destruction may be a wall a species must jump over, and it may be incredibly hard.

[Derek Broussard]

Watching blue planet 2 last night... I cried.

In the episode Deep Seas. They show coral that has lived and grown for 4,000 years. each year growing less than a hairs width. Beautiful structures housing more life than our shallow reefs.

Then they show the effects of deeps sea trawlers. Which drag across the sea floor absolutely destroying coral that has stood longer than the pyramids.

If you eat fish you are contributing to this destruction. It's that simple... you can't love the ocean and kill it at the same time. That is an abusive relationship.

[Mermaid Kane]

Watching blue planet 2 last night... I cried.

In the episode Deep Seas. They show coral that has lived and grown for 4,000 years. each year growing less than a hairs width. Beautiful structures housing more life than our shallow reefs.

Then they show the effects of deeps sea trawlers. Which drag across the sea floor absolutely destroying coral that has stood longer than the pyramids.

If you eat fish you are contributing to this destruction. It's that simple... you can't love the ocean and kill it at the same time. That is an abusive relationship.

Blue Planet 2 does a great job captivating its viewers before showing them the affect of what we've done. And yes, trawling and fishing in general is extremely damaging. The likelihood of it stopping within our lifetime is null.

[AniaR]

Yup. I don't eat anything from the ocean.

My late friend Rob Stewart did a film called "Revolution". In it he pointed out that if we were devastating on land the way we do underwater, there'd be an uproar. But people are so disconnected and don't see what's happening.

[Mermaid Momo]

Honestly the thing that irks me the most about most militant animal rights activist is how they all choose to ignore that a lot of culture and people eat certain meats (fish, whales, etc) as the only source of food and continuation of culture (such as seal hunts) and demonize the people who hunt for their own food as doing nothing but killing the planet. And also that most don't seem to understand that there is privilege in having the ability to go vegan or vegetarian and there is privilege in having the ability to willingly cut out certain foods from their diets.

[BlueCorvidae]

We've actually killed spots in the ocean. They're called dead spots

Sent from my [device_name] using MerNetwork mobile app (http://MerNetwork mobile app)

Bacteria and algae typically flourish in them. They might not be animals or plants, but they're still life.


The Fermi Paradox is summarized by one question; Where is everyone? The universe is massive, with billions of planets in the habitable zone. Many have existed for billions or millions of years longer. So, where are the aliens? Either they are visiting, and the general populace doesn't get to know, we are under protection until we are advanced enough, or there is a Great Wall in evolution that nothing, or very little, gets past.

It may be planetary destruction.

What makes you think a sentient species on a different planet would develop a sense of nature faster then us? There is no reason to think they would be smarter then us just because we seem ''stupid''. They would likely have their own religions and inaccurate ideas about their world, i.e. flat earth, just like us. Nothing can instantly become nature conscious. Animals don't understand the world, and if they start t rise, they would likely make similar mistakes.

Anyways, I agree. We're dead ass meat.


The real reason is because of the vastness of the universe. Everything is too far away for us to properly observe, and it's impossible to observe it in real time. You have to remember that whenever you're looking into the sky, you're looking into the past, not as it is now. There could be life within a thousand lightyears from us, but it would take us hundreds of years before we could see it.

[Mermaid Kane]

The real reason is because of the vastness of the universe. Everything is too far away for us to properly observe, and it's impossible to observe it in real time. You have to remember that whenever you're looking into the sky, you're looking into the past, not as it is now. There could be life within a thousand lightyears from us, but it would take us hundreds of years before we could see it.
I am well versed in this kind of thing, no need to explain the speed of light and sound. I didn't say there aren't other sentient species roaming out there, but its likely that environmental destruction has claimed the lives of at least few alien races.

[BlueCorvidae]

Oh, I don't doubt it. Extinction would exist wherever there is life. In some cases, it could be their own fault, like what will inevitably happen to us. In other cases, it could just be plain misfortune like what happened to the dinosaurs. Can you imagine a civilization being lost to a black hole? Or their star going red giant?

[Mermaid Kane]

Oh, I don't doubt it. Extinction would exist wherever there is life. In some cases, it could be their own fault, like what will inevitably happen to us. In other cases, it could just be plain misfortune like what happened to the dinosaurs. Can you imagine a civilization being lost to a black hole? Or their star going red giant?

Well, if their star died and became a black hole, the cold would kill them, since the mass (and thus gravity) of the star-turned-black hole wouldn't change, and they'd stay in place. ;)
But, I have NO DOUBT species die from other things as well. There are so many variables! I love ET theory, so I often read about this stuff. :D

[Mermaid Delphinidae]

Honestly the thing that irks me the most about most militant animal rights activist is how they all choose to ignore that a lot of culture and people eat certain meats (fish, whales, etc) as the only source of food and continuation of culture (such as seal hunts) and demonize the people who hunt for their own food as doing nothing but killing the planet. And also that most don't seem to understand that there is privilege in having the ability to go vegan or vegetarian and there is privilege in having the ability to willingly cut out certain foods from their diets.

There's also the fact that many of them ignore other issues that come with their alternatives. Some crops use a lot of water, or they may be grown and harvested by laborers who don't get paid enough for difficult and unsafe work. I know that in our modern capitalistic society, finding a 100% ethical option for something is basically impossible, but don't act like abstaining from honey makes you a hero when sugarcane workers work in horrible conditions.

[Mermaid Kane]

There's also the fact that many of them ignore other issues that come with their alternatives. Some crops use a lot of water, or they may be grown and harvested by laborers who don't get paid enough for difficult and unsafe work. I know that in our modern capitalistic society, finding a 100% ethical option for something is basically impossible, but don't act like abstaining from honey makes you a hero when sugarcane workers work in horrible conditions.

It's always so complicated. What works or makes sense for one nation may not work for the next. And sometimes people don't think of the negativity their "helping" can cause. Like when I didn't realize that helping tribes with education and technology could be so unwelcome and harmful to them... I totally didn't think of that.
If world problems were easy to solve, we would've already. :(

[swordwhale]

oooooooooooooooo polite rant time (or, civil discourse)

Yes, all living beings deserve respect and good living conditions.

Ancient culture knew this, even while eating and wearing said living beings.

My cats are obligate carnivores, they cannot be vegans (and it's bad for your dog too), nor can the hawks and owls I worked with as a wildlife rehab volunteer. My horses and goats have always been vegan... except for the pony that ate a hot dog...

I know people with guns who use them responsibly to put Bambi in the freezer. We are overrun with Bambi (here in PA) and I (literally) have run into a few myself (a deer jumping in front of your car can kill you). While I'd applaud the introduction of wolves into our local woods, they would not like it here (too civilized). Perhaps we just need more and bigger coyotes (those we have and they are adaptable). Or more of those cougars we keep hearing urban legends about... That said, "sport" or "trophy" hunting is ridiculous, yeah, get a camera. And why would you hunt carnivores? We need them to keep the balance.

We need fewer humans (here's where I shout give women around the world education, access to all manner of health and reproductive care, and they'll take care of the problem themselves). We need more humans eating more sensibly. Our factory farming is a result of trying to get cheap meat... meat is not cheap. Pigs are too smart and social to be in cages. So are the rest of the critters. Of course the world cannot be One Giant Honkin Pasture either. Or One Giant Honkin Soy Farm. Nature loves diversity.

Nature also loves herds that move the way they do in the wild when pushed by predators. Keeps the entire system (even on farms and ranches) healthy.

Neuter and spay needs to be pushed even more. Not all solutions work in all places (let me tell you about the circus my cousin has trying to roundup and neuter the barn cats...), but spay and neuter is a great start for our most populous pets. We have come a long way; back in my childhood, everyone tied their farm dogs outside, left them un-neutered, and drowned extra puppies and kittens they couldn't give away. That was the harsh truth. Now we have inexpensive clinics and folks like the SPCA trying to do their best to stem the tide of unwanted pets. I have seen too many clueless people with un-neutered animals, or those who say something like "I have a "purebred" and am gonna breed it..." No, you do not need to breed it. if you are a legit breeder (I think the AKC might have some info on what constitutes a legit breeder) you are working to continue and improve a breed, showing, working, or otherwise being a responsible person handling that breed.

I will extend this to equines too. I bred ONE mare (and have her daughter till she dies of old age, like her mom) and see too many similar tales of "bred my mare and ..." now your extras ended up in the kill pen.

Points for the organizations rehoming off the track Thoroughbreds, kill pen rescues, moving dogs and cats from kill shelters to no-kill shelters to furever homes. And points to the parks and nature centers educating future generations.

Education education education. I (and other horsewomen I know) have had the SPCA show up in our drive because some idiot... I mean, clueless non-horsemen... saw our horses standing out in the rain... BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO (they have shelter... in fact, after one storm I went out to find an ancient tree horizontal... right down the middle of my 16' wide horse shed. I counted brown butts and found the requisite two, because the old mustang's Theory Of Storms is round up your mares and go stand out in the middle of them so Thor can smite you. He saved both their lives.) Or the snow (they're weatherproof, they are actually insulated so much that snow on their backs does not melt). And now it's spring, the season when all rescues get "dead horse" calls because after a looooooooooong winter and mud season, the horses are lying flat out in the sun... don't even get me started on "why are they blindfolded" (fly mask) or "why are they wearing blankets in the summer???" (fly sheets).

Now I shall also do the Musher Rant: every year around the Iditarod, every gung ho animal "rights" nutjob screams about a sled dog race. Without knowing anything about sled dogs. A. those dogs in the race have better health care than most Americans. B. Vet checks at every checkpoint. C. Nobody runs this race because they like money and hate dogs. You don't make money doing this, or very very few make a wee bit. There are easier ways to make money. D. DOGS LOVE TO RUN It's their instinct to hunt and run in a pack. Try keeping a Siberian husky in your living room. It will eat your living room unless you hook it to a bike and let it pull you down a trail for an hour or two. E. the dogs are having fun, it's the humans who are going without sleep taking care of dogs, massaging dogs, feeding dogs, thawing water for dogs, feeding dogs, bootying dogs, unbootying dogs, harnessing dogs, falling off dogsleds, clinging for dear life to sleds ricocheting off rocks... dogs just wanna have fun...

I've worked with enough non-releasable wildlife to see the impact coming face to face with a real live animal has. That third grader will never forget coming eye to eye with a redtail hawk. And now he cares. I adore going to the aquarium, or zoos. If they are properly maintained. I'm not sure how I feel about small dolphins in aquariums... they make an impact, but can they truly be happy? My "logo" is "swordwhale" and orcas simply are too large, intelligent, social, and travel too far to ever keep in a bathtub. Which is what aquariums are to them.

Zoos have been crucial for scientific learning and conservation of species, especially endangered ones.

Education is key, for everything. Hear the other side, use civil discourse, then see how you can move forward in consensus.

Seeing the big picture is important too: the planet as an entire ecosystem that needs us to be part of it, not thinking we are somehow separate. And treating that with deepest respect.

[swordwhale]

Well said.

I have also run into "the privileged few" who emphatically proclaim "do this!!!"

Um, I can't afford to.

There are many solutions to a shipload of problems. One size does not fit all.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I'm currently in a tough crossroads point as an activist as in the past year I've converted to a belief system called the Consistent Life Ethic, which is promoted by groups like Rehumanize International. I've gotten pretty involved with Rehumanize and find it pretty rewarding. My beliefs on most issues haven't changed as I'm still extremely pro-environmental, pro-animal welfare, vegan-leaning vegetarian, pro-LGBT, etc. and my beliefs on some issues such as being anti-war and anti-death penalty, but the CLE is also conservative on some notable issues. I will not get into a debate as debating it has been the opposite of "sparks joy"(arigatou, Marie Kondo!), but conversions are very difficult as one can alienate your previous friends and supporters by now promoting views that much of the "base", if you will, of environmental and animal rights supporters does not agree with. On my mer-page for the most part I stick to eco and AR issues still, and I try not to go into detail about the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the CLE, as I've got another non-mermaid FB page where I do post in detail about it, but I do still like to promote Rehumanize as their message is something I believe in. What I'm trying to say is I'm asking for advice: have any of you changed your opinions on an issue before as an activist, and found yourself in a tough spot between staying true to yourself and not alienating old friends? I think there's a cycle everyone goes through when they've converted to a new belief system, there's that over-zealous evangelist phase that tends to mellow out over time as you get used to your beliefs as the "new normal" for you. Have any of you also ever found yourself in a tough spot where you're too liberal for the conservative crowd and too conservative on some issues for the traditional liberal circles?

[tealmermaid]

I think I need to just stay out of this. A pitched battle will ensue, especially with the "Consistent Life Ethic" things.

[Princess Kae-Leah]

I think I need to just stay out of this. A pitched battle will ensue, especially with the "Consistent Life Ethic" things.

Sometimes that's all one can do, really. The number of people who've changed their opinion on an issue due to a heated argument on social media is very, very low. I've lost interest in debating because it's a waste of time and energy for all involved.