Jump to content

PETA and the Anti-Scout


Recommended Posts

 

How is a frog different than a minnow?

 

Frogs are green and they jump.

 

Its ok to stick a hook through the head of a minnow or into a worm or grub but not a frog?

 

Well, it's not something that I do anymore. When my squeamish Scouts ask me to bait their hooks, I ask them why they don't want to do it themselves.

 

The quote came from a chapter on live bait in Dan Beard's Outdoor Handy Book, "For my part, a live frog is a very unpleasant bait. Its human-like form and its desperate struggles to free itself by grasping the hook with its strange little hands, are too suggestive of suffering."

 

Please explain that to me I must be missing something.

 

That is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? You didn't create a profile, this is your first post to Scouter.Com, and you only wrote five sentences. If you are a Scout, then I will be happy to explain, but you have to be a little more forthcoming about your own views on suffering. If you are an adult (as seems evident from your posting nickname), then please indicate if you are a sarcastic secular humanist or a self-righteous religious fundamentalist, so that I can better judge what it is that you are missing :-/

 

This sounds alot like the same type of thinking PETA has.

 

Your presumption seems to be that PETA's "type of thinking" has been effectively dismissed as terrorist, or at best lacking in the tight logic, moral superiority, and Scout-like behavior that its detractors have demonstrated so far in this thread.

 

As for what is Scout-like behavior, I would go with Baden-Powell's original wording of the Sixth Scout Law,

 

"6. A Scout is a friend to animals. He should save them as far as possible from pain, and should not kill any animal unnecessarily, even if it is only a fly--for it is one of God's creatures."

 

Hunting and fishing are a part of Baden-Powell Scouting, and there is nothing wrong with Scouts being conflicted in their feelings about taking life. My 12-year-old "Redskins" Patrol Leader told me that whenever his Patrol killed a squirrel or a rabbit, they said the following African Bushman's prayer:

 

"I'm sorry that I killed you, but we needed the meat. I'm not going to let any of your body go to waste."

 

Kudu

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is ethical treatment of animals? One definition of ethical is Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession. Now it is an accepted principle of professional fisherman and those who govern fishing laws that catch and release is OK. So based on that, it is ethical. I would say the same for hunting. So if PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals, they (1)either don't understand the principles of the professions they are terrorizing or (2)they are making up their own rules. I opt for the second reason.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed,

In this argument you are using situational ethics and PETA is not. They are saying (if I have this right) that it is ALWAYS wrong to inflict pain on a creature and you are saying it is OK under some circumstances but not others.

 

Now I don't have a horse in this race (err, so to speak) but this reminds me a lot of a discussion we had some time back about ethics in which several people flat-out refused to accept the notion of situational ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudu,

 

no our sixth law is not being a friend to animals. It was a good law in my opinion but not vague enough to have a wide effect. Still, young people may have understood it more that way. We have a Scout is friendly,...considerate....respectful...cares for the environment.

 

Rooster7,

 

hello. Nice to hear from you again. And honestly I understand your position. I thought that an alternative might bring your beliefs into focus and that would reinforce your own views but with a deeper understanding of why you believe these things. I can't tell by your post but I suspect that I might have upset you.

 

Your veiw does not upset me. But I am quite comfortable with alternative ideas.

 

Sorry if what I believe is upsetting you.

 

Lets try some less upsetting scenarios.

 

...I drive around the corner and the Scout is herding the emu away from the road. Both are safe.

 

...I drive slowly and deftly avoid both animals. Then I pull up and explain road crossing rules to the Scout as we both admire the Emu's fading 'boom'.

 

...Peak oil is long past and I ride my bicycle around the corner calling out a friendly 'hello' to the Scout just before the Emu runs onto the road knocking me off my bike and tragically killing me (maybe my head hits dutch oven)

 

...the emu is the last one of its kind. Like the coastal emu's near my place. And Scouts only ever see them in books from then on.

 

...I am aware that I am passing through the Emu's grazing area and am prepared for one to be on the road. After all that is why the Scout is there. They are on a Patrol Activity investigating Emu habitat and I am picking them up when finished. We Scouts drive away and no-one dies...again.

 

...I am riding the Emu and trying to catch the Scout as they are carrying a firearm and a fishing rod and a couple of MB booklets. I don't believe the alleged good intentions of the Scout as we don't have these MB's in Austalia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the lawful persuit of game fish (not catch and release) and you snag an undersized catch, you are obligated to release it. That is the law and is proper. This differs from engaging in the fishing activity with no intent to take what you catch (catch and release). This activity is purely for your entertainment, not for meat or to remove harmful species from the environment. Man wins, nature is exploited.

 

Ed, look at it this way. Is it ethical to pull the wings off flies? No law says you can't. But aren't you a little troubled when you watch a young child take pleasure in dismembering a living creature for pleasure? Its just a fly isn't it? The net result is the fly dies and you and I have no trouble swatting a few flys in the house right? So why does it trouble you to watch a child take pleasure in torturing an insect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trevorum,

So PETA says it's unethical to fish. So Jesus and most of the 12 Apostles were unethical? Don't think so.

 

Its just a fly isn't it?

 

Yes it is just a fly. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus fished for food, not pleasure. Ethics during those days where quite a bit different than now. Back then, you could have slaves. Back then, it was permissable to kill your wife for infidelity. Back then, racism was rampant and the norm. None of which is ethical by todays standards.

 

Kudu, I assumed that since Ed is a follower of Jesus, that he would be distrubed by a child taking pleasure in another creature's suffering. Apparently not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an interesting thread. . .

 

When I've participated in catch and release fishing, I've always used barbless hooks--they're still pointy, to be sure, but they practically fall out of the fish's mouth. I see catch and release in a different way, and that is as practice for when I catch and eat, and as a way to teach others to fish for when they need to catch and eat as well. I see that as being prepared (sounds vaguely familiar).

 

On a related note, I once witnessed a competition where a greased pig was chased by a bunch of people, and the person who caught the pig got a nice ham for their efforts (the ham was not the greased one that was chased). So, that was catch and release in a sense, and it appeared that the pig may enjoyed the experience, so was that bad, too?

 

PETA = People Eat The Animals

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so how do we know Jesus didn't fish for fun? According to some theories, it might have been a fun thing to do with his kids :)

 

OGE, no, I don't think that humans are outside the natural world. I used the word "nature" in the context of those things we have been given "dominion" over. I'll stand by my comments that if the Creator were to come down and pay us a visit right now (and who knows, maybe he is), I don't think he'd be too impressed by how we treat nature around us and, for that matter, our own species. But, maybe that fits right in with the "circle of life" idea; we treat everything equally badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gern, that's rather a bald statement.

 

I can totally see the fellow kicking back on the shores of the Galilee after a hard day in the carpenters shop, picking woodshavings out of his beard as he dangles a line into the water.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So using animals for entertainment is bad (unless you are a bug - I suspect there are others who would rather draw the line at reptiles or maybe rats - that dang line just keeps moving depending on who's drawing it). You give a fine example of dog fighting at the extreme. What about rodeo? How about AKC dog shows? How about watching your hamster in an exercize wheel or fish in a tank? How far down your personal road would you require the rest of the world to go?

 

You have a personal set of values that you stand by - and that is great. You have a personal aversion to fishing as is your right. I don't understand your comparison of dog fighting and catch and release fishing - they are completely different to most people. Maybe if you compared dog fighting and placing two male bettas in a tank to watch them fight.

 

Do you think your personal aversion to fishing should be the gold standard for the rest of the world? Is this a self-appointed thing? If so, there are a few things I would like to dictate to the world too so I think I will appoint myself. Will we have to duel for the world or can we amicably divvy it up north and south or east and west? As for the rest of you - sorry it is taken.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At one end of the spectrum you have the blood sports (pit bull fighting, bull fighting, cock fighting) where the animal is intended to be killed or maimed. At the extreme other end is venues such as Dog shows, agility contests and such. In the middle are circuses, rodeos, dog and horse racing. Everyone draws a line somewhere along that spectrum as to what is acceptable and what is disgusting. For me, it is when the animal is either mistreated or forced to do something that makes it want to flee the situation or do something very unnatural. A dog catching a frisbee is not the same as jumping on the back of a bull and trying to keep from falling off when the bull rejects the effort. The dog comes back for more. The bull, must be forced to repeat the activity. So in my mind, dog agility contests = good, rodeo = bad.

Rodeo also has a bad history of abusing animals to get the meanest and baddest bulls and broncs possible. They have cleaned up their acts, but the stain is deep. Same goes for circuses. Watching a donkey dive off a high dive into a tub of water is just over the top but watching a bunch of costumed poodles run around the ring is OK. Circuses quit doing the donkey act. They moved the line to the right. They adjusted to changing opinions on what is acceptable and what is disgusting.

 

Now back to catch and release. Its in that fuzzy area in the middle. I think you know which side of the line it falls for me. Where is your line?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...