Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scotiacat

PETA and the Anti-Scout

Recommended Posts

Ed,

You have made my point. The fish is powerless to make the decision whether to "play" with the fisherman. It is being exploited by the fisherman for the sole purpose of entertainment and in the process is being mistreated and tortured. I don't think that is what God had in mind when he put us in charge of the animals.

 

I've already explained my view that PETA uses extreme positions to get folks like us to talk about the issues. Most special interest groups use the same tactics. For that, they have been successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the holidays are over and it's time to dive back in.......

 

Ed, comparing catch and release with hide and seek makes a lot of sense if your kids play hide and seek with a meat hook.

 

We shouldn't make the mistake of painting groups like PETA with too broad a brush. PETA began as a group that brought to light inhumane testing of animals. Things like testing new cosmetics by squirting them into the eyes of rabbits to see how much it took to blind them. In one study, dogs were held under water to see how many times they could be dunked before they drowned. These examples go back probably 30 years or so, but do point out the legitimate problems that PETA identified, and had some success in stopping. Should they be throwing colored dye on people's fur coats? No, but that is just one facet of their organization. (Much the same can be said about the ACLU; while we have regular detractors of them here, while they have done some work against BSA policies, at the same time they have been working in Chicago to protect the rights of homeless children). PETA serves a legitimate purpose, and their tactics aren't really all the different from people who make posters out of human fetus pictures to fight abortion. It's all in the marketing and public perception. Their extreme positions can be seen as a political stance aimed at working towards a more realistic middle ground.

 

Now, about this thing about man being given "dominion" over animals. When I have the time, I'll have to check if that's a "translation" issue that depends on your version of the Bible, or whether it is common among all versions. Regardless, I don't think that when God made us the stewards of nature, he had in mind the idea that we could do whatever we wanted because we are the supposedly "superior" species. Throughout history, we humans have shown a remarkable tendency to destroy habitat and wildlife to support our relentless growth. Many religions seem to go out of their way to put animals on a "lower rung"; I'm not really sure why. I remember growing up that we were taught that humans had an immortal soul, but animals did not. Who knows, really? We assume that animals are not as intelligent as us. Look at some of things we do. Are we really that intelligent? Are dolphins, for example, too dumb to communicate with us, or are we too dumb to communicate with them? Whales can communicate across hundreds of miles of ocean using only what nature provides them with (or could until man came along with their machines (and the Navy with the low frequency sound experiments)); can we do the same without having to resort to some "toy"? Take away our technology, and look at us as simply another animal, and we are no where near the top of the food chain. If we are indeed so "gifted" from a Creator that we are above all other life, we should have the wisdom to shepherd and care for the nature around us. Instead, we have a history of plundering nature for simple greed and power. Not a pretty picture. There are exceptions, to be sure, but for the most part, when humans come in, nature suffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a fish is powerless to make a decision. Big deal! The point is ludicrous. PETA is ludicrous. When one starts placing animal lives above human lives there is a problem.

 

PETA = People for the Extreme Treatment of Animals

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I'm not placing animals above people. I'm just stating that every position PETA takes is not extreme. I don't agree with granting animals civil rights. I eat meat and wear leather shoes. I think if an animal is threatening you, you have every right to dispatch it. But I think animals should be treated with respect and care. Some of the positions PETA takes, like catch and release, make sense to me. Granted, some of their positions are just silly but it doesn't discount the moderate ones. You seem to want to paint all PETA positions as being extreme and anti-human. That's like painting all Christians as being hateful because some Christian followers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I have this right: The lives of vertebrates are more valuable than those of bugs or worms; mammal lives are more valuable that those of fish or reptiles; human lives are more valuable than those of dogs or horses; and of course MY life is more valuable than yours.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the best things about the Rose Bowl is that it's over and now that the game of all times has been played, no other college football game need ever be played. Or as one football player said, if the Superbowl is the ultimate game, why do they plan to play another one next year?

 

Actually you could develop a Scoutmaster's minute on the game, USC had the two "best" collge football players of the last two years on its team, yet they were beaten in large part by a player who was disappointed he did not win the title "best player"

 

The moral? If people doubt you, all you need do is prove them wrong

 

 

OK back to the subjectt(!) at hand

 

Prairie Scouter, if you say "...when humans come in, nature suffers" do you mean that man is not natural? He then must be supernatural, Anatural,? What would you call us? A species uses what it has to survive. Predators use their incisor teeth to eat meant while herbivores use their "molar" shaped teeth to grind up, well, herbs/plants etc.

 

Man uses his intellect to survive and is given an opportunity to make decisions and shape his enironment. And man also learns from his mistakes, although not nearly as fast as I would like (and I am sure most of us as well)I don't buy that man is apart from nature, (cue Disney Singers & Sir ELton John)we are all fellow passengers on planet earth participating in the circle of life. (music fades)

e all passengers on planet earth and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big problem here is one of perception. Two people can see the same thing yet interpret differently based on their personal backgrounds and feelings. If you have two people watch someone catch and release a fish, one may see a fish instinctively strike a bait, then as it senses the pull of the line it resists the pull and tries to get away. It continues to try to get away while the hook is removed, then successfully swims away as the angler releases the fish. The other may see a hungry fish trying to feed itself that is cruelly impaled on a hook. The fish then tries to flee in fear and pain as it is cruelly drug out of the water to temporarily suffocate only to be released to experience the pain and fear again. Both are the same event and both are valid for the particular viewer so what makes them different?

 

The difference comes from the viewers knowledge and perspective. Those that see the fish in pain are placing their own responses and reactions to the event. If it was me, thats how I would feel is the typical explanation. The purely biological explanation is a stimulus and response analysis. The fish has no cognitive function to think, plan, or know fear or pain. It feels a negative stimulus and responds according to instinct to that stimulus. It doesnt think whew, I got away when it is released. It will swim to a secure area where it can recover from the struggle. Most people are somewhere in between, probably a bit more on the side of the science.

 

The problem with PETA is that they are using feelings and faulty logic to dictate to others. Their logic is as follows: I am alive and animals are alive; I communicate and animals communicate; I respond to stimulus and animals respond to stimulus; therefore animals and I are equal. If animals and humans are equal, each should be protected the same. In their argument, since animals are alive, communicate, and respond to stimulus they should not be killed or used. Their answer to this is veganism or not eating any type of meat or dairy products.

 

The problem comes in on where to draw the line. Are animals the only things that are alive no, there are plants but what do we do about viruses? Are they alive? Are antibiotics and antiviral medications OK? Are animals the only things that communicate well no. There is a growing body of evidence that plants also communicate. As one tree is attacked by bugs it releases a chemical that results in other area plants releasing chemicals to resist attacks on them. Sounds like communication to me. Message sent message received reaction to message. So are animals the only things to respond to stimulus again we would have to say no. As with the previous example, trees are responding to the chemical stimulus. But plants can go beyond that and respond very quickly. There is some research that indicates a tree will temporarily halt transpiration if you beat it with a bat. That sounds like response to stimulus to me. Beyond that, what about the microorganisms related to plant roots? It is a symbiotic relationship. Kill the plant = kill the symbiont. Is that kind of killing OK?

 

So to fill out their logic: I am alive and animals and plants are alive; I communicate and animals and plants communicate; I respond to stimulus and animals and plants respond to stimulus; therefore animals, plants and I are equal. Nothing should be killed lets all die. They can go first:-)

 

If animals have equal rights, then they should have equal protection from seizure of property. No more logging, farming, building or damming. We must pay restitution by returning all the land to its original state. No more plastics or metals because we have to take their property to mine and drill. We also kill animals by driving, paving, walking, and bathing. No more chemicals that might limit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is this really the conclusion or do we just go until PETA feels comfortable? What gives their viewpoint any more credibility than anyone elses? What gives them the right to decide the limits moral or intellectual superiority? Not so you would notice based on their actions!

 

For a logical and biological explanation about whether fish feel pain you might check out.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

 

While there has been some recent work in the UK about fish feeling pain, I think there is more info that contradicts that conclusion. If you would like to review the Royal school of Vet studies in the UK analysis based on info from both sides you can check out:

http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Pain.htm

 

If you want to see how your lifestyle impacts the world, you might check out this site.

http://www.earthday.org/footprint/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fishsq, a nice analysis. I tend to agree. It is common for people to want to anthropomorphize animals.

 

I once wrote to the PETA website and asked if they thought that owning pets was OK, as long as the animal was well cared for. They wrote back and corrected me, calling them "companion animals" and saying I didn't really 'own" the animal, but it was OK if they were well cared for. So then I wrote back and asked if it was OK if I fed my "companion" Ball Pythons live mice or should the mice be dead first. They said, somewhat huffily, that I shouldn't have reptiles as companion animals in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You better not use sticks or poles for lashing or People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants (PETP) will come down on you. So much for the Pioneering MB also! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding equal animal rights, I add that this is a very old idea. In 1386 a trial was held in which the accused had allegedly disfigured a child. The accused stood before the court in a waistcoat, breeches, and with white gloves. The accused was sentenced to first receive similar maiming, then to be garroted and hanged at the village scaffold. The accused was, literally, a pig.

 

At this insitution, we must undertake extensive training and certification to handle, trap, raise, or kill any vertebrate. However, we are completely free to do anything we want to invertebrates - with no regulation whatsoever. I also agree that plants have been given short shrift as has the whole Phylum Protista.

 

Now all of you need to hold your noses: this reminds me of a very bad, old Southern joke:

Medical research here has abandoned the use of lab rats and instead substituted yankees. Advantages are that yankees are cheap, can be found everywhere, and you don't get as emotionally attached when it's time to kill them.

My tobacco-spittin' buddies camped up on the side of the hill above the Chattooga River love that one.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether a fish feels pain or not is inmaterial. Catch and release is for the sole entertainment of humans, plain and simple. It isn't for sustainance, safety or to improve the environment. Its a selfish endeavor to gain short term pleasure at the expense of another living creature. The only byproduct of this activity is the satisfaction of the fisherman. Substutitute any other creature (except bugs) and it is deplorable by most of our society.

Here's another example of humans exploiting animals for pleasure.

People around the world take great pleasure watching two dogs fight to the death. In this country, we have drawn the line that dog fighting is not acceptable because of the cruelty to the animals. But in many third world countries, its still very acceptable.

 

I just can't see much of a difference between dog fighting and catch and release fishing. Both are engaged in for the pure entertainment of humans at the expense of the animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catch and Release....

 

Let me get this straight; I catch a fish, it is under the state Department of Wildlife's minimum length. Do I release it or risk getting caught by a game warden and facing fines, penalties and possibly jail time for having in my possesion an illegal fish?

 

Uh- duh!!! Hello....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fish! An animal! Big deal! And no I wouldn't like a hook stuck in my mouth! And asking that question is about as ludicrous as stating catch and release is animal cruelty! If that is animal cruelty then swatting flies & stepping on bugs is murder! NOT!

 

PETA = Please Eat The Animals!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudu wrote-

"But I forbid them to use frogs as bait!"

 

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

 

Please explain that to me I must be missing something.

 

So what about the fish that bites into or swallows the bait and "desperately struggles to free its self from the hook"?

 

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

 

YIS, AL B.

 

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×