dwm376s’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  thinking out loud

  it is interesting how this conversation has taken on a much more philosophical tone.

  This comment from Jason...

   "Of course, most of you will point to notions of human wellbeing and argue that our lives will be threatened if we allow massive species extinction."

  ....is absolutely true. Is the reason we are ultimately interested in the preservation of the earth as it is, in its present tense, simply to ensure our own survival as a species? I mean we, humans are faring pretty well with the current environmental conditions. (note-by current I mean in context of geological time).

  You are probably right Jason, that in all likelihood humans would fare just fine without the current level of biodiversity on the planet. However, we cannot be certain of how the hypothetical loss of any species will ultimately effect the balance of life in its own hypothetical ecosystem (i.e. - nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, etc.)

  Of course the above is all hypothetical, but it makes me think of another topic, and that is Altruism. Does it really exist?

  Several researchers/scientists have investigated this concept, and the one that immediately comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene.

  Its a very interesting concept. Applying it to this conversation, I would like to think that I am interested in species/environmental conservation for the good of the species or environments concerned. However, is this some deep-rooted, subconscious, manifestation to preserve myself, and my species?

  Personally, I'm not sure I know!

  Whats your take?On Value judgments are inescapable posted 3 years, 1 month ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  reply to bookerly

  bookerly,

  In my statements above I was not criticizing the animal rights/welfare segment of society. I was simply trying to point out a fundamental difference between two schools of thought (animal rights vs hunting community).

  To answer your questions on "...what weapons do you use?  Under what circumstances and where do you hunt?  Do you always kill what you hit?  Do you eat it all?"

  The majority of my hunting consists of upland bird hunting, waterfowl, turkey, and whitetail deer hunting. Thus I have used a standard 12 gauge shotgun for all. I also used a .270 caliber rifle to deer hunt with. As well as a .50 caliber muzzleloader during the appropriate season. I'd be lying if I said every animal I have shot at and hit, was recovered. However, I'd guess that the rate of return is above the 90th percentile. And of course I eat what is killed. Sure there is some waste in the form of viscera etc.

  Your stereotyping of hunters with the statement that, "....there are so-called "hunters" wandering around with 50 caliber guns drunk out of their minds blasting away at anything anywhere.  They are not, and never really will, be concerned with the environment..." is a ridiculous generalization.  

  Are there idiots out there such as you described? Yes. However what percentage of the hunting community fits that description? A very, very low percentage.

  You describing a hunter in that sense is the same as me saying, "those animal rights folks like PETA and Fund for Animals are nothing but a bunch of bunny-hugging hippies. They are the same people that are part of the Earth Liberterian Front."

  You and I both know that statements like this do not apply to the community as a whole. And there is no place for comments like that in a conversation that is aiming at "do[ing] it in such a way that we can listen to and hear each other without name calling?"

  ---

  Bookerly,
  just for clarities sake here is an image of a typical .50 caliber level gun that is used in huntig.

  Here is an image of a .50 caliber military rifle.

  You will NEVER see a hunter in the woods using the latter. On Yes posted 3 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  unconnected

  First of all I agree with you Caniscandida that Jason is right in asking this question. And that we should think about: "Think what you like about what the lives of animals, and the feelings of animals, are worth to you; think what you like about killing them; think what you like about whether "sustainability" of a species justifies killing them for economic benefit to humans."

  In thinking about these questions, I can see how an individual might want to connect these two "separate" ideologies - Animal Rights and Environmentalism. However, I think the first questions we need to ask is "How do we define animal rights?" Similarly, "How do we define environmentalism?"

  Once these definitions are agreed upon, then and only then can we begin to ask if "....goal should be more than just the sustainability of biological resources."

  My biggest beef with connecting these two issues is that animal rights equals anti-hunting..

  I am always confused at how the anti-whaling folks seem to make whaling seem like a major commercial enterprise. Which I am sure it does generate a surprising amount of $$$$$$$$$. However, isn't the root of whaling, a cultural root? If whaling was such a profitable and huge commercial venture more folks than the Norwegians and Japanese would be attempting it. These cultures still whale, because it's a part of them. It's embedded within them.

  I think the animal rights folks among us, who also consider themselves environmentalists, need to remember where they came from and who got this thing started. It was hunters and outdoorsmen, like Leopold, Muir, and Teddy Roosevelt. Granted others like Rachel Carson, who aren't noted as being sport hunters also played big roles.

  So instead of me attempting to explain the importance of this I will leave it the environmentalists:

  ---

  
  Hunting "is not merely an acquired taste; the instinct that finds delight in the sight and pursuit of game is bred into the very fiber of this race (man). We are dealing, therefore, with something that lies very deep. Some can live without opportunity for this exercise and control of the hunting instinct, just as I suppose some can live without work, play, love, business, or other vital adventures. But in these days we regard such deprivations as unsocial. Opportunity for exercise of all the normal instincts has come to be regarded more and more as an inalienable right."
  -Aldo Leopold

  "The hunt is the bicep of conservation . . . From hunting comes a supreme lesson for environmental conservation: self-interest extends to what we identify with, and we identify with whatever we are emotionally bonded . . . Let me put it this way. Put a 12-year-old boy in a duck blind with a shotgun in his hands and there is a fair possibility that he will grow up to join Ducks Unlimited and fiercely protect wetlands . . . the fact is that hunters were the original environmental conservationists, and they still lead in that field . . . Aldo Leopold's life history is a model for understanding how hunting develops moral responsibility to nature."
  -Randal J. Eaton, Ph.D.

  "Hunting is not simple. It is the only absolute rediscovery mechanism available to human beings; the mind-body fusion of all meditative, spiritual experiences is derived form its pasturage...The hunt is a universe of emotion that overwhelms, scatters all notions of other preoccupations and delivers the persona complete. Hunting is a love affair; turbulent, glaring, and all possessing...Hunting is an immersion; a drowning in connectedness...Hunting knows why the senses were made! Hunting is a cataclysm of inward progress. We hunt for spiritual reserve...to understand the world (and for)... the knowledge of self."
  -Shane MahoneyOn Yes posted 3 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  omega controversy

  Green fish,

  So I looked into the Omega 3 issue a little further, and its a bit more complicated than, "farmed fish vs. wild fish" as far as Omega 3 levels are concerned.

  Most diets sites, such as the one you cited above, agree with your position. However, I couldn't find any that cited their source of information.

  I did find an article that stated The Mayo Clinic's position: "Information from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., though, states that the omega-3 levels of farm-raised fish are comparable to that of wild caught." article here

  However, this article from Cornell University states in the first line that farmed fish have higher levels of Omega 3 fatty acids that wild fish.

  Personally I will tend to lean in the direction of respected scientific institution, i.e. - Cornell. However, I find the Mayo Clinic's response interesting and worth looking into.

  I think limiting factor in whether or not farmed fish have higher, equal, or lower levels of Omega3  FA's is dependent on their diet. Traditionally aquacultural operations fed wild salmon, fish. Exactly what they eat in the wild. However, many operations are switching to soy based feeds. So if a farm is feeding fish-meal to the farmed fish, then they will have high Omega 3 levels. If they are feeding soy-based food, then omega3 levels will probably be lower.

  bottom line, i think there are so many variables that I don't think the average consumer is going to know what they are getting in the end nutritionally, let alone be able to put into context the environmental effects of their salmon purchase.On New report on aquaculture posted 3 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  omega's

  actually farmed fish have higher levels of Omega3 fatty acids than their wild counterparts.

  Due their diets. The fish food they are fed in the floating pens is high in fat and protein to bolster growth. The result is a faster, larger growing fish. Which just so happens to also have increase omega3 FA's.

  I don't know that this justify's the correctness or incorrectness of aquaculture, just an interesting fact.
  On New report on aquaculture posted 3 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses