Comments dwm376s has made

  • 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, 2 months ago 17 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 22 Responses

  • 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 Mahoney    On Yes posted 3 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 13 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 13 Responses

  • repy to caniscandida

    Just wanted to clarify that I am not insinuating that all urban-dwellers, fit the stereotypical "californaia hippie, tree-hugger" mold so often directed at them. I certainly do not believe that stereotype, and do not want my posts to reflect that.

    I was simply trying to illustrate that there are major differences between how those of us in rural America view environmentalism, compared to those is urban America. I still hold firm that I believe there is a major disconnect between urbananites and the natural world.

    By the way, Springfield, MO is my favorite town on Earth. Spent my college years there (Go Bears!), and can't wait to return someday. On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

  • hunting comments above

    I am laughing out loud right now, because I can't believe some of the remarks made above. About how rural people hunt, because they can't afford to go the market, and how rural kids bring a lot of food to the table. etc..... this is absolutely ridiculous. The comments made above reflect what you urbanites think about rural, hick, hunters! the picture that has been painted above is truly laughable.

    Not only was I born in the midwest, I was raised there. And guess what... I still live here. Northwest Missouri is where I call home. Savannah, MO to be exact.Look it up on Mapquest... you almost can't get a more central-Midwest location that that.

    I love to hunt and fish, and not only is this a hobby it is my passion. I love it so much, I decided that I wanted to devote my life and career to it. Its why I chose biology for my degree work.

    My biggest motivation is making sure that my kids, and grandkids get to experience nature, and the outdoors the way I did. Hunting allowed me to experience outdoor life, and death. That death is a big part of life. I don't want my kids to go the downtown science center and learn about Nature there, because the nearest "true" natural setting is an hours drive away, and you have to pay the tolls both ways on the turnpike, etc. etc. etc.

    I don't hunt because I need the food. However, I don't hunt anything that I'm not going to eat. Through hunting I learned a lot about the woods and streams, and all the things out there in them. My dad would take us scouting, but scouting for deer sign always turned into my brother and I asking questions about that toadstool, or a snake we found, etc. Granted my father was no biologist, but he would do his best to answer questions or encourage us to research it at the library etc.

    The point of all this above is, that while Jason keeps talking about whaling..etc.... I'm a hunter/biologist in the midwest and whaling really never crosses my mind. I am more concerned with vanishing prairies, urban sprawl, wildlife habitat loss, soil erosion, groudwater pollution, promoting sustainable agricultural practices.. etc. The list goes on and on. I am not saying that whaling is okay. I really don't know enough about it to form an opinion. I can deduce that is probably not too great, considering that I do know whales and all large mammals have experience population declines in the past 100 years. However, I am relunctant to view ANYTHING you say about, because your narrative is laced with so much emotional rhetoric, its easy to see through all that lace and see the bias in your argument.

    I dunno, I guess I just have hard time listening to environmental propaganda from someone that has obviously spent a lot of time in highly urban settings. As suggested above, people from urban areas, are VERY out of touch with the natural world. Therefore, I believe they tend to let emotion control their beliefs towards the environment, instead of facts.

    Not that an individual from, say... Southern California ... can't become highly educated on issues that affect the environment and our natural resources. I am absolutely certain judging by the extent of your education Jason that you are very knowledgeable about these topics.

    That said, I must second David Roberts comment above. In all reality the discussion should have ended with his comment. Period. so here it is again, word for word.

    "So too with your argument. I have no objection to you working on both environmental and animal-welfare concerns, but what conceivable good can come from saying that this is now a requirement for being an environmentalist?

    You won't get more animal welfare supporters out of that; you'll just get fewer environmentalists."On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

  • WHA is a joke

    So due to all the opposition from hunters and outdoorsman worldwide, and the lack of support from major hunting manufacturers, they are now switching to lethal hunts.

    The WHA's original idea was to be like the professional Bass fishing tournaments, with cash prizes etc. but thank god its not going to happen. Not because I think its cruel, but because its a pathetic attempt to make a buck. no-pun intended!On The Daily Show is funny again posted 3 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

  • reply

    PBrazelton,

    I think you made an important distinction between a typical family farm in rural-mid-america, and what is being termed in this conversation as a "factory farm" with your chicken house example.
    And I would agree with you that there are a lot of cases in which animals are treated poorly, as a commodity.

    However, I think there is a lot of gray area in between, the two of those types of farms. I know of families that operate what I would consider large poultry operations, several thousand birds a year, in which a lot of birds die via stress, birth defects, etc. However, I think it comes with the territory. Even on small farms animals die. I would bet that in situations as the two described above they have very similar death rates (% of animals that die for every 1 animal that lives to market size)for their livestock.

    That being said I am well aware of corporately owned farms (Tyson, Butterball, etc) in which the employees of that farm have little incentive to "care" whether or not they are losing animals, because they have far less connection to the well being of said livestock, than if they actually owneed the farm. And I would bet that these types of farm operations have much higher death rates than those described above.

    All that being said, the point of all this is what does any of this concern for animal welfare have to do with the "environment;" the woods, streams, prairies, etc. I am failing to see the connection, other than people who are concerned with one, may be emotionally/cognitively predisposed to be concerned with the other.

    Now if one wants to talk about factory farms and stress how affect they affect the environment, I would be much more agreeable. The large amounts of waste, often high in heavy metals, that pollutes streams and groundwater. This represents a direct connection. Animal rights proponents would argue that the pollution is ocurring because the animals are being inhumanely treated. I would disagree to the point that the water is being polluted from high volumes of waste in a concentrated area. The animals on the particular farm could be treated like kings, but they are still going to produce the same amount of water polluting waste, than if they were treated like dirt. Actually they may produce more waste if they were treated like kings, because they may have better diets, long lives, etc.

    whats your take?On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • richardschwartz

    I actually agree with you richardschwartz!

    you said, "the production of animal products is contributing significantly to global warming, widening water shortages, deforestation, rapid species extinction and many other societal threats"

    I agree that is if by the production of animal products, you mean the re-production of more humans than this planet can support? I agree whole heartedly. Face the facts its human actions that are causing the VAST majority of the problems you listed above. Sure animal production is contributing, but minimally at best.

    How about the fact that we are absolutely dependent on the automobile, as the main reason for global warming. Or booming human population and urban sprawl for the main reason we have water shortages and deforestation (which causes loss of habitat = loss of species/biodiversity).

    Gimme a break!On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • agree to disagree.

    PBrazelton - in my comment above I was simply, implying that those very concerned with animal rights issues quickly turn to the most extreme examples to further their cause. Is this tactic limited solely to those in the animal rights community? Absolutely not. Those of us here discussing this topic are here because of the above article, in which the author turned to the "most extreme example" tactic to illustrate his point. perhaps it was necessary, it doesn't really matter though.

    To clarify, I comprehend the fact that its not just a handful of seals and that is not how I view the subject. I am well aware of the issues that are at hand with our domesticated animals as well - you mentioned factory farming. I am well aware of the issues dealing with "factory farming." I grew up on a farm in Southwest Iowa, and so did pretty much everyone else in this region. Livestock represented the livelihood of most families, and because of that, their livestock was taken care of. I remember going out in thunderstorms, trudging through snow and ice, etc. to make sure the cows were all "okay", or to chop the ice in the pond so they had plenty of water. This is the norm in rural America - believe it or not.

    As a Wildlife Biologist in the state of Florida, and formerly Missouri, I have dealt with animal rights issues on an almost daily basis, and dealt with individuals on both sides of the argument. I'd like to think I fall somewhere in the middle - "reasonable ground." I am devoting  my career to what I consider, an environmental cause - that is the preservation of wildlife and the unique habitats that enable that wildlife to flourish.

    If being an environmentalist means I can't eat meat, drive my car, hunt/fish, then I'd rather not be considered one. I stick with my job title to describe myself and my interests. So for now I think its safe to "agree to disagree!"On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • failing to see the connection

    I agree with David Roberts, who questions the connection between these two issues.

    I think too often issues like environmentalism and animals rights get lumped together without a real relationship between them. Why? I really don't know. I can speculate that the issue of environmentalism has much broader appeal to the general public, and it crosses many social boundaries (political, ethical, etc), than the issue of animal rights. I think the general public of tends to think of animal rights as an "extreme leftists" issue as the author stated. If a connection, perceived or otherwise, can be made between a popular issue (environmentalism) and a not so popular issue (animal rights) then the latter of the two gains some credibility. At the same time the prior loses some.

    I don't know if I would consider myself an environmentalist or not. I guess that all depends on how one defines "environmentalist."  

    I am certainly concerned about issues that I consider to be environmentally related, for instance: air and water quality, natural resources conservation, and wildlife ecology. So in that respect I guess one may consider me and environmentalist. However, I am not near as concerned with animal rights, because I think the  issues that are consistently brought up are the most extreme examples. I believe individuals with a direct tie to the animal rights cause use these examples for their shock value (i.e. - "Bludgeoning baby seals for fur coats").On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses