What does "intelligence" or "niceness" have to do with it?

[drbill]

For me animals which exhibit scientifically plausible signs of intelligence and significant social interactions are much harder to consider killing. If a species lives in social groups, exhibits the ability to communicate with and form bonds with other members of the group, I find it difficult to consider removing one member of the group from their social nexus.

Those animals which exhibit less apparent intelligence and are more solitary would be easier to kill... assuming that they also taste good.

I used to hunt and fish a fair bit. I stopped about 30 years ago, but accept those activities on the part of others who follow the rules and know what they are doing.

 

[Tigerman]

I'm one of the posters, although I don't in any way feel "singled out" I do want to reply. And to more than just the previous post.

Ever owned a dog or cat? How did you feel when it died? Form an emotional attachment to it?

For me a a bond with an aquatic species is not much different. It's reinforced every time I see Whales breaching for the sheer exuberance of it or Spinner dolphins just having a good time riding a bow wave. Ever been on a boat when someone spotted dolphins? Did you rush over to take a look? Why?

And I don't see what's wrong with applying my concern selectively. I've chosen the abuse of Whales, Dolphins and Sharks as an area to be involved in being a diver. To a certain extent, I suppose it's also a selfish concern, they're animals I want to see while diving. For that reason I find the recent events in the Galapagos troubling as I'd like to see the remaining unfinned sharks if/when I ever get there.

Doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good steak or ham (Pigs are supposed to be smart aren't they?) Being the apex intelligence on this planet allows us to set our own parameters.

And there's good and bad in every species. I don't see how assigning gang characteristics to a pod of Dolphins removed from their natural environment and placed in an artificial habitat can possibly be representative of them in the wild. Maybe they're just bored and spinning turtles is fun...lol.

I watched a pod of Killer Whales harass a mother Humpback to the point of forcing her to abandon her calf which they then tore apart. Yet I'll still oppose efforts to kill them.

Yeah, ive had cats and dogs around me all my life, given the fact that im closing in on 30 years, obviously some of them have died and obviously when your pet dies thats not the best of days. However, its part of life. You get born, you live your life and you die. A bullet to your heart is still less painfull than dieing painfully from longterm illness, which is also why at times, we make the choice to put our pets to rest.
Natural death in most cases is not pretty, unfortunately and make no mistake about it, all creatures in the wild will die and most of them painfully.
And for the record, supporting hunting and supporting animal cruelty is NOT the same.

The problem in being selective about what you find it ok to hunt and not is quite obvious. If you select dolphins to not be huntable, maybe I choose pigs to be the next species that shouldnt be killed. Next thing we knows Kim selects cows (which IS holy in some regions of the world), maybe lock_washer select fish to be protected and maybe charile99 says sorry guys, no more killing rats. All of a sudden there is no creature we can kill or eat. Im sure the vegetarians would be happy about that, but I wouldnt.

Conservatism isnt about cute, intelligent or interesting. Yeah, ive rushed over to see seacreatures, ive stopped my car to watch the deer, the fox, the badger and the moose and I find them all to be interesting creatures in their own ways and I would not be cruel to any of them, but at the same time I have no problem with hunting moose, slaughtering it and cooking it for dinner. Infact, it only strengthen my respect for the food I eat.

To hunt or not to hunt a species is about wether there is a sustainable population or not and wether or not the hunter is as humane as possible.
Hunters that is not humane should not be allowed to hunt, those who are should.

 

[djanni]

I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it's perfectly acceptable to govern your own behaviour as you see fit, and for whatever reason you feel. However - what I'd like to know is how this translates into telling other people how they should behave. We've already seen what happens if vegetarians try to tell meat eaters they shouldn't eat meat, there was a thread on that very recently. How come some people who insist on the right to live their own lives as they see fit also think it's fine to try and dictate to others how they should behave? As I said at the beginning - when stuff is endangered, or polluted etc I personally think a line is crossed where the majority says no based on something real, and everyone lives with it. That's what laws are right? But trying to tell everyone else that they shouldn't hunt something because they are "intelligent" or "nice/magnificent" whatever word fits doesn't cross that emergency line IMO - it's just because some people feel the way they do - and seem to want to tell everyone else how they have to behave. This makes no sense to me.

I agree with most of what you said above and having read this post I better understand what you were saying in the OP.

Endangered species deserve special dispensation.

 

[Tigerman]

For me animals which exhibit scientifically plausible signs of intelligence and significant social interactions are much harder to consider killing. If a species lives in social groups, exhibits the ability to communicate with and form bonds with other members of the group, I find it difficult to consider removing one member of the group from their social nexus.

Those animals which exhibit less apparent intelligence and are more solitary would be easier to kill... assuming that they also taste good.

I used to hunt and fish a fair bit. I stopped about 30 years ago, but accept those activities on the part of others who follow the rules and know what they are doing.

As far as I know, all animals communicate with others of the same species, and often with other species. This communication is not always verbal, but that doesnt change the fact that they do communicate.

Wolfs for example is pack animals, they are social and they do communicate with eachother. They are also hunted for various reasons. As long as they are not endangered I dont see why I should denie people their right to hunt them, provided they actually USE the majority of the animal for something good. I like wolfs, both because believe it or not, I find them cute and they are facinating carnivores. That still dont justify me telling people they cant kill and eat them. Hunting them because were too lazy to take care of our domesticated animals and find it cruel that our dumb, unadapted sheep that we let into the wild without supervision of any sort get killed by wolfs is in my opinion cruelty towards the sheep.

 

[Kim]

The problem in being selective about what you find it ok to hunt and not is quite obvious. If you select dolphins to not be huntable, maybe I choose pigs to be the next species that shouldnt be killed. Next thing we knows Kim selects cows (which IS holy in some regions of the world), maybe lock_washer select fish to be protected and maybe charile99 says sorry guys, no more killing rats. All of a sudden there is no creature we can kill or eat. Im sure the vegetarians would be happy about that, but I wouldnt.

Yes exactly. Muslims would ban eating pork in a flash. Hindus would ban beef.....etc etc. I simply don't understand why lots of people seem to realize that those things would be unacceptable, but don't apply the same logic to some whales and dolphins.

 

[CON8IV]

Just what we need. Yet another "wailing" thread.

A land based example of the cuteness factor is squirrels. Squirrels are merely rats with bushy tails and good public relations.

Most people don't seem to have a problem killing and eating land based mammals (other than maybe cute Bambi), but the marine mammals have had better PR agents.

Hey Charlie, sorry to inform you. Bambi was quite tasty!

 

[diversteve]

I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it's perfectly acceptable to govern your own behaviour as you see fit, and for whatever reason you feel. However - what I'd like to know is how this translates into telling other people how they should behave. We've already seen what happens if vegetarians try to tell meat eaters they shouldn't eat meat, there was a thread on that very recently. How come some people who insist on the right to live their own lives as they see fit also think it's fine to try and dictate to others how they should behave? As I said at the beginning - when stuff is endangered, or polluted etc I personally think a line is crossed where the majority says no based on something real, and everyone lives with it. That's what laws are right? But trying to tell everyone else that they shouldn't hunt something because they are "intelligent" or "nice/magnificent" whatever word fits doesn't cross that emergency line IMO - it's just because some people feel the way they do - and seem to want to tell everyone else how they have to behave. This makes no sense to me.

I don't see it that way at all.

You're entirely entitled to your opinions and I don't think that by posting my concerns I'm in any way dictating to you that you should think similarly.

What I am posting are my concerns in the hope that others who feel similarly will react in what I consider a positive fashion and help to end what I perceive to be wrong.

In the previous whale post that I started, several people commented on the fact that the situation was unknown to them until they read about it here. The best that I could hope for is that they share my opinion and are motivated enough to do something about it.

I fully appreciate your right to disagree, in fact I welcome it as it made me assess my point of view. But having done so, I don't think I'm going to alter it.

I'm merely presenting an alternative point of view that may not be relevant in your view of the world and is therefore considered by you to "tell everyone else how to behave"

Just because I choose to support a position that makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean that I'm trying to dictate how you should behave. There's probably vegetarians who believe we're barbarians for eating cows and fish.

Every comment you made above starts with I think. So do most of mine. I don't see the difference. Except that we disagree on the core issue.

 

[Kim]

You're entirely entitled to your opinions and I don't think that by posting my concerns I'm in any way dictating to you that you should think similarly.

So are you prepared to allow the Japanese, Norwegians, and Icelanders to continue to eat Minke whale no matter how you personally feel about the issue?

I have no problem with anyone posting or otherwise stating their concerns. It's when it crosses the line into declaring how other people should behave I draw the line. I was born in a free country where everyone is entitled, within the law, to choose how they live. While I might not personally agree with how everyone chooses to exert that right I'm going to fight damned hard to allow them to continue to have it.

 

[diversteve]

...And for the record, supporting hunting and supporting animal cruelty is NOT the same.

For the record, nowhere did I say it was. I don't even know why you chose to bring that up. My point was that the same anguish that you felt over the death of your pet is what I feel when I see whales harpooned or dolphins slaughtered.

The problem in being selective about what you find it ok to hunt and not is quite obvious. If you select dolphins to not be huntable, maybe I choose pigs to be the next species that shouldnt be killed. Next thing we knows Kim selects cows (which IS holy in some regions of the world), maybe lock_washer select fish to be protected and maybe charile99 says sorry guys, no more killing rats. All of a sudden there is no creature we can kill or eat. Im sure the vegetarians would be happy about that, but I wouldnt.

The point you're missing is that that's perfectly acceptable. And you should be willing to post your concerns on the Save the Pigs forum. But that in no way alters my position that they're good eating. If you feel differently, it's up to you to convince me.

Conservatism isnt about cute, intelligent or interesting.

Actually I think it is. There's a lot more save the Whales/Dolphins/Rhinos/Pandas etc. groups than there is for the Slimebacked Toad or the Three Toed Sloth or any other gross looking animal you can name. It's in people's nature to save the cute, intelligent and interesting. In the case of the dolphins, at least in America, years of Flipper helped...

To hunt or not to hunt a species is about wether there is a sustainable population or not and wether or not the hunter is as humane as possible.
Hunters that is not humane should not be allowed to hunt, those who are should.

Precisely, you've just agreed with my point in the other thread. Forcing thousands of dolphins onshore and then clubbing and stabbing them to death isn't humane by any rational thinking persons standard.

 

[Tigerman]

For the record, nowhere did I say it was. I don't even know why you chose to bring that up. My point was that the same anguish that you felt over the death of your pet is what I feel when I see whales harpooned or dolphins slaughtered.

Because lots of people think that cruelty is what hunting whale, seals or other creatures is about and I wish to state clearely that I in NO WAY support animal cruelty.
Do you even have or have even had pets btw? If you claim to have the same relationship to your ON SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL of whatever animal than you do to an entire group, I have to say that sorry, but I dont believe you.
In addition to cats and dogs for periods we've also had birds. The ONE bird you have in your livingroom and interact with every day you tend to get a lot closer relation to than the 50 birds in the basement thats you use for breeding.

The point you're missing is that that's perfectly acceptable. And you should be willing to post your concerns on the Save the Pigs forum. But that in no way alters my position that they're good eating. If you feel differently, it's up to you to convince me.

Its not perfectly acceptable. Its no less acceptable that I say that the ones that eat dogs should stop it immediately because theire so intelligent and cute than it is for me to dictate what car you should drive.

Actually I think it is. There's a lot more save the Whales/Dolphins/Rhinos/Pandas etc. groups than there is for the Slimebacked Toad or the Three Toed Sloth or any other gross looking animal you can name. It's in people's nature to save the cute, intelligent and interesting. In the case of the dolphins, at least in America, years of Flipper helped...
Precisely, you've just agreed with my point in the other thread. Forcing thousands of dolphins onshore and then clubbing and stabbing them to death isn't humane by any rational thinking persons standard.

No, conserving wildlife is about keeping healthy populations.
Its easier to raise money for the pandas for sure, its not accidental that WWF and other organizations dont use some slimy endangered snail in their promoting, but that does NOT mean that all the money they get go into saving the panda.
(Nor that all the money they get to into saving anything else either)