Sea Shepherd Launches Operation Reef Defense Campaign in Hawaii
- Thread starter rrasco
- Start date
LOL, read this excerpt. It's discussing why the sea shepherd folks don't care about sustainability:
"œSustainability ignores the ethical issue," Wintner responds. And that's when I get it.
Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn't agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability"”it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won't even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.
"œWe don't use the "˜f word," he says, referring to fishing. "œThis isn't fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn't keep wild animals. This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii," he says. "œI am here because I have a relationship with fish"¦It's a moral issue."
"œSustainability ignores the ethical issue," Wintner responds. And that's when I get it.
Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn't agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability"”it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won't even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.
"œWe don't use the "˜f word," he says, referring to fishing. "œThis isn't fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn't keep wild animals. This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii," he says. "œI am here because I have a relationship with fish"¦It's a moral issue."
Khemul
New member
I always did love the morality argument. It's basically a religious debate. It dead-ends everything since it is based on the beliefs of those making the argument and nothing else.
Poor plants. Not only do they get treated horribly universally, but even the most rapid moralist doesn't care in the slightest for their plight. Even worse sometimes, the rapid animal-rights people fall back on plants as the replacement for anything animal-related. Poor plants. No one sticks up for them. They get thrown under the bus the second anything else even remotely interesting comes along. Saw a car the other day covered in bumper stickers. "Don't keep animals as pets" "Don't use anything made of animals" "Don't eat cheese" "Don't eat meat". I bet that person doesn't think in the slightest how many plants died to make a salad...
Poor plants. Not only do they get treated horribly universally, but even the most rapid moralist doesn't care in the slightest for their plight. Even worse sometimes, the rapid animal-rights people fall back on plants as the replacement for anything animal-related. Poor plants. No one sticks up for them. They get thrown under the bus the second anything else even remotely interesting comes along. Saw a car the other day covered in bumper stickers. "Don't keep animals as pets" "Don't use anything made of animals" "Don't eat cheese" "Don't eat meat". I bet that person doesn't think in the slightest how many plants died to make a salad...
TimeConsumer
Active member
How do you think that person would react if they knew we liked to use bone cutters to break small animals into pieces then glue them onto rocks and trade them for different cut up animals glued onto rocks?
Whales
Whales
Wow they did such a good job with the whales must have saved every whale and now are board. Soon they will be crashing the ship into reefs dragging there anchor across them and before long throwing stink bombs at tourists. These guys are such a joke its all about ratings and money apparently whales are not getting the ratings they once did. Come take my aquarium and while your at it my guns as well...
Whales
Wow they did such a good job with the whales must have saved every whale and now are board. Soon they will be crashing the ship into reefs dragging there anchor across them and before long throwing stink bombs at tourists. These guys are such a joke its all about ratings and money apparently whales are not getting the ratings they once did. Come take my aquarium and while your at it my guns as well...
icecool217
New member
Reminds me of those global warming activitists: talk a bunch of BS with minimal / false info to mislead the general public.
A vegetarian(Not vegan XD) view. I quit eating meat because we treat our livestock like garbage, and from an environmentally friendly view, it takes dozens of times the land, water and other natural resources to feed them. Not to mention that while a dozen grain plants were chopped down for my pasta, a few onions ripped from their roots, and a few tomatoes had their reproductive organs torn off for my sauce, they couldn't feel it. I keep my bone cut/saw cut creatures glued to rocks because they're pretty, alive and can be kept that way
(and yes, this is half sarcastic, no need to freak out at me! I'm being a bit of an arse on purpose!)If they really wanted to make a difference, why not go for things like moorish idols, or some of the larger angels and parrotfish where 90%+ of them actually DO die within the first year in captivity? Where any hobbyist based forum you look on that is worth ANYTHING will say do NOT get these fish! Tangs at least can be kept alive if you have a big enough tank and proper food.
Other than the FW fish I have in a 40G tank, I'd say my relationship with fish consists of fries & cole slaw on the side.
slapshot
Active member
A vegetarian(Not vegan XD) view. I quit eating meat because we treat our livestock like garbage, and from an environmentally friendly view, it takes dozens of times the land, water and other natural resources to feed them. Not to mention that while a dozen grain plants were chopped down for my pasta, a few onions ripped from their roots, and a few tomatoes had their reproductive organs torn off for my sauce, they couldn't feel it. I keep my bone cut/saw cut creatures glued to rocks because they're pretty, alive and can be kept that way
If they really wanted to make a difference, why not go for things like moorish idols, or some of the larger angels and parrotfish where 90%+ of them actually DO die within the first year in captivity? Where any hobbyist based forum you look on that is worth ANYTHING will say do NOT get these fish! Tangs at least can be kept alive if you have a big enough tank and proper food.
First of all, you don't know if they felt it or not. Take a plant, place a needle through a popsicle stick. Place it so the tip of the needle is just touching the plant. In a couple of weeks the tip won't be touching the plant. It moves away....why????
Secondly, do you have any idea how many thousands of birds, rabbits, insects, fawns died to pick your grain? Death and eating ain't pretty no matter how you cut it. Only makes you feel good because you choose to see a plant in a certain light and turn your back on the death to produce it.
I'll give you the health benefits! Not that you are waving the moral flag but I hate when vegetarians do. Not judging either but, the typical vegetarian view is a cop out. Just giving you guys something to think about.
Last edited:
wii64brawl
New member
This ****es me off. The real problem is pollution. Reefs would be able to regenerate much of what is lost to commercial fishing and the hobby if big corporations didn't use coastlines as a personal dumping ground. I mean, personally, I wouldn't mind a small restriction on the amount of reef building corals (only) taken from the reef, but banning collection completely is over the top by a mile.
mcginnisandrew
New member
slapshot your argument against vegetarians is not valid. It takes 2-9 lbs of grain to produce a pound of meat (you are killing 2 to 9 times more plants by eating meat than by eating plants only), and on top of that there are hundreds of other environmental costs associated with producing meat that are not involved in producing plants for food. sure, a vegetarian diet isn't "perfect" but its far more environmentally responsible than a meat based diet.
and we do know, for the most part, that plants do not feel pain. Our basis for knowing that animals feel pain is the same basis we have for know that other humans feel pain. People and animals cringe/wince, yell/scream, or react in other primitive ways (not by saying "i am in pain"). It wouldn't be very convincing to you if i were to stand here, and say "i am in pain" in a way that is devoid of emotion or visual ques. Plants don't have the same reactions that people and animals have in responding to pain (their reactions to what we think could cause pain to a living thing can be explained in other ways, such as to maximize the receiving of light, for example). For more about sentience and an argument for vegetarianism, read "all animals are equal" (a fairly short essay)or "animal liberation" by peter singer.
But yes i agree that the sea sheperd organization has some holes in their logic and they don't seem to fully understand what "morality" is or what exactly their goal is. And I do agree that there are more pressing issues that they could be fighting. But as hobbyists, don't you think that we ought to show respect for the natural reefs and do all we can to protect them? Given the state of coral reefs right now, I think it is completely justified to end most collection of livestock for the reef hobby. Instead, we really ought to only be keeping animals that we can breed in captivity (and only collect wild animals for breeding endeavors). The reefs are in bad enough shape.
that said, I am not saying that I am perfect. I have two fish in my tank that are wild caught (and they are about 6 years old). I'm also not saying that we should end wild collection now. But we should be taking steps to reduce our impact on the wild reefs. Since we as hobbyists care about having a healthy/diverse selection of animals to choose from for our tanks, we should be very careful about protecting that diversity. reefkeeping should be a method to preserve biodiversity rather than to reduce it, and that is (at least one, good reason) why we should strive for captive breeding as a replacement to catching wild organisms.
I would encourage you all to get the book "environmental ethics - what really matters, what really works" by david schmidtz and elizabeth willott from your local library and read some more about morality and ethics so that you can better understand why its so important to protect the environment. I think you will find that environmental protection is in your own best interest (and you can simultaneously promote the interests of other people and things).
and we do know, for the most part, that plants do not feel pain. Our basis for knowing that animals feel pain is the same basis we have for know that other humans feel pain. People and animals cringe/wince, yell/scream, or react in other primitive ways (not by saying "i am in pain"). It wouldn't be very convincing to you if i were to stand here, and say "i am in pain" in a way that is devoid of emotion or visual ques. Plants don't have the same reactions that people and animals have in responding to pain (their reactions to what we think could cause pain to a living thing can be explained in other ways, such as to maximize the receiving of light, for example). For more about sentience and an argument for vegetarianism, read "all animals are equal" (a fairly short essay)or "animal liberation" by peter singer.
But yes i agree that the sea sheperd organization has some holes in their logic and they don't seem to fully understand what "morality" is or what exactly their goal is. And I do agree that there are more pressing issues that they could be fighting. But as hobbyists, don't you think that we ought to show respect for the natural reefs and do all we can to protect them? Given the state of coral reefs right now, I think it is completely justified to end most collection of livestock for the reef hobby. Instead, we really ought to only be keeping animals that we can breed in captivity (and only collect wild animals for breeding endeavors). The reefs are in bad enough shape.
that said, I am not saying that I am perfect. I have two fish in my tank that are wild caught (and they are about 6 years old). I'm also not saying that we should end wild collection now. But we should be taking steps to reduce our impact on the wild reefs. Since we as hobbyists care about having a healthy/diverse selection of animals to choose from for our tanks, we should be very careful about protecting that diversity. reefkeeping should be a method to preserve biodiversity rather than to reduce it, and that is (at least one, good reason) why we should strive for captive breeding as a replacement to catching wild organisms.
I would encourage you all to get the book "environmental ethics - what really matters, what really works" by david schmidtz and elizabeth willott from your local library and read some more about morality and ethics so that you can better understand why its so important to protect the environment. I think you will find that environmental protection is in your own best interest (and you can simultaneously promote the interests of other people and things).
slapshot
Active member
You just made my point. Because a plant does not react in a way that YOU recognize as a pain reaction you assume there is no pain. The needle experiment proves there is a reaction. A plant has a life energy that must be destroyed. They could very well scream in pain in a way we can not hear. Just because they dont run away in fear does not mean they dont feel fear or scream in a way they can. Once again, you choose to believe that a plant is some lower level of life form for your convenience. Recognize life for what it is.... Life! In order to live we must kill. It is the imperfect fact of Mother Nature.
Lastly, you are ignoring the thousands of lives that are lost do to modern harvesting processes. Have you seen the hopper of a grain harvester? It is as bloody as any horror film. There is no doubt that a vegetarian diet is "more" ecological then a meat diet but it has costs that you assume don't exists to justify you arguments.
NewAcreReef
New member
I read articles like this and think to myself, "How can somebody really believe in this?"
People are crazy..
People are crazy..
mcginnisandrew
New member
slapshot I "assume there is no pain" because if a plant were to experience pain in the way I understand pain to be, I would expect it to react in a way similar to how I react to pain (and also have a nervous system capable of processing that pain). So yes I guess I am biased towards what I recognize to be pain. That said, I have a great deal of respect for all life. I do in fact believe that moral consideration goes beyond sentience (i.e. the ability to suffer and experience pleasure as humans understand it). Meaning that other things besides sentient animals have value in their own right. You are right, i can't know what exactly a plant "feels" but there is a good amount of evidence that plants do not "feel" in the same way that humans and most animals do. Of course, I prefer to do as little harm as possible, but that still requires that i harm some life, and I understand that.
Plants don't have a nervous system and don't(at my present awareness) have any way to consciously feel or experience things, so as far as I am concerned, they don't feel pain. Even if they do feel pain, i recognize that I am not perfect, and would need to survive by causing them pain. Causing animals pain in the form of slaughtering them to actively fulfill our desire for meat, on the other hand, is entirely unnecessary. We can survive without causing animals such immense pain and suffering. Since we know that animals can suffer, by killing them you are admitting that you believe that your interest in eating their flesh is more morally important than their interest in experiencing pleasure and not experiencing pain (and as far as we know, they experience pain on the same level that we as humans do). As Peter Singer would say, once you understand this you are showing a bias for your own species (unless of course you also eat human flesh) that is akin to racism. I on the other hand, am not, because as far as I am concerned plants do not feel pain.
Also for the purpose of simplicity I did not mention all of the ecological and moral costs of producing vegetarian food. Recognize that I only pointed out that meat production has hundreds MORE costs associated with it than plant production, for the sole reason that you must first produce plants (and a great deal of them) in order to produce meat. I don't believe that I assumed that producing plants doesn't have its own costs, and if my statements led you to believe that I made that assumption, then please forgive me for not being more explicit.
Hope that makes sense. I don't intend to call anyone immoral or claim that I am somehow "better" than anybody. I only intend to point out my logic.
Plants don't have a nervous system and don't(at my present awareness) have any way to consciously feel or experience things, so as far as I am concerned, they don't feel pain. Even if they do feel pain, i recognize that I am not perfect, and would need to survive by causing them pain. Causing animals pain in the form of slaughtering them to actively fulfill our desire for meat, on the other hand, is entirely unnecessary. We can survive without causing animals such immense pain and suffering. Since we know that animals can suffer, by killing them you are admitting that you believe that your interest in eating their flesh is more morally important than their interest in experiencing pleasure and not experiencing pain (and as far as we know, they experience pain on the same level that we as humans do). As Peter Singer would say, once you understand this you are showing a bias for your own species (unless of course you also eat human flesh) that is akin to racism. I on the other hand, am not, because as far as I am concerned plants do not feel pain.
Also for the purpose of simplicity I did not mention all of the ecological and moral costs of producing vegetarian food. Recognize that I only pointed out that meat production has hundreds MORE costs associated with it than plant production, for the sole reason that you must first produce plants (and a great deal of them) in order to produce meat. I don't believe that I assumed that producing plants doesn't have its own costs, and if my statements led you to believe that I made that assumption, then please forgive me for not being more explicit.
Hope that makes sense. I don't intend to call anyone immoral or claim that I am somehow "better" than anybody. I only intend to point out my logic.
alton
Well-known member
I think was slapshot was trying to say was when veggies are harvested thousands of small animals and reptiles are destroyed by the machinery that picks them. You would be amazed how many rattle snakes are harvested each year with the spinich crop. Back to the fish they continue to show the picture of all the dead very large tangs, I have never seen a very large tang in my lfs, much less several of the large tangs that where found dead. (I think it was a setup)
slapshot
Active member
+1
I am mearly pointing out that you are choosing a false choice. Yes, animals suffer for us to eat meat. But there is another side. OK, for example, the grass the cow eats that you keep bringing up as being so ecologically costly also provides oxygen to our environment and many other good things while it is there. The very cow you are discussing would not even know life, as it would not be here were it not for meat production. What of the millions of animals that live in their environment?
When the cow eats he does not kill thousands of animals that feel pain in the way you think they do. I have no illusions, a slaughter house is a very unpleasant place no doubt. But neither is a wheat bin. Trust me I have seen them. I just want you to see the hypocracy in your argument. You choose to believe a plant feels no pain, you choose to ignore the pain and death harvesting plants causes yet make a moral judgement about people who eat meat for the very same choice. That's all. Recognize that the meatless choice is not necessarily a morally superior one. You are free to eat what you chose, and I admire you choice, but it is not morally superior. Something dies for us to live, and it isn't pretty. We get the honor and the pain of choosing what that is.
Last edited:
slapshot
Active member
Sorry I went by my edit time limit..... Lastly, I would just add that modern kill practices in the slaughter house are as humane as they possibly can be. The poor rabbit guarding it's nest against the soybean picker only to get sucked up a chute, have it's limbs tore off only to be buried alive in a sea of grain would rather be the slaughter house animal at that point. I am guilty also, I chose not to eat shark fin soup, or whale meat for that matter. I find it morally wrong to carve off the limbs of an animal and then dump it back in the sea to slowly parish. The difference is I have no illusions of the cost for me to live.
Erm, have you seen slaughterhouse videos? A lot of them slit throats, then hang them upside down using hooks hoping they bleed to death before they hit the vats of boiling water that takes their skin off. And this is after being fed a nutritionally poor diet, being stuffed into the smallest space that the big farms are legally allowed to get away with, and the only "veterinary" care they are given, assuming they are not being grown organically, is to be pumped full of antibiotics so they'll live long enough to make it to the kill floor.
From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense that a plant could feel pain. The biggest example being that while a cow or a human can move away from a painful stimuli, and can leave an area entirely if it is constantly being hurt by standing in a certain spot, the plant can not. It can grow sideways to avoid a needle(and I would assume the same experiment would work with something that was not sharp as well. The plant likely senses it as something it needs to grow around instead of something "painful," seeing as how they also lack any sort of a nervous system.) Also, a lot of them are capable of reproducing when a limb is ripped from them and lands in moist soil. At least half of the plants you see inside being sold as houseplants at the big box stores are grown from cuttings or other various tissue cultures. And if the greenhouse takes cuttings properly, the plant will be stimulated to grow more vigorously than it had before it was hacked back. The only animals I know of that can do the same are a few species of sea stars. It makes no sense from an evolutionary stand point that they would be able to feel pain and yet have either no way to get away from it, or be able to use it to aid in reproduction. As far as I know, we can't cut a steak off of a cow and have the cow regenerate the steak so we can cut it again in a couple of months. And if a dog breeder takes his litter of dobermans in to get their tails and ears cut, he doesn't need to take them back in a few weeks to do the same, nor can he grow 3 new dobie pups from the scraps left over from their ears and tails. If you read plant books, when your flowers have withered, you are encouraged to cut them off to encourage the plant to grow more, and once a year we trim them back so they'll grow more vigorously, usually sprouting a few branches from where a single one was cut.
Perhaps a better term would have been "suffering?" If you break apart a plant, it won't register that it is in pain, only that it needs to grow more to replace the tissue that was lost. If you have a pet's leg amputated, it will take time to get used to the missing limb, and be in pain until the nerves have healed. It will register that it is hurt, it will register that there is something wrong, and take time to grow accustomed to the difference.
Not that it makes too much of a difference, but I am actually in the process of saving up cash for a down payment on enough land that I can(hopefully) grow 80-90% of my own food so I don't need to rely on hopper harvested grains, or farm grown stuff where they will indiscriminately kill any animal that they feel is a pest or a danger.
From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense that a plant could feel pain. The biggest example being that while a cow or a human can move away from a painful stimuli, and can leave an area entirely if it is constantly being hurt by standing in a certain spot, the plant can not. It can grow sideways to avoid a needle(and I would assume the same experiment would work with something that was not sharp as well. The plant likely senses it as something it needs to grow around instead of something "painful," seeing as how they also lack any sort of a nervous system.) Also, a lot of them are capable of reproducing when a limb is ripped from them and lands in moist soil. At least half of the plants you see inside being sold as houseplants at the big box stores are grown from cuttings or other various tissue cultures. And if the greenhouse takes cuttings properly, the plant will be stimulated to grow more vigorously than it had before it was hacked back. The only animals I know of that can do the same are a few species of sea stars. It makes no sense from an evolutionary stand point that they would be able to feel pain and yet have either no way to get away from it, or be able to use it to aid in reproduction. As far as I know, we can't cut a steak off of a cow and have the cow regenerate the steak so we can cut it again in a couple of months. And if a dog breeder takes his litter of dobermans in to get their tails and ears cut, he doesn't need to take them back in a few weeks to do the same, nor can he grow 3 new dobie pups from the scraps left over from their ears and tails. If you read plant books, when your flowers have withered, you are encouraged to cut them off to encourage the plant to grow more, and once a year we trim them back so they'll grow more vigorously, usually sprouting a few branches from where a single one was cut.
Perhaps a better term would have been "suffering?" If you break apart a plant, it won't register that it is in pain, only that it needs to grow more to replace the tissue that was lost. If you have a pet's leg amputated, it will take time to get used to the missing limb, and be in pain until the nerves have healed. It will register that it is hurt, it will register that there is something wrong, and take time to grow accustomed to the difference.
Not that it makes too much of a difference, but I am actually in the process of saving up cash for a down payment on enough land that I can(hopefully) grow 80-90% of my own food so I don't need to rely on hopper harvested grains, or farm grown stuff where they will indiscriminately kill any animal that they feel is a pest or a danger.
Similar threads
