PDA

View Full Version : Sea Shepherd Launches Operation Reef Defense Campaign in Hawaii


rrasco
05/24/2013, 12:49 PM
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is proud to announce the launch of Operation Reef Defense, a global campaign to end the destruction of coral reefs and the many threats they face worldwide. Coral reefs represent some of the planet’s most biologically diverse ecosystems providing critical habitat to approximately 25 percent of all marine species, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate due to human-induced activities such as pollution, overfishing, reef wildlife trafficking, coastal development and global warming. Thirty percent of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 50 years, and another 30 percent have suffered severe damage. Of the reefs remaining, it is estimated that 60 percent could face extinction in less than 25 years.

According to Sea Shepherd Hawaii Director & Reef Defense Campaign Leader, Deborah Bassett, "With the oceans of the world under attack from commercial extraction and pollution, our mission remains steadfast to defend marine habitat and wildlife to the fullest extent — from the smallest of reef species to the largest marine mammals and apex predators. Time is running out for these great rain forests under the sea, so we must act now."

Although Sea Shepherd is best known for its direct action efforts on the high seas, Sea Shepherd remains committed to protecting marine wildlife in all habitats, including the coastal awareness campaign orchestrated for Operation Reef Defense. Sea Shepherd plans to collaborate with Hawaiian dive shops and the surfing community to bring light to the destruction happening beneath the waves. With the campaign currently underway in Hawaii, Sea Shepherd’s global chapters will soon mirror similar programs in their local waters.

Reef degradation is a global crisis. Of the 100 countries with coral reefs, reef degradation is highest in Southeast Asia where nearly 95 percent of the region's reefs are threatened, mainly due to overfishing and destructive fishing practices. The loss of underwater life and habitat is also ever-present in our own backyard of Hawaii, where the top ten sought-after species of fish for aquariums have decreased by 59 percent over the last 20 years, while the most popular aquarium fish has declined in abundance from 38 to 57 percent. In Jamaica, it is estimated that almost all of the reefs are dead or severely degraded from overfishing and coastal pollution.

Sea Shepherd’s Vice President Robert Wintner, a veteran campaigner against the aquarium trade and its devastating impact to Hawaiian reefs stated, “Sea Shepherd will champion marine habitat and wildlife from the ravages of urban and corporate effluent and the destruction caused by the aquarium trade. Massive reef wildlife dies every year as disposable ornamentation in the vicious cycle of wildlife trafficking for the pet trade. Death generates continuing demand, driving the aquarium trade to strip reefs bare. Over 25 million sea creatures are in the commercial aquarium pipeline at any given moment – and nearly all will die within a year from the point of capture."

"Sea Shepherd is very much concerned for this wildlife and needs public support to translate these concerns into action. We may lose support from people who keep captive marine wildlife for a hobby, but as Captain Paul Watson has stated — our clients are the creatures of the sea. We hope that all people who are concerned for the oceans will recognize the importance of protecting reef eco-systems worldwide, and that if any of our supporters do keep marine wildlife in an aquarium, they will care for the wildlife they have and refrain from purchasing any more,” Wintner added.

Coral reefs simply cannot support continued unlimited resource usage or unmanaged global trade. Such drastic ongoing decline of healthy reefs will pose serious consequences for animals both on land and in the water and people worldwide.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2013/05/13/sea-shepherd-launches-operation-reef-defense-campaign-in-hawaii-1501

TankStudy
05/24/2013, 04:02 PM
nearly all will die within a year from the point of capture


"..."

mm949
05/24/2013, 06:09 PM
i hope the aquarium industry speaks up about the unfounded puke they are using to halt the trade of marine fish.
funny part is the recreational fishing kills 1000x more fish than the aquarium trade collects every year.
its obvious that its not about "saving the fish"....

NeilFox
05/24/2013, 06:57 PM
This guy is all about self aggrandiement. I hate the show; he sends his uniformed minions into harms way, in the Antarctic Ocean constantly, while he himself sits back in his warm comfortable Wheelhouse and watches the events unfold. Ratings must be down and the donations drying up. Look's like this hypocritical Hack Carnival Barker is just looking for another soapbox to preach from. I wonder how many tonnes of fuel the Steve Irwin burns running around Antarctica on it's futile hunt for Whaling Ships?

Khemul
05/25/2013, 06:09 PM
So, if it's like the other Sea Shepherd operations, they'll put a bunch of human lives in danger, whine that anyone who doesn't immediately surrender and/or acts in self-defense is aggressively attacking them and in the end accomplish absolutely nothing while declaring a resounding victory.

All in the name of fundraisi...err, the environment.

Unome
05/27/2013, 08:16 PM
So, if it's like the other Sea Shepherd operations, they'll put a bunch of human lives in danger, whine that anyone who doesn't immediately surrender and/or acts in self-defense is aggressively attacking them and in the end accomplish absolutely nothing while declaring a resounding victory.

All in the name of fundraisi...err, the environment.Hey, that sounds like Washington, DC!!!

rogersb
05/28/2013, 08:26 AM
So, if it's like the other Sea Shepherd operations, they'll put a bunch of human lives in danger, whine that anyone who doesn't immediately surrender and/or acts in self-defense is aggressively attacking them and in the end accomplish absolutely nothing while declaring a resounding victory.

All in the name of fundraisi...err, the environment.

My wife and I are not pro-whaling, but when confrontations occur, we root for the Japanese :)

accordsirh22
05/28/2013, 12:14 PM
i hope their fat leader chokes on a veggie burger while suffering a massive heart attack, dude is worse than michael moore

rrasco
05/28/2013, 01:40 PM
Not to mention they have to be the most amateur crew I've ever witnessed attempt to operate a vessel.

baringcs
05/28/2013, 01:50 PM
You know someone is going to end up injured or worse if they start trying to interfere with collectors while they are diving.

KafudaFish
05/28/2013, 02:03 PM
So their ship could destroy a reef?

humaguy
05/28/2013, 08:49 PM
ugh, knew this was only a matter of time..

avandss
05/29/2013, 08:04 AM
http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2010/08/22/the-dark-hobby-can-we-stop-the-devastating-impact-of-home-aquaria-on-reefs-worldwide-72

The average aquarium hobbyist is a 30-50+ male who spent hundreds or thousands, depending on the size of his tank, stand, lights, filters, pumps, tubing and ornaments. The tentative hobbyist with a ten-gallon tank and one anemone clownfish as seen in Finding Nemo stays in briefly, because anemone clownfish die soon in a small tank.

Topping the tank totem are corporate billionaires like Sumner Redstone (ex-chairman, Viacom and CBS), who compared his wall-to-wall-to-wall aquarium to all of Hawaii. “We went out in a boat (in Hawaii) where you could see what was underneath. They didn’t have a fraction of the fish that are in my living room,” Redstone told Kai Ryssdal of PBS.

Or Michael Dell (Computers), whose mega-tank runs about 8x8x40 and needs a maintenance crew.

When aquarium fish die (99% within a year), tanks need more fish. The fishious circle is relentless: flush & plunk a new fish. Most fish run $50 to $150 retail, with 15¢ to $15 to the collector. The Hawaii average is $4 per fish. Hobbyists may up the ante on a bandit angelfish for $400, or a masked angel for $5,000.


Yellow tangs are 60-80% of the total catch.
Not every home hobbyist is oblivious to reef damage—some are seeing the difference between loving reef fish and loving to keep reef fish in a tank. An aquarium will not forgive bad chemistry, salinity, pH, temperature, predatory balance and other variables. When aquarium fish die, the hobbyist may try something new on the next round of fish, in a killing cycle for reef fish and reefs, a cycle called “sustainable” by the aquarium trade.

Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii reefs for years, with huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. A state agency manages the trade as a “fishery” admitting that the reported catch of 1-2 million fish per year is off by a factor of 2-5 times.

When South Maui Senator Roz Baker held a round table to review aquarium trade regulation, a major Hawaii exporter sat in and corrected the state’s count of 500,000 yellow tangs annual, saying he shipped a million yellow tangs as one of 15 exporters known by the state and 10 more shipping from unmarked warehouses and garages.

Let me, Snorkel Bob, help here: 1-2 x 2-5 = 2-10 million fish per year. If I present these numbers at any public forum, the aquarium hunters guffaw, sanguine that such extraction is not possible.

Last year on Maui, one dealer reported purchasing more fish than all the collectors reported catching. But let’s not bog down in details. 2 million? 5 million? Who’s counting?


Saddleback butterfly, extremely rare, for sale online.
Let’s go to morality. I, Snorkel Bob, frame aquarium collecting as a moral issue. The aquarium trade wants to call it a conservation issue and feels slighted by the moral context. But practicality has been a common cause of immoral behaviors through history. Guilt is most often denied, especially in public—like the crew of Nishin Maru waving signs that say RESEARCH, as the deck flows red with the blood of their cetacean victims.

An aquarium fish dealer on Maui claimed: “Fish are not a finite resource like oil and gold, they are highly reproductive, some releasing millions of eggs multiple times a year. The small fish population has to do with Maui having the wrong type of habitat that certain fish seek out to live in. You go into the desert and you won’t find an alligator.” Yes, we have no alligators on Maui, but we once had an abundance of fish, and it wasn't so long ago.

When State Senator Josh Green (District 3, Kona Coast) unveiled a bill to ban aquarium collecting recently, one aquarium hunter called Senator Green “politically motivated and uneducated.” Another called him “extreme and not warranted.” They cannot grasp the loathsome perception of the general public. They do not share the common morality.


A young forceps butterfly with dorsal flair.
Among fundamental facts are: 1) campaigns in the Hawaii State Legislature over the last few years showed that nearly all reps and senators want to ban aquarium collecting in Hawaii. All legislative efforts were derailed in the House, where every conservation measure suffers Water & Land Chair Ken Ito’s pledge that no bill will pass unless it is “good for fishing.” Speaker Calvin Say guides Rep Ito, and the matrix goes to (lame duck) Governor Linda Lingle (R) and her Chief Policy Advisor, a former wholesaler for the aquarium trade. This is big money.

The Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) began in 1956 as the aquarium trade removed coral reefs from Hawaii piece by piece. The trade also “harvested” (hammered & chiseled) live rock—porous substrate habitat for small creatures critical to reef survival and amusing in an aquarium. After 20 YEARS of coral reef reduction to rubble (1978), DLNR began limiting coral extraction by species till 1996, when State law banned all coral and live rock extraction—40 YEARS to protect reef habitat.

Yet we have no protection for the habitués.

Continuing moral and practical dilemma faces the State of Hawaii in the fish kill at Honokohou Harbor on the Big Island. The Kona coast is 135 miles of continuous reef. Once called the Gold Coast for its yellow tangs in the surf, now it’s the gold coast because Charles Schwab and Michael Dell plunked down $50 million on lots there. The new gold rush is for easy pickin’s on aquarium fish with no catch limits. Grossly mismanaged on data spun politically, those reefs are now minus 8 species. “Nobody knows where they went or why.” A typical prospector came over from the mainland, built a holding tank and got out there for his fair share, till his tank failed on 650 yellow tangs and butterflyfish. Oh, darn. He bagged them up for the freezer. Otherwise they’d stink!


Yellow tangs, dead at Honokohou Harbor, Kona, Hawaii.
A few months later, he tossed them into a dumpster at Honokohou Harbor. Why not? The dumpster gets emptied every day to two.

By the grace of Neptune, that bag was not green, it was clear.

That aquarium hunter had no idea where he was or whose kindred spirits he’d killed for chump change. Two women saw the bag and laid each dead fish on the pavement. The media swooped.

While the dramatic effect was huge, the practical meaning was nothing next to a single fish dying in each of the 1.5 million aquarium tanks worldwide.

The legal fallout may be monumental. DLNR manages the aquarium trade as “a fishery,” seeking optimal revenue by extraction. Yet entirely separate laws regulate treatment, feeding and handling of animals caught for the pet trade—wildlife pet trafficking. Aquarium trade “best practices” are inhumane. DLNR’s Honokohou-fish-kill investigation was no more legit than Mr. Fox’s hen house inventory control.

DLNR along with CORAL and Reef Check International call the aquarium trade “important” and “sustainable,” supporting disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. “Sustainable” means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse—the Kona “fishery” is declining from collapsing butterflyfish populations. DLNR monitors the decline and defends the trade, claiming “no proof” that collecting causes decline.


Chevron tang, $150 online.
Reef Check International and CORAL operate on grants and donations. Reef Check is an apologist/front group for the aquarium trade. Director Eric Cohen is the biggest Hawaii reef fish reseller in the nation. Eric Cohen calls himself a “stakeholder” in Hawaii reefs. Reef Check stridently solicits donations to help “monitor reef health” while urging more aquarium extraction with “sustainable” measures in place. This is “conservation” as a means to mo money. (see www.FortheFishes.org )

In January Hawaii will have a new governor and may have new leadership in the legislature. Grassroots efforts in Maui County cracked down on aquarium extraction in August, 2010 setting critical precedent in Hawaii.

Aquarium collecting in Hawaii has no limit on the catch, no limit on the number of catchers and no constraints on rare or endemic species. 98% of Hawaii reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal. The trade screams bloody murder on any regulation proposed to date, screaming with equal urgency that aquarium collecting MUST REMAIN SUSTAINABLE!

Maui’s Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, the entire legislative delegation, the Mayor and a majority of Maui County residents that may exceed 99% want to keep these so-called “aquarium fish” at home on Maui reefs.

The late Ed Lindsay, a Hawaiian and charismatic leader, recalled a tired walk through a hotel lobby in California. Road weary and ready to relax, he stopped short at the aquarium where a Hawaiian cleaner wrasse (hinalea) stared sadly out. Ed said he nearly cried. He felt helpless and angry and determined to let the world know that it is welcome in the land of Aloha, but it can no longer take what belongs here.

The Hawaiian cleaner wrasse, found nowhere else in the world, cleans parasites from other fish. Its absence exposes reefs to parasite infestation. Captive Hawaiian cleaners starve to death in 30 days—you can buy one on line today for $50. It left $4 in Hawaii.

Featherduster worms bore into coral heads, then stick out their dusters to filter-feed. Aquarium hunters “collect” featherdusters by smashing the coral. The aquarium trade response: “But we don’t take featherdusters anymore!” Because they’re gone, leaving coral rubble behind. They took 67,000 in ’03. 16,000 in ’09.

Next came hermit crabs:

Hermits change shells, but with hundreds of thousands of hermits strip-mined by the aquarium trade, many reefs are vulnerable to collapse. In Kane’ohe Bay on Oahu they took 300,000 to sell for 11¢ each—indifferent to the hermits role as a lynchpin species integral to reef survival. The aquarium trade protests that it doesn’t take hermits (so much) anymore—because the hermits too are nearly gone.

Neither hermit crabs nor eels of any species require any permit for collection. With emphasis now on huge tanks in Hong Kong and Kona, demand is up for adult eels. Capture is quick, with a short piece of plastic pipe closed and baited at one end. Adult brood eels are now leaving Hawaii with no limit, no count and no future.

The Humane Society of the U.S. and Humane Society International (HSUS/HSI) state that reef fish have complex needs and are not suited for captivity. Reef animals in confinement live far short of their natural potential. Yellow tangs can live 40 years on a reef, but tank stress most often kills them in a year—if capture and transport doesn’t kill them first. Yellow tangs are herbivores who graze on algae dawn to dusk. Algae suffocation is a primary threat to Hawaii reefs. Millions of yellow tangs ship out annually.

HSUS/HSI call Hawaii’s approval of animal abuse for wildlife pet trafficking appalling. Fizzing is puncturing the fish’s air bladder with a hypodermic needle to compensate barotrauma on rapid ascent (bulging eye death).



Also speaking out is a new book by me, Snorkel Bob, from Skyhorse Publications, NY.

Some Fishes I Have Known is 300 photos on 200 pages—up-close family portraits of a few gill breathers in social interaction, communion and yes, friendship with an old familiar. The narrative may change minds. A few aquarium hobbyists may see the light and hear our beloved 41st President of the United States of America, Ronald W. Reagan, who cried out, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this aquarium!”

The promotional tour will reach millions, bringing this topic to the surface. All photos here are by me, Snorkel Bob, from Some Fishes I Have Known, except for one.

What can you do? If you see an aquarium, ask that it be taken down for the sake of the reefs, the fish and us.

avandss
05/29/2013, 08:07 AM
now all of you take down your aquariums! and send me everything so i can properly dispose of it :)

saltyair
05/29/2013, 10:12 AM
no send it to me!!!!

On a serious note I am a whale and sea life lover - and do agree that whales and sharks do not need to be hunted period.

Lets look at the real threat please and not at the evil aquarium trade - if the only threat was the aquarium trade the reefs would be flourishing. We actually learn more about the sea with reef aquariums.

The real threat is on land, the chemicals and deforestation create the run off sediment that crashes reefs, oil spills that kill BILLIONS of life on the reef. Lets put our money and efforts into the real issues - not a headline that will get a few hits and $.

oh btw my YT is now 5+yr old.

I do agree on regulation of capture (IE: cyanide and ethical practices)

Unfortunately this is how global warming gets all confused and disputed because both sides inflate there sides. Results nothing gets done!!!

Shame on the sea Sheppard organization for not being truthful.

NeilFox
05/29/2013, 02:35 PM
Wow, that guy makes no sense. If there are 1.5 million aquariums world wide, where are these 1 million yellow tangs a year going. What about the hobbyists contribution to science. It was though that maintaining corals were impossible when I started doing this. Now; thanks to hobbyists, science has recognised the value of anecdotal evidence. It is to the point that it may be aquarists, who actually become the reefs saviour.

The demise of coral reefs has little to do with the aquarium trade and more to do with developement and agriculture. Let's see Sea Shepherd stop the rising sea levels or curtail melting pack ice...

accordsirh22
05/30/2013, 12:11 AM
sea shepherd and their buttbuddies, the hsus, are nothing but terrorists trying to strip everyones rights away. everything possible needs to be done to end these monsters

ThorEffex
05/30/2013, 04:34 PM
How much damage do you think a 15lb+ anchor from pleasure boats do to a reef?

Or run off or spillage from ships? Or the pollutants that enter the atmosphere like sulphur from burning heavy fuels measured by tones per hour? But then again it's ok they make billions a year.

baringcs
05/30/2013, 09:05 PM
Lets not forget all of the pollution being spewed out by the big ole jets taking said tourists to Hawaii...

mm949
05/31/2013, 01:53 PM
good news! no merit to the case, was thrown out...

Khemul
05/31/2013, 03:50 PM
I wonder how much damage the tourists snorkeling on the reef cause...

rlpardue
05/31/2013, 10:36 PM
I have a confession: I love watching Whale Wars, but I find myself cheering for the Japanese whalers. It just doesn't make sense to me that the whale watchers won't view reefs or whales or anything as a resource and try to manage it as a sustainable fishery...

rlpardue
05/31/2013, 10:38 PM
LOL, read this excerpt. It's discussing why the sea shepherd folks don't care about sustainability:

“Sustainability 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.

“We don’t use the ‘f word,” he says, referring to fishing. “This 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. “I am here because I have a relationship with fish…It’s a moral issue.”

Khemul
06/01/2013, 05:02 PM
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...

TimeConsumer
06/02/2013, 08:35 AM
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...

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?

russeko8
06/02/2013, 02:07 PM
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
06/03/2013, 01:17 AM
Reminds me of those global warming activitists: talk a bunch of BS with minimal / false info to mislead the general public.

Riona
06/03/2013, 05:44 PM
Originally Posted by Khemul View Post
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...
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?

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 :D (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.

Unome
06/03/2013, 08:33 PM
LOL, read this excerpt. It's discussing why the sea shepherd folks don't care about sustainability:

“Sustainability 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.

“We don’t use the ‘f word,” he says, referring to fishing. “This 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. “I am here because I have a relationship with fish…It’s a moral issue.”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. :D

slapshot
06/03/2013, 08:47 PM
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 :D (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.

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.

wii64brawl
06/03/2013, 09:02 PM
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
06/04/2013, 01:24 AM
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).

slapshot
06/04/2013, 06:43 AM
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 .

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.

xtlosx
06/04/2013, 11:29 AM
These guys are idiots and should honestly be jailed for the international terrorism they commit.

NewAcreReef
06/04/2013, 08:13 PM
I read articles like this and think to myself, "How can somebody really believe in this?"

People are crazy..

mcginnisandrew
06/04/2013, 10:48 PM
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.

alton
06/05/2013, 06:47 AM
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
06/05/2013, 07:14 AM
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.

+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.

slapshot
06/05/2013, 08:28 AM
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.

Riona
06/05/2013, 10:48 AM
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.

rlpardue
06/05/2013, 11:54 AM
I have no idea how this thread transitioned from the Sea Shepherd and ecoterrorism to vegan-ness, but let's get back on track.

Khemul
06/05/2013, 01:02 PM
Because the plant vs animal thing at least has debatable concepts. :lmao:

There is at least something to ground in fact. The Sea Shepherd thing ends with the basic concept that they are nut jobs. Hyper-moralists who believe anyone who disagrees with them is evil. slapshot and Riona can disagree with each other, but they still believe the other person has a right to exist. Sea Shepherd has indicated in the past that they consider hurting, or even putting a person's life in danger, is an act of non-violent protest. Basically Sea Shepherd feels it is okay to hurt anyone who is doing an act they disagree with.


Personally, I don't care where my food comes from. But I don't disagree with other people caring. I don't disagree with people who feel it is wrong to eat animals. I disagree with people who think they are being morally superior because they feel a certain way. That is the problem with Sea Shepherd and the other moral activists. They don't come up with arguments for why they feel the way they do. They simply define their own morality and then demand the world bend to conform to it. The animal vs plant thing (wasn't really trying to start a debate there, but at least it stayed civil) is the perfect example of how these things should be. People who argue their viewpoint but don't instantly right off the other side as being evil. Sea Shepherd's own language makes this type of thing impossible. Anyone in the pet trade is instantly evil to them and not worth listening too. Just like anyone on a Japanese whaling vessel is evil, so they can justify putting those people's lives in danger as an act of "non-violence". And then they hide behind their "non-violent" ways when the other side responds. They call it aggressive and cry about how the other side is putting lives in danger. They are quite clearly insane.

mcginnisandrew
06/05/2013, 01:17 PM
Before we get back to the fish, I would like to reiterate this:

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.
.





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.

I don't know what source you get your meat from, but most of the animals grown for food in the united states are raised on grain (not grass) and are raised and slaughtered in extremely inhumane ways. Thousands waste away from disease before finally dying a miserable death on feed lots and "farms". So no, most meat production is not as humane as you make it out to be in the united states. Also since most livestock is raised on grain, by consuming that livestock you have already caused ALL of the problems associated producing that grain, and all of the death that goes along with it (e.g. animals getting torn up in grain hoppers). As i stated before, I am not under the delusion that producing plants for food has no moral costs (like the death of an animal, or the destruction of an ecosystem), but i do know that a diet consisting of meat will almost always cause more death of sentient animals than a plant based diet (at least in the united states, with the way our food system is). Of course there may be some exceptions (such as a person that only eats livestock rasied on grass and killed in "humane" ways versus a person who eats grain grown from large commercial farms).
That said, you have already assumed that the source of my food is large commercial farms when in fact i grow some of my own food and much of the rest is locally sourced from smaller organic farms, which i like to think don't cause as MUCH harm to living animals as do large commercial farms.

Some other points: the enormous dead zone in the gulf (and many others all over the world) is caused by nutrient runoff from feedlots and large commercial farms. Yes, a system where cows are raised on grass may be more ecologically sound, but that is not how most of our food system works. Also I don't like the argument that we are doing these animals "good" by bringing them life. They would not have to suffer through life in the way we have forced them to if we didn't raise so many of them.

Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).

jerpa
06/05/2013, 01:36 PM
Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).

As does a life utilizing indoor plumbing, electricity, modern transportation, computers, the internet, and your fish tank. You may choose to feel morally superior for your food choices but it does not negate the hypocrisy of your argument when applied to your existence.

Can we please get back on topic.

rrasco
06/05/2013, 01:40 PM
So when does Reef Wars premiere?

slapshot
06/05/2013, 01:49 PM
Before we get back to the fish, I would like to reiterate this:






I don't know what source you get your meat from, but most of the animals grown for food in the united states are raised on grain (not grass) and are raised and slaughtered in extremely inhumane ways. Thousands waste away from disease before finally dying a miserable death on feed lots and "farms". So no, most meat production is not as humane as you make it out to be in the united states. Also since most livestock is raised on grain, by consuming that livestock you have already caused ALL of the problems associated producing that grain, and all of the death that goes along with it (e.g. animals getting torn up in grain hoppers). As i stated before, I am not under the delusion that producing plants for food has no moral costs (like the death of an animal, or the destruction of an ecosystem), but i do know that a diet consisting of meat will almost always cause more death of sentient animals than a plant based diet (at least in the united states, with the way our food system is). Of course there may be some exceptions (such as a person that only eats livestock rasied on grass and killed in "humane" ways versus a person who eats grain grown from large commercial farms).
That said, you have already assumed that the source of my food is large commercial farms when in fact i grow some of my own food and much of the rest is locally sourced from smaller organic farms, which i like to think don't cause as MUCH harm to living animals as do large commercial farms.

Some other points: the enormous dead zone in the gulf (and many others all over the world) is caused by nutrient runoff from feedlots and large commercial farms. Yes, a system where cows are raised on grass may be more ecologically sound, but that is not how most of our food system works. Also I don't like the argument that we are doing these animals "good" by bringing them life. They would not have to suffer through life in the way we have forced them to if we didn't raise so many of them.

Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).

I will end our little discussion by just simply telling you you are not entirely wrong but you are far from right. Most if not all cattle are fed by pasture for the great majority of their lives. They are "finished" in the feed lot for a few weeks to maybe two months. It simply is not be economical to feed grain their entire life. The feed lots while not spacious are not what chicken endure by any means. The sick animals you are talking about is not the "norm," not even close. Those are a product of our dairy industry and are not even used for human consumption. I understand and agree with your emotions. I don't agree with putting one form of life over the other to make myself "feel good"

I have seen these processes first hand....have you? First hand, not some video made who knows where, who knows when. Seriously, I admit you are right on most of your points and even conceded the slaughter house is no place to be if you did not have to. You are simply wrong thinking switching our society from meat to plant would even begin to stop pollution, it would in fact increase it. That it would end cruel death of other animals, it would not. I will state my point as clear as I can. Eating anything kills and destroys another life. It is sad, even unthinkable, but you hold no moral ground to me than a meat eater. I have seen first hand the death and know the truth. You clearly have not. Lastly, you are assuming I eat meat.

rlpardue
06/05/2013, 02:10 PM
A rambling: A typical late-night discussion on board the now-useless Sea Shepherd:

"Hey brah, pass the bong...OK, I have a question for you:
If you saw Al Gore harpooning a whale, would you:
A) Ignore it in deference to Al's climate change film?
B) Politely ask him to stop?
C) Harpoon him?

OK, OK, I got a better one:
Would you kill a person to save a whale's life? What if it was your own mother? Would you kill your mother to save a whale's life?"

I bet they one-up each other on the force of their will to save the whales...

russeko8
06/05/2013, 07:27 PM
All this talk about meat and veggies is making me hungry.... Im going to go snack on some acropora branches.... Oh yah what about The GREAT Sea Shepard show, and that is what it is a show.... Poor one at that too. The Whales have lost there ratings lets move onto coral trade.

tallball158
06/05/2013, 09:18 PM
Wow Sea Shepard what a bunch of BS! I guess the funds are running out, so they had to come up with a new scheme!

mcginnisandrew
06/06/2013, 01:45 AM
Personal witness may be compelling in some ways but it certainly isn't enough to make generalizations about the entire food system. Go look up "CAFO". There is a reason these things are not easily accessible. There simply isn't enough space to produce all of the meat this country consumes by giving each cow all of the grazing space that it would need to feed istelf. That is why we have these highly intensive food growing systems (which are not sustainable). Any college level class in ecology or environmental studies will clearly lay this out.
Go read something by Peter Singer (Animal Liberation, maybe). He spells out my argument very clearly.

I don't understand how it makes any sense that directly eating animals somehow kills an equal number of animals as directly eating plants. Your logic does not follow. Even if you measure this by "number of animals killed" or "amount of biomass consumed", a vegetarian diet is lower in both counts. I do agree that plants hold tremendous moral value as well (this is something you seem to believe), but even so, if you believe an animal holds the same value as a plant, eating a meat based diet causes the death of more living things than a plant based diet. This is extremely basic to ecology. Vegetarians are lower on "the food chain". Look up the 10% rule. Understand that more and more organisms are required to sustain life as you move up trophic levels.

I haven't even gotten into intrinsic value of plant life. But essentially a plant based diet is the "best" way to cause the least amount of death of living organisms.

I don't deny that there are many aspects of my life that are immoral or can be perceived as immoral. I am not claiming moral superiority to anybody. I am making a utilitarian argument; we ought to strive to do the least amount of harm possible if we have the means to.

I'm sorry if i have come across as arrogant or hateful, I am simply trying to explain my logic. Obviously we are not going to come to a consensus so lets agree to disagree.

lastly, slapshot, i'm curious. If you don't mind me asking, Do you eat meat? It won't change anything I have already said, I am simply curious.

Jerpa, in order to help us get back on to the topic of complaining about the Sea Sheperds, I'll offer this: We ought to strive to minimize our negative impact on the oceans wherever possible. There may be "some" truth to their claims that our hobby does damage to the oceans, but taking the position of "well commercial fishing is worse" isn't going to help. A better defense is to either show the benefits we have brought to the ocean/world (in conservation, aquaculture, etc), or to work towards even MORE sustainable practices. There is always room for improvement.

KafudaFish
06/06/2013, 09:08 AM
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.

I think I agree with we shall agree to disagree statement.

I do wonder how this statement can even begin to make any sense when discussing eating meat vs. plants. There is a huge difference between racism and “showing a bias for your own species”. This bias is found throughout the animal kingdom and from your points you seem to believe that we are part of nature instead of being excluded from it due to technology like some.

It sounds like Peter Singer is confusing racism with altrusim because I am concerned about the welfare of my family in regards to diet. Yes I do care about my family much more than I do other people too. I suppose the question must be asked is why do we eat meat? Is it because bacon tastes good? Yes. Is it because it allowed our ancestors to have more free time and got us out of caves? Yes. Is it because our teeth have different shapes and the amount of enamel we have is much less compared to a herbivore? Yes.

You keep stating that this should not be a moral issue yet you keep making points that it should be considered one.

Lastly one area that many fail when trying to convince others of their point of view is they alienate others at the beginning and then devote their remaining energy on trying to get their audience on board.

Even if Singer was 100% correct I have a very hard giving him the time for a moment's thought to his side of the argument because according to him, because I show bias towards my own species and therefore I am a racist.

Few people would consider being called a racist acceptable especially when one does not think that way.

For example if you think about it the SS has made a “moral” choice to save the reefs. I bet if we took a poll and asked the question, “Is saving the environment/reefs important to you?” we would get a majority response of yes and on RC we would probably get 95+%. But if we asked the question, “Do you support the tactics of the SS and other similar organizations to save the environment/reefs?” I bet the percentages would be much lower. The ultimate goal is the same but why the difference?

Some would argue that they have taken a moral and ethical purpose and twisted it around for their own gain and therefore their ultimate goal is not to save anything but to make a name for themselves and to increase their bank accounts.

To this day I don't understand how they were never sunk and the Japanese did not put their military on these ships and claim they thought terrorists were trying to gain access therefore they had to use force to protect the citizens. FYI I am against whaling 100% and think that is is total bs that whaling countries conduct “scientificstudies” on whale populations by taking.

Yes life is all about moral choices but I don't need someone telling me that according to their views my choices are wrong and I am immoral because of that.

Why would I?

dixiedog
06/06/2013, 10:50 AM
LOL, read this excerpt. It's discussing why the sea shepherd folks don't care about sustainability:

“Sustainability 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.

“We don’t use the ‘f word,” he says, referring to fishing. “This 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. “I am here because I have a relationship with fish…It’s a moral issue.”


I hope that idiot gets eaten by a Kraken.

Adamw327
06/06/2013, 12:04 PM
AMG go to the lounge and argue veganess, stop trying to hijack a thread to talk about something unrelated to the hobby.

While we are here tho, open your mouth. Stick your finger in. Feel those sharp points? They are for meat. Feel those flat grinding stone areas? Those are for plants.

If you still dont understand. Bite your damn fingers off and stop arguing on forums

rlpardue
06/06/2013, 01:21 PM
Here guys, continue the vegan vs animal-eater conversation in this thread that I made just for you guys:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21587266#post21587266

I'll make a couple of inflammatory and controversial opening statements so that you will feel comfortable.

Back to the Sea Shepherd...

BrianD
06/06/2013, 01:29 PM
I'll make a couple of inflammatory and controversial opening statements so that you will feel comfortable.

...

That will end badly for you.

rlpardue
06/06/2013, 01:31 PM
It was tongue in cheek.

rlpardue
06/06/2013, 01:33 PM
I support the RC no flaming policy btw.

BrianD
06/06/2013, 01:33 PM
This isn't the forum for debating vegan/etc etc. Let's move on.

BrianD
06/06/2013, 01:34 PM
It was tongue in cheek.

The Lounge is not a dumping ground for discussions that are not UA friendly. That one is certainly going down that road.

rrasco
06/06/2013, 01:39 PM
I wonder if corals feel pain. Do they have a central nervous system?

hoffy02
06/06/2013, 01:59 PM
You tell 'em KafudaDoc!!

Meat is awesome! Had a 1" thick ribeye last night.. And a huge pile of fried shrimp!!

rrasco
06/06/2013, 02:11 PM
Can we please get over the vegetarian debate? That's not why I started this thread.

Allmost
06/06/2013, 02:17 PM
I wonder if corals feel pain. Do they have a central nervous system?

no central nervous system. but that for sure is an interesting topic ... pain in general is. even in humans, we had to take a 1 year course, just on pain, for biomed.

there was a research done here [Guelph university] where they used cardiogram, to see if plants feel . interestingly, the plant responded to its leafs being cut, and also responded to its leafs being cleaned ! they respond great to music and .. as well ! there are grape farms around the world, where they play music for their trees ! the trees close to the source grew more !

of course, all these could be dependant on the vibration of music and ... , and even if not, we would never understand what actually goes on for the plant or corals but ....

rrasco
06/06/2013, 03:10 PM
I guess the mythbusters got that one wrong then. I think they did it over a very short term though. And like you said, it could be from unobserved variables in the test. Interesting to say the least.

Allmost
06/06/2013, 03:11 PM
voice/music is vibration.

Khemul
06/06/2013, 03:33 PM
I can see where the pain issue could get confusing. After all, are we looking for a scream or a response? I know from my Kenya Trees that they definitely respond to things we'd consider painful. Cut off a branch and the whole colony will jerk back instantly and shrivel up. Who knows if it feels it in any way, since it doesn't make noise we can hear. It may just be responding to a threat and triggering a survival instinct that tells it to shrivel up until whatever took out part of the colony goes away. But then, that seems to be exactly what a pain response is designed to due for animals/humans. So in the end, is it the screaming that makes it pain or the response?

Let's hope Sea Shepherd doesn't think of these types of things...

baringcs
06/06/2013, 03:49 PM
I can see where the pain issue could get confusing. After all, are we looking for a scream or a response? I know from my Kenya Trees that they definitely respond to things we'd consider painful. Cut off a branch and the whole colony will jerk back instantly and shrivel up. Who knows if it feels it in any way, since it doesn't make noise we can hear. It may just be responding to a threat and triggering a survival instinct that tells it to shrivel up until whatever took out part of the colony goes away. But then, that seems to be exactly what a pain response is designed to due for animals/humans. So in the end, is it the screaming that makes it pain or the response?

Let's hope Sea Shepherd doesn't think of these types of things...

My Euphyllia will do the same thing if I put my fingers near them and touch them so I don't think we can assume that it is a pain response.

ReeferKimberly
06/06/2013, 03:59 PM
I have spoken with Paul Watson personally (and he has spoken about ME personally). I am good friends with Pete Bethune and Ady Gil who Paul has thrown under the bus. Paul is a huge liar. I am very much into aquaculture and there are for sure some things I agree should be left in the sea, but I can say from very very personal (as in my actual self) he lies about people and I don't put him past lying about anything else at this point either.

slapshot
06/06/2013, 06:14 PM
lastly, slapshot, i'm curious. If you don't mind me asking, Do you eat meat? It won't change anything I have already said, I am simply curious.

Jerpa, in order to help us get back on to the topic of complaining about the Sea Sheperds, I'll offer this: We ought to strive to minimize our negative impact on the oceans wherever possible. There may be "some" truth to their claims that our hobby does damage to the oceans, but taking the position of "well commercial fishing is worse" isn't going to help. A better defense is to either show the benefits we have brought to the ocean/world (in conservation, aquaculture, etc), or to work towards even MORE sustainable practices. There is always room for improvement.

Your not coming across as hateful at all. We shall agree to disagree. I eat meat...rarely. Lastly, I totally agree with your last paragraph!

slapshot
06/06/2013, 06:17 PM
i think i agree with we shall agree to disagree statement.

I do wonder how this statement can even begin to make any sense when discussing eating meat vs. Plants. There is a huge difference between racism and “showing a bias for your own species”. This bias is found throughout the animal kingdom and from your points you seem to believe that we are part of nature instead of being excluded from it due to technology like some.

It sounds like peter singer is confusing racism with altrusim because i am concerned about the welfare of my family in regards to diet. Yes i do care about my family much more than i do other people too. I suppose the question must be asked is why do we eat meat? Is it because bacon tastes good? Yes. Is it because it allowed our ancestors to have more free time and got us out of caves? Yes. Is it because our teeth have different shapes and the amount of enamel we have is much less compared to a herbivore? Yes.

You keep stating that this should not be a moral issue yet you keep making points that it should be considered one.

Lastly one area that many fail when trying to convince others of their point of view is they alienate others at the beginning and then devote their remaining energy on trying to get their audience on board.

Even if singer was 100% correct i have a very hard giving him the time for a moment's thought to his side of the argument because according to him, because i show bias towards my own species and therefore i am a racist.

Few people would consider being called a racist acceptable especially when one does not think that way.

For example if you think about it the ss has made a “moral” choice to save the reefs. I bet if we took a poll and asked the question, “is saving the environment/reefs important to you?” we would get a majority response of yes and on rc we would probably get 95+%. But if we asked the question, “do you support the tactics of the ss and other similar organizations to save the environment/reefs?” i bet the percentages would be much lower. The ultimate goal is the same but why the difference?

Some would argue that they have taken a moral and ethical purpose and twisted it around for their own gain and therefore their ultimate goal is not to save anything but to make a name for themselves and to increase their bank accounts.

To this day i don't understand how they were never sunk and the japanese did not put their military on these ships and claim they thought terrorists were trying to gain access therefore they had to use force to protect the citizens. Fyi i am against whaling 100% and think that is is total bs that whaling countries conduct “scientificstudies” on whale populations by taking.

Yes life is all about moral choices but i don't need someone telling me that according to their views my choices are wrong and i am immoral because of that.

Why would i?

+1

slapshot
06/06/2013, 06:23 PM
no central nervous system. but that for sure is an interesting topic ... pain in general is. even in humans, we had to take a 1 year course, just on pain, for biomed.

there was a research done here [Guelph university] where they used cardiogram, to see if plants feel . interestingly, the plant responded to its leafs being cut, and also responded to its leafs being cleaned ! they respond great to music and .. as well ! there are grape farms around the world, where they play music for their trees ! the trees close to the source grew more !

of course, all these could be dependant on the vibration of music and ... , and even if not, we would never understand what actually goes on for the plant or corals but ....


Ahh, back to the needle test. My first martial arts instructor summed it up best to me...."pain is just a feeling, one which we can chose to enjoy or dislike." I say again, who are we to assume the only pain is the way we feel it?

rlpardue
06/06/2013, 08:57 PM
I have spoken with Paul Watson personally (and he has spoken about ME personally). I am good friends with Pete Bethune and Ady Gil who Paul has thrown under the bus. Paul is a huge liar. I am very much into aquaculture and there are for sure some things I agree should be left in the sea, but I can say from very very personal (as in my actual self) he lies about people and I don't put him past lying about anything else at this point either.

In your opinion, is he narcissistic? One aspect of the show that I found particularly disturbing was when he would launch "public education campaigns"/media blitzes where he grossly exaggerated or distorted various events involving the whalers or whoever else crossed his path - it seemed like he was lying (because lying includes such intentional exaggerations in order to manipulate) in order to get his way. Scary stuff...

ReeferKimberly
06/06/2013, 09:02 PM
In your opinion, is he narcissistic? One aspect of the show that I found particularly disturbing was when he would launch "public education campaigns"/media blitzes where he grossly exaggerated or distorted various events involving the whalers or whoever else crossed his path - it seemed like he was lying (because lying includes such intentional exaggerations in order to manipulate) in order to get his way. Scary stuff...

Oh my god yes. You should read his "poetry". I would show you but I am blocked from his FB ;)

GreshamH
06/13/2013, 05:57 PM
like when he "got shot" by the Japanese whaling ship?

xtlosx
06/13/2013, 06:00 PM
I am waiting for the day they all get crushed by the whales they strive to protect. Certainly the whale will feel remorse.

slapshot
06/13/2013, 06:04 PM
like when he "got shot" by the Japanese whaling ship?

Thank God for that badge. I guess we all should carry a fake badge, just incase some unknown, Japanese guy takes a shot at us. lol....no RALMAO

GreshamH
06/13/2013, 06:08 PM
Thank God for that badge. I guess we all should carry a fake badge, just incase some unknown, Japanese guy takes a shot at us. lol....no RALMAO

:lol: I forgot about that one :lol:

I thought shepherds carried staffs, not badges? :D

Khemul
06/13/2013, 06:32 PM
Hits a target directly in the heart, on a oceangoing vessel, in rather choppy seas, from a considerable distance, while perched on another oceangoing vessel, in rather choppy seas. Doesn't use ammo heavy enough to pierce a fake metal badge.

I certainly hope that sniper doesn't really exist. Because if he does, he probably will never live down the ridicule from his peers... :eek1: :lolspin:

GreshamH
06/13/2013, 07:13 PM
:lol:

Best shooter EVER - but wrong ammo choice? :lol:

jimmy frag
06/14/2013, 07:02 AM
i hope their fat leader chokes on a veggie burger while suffering a massive heart attack, dude is worse than michael moore
thats not a fair comparison.

ReeferKimberly
06/14/2013, 09:25 AM
He is a fake vegan, eats seafood of all things.

This is according to Pete

rrasco
06/14/2013, 11:00 AM
Ha, I never heard of this 'shooting'.

toky916
06/21/2013, 04:44 AM
I have no idea how this thread transitioned from the Sea Shepherd and ecoterrorism to vegan-ness, but let's get back on track.

That TV show was just plain armature and they did nothing .. Just seems like what they did was for money and TV . Pointless show !!

slapshot
06/21/2013, 07:14 AM
That TV show was just plain armature and they did nothing .. Just seems like what they did was for money and TV . Pointless show !!

I will give them this one, Whale Wars did bring global awareness to the whaling issue. You would be shocked at the number of people who thought it was illegal and no one still did it. Other than that can't see that they did much. I mean really 95 percent of the time they spent sailing around looking for the whalers.

lostintheocean
07/01/2013, 02:23 PM
the interference with the jap boats has lowered their whale take significantly. keep up the good work. Since they say the whaling is for scientific research where are all the journal articles that should be getting published with their findings. its obviously a rouse for meat, i guess they need it to go with their rhino horns and shark fin soup.

A Reef Scene
07/02/2013, 09:15 AM
They need to look into education and research. Coral propagation facilities in places where there are reefs benefit everyone including the wildlife.

rrasco
07/02/2013, 06:27 PM
the interference with the jap boats has lowered their whale take significantly. keep up the good work. Since they say the whaling is for scientific research where are all the journal articles that should be getting published with their findings. its obviously a rouse for meat, i guess they need it to go with their rhino horns and shark fin soup.

I think I've heard (quite possibly from Whale Wars) that a single whale can fetch up to *in best Dr Evil voice* $1 Million dollars.

slapshot
07/07/2013, 09:30 PM
Everyone that is interested in this should go to youtube and watch the program "Ocean Frontiers 80 minute version" it is quite enlightening and speaks to where I hope Hawaii and the rest of the world is going.it goes to show there is enough space for all with a little thought and action.