Absolutely aweful..... Why...? Because the people who did this haven't got a single clue about how they are just another link in the natural system, just like the birds. They have no idea that they maim themselves just as well, so to speak.
It would be tempting to heavily punish the perpetrators, should they be found. But laws that simply punish unwanted behaviour don't generally do too much to avoid that behaviour in the future again. It would be better though to just teach them what they have forgotten (not necessarily in a very nice way). Like a wise person once said (forgot who, where and when), if you give your enemies a beating, they still remain your enemies, but if you win them for your cause, you have allies.
Yeah, this is bad, but let's not forget that as a matter of routine we entrap, maim, and kill hundreds of millions of birds every year in factory farms. Just a little perspective. When people are raised to treat some animals as commodities and ignore their pain and welfare, is it any wonder the same attitude is extended to others?
Any person who inflicts pain, suffering or any type abuse on any animal or bird , should be sentenced to suffer the same pain, suffering or abuse that they inflicted on that animal or bird ,and if they caused the death of that animal or bird, then they should be allowed to ------- in the same manner. Pretty stiff punishment, but, hey, folks should start thinking about the consequences of their actions. Period, and if they can't, then we don't need them here to destroy and mess up for law abiding folks.
Hi Jackie
To follow on your and Guy's comments, do you really think that we should punish anyone causing pain to an animal? This would have to include anyone eating meat (unless the animal was dead already).
And I don't agree that we should punish non-vegans for not being vegans. Incidentally, this would also prevent us from driving as it kills thousands of insects that are smashed on the windshield.
It is natural, and rather necessary, for humans to eat other animals.
Also, you seem to make a disctinction between animals and birds... which I don't understand. ;-)
Anyway, all this does not justify the behavior of people that kill endangered bird species.
While I think that this is horrible, I have to agree with Guy’s sentiment.
From the linked article: “The use of steel spring-traps is legal only if they are set in tunnels to kill certain mammals such as rats, grey squirrels, stoats and weasels.”
But then it goes on to say: “Wild birds caught in the traps may have their legs broken and often suffer a painful, lingering death.”
Even an article written by a “naturalist” website seems to say that animal suffering is not tolerated only if it is an animal care about. If a steel spring-trap causes a bird to “suffer a painful, lingering death,” then the same death is destined for a rat, grey squirrel, stoat, or weasel. How can we expect people to know which animals are ok to kill and which aren’t?
How many people have chased away or killed snakes, possums, raccoons, etc… from their bird feeders and bird houses?
Many people are appalled by hunters who shot prairie dogs, but many farmers and ranchers welcome it.
While I agree with Arthur, in that education, as opposed to punishment, is the way to solve these problems, I think that the issue is so much deeper. As humans we have come to believe that we must “fix” the natural world, and that it cannot function without us.
Simon, you misunderstood me. I'm not making any statements about what should be punishable. I'm questioning the underlying moral framework.
Is this "wrong" because it involves (unnecessary) pain and death, or because these happen to be falcons rather than hens?
Regardless of the answer, there is a vast difference between harvesting animals for sustenance and raising them in horrific conditions in factory farms.
Humans will never recognize the amount of rights that animals truly deserve. When it comes to the attainment of animal rights, it is unfortunately left up to the anthropomorphizing American public to determine the allotment of rights. Because animals are unable to communicate with humans and voice their concerns and feelings, the acceptance of animal’s rights is put in a time capsule. Until we can communicate with animals and listen to their wants, needs, and desires, the rights that they deserve will never be wholly realized. We are certain that rape is an absolute injustice because of the testimony that has been given by the victims and the obvious suffering that it inflicts. But when it comes to issues like deforestation, excessive hunting, poaching, zoos, and pet abuse, humans are without an absolute boundary that dictates what is lawful and what is not. Though I concede that there are important laws established that punish animal abuse, I still maintain that they are ambiguous, contradictory, and ultimately specious. If we want to see a decrease in animal abuse, we will need tighter regulations and heftier fines. I guarantee that the person that committed those acts has no idea what the repercussions of his/her actions are. Morally, they most likely knew it was wrong, but like I said earlier, laws protecting animals today are hard to enforce, and not well known by the public.
The ultimate solution, really, is if we people RE-learn the fact that we are just another species in the community of life. No more and no less valuable than any other species. What we do to other species will eventually come back to us.
It is natural, and rather necessary, for humans to eat other animals.
There is no study that supports your statement. I've been vegan for twelve years, and am healthier than most, so I can state with certainty that there is no necessity for animal flesh or animal byproducts in the human diet. All the nutrients that humans require are found entirely in plant foods. In fact, a flesh-based diet has deleterious effects on the human body (see below).
Lots of good information and references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
I'll gladly provide more links, references, and research if you need it
The ultimate solution, really, is if we people RE-learn the fact that we are just another species in the community of life. No more and no less valuable than any other species.
Thank you, Arthur. I have been preaching the same for years. Human ego and our religious beliefs, however, are not very open or tolerant to this idea
Gloria, you are right in saying that a person being religious does not necessarily mean that they are advocates for cruel animal farm practices. But the Bible does state that men are superior to beasts (Heb 12:20). Genesis 1:26 lays the foundation for this Homo sapien dominance, stating: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth”. This notion of human superiority created by the Bible has ultimately led to the rejection of more progressive animal rights legislation.
Genesis 1:26 lays the foundation for this Homo sapien dominance, stating: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth”. This notion of human superiority created by the Bible has ultimately led to the rejection of more progressive animal rights legislation.
Benjamin, in big lines I agree with this, but I think there are some faults in the reasoning in the last sentence.
First is that it was not the bible that created this notion. This notion of the "fact" (not a fact at all of course, but it has grew into being seen as one) that Humanity and Nature are not only separate entities, but also opposing ones, stems from about 10.000 years ago. That was the time when one tribe started practising totalitarian agriculture. Totalitarian agriculture has a few basic principles:
*food dedicated to human use may be denied to all other species;
*any species that would compete for human food may be destroyed at will;
*food needed by other species may be destroyed at will to make room for the production of human food.
This is of course exactly what almost the whole global human population is doing now, except for a few small tribes that still survive in their own way of life. The big modern religions were invented much later than this, but since they were invented within a totalitarian agricultural culture, naturally it took that frame of mind for granted.
The books by Daniel Quinn ("Ishmael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization" and "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways") are also highly recommended for those interested in stuff like this.
Secondly, the idea of animal rights is, when you really look into it, a ludicrous one. Granting animals rights in a culture that sees all species apart from humans as a commodity is just a weird thing. What will also naturally follow from this is that animals will naturally have less rights than humans.
Rights are fully unnecessary in systems that work. Do you want prove? How about that for roughly four billion years, life did very well without having any rights. But rights are felt to be necessary in a system that does not work and very directly is not good for those that arguably need those rights. That is why rights are a product of our modern culture and did not even exist yet in tribal cultures yet. What those rights are set up to do is to limit the harm the system can do to those living in it. But in what frame of mind do the rights try to achieve that? Within the frame of mind that is not being good for those living in it. A very easy evaluation of the usefulness of things should laugh at that and declare rights to be a very ineffective way to solve the problem of a system that does not work. It would recommend something too: CHANGE THE SYSTEM!
The ultimate solution, really, is if we people RE-learn the fact that we are just another species in the community of life. No more and no less valuable than any other species.
Thank you, Arthur. I have been preaching the same for years. Human ego and our religious beliefs, however, are not very open or tolerant to this idea
Michael, I agree up to a certain point again. The big modern religions will never be able to bend the current limits of their believes around 'special equality'. It would disspell everything religion is about really. But there is not all that much that would keep people from just walking away from those big religions when they start understanding.
But human egos... I think that many people either conciously or unconciously yearn for the freedom that the idea of 'special equality' holds within it. If they learn about it, than I can see no other option for the ego than to embrace it.
Once more, for a really amazing explanation of all that, the best thing to do is to read Quinn's work.
There is no study that supports your statement. I've been vegan for twelve years, and am healthier than most, so I can state with certainty that there is no necessity for animal flesh or animal byproducts in the human diet. All the nutrients that humans require are found entirely in plant foods. In fact, a flesh-based diet has deleterious effects on the human body.
There are 8 teeth in everyones mouths that are meat eating teeth. I happen to believe they are there for a reason, if not meant to be we would all look like horses when we grin. To say you are healthier than most is your opinion and that only, you don't know anything about any of us, and it is absurd to make a blanket statement about your lifestyle being healthier than others. Live and let live please.
Geoffrey: you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the facts. A flesh-based diet has very real human health and environmental consequences, a position supported by numerous high-level studies.
Your choice to eat animal flesh is as valid as mine not to, but the science is unarguable. Live and let live please.
Just another little thought to prove that what teeth we have does not absolutely decide what we SHOULD eat. After all.... try convincing a giant panda that he should leave that bamboo alone because its teeth clearly show that he is at least an omnivore and tending quite a lot towards being a carnivore. The poor animal would die out even sooner than it does now!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you check your facts, you will find out that wild Pandas eat flesh, believed primarily from carrion and things like small, slow moving creatures like toads and frogs. Numerous exams of dead wild Pandas consistently reveal the presence of bones and other animal matter in their stomachs. It is unarguable. Almost everything we think we know about the Panda comes from the observation of captive animals, hardly a proper source for reliable information.
Mountain gorillas have large and sharp canines yet eat plant matter almost exclusively. What does it prove? Nothing. But back to the original point, there is no study that proves that human nutritional requirements exceed that provided by the plant kingdom.
And there is no proof that our nutritional requirements can be met entirely within the plant kingdom either. Period. Your idea that there are good, clean, unbiased studies that prove harm from eating flesh is pure nonsense. You ( and those studies you cite) have an agenda, you're the one who thinks everyone else should live and eat like you do. I don't think that way. One thing I do know, there are still plenty of unknown mysteries left to discover in the world of nutrition. What we don't yet know about nutrition dwarfs what we do. How the world of proteins and vitamins all works together is still largely theory or flat out unknown to us. Most researchers agree that we haven't even discovered all the various nutrients a body needs yet, let alone what they do inside a human body once they get there. You might want to think about that every time you are tempted to cite your favorite pro-vegetarian, no meat ever required study.
Eating plant matter "almost exclusively" does not prove that a creature can in fact successfully become a vegetarian or is meant to. And "almost exclusively" is quite different than saying exclusively, isn't it? (Actually, your example of the mountain gorilla does make a very important point, and is not insignificant at all.) Otherwise I guess there are all sorts of creatures gone wrong during their evolution, or if you prefer the creation road, I guess God made a lot of errors when the eating requirements of the animal kingdom and mankind were both designed?
And there is no proof that our nutritional requirements can be met entirely within the plant kingdom either. Period.
There is an exceptional amount of living proof (myself included). Period. Your idea that there are good, clean, unbiased studies that prove harm from eating entirely from the plant kingdom is pure nonsense. You ( and those studies you cite) have an agenda, you're the one who thinks everyone else should live and eat like you do. (it goes both ways, dude). And for the record, would you like to cite in this thread where I've stated that "everyone else should live and eat like do"?
I have an agenda? C'mon Geoffrey - I'm pushing my diet and lifestyle on no one - just citing and defending facts. You tell me to "live and let live"?. If you'd like to engage in open [i]discussion, I'm all ears. But if you're going to take a stance that defends your diet at the exclusion of well-accepted science, have a nice day.
Discussion
26 replieshttp://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1342
Why do people do this??
This made me feel sick
Regards
Rob
It would be tempting to heavily punish the perpetrators, should they be found. But laws that simply punish unwanted behaviour don't generally do too much to avoid that behaviour in the future again. It would be better though to just teach them what they have forgotten (not necessarily in a very nice way). Like a wise person once said (forgot who, where and when), if you give your enemies a beating, they still remain your enemies, but if you win them for your cause, you have allies.
Guy
To follow on your and Guy's comments, do you really think that we should punish anyone causing pain to an animal? This would have to include anyone eating meat (unless the animal was dead already).
And I don't agree that we should punish non-vegans for not being vegans. Incidentally, this would also prevent us from driving as it kills thousands of insects that are smashed on the windshield.
It is natural, and rather necessary, for humans to eat other animals.
Also, you seem to make a disctinction between animals and birds... which I don't understand. ;-)
Anyway, all this does not justify the behavior of people that kill endangered bird species.
From the linked article: “The use of steel spring-traps is legal only if they are set in tunnels to kill certain mammals such as rats, grey squirrels, stoats and weasels.”
But then it goes on to say: “Wild birds caught in the traps may have their legs broken and often suffer a painful, lingering death.”
Even an article written by a “naturalist” website seems to say that animal suffering is not tolerated only if it is an animal care about. If a steel spring-trap causes a bird to “suffer a painful, lingering death,” then the same death is destined for a rat, grey squirrel, stoat, or weasel. How can we expect people to know which animals are ok to kill and which aren’t?
How many people have chased away or killed snakes, possums, raccoons, etc… from their bird feeders and bird houses?
Many people are appalled by hunters who shot prairie dogs, but many farmers and ranchers welcome it.
While I agree with Arthur, in that education, as opposed to punishment, is the way to solve these problems, I think that the issue is so much deeper. As humans we have come to believe that we must “fix” the natural world, and that it cannot function without us.
Is this "wrong" because it involves (unnecessary) pain and death, or because these happen to be falcons rather than hens?
Regardless of the answer, there is a vast difference between harvesting animals for sustenance and raising them in horrific conditions in factory farms.
Guy
There is no study that supports your statement. I've been vegan for twelve years, and am healthier than most, so I can state with certainty that there is no necessity for animal flesh or animal byproducts in the human diet. All the nutrients that humans require are found entirely in plant foods. In fact, a flesh-based diet has deleterious effects on the human body (see below).
Lots of good information and references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
I'll gladly provide more links, references, and research if you need it
Thank you, Arthur. I have been preaching the same for years. Human ego and our religious beliefs, however, are not very open or tolerant to this idea
Because a person is religious does not make them advocates of cruel animal farm practices.
Some like me, were raised on meat for a means of survival. Hard to believe I know ... but its true.
Many of us are predisposed to eating meat. And many of us must go through serious adjustments to clear our minds of this animal-consuming mindset.
It's not easy.
But I did it.
And it's still not easy.
What's easy is previsualizing the animal's slaughter before consuming the flesh. That does it every time ... for a visual person like me :)
Gloria: I highly recommend everyone read Dominion.
Pete D.
Benjamin, in big lines I agree with this, but I think there are some faults in the reasoning in the last sentence.
First is that it was not the bible that created this notion. This notion of the "fact" (not a fact at all of course, but it has grew into being seen as one) that Humanity and Nature are not only separate entities, but also opposing ones, stems from about 10.000 years ago. That was the time when one tribe started practising totalitarian agriculture. Totalitarian agriculture has a few basic principles:
*food dedicated to human use may be denied to all other species;
*any species that would compete for human food may be destroyed at will;
*food needed by other species may be destroyed at will to make room for the production of human food.
This is of course exactly what almost the whole global human population is doing now, except for a few small tribes that still survive in their own way of life. The big modern religions were invented much later than this, but since they were invented within a totalitarian agricultural culture, naturally it took that frame of mind for granted.
The books by Daniel Quinn ("Ishmael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization" and "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways") are also highly recommended for those interested in stuff like this.
Secondly, the idea of animal rights is, when you really look into it, a ludicrous one. Granting animals rights in a culture that sees all species apart from humans as a commodity is just a weird thing. What will also naturally follow from this is that animals will naturally have less rights than humans.
Rights are fully unnecessary in systems that work. Do you want prove? How about that for roughly four billion years, life did very well without having any rights. But rights are felt to be necessary in a system that does not work and very directly is not good for those that arguably need those rights. That is why rights are a product of our modern culture and did not even exist yet in tribal cultures yet. What those rights are set up to do is to limit the harm the system can do to those living in it. But in what frame of mind do the rights try to achieve that? Within the frame of mind that is not being good for those living in it. A very easy evaluation of the usefulness of things should laugh at that and declare rights to be a very ineffective way to solve the problem of a system that does not work. It would recommend something too: CHANGE THE SYSTEM!
Michael, I agree up to a certain point again. The big modern religions will never be able to bend the current limits of their believes around 'special equality'. It would disspell everything religion is about really. But there is not all that much that would keep people from just walking away from those big religions when they start understanding.
But human egos... I think that many people either conciously or unconciously yearn for the freedom that the idea of 'special equality' holds within it. If they learn about it, than I can see no other option for the ego than to embrace it.
Once more, for a really amazing explanation of all that, the best thing to do is to read Quinn's work.
There are 8 teeth in everyones mouths that are meat eating teeth. I happen to believe they are there for a reason, if not meant to be we would all look like horses when we grin. To say you are healthier than most is your opinion and that only, you don't know anything about any of us, and it is absurd to make a blanket statement about your lifestyle being healthier than others. Live and let live please.
Your choice to eat animal flesh is as valid as mine not to, but the science is unarguable. Live and let live please.
Eating plant matter "almost exclusively" does not prove that a creature can in fact successfully become a vegetarian or is meant to. And "almost exclusively" is quite different than saying exclusively, isn't it? (Actually, your example of the mountain gorilla does make a very important point, and is not insignificant at all.) Otherwise I guess there are all sorts of creatures gone wrong during their evolution, or if you prefer the creation road, I guess God made a lot of errors when the eating requirements of the animal kingdom and mankind were both designed?
There is an exceptional amount of living proof (myself included). Period. Your idea that there are good, clean, unbiased studies that prove harm from eating entirely from the plant kingdom is pure nonsense. You ( and those studies you cite) have an agenda, you're the one who thinks everyone else should live and eat like you do.
I have an agenda? C'mon Geoffrey - I'm pushing my diet and lifestyle on no one - just citing and defending facts. You tell me to "live and let live"?. If you'd like to engage in open [i]discussion, I'm all ears. But if you're going to take a stance that defends your diet at the exclusion of well-accepted science, have a nice day.