Just when you think you've seen it all.
chippy
<b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
You come across something like this:
And for those that hate cat's, here's the dogs.
And for those that hate cat's, here's the dogs.
chippy
<b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
Comments
As it should.
^this
and also those videos are fucked...
Thank you
Agreed. If I had my way the death penalty would cover animal cruelty as well.
thats why id rather not veiw these videos
It's perpetrated by rich western fishermen who have more money than ethics. They should be named and shamed. I'm sure men in their position would not like it made public the depths of depravity they sink to for their kicks.
1- I hate animal cruelty
2- I've seen similar videos with about 30 seconds worth of real content, and the rest is just 'shock' images used to support their own agenda.
For those interested, here is http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp regarding the dog.
We had a similar problem at Tathra Wharf, a large jetty in NSW. Tathra was a great shark fishing wharf, with Great Whites up to 15 foot, Tigers up to 12 foot and Hammerheads up to 13 foot were possible each season, with a lot of bronze whalers and 7 gill sharks in the 4-7 foot range coming in a lot more often. A few guys started burleying the shit outta the place, having blood and tuna oil trails running for kilometres, around to a local beach. Because of this people were already rallying against shark fishing off Tathra. The final straw was, apparently, a bloke used a stray dog as live bait, and it got demolished by a huge tiger shark in front of about 30 odd tourists. That's how the story goes anyway. To this day, Tathra is still closed to shark fishing.
Your avatar and sig match this story so much Im wondering if you're trolling?
These people are sick.
My hat is off to the community in it's current incarnation.
Not trolling, but I fucking love sharks:D
And at the risk of sounding like the above i'll start.
Things have to die as a part of life. It is a law of nature to die.
Throwing the animals to their death is a sad act - but would it be animal cruelty if the dog was swimming and it just so happened a shark came and ate it?
This makes me think about how people view animal life; people are outraged to see something like this but a fact of everyday life that there is a battery farm that mechanically seperates chickens while they're still alive.
Theres clear hypocrisy in having a cat or dog because your going to be feeding it other animals. And if you tried to have a vegeterian dog people would insist that you were doing something unnatural.
Edit: Im saying that the video is horrible and nobody would want to see it; but can we really be shocked by it when you think about where this activity sits in the wider scope of things humans do to animals?
Im not trying to be negative here, but a thread about a cat dying shouldnt be a positive one.
Im pointing out that this kind of brutality is an extension of the everyday violence that people seem to accept.
I suppose that is a negative though in that it is a depressing topic - but if you think positively to try and recongise why this act happened we can work on making it not happen again.
A dog swimming in the water and being eaten is an act of nature (an abnormal one at that) it would die because of its own stupidity. but throwing a dog into the water to be eatin by a shark is not natural. it is a human killing a defenceless animal for entertainment. the animal has no choice in the matter.
battery hens are cruel, people are fighting to have it banned. just beacuse people have been doing it for a long time or that it is legal dosent make it ok.
animal food is just human food, the bits we dont eat. the three b's. Brains, butts and bones. dogs are scavengers by nature so really I cant see the issue with it. its what they eat in the wild anyway.
Listen, I accept ur point of veiw. I too enjoy playing devils advocate. it puts things into perspective and makes people think more outside the box, like "wow I never thought of it that way". the problem is that people take usually take offence. so please tone it down mate, MOMT you are responsible for some great replies in some threads. its a shame you are so are so ready to argue with people. when Im reading a thread and get half way through it and find you have spammed the fuck out of it, I lose interest and leave what could of been a prefectly good thread. If you have a problem with something some one said, PM them I dont wanna see it, and I dont think other members want to either.
You see MoMT this is what I was talking about in terms of users complaining about you in TS and my PM inbox. Thank you for speaking out on this Spinster.
I disagree. Life feeds on life, and it's always finding innovative avenues to manifest. An animal seeing past the immediate nutritional value of an already captured creature for the sake of capturing a better creature for consumption is nothing but intelligence combined with instinct. For fucks sake though, as humans, we should be above this kind of shit. We have things like ultra-sonic airplanes, and brain-tumour-eradicating radiation beams, and velcro shoes.
Indeed, but in that scenario it would make more sense to use sharks as human bait. Still wouldn't make it any less harsh or natural. To claim it isn't natural is denying reality. To accept it as both natural and harsh, we put ourselves in a stronger position to deal with it.
It's rich guys that charter a boat for a days fishing for sport that are doing this.
That is a pretty big thing assumption, and one I simply cannot or will not buy without proof.
Thank you. I think the more openly you approach a problem, and the more angles you see it from, the better your chances of finding a solution.
I did watch it. It seemed like a lot of sensationalist bullshit mixed in with a bit of reality. There is a bunch of random footage strung together with somber narration to guide our assumptions and supposed quotes that for all we know are hearsay. The only real truth we can see here is that there is a cat on a hook. Since there are way more capitalists than psychopathic animal killers, Im going to guess that it's being done for profit. Im not even going to go into detail how fucking sensationalistic the dog video is.
You have to realize when you're looking at propaganda bullshit, and when you're looking at something that is unbiased and informative. Just because a bit of propaganda plays to your ethics doesn't mean you should see it as truth. Quite the opposite even.
Here. If you're going to believe everything you see, watch this. At least the camera angles are revealing here, and it's strung together in a linear context that makes sense. That makes it a helluva lot more believable.
Well, these blokes feeding the cats to the sharks certainly aren't perpetuating the breeding and surplus domestication of cats. If anything it should make cat owners and/or lovers more mindful of pet responsibilities.
But they are cute so thats obviously proof enough that these bad men should die...
Edit: And we're managing to do it without HERP KILL ALL LIFE IM xxxEDGYxxx
Life feeds on Life but as someone was pointing out - declaring that the cat must die so we can kill a shark is quite flawed; until you suggest that by these two animals dying you will be able to feed another 9.
There is a very utilitarian argument to kill %49 of the population to feed the other %51 because the greater good will win out. And this is complicated because the value that we put on companion animals does not come from any other intrinsic value other than our enjoyment of these animals.
By keeping them we understand that other animals we are not in contact with will die.
If you could kill one shark to save the life of one cat - would you do it?
What about two sharks?
What about all the sharks?
Whatever your answer to the above questions know this - our society is inherently unsustainable in many ways and we literally are killing many species to extinction every day. People argue that we can create massive farm towers and provide more than enough food for all; yet we are in the midst of a global food shortage. There are 7 billion people on the earth and whatever collective actions they take such as deciding to eat fish can lead to the carrying capicity of the ocean being decimated and species being fished to extinction.
And you can walk down TDR's reasoning of cats being a slightly higher life form than sharks therefore more worthy of preservation; but this argument leads down the path of humans being worth more than all other species and thus we are righteous in hunting or fishing species to extinction or if they are paticualrly useful breeding them for death.
These things are happening it is very sad - but they are challenges that we must deal with because we do rely on the bounty of the earth to survive.
I agree with the life feeds life argument; and the domestics being used as bait is morally abhorent because it is unnessecary cruelty in a situation where these men can clearly provide for themselves without this killing - although in a different sitation as burn points out the cats can be considered vermin for removal. Even as successful companion animals they would most likely be killed (albeit in a humane way) once they reached an age where it becomes economically impractical to keep them alive.
Which is a fair point; but does that mean we have no repsonsibility to defend wild animals from the effects of human population?
Where do we draw the line with our responsibility - do i have responsibility to care for another pet owners irresponsible breeding?
If my pure bred animal gets pregnant accidentally from some mutt in the park and i know the offspring are undesirable what is to be done with them?
I hate asking a series of questions without giving a real answer - but i dont think that there is one.
These decisions need to be made on a case by case basis; but they have a real collective impact on our world. No man lives in a bubble.
No more than we have responsibility to protect protect the gazelle from the lion.
You have responsibility to not go out of your way to cause the offspring created by another man's irresponsibility purposeful harm. You do not have responsibility to feed and shelter them.
Find someone who finds them desirable as your have culpability for not being responsible enough to either spay your purebred or keep it under control while in heat.
There is are real answers you have just not matured enough to see them IMO.
That is not a real answer. And if it is the effects would be devastating - no responsibility to protect wild nature from human populations?
No moral responsbility to clean up an oil spill; no reason against logging and strip mining the amazon. Think about the implications here - we clearly have a responsibility to the earth; but precisely where the line should be drawn has not been answered.
The implications of this will depend greatly on definitions of purposeful harm; if the animal is euthanised humanely is this acceptable harm?
I feel that the answer from most people would be yes; paticularly if it is avoiding a slow and painful life/death.
But then as a logical extension if the animal is then used as fishing bait can we consider this as acceptable because there is no sentient harm?
Much like a losing racehorse will be sold to a knackery after it has run its last race.
There is great cruelty in keeping animals, domestic and livestock. Ironically most people keep the animals because they care deeply for them; but many people are ignorant or irresponsible.
In no way shape or form find the concept of animal bait or racehorse being sold to a knackery palletable - but if we have people who desire to do such a thing (as the video shows) do we have the right to demand that they abstain from this behaviour - even when it does not create pain?
Large organisations cant manage to find homes for rescued animals; sadly i think that i would not be able to succeed where they failed. Not that i actually own any pets; but I would have them neutered.
Here i am getting into some core debates about ecology and the moral implications of our practical day to day lives.
The earth is a closed system of limited resources - if we answer these questions wrong there are seriously devasting environmental consequences.
Even if we answer them in the right way it has other implications for peoples lives; eg. Registration of animals, expansion of regulations/reduction of rights depending on how we implement them.
We clean up oil spills for our own good if we destroy the ecology we destroy that which we depend on to live.
Also I heard about one documentary about dolphins in japan I think and how they were chased into coves to be slaughtered. That also was sad.
Now that was funny.
After a couple of seconds on google, as close to what is the truth as we will probably ever know can be read. One person was prosecuted for putting hooks in a live dog with the intention of using it as shark bait. Groups claim that while not widespread, it is not uncommon for dead dogs to be used a bait and rather than it being professional fishermen using dogs as bait or sportfishermen, it is 'amature fishermen'. By amature fishermen, they mean people who do not fish as a primary source of income, but what could be described as a throwback to a semi subsistant way of life, who catch a few sharks to sell and make a bit of extra money on the side.
The reports I have read have stated that this takes place from 'fishing towers'. These can range to be anything from buoys, old channel marker buoys or small floarint platforms, that have longlines tied to them. The lines are hooked and baited, the guy disapears for a day or so in his boat, comes back after a day or so, gives the lines a tug to see if their is anything on them. The fish nigh on tire themselves to death.
It reminds me of tales told by old guys who used to catch eels to eat and sell as a side to their main job. They did not use eel traps baited with a small dead fish. They would get old pairs of tights (hose or something in American speaking world) and stuff them with stale bread and dead cats. Back then their were thousands of strays that lived around mines, quarries, works, tips etcetera. The tights were double doubled, so their was four layers of tights to get through. The eels could try to chew their way in - some did get in - but most would get caught in the layers of nylon by their teeth.
I really do doubt that any 'sportfisherman' would do this. Think about the hunting of African wildlife - the big game hunter stalks his prey with a rifle, sometimes over a number of days. It is the local poachers who set snares for animals to be trapped for hours before they come along to kill them. I remember a documentary years ago showing some one doing this hunting tigers (in Indonesia, you dont get tigers in Africa). His 'rifle' that he used to kill the animal was an old steering column piece. It was powered by crushed matches and fired small bits of metal. At best it was a shitty home made dangerous shotgun - not the weapon to be using when trying to quickly kill and end the suffering as much as any other reason of a tiger. But that is an asside.
In short, most of the scenes in the video were out of context and some were damn well made up. The cat getting the hook through it? It did not look too pissed off at all whilst it was happening, as I am sure any cat would be. My guess is the cat had something wrapped around it they could make it look attached to - maybe even a warp of nylon fishing line that they could twist the line with the hook on around.
Too much like that just did not add up. I have also seen some sensational stunts carried out by animal rights actavists to make it look like the work of those they oppose. I remember a case of a Horse and Donkey wealfare charity who opposed horse racing. They were trying to load up an old horse that had been hit by a car into a van. Anyone with any humanity would have called an equine vet to come and kill it. I would go as far to say even that if a member of the public had a legally held firearm and had shot the horse, they would have been arrested and not charged. These people wanted to take it to a local stables to show what their riding hobby could lead to - whilst it was slowly dying.
Nice people.
TDR, it is not so much that we set out to domesticate animals as that we developed a semi symbiotic relationship from both sides. Genetic traits in some animals meant they had less fear of humans than some of their same speices. With dogs, these are the decendants of the least fearful wolves. The could be animals that were chased from their packs, naturally inquisitive or those that found that they could live of the scraps of man.
The same idea has also been proposed for domesticated livestock - we let the least fearful ones maintain their populations close to home, so if a hunting trip is unsuccesful, we can take one of the local beasts.
Overall, its wrong to use a live mammal as bait in most circumstances, but it could be justified in rare ones.
In the first video (which I give most credence to) all the clips seem to be from one fishing trip, filmed by a guy making a video about marlin fishing. He never mentioned sports fishermen. He seems to be referring more to some rich guys who own a boat and probably go once or twice a year to fish for big game for bragging rights. I didn't get the impression it was all that widespread.
I also got that impression from some quite extensive googling. I also got the impression that although this does happen, the fishing fraternity, rather than see their sport being brought into dis repute, seem to go down the route of denial. As fishing is one of the most popular sports on the planet, anyone trying to bring this to the attention of the public hits a brick wall as far as the volume of denial is concerned.
Although I have come across this, it's seems far less prevalent than the rich amature fishing trip scenario.
Agreed, but then neither of the video's accused sports fishermen of doing this.
This comment I disagree with. Anyone that has a cat will know that the skin on the back of a kitten between the nape of the neck and the middle of the back is pretty insensitive. This is for a reason. The mother uses this skin to pick the kittens up using her teeth to move them around. Any kitten owner will tell you when they go to the vet to get shots, the vet sticks the needle in this skin. The kitten rarely even notices, unless the needle hit's a nerve. Even then the kitten will just give a little meow.
I too have seen this. However I didn't see anything sensational in the cat video. This was one guy, reporting things he had seen and was rightly outraged by them. The dog video I stuck in to show it happens to dogs too. That one did seem more sensational than the first video and a couple of shots were questionable.
Cat's have been domesticated for over 7000 years, just take a look at ancient Egypt.
I don't think a bunch of guys with a disposable income doing this for a bit of sport is one of those circumstances.
BUT my troll sense is just going off the chart. I mean the URL points of a flag wordpress blog. You do know this whole thing could be framed. I mean someone just took the footage from other videos and made it look like he was behind it. Just my 2 cent.