Open Forum Discussions and Debate

jeb - I like that:'experienced senses'.
Perth is not heavily populated, unlike some of the places I have lived in. Queueing (sp?) is almost a novelty. It is not uncommon to walk on a deserted beach and to be able to smell the salt from the sea...and realise that you are doing so without any distractions to the senses. I love hiking, the most challenging experience being Mount Kota kinabalu, going from a tropical forest up to a canopy of clouds within a day. I was fortunate enough not to get altitude sickness. Do you think it is age (dare I say maturity?)that makes us experience and appreciate our surroundings more?

Billy:
Naw, its the tripple strength boiled coffee and the rarefied air. Or it could be an ability to reconcile the reality with expectations (maturity). A really good question, though suseptable to smartalecky answers. On rare occasions, it is possible to have an extraordinary experience when in an unspoiled environment. Be it an epiphanous moment or an observation of the natural world that opens itself to wonderment or introspection. I remember, on a trail in the Sangre De Christos, finding a small round sheet of tin. Someone had scratched a message on it and left it wedged under a tree root. The message was; 'There is magic in these hills'. You better believe it!

On the other hand, remember the words of Dave Barry:

''Nature is anything you'd kill if it got into the house.''

Jeb - not too smartalecky - this was quite restrained from you!
an 'epiphanous' moment for me was when I was skiing on my own in a truly 'magical' part of the run, it could have been from a scene from Narnia, but the silence was deafening.Felt like i was the only person on the planet at that moment. (It happened to be in your beautiful country too.)

Yep - got that right Ian, anything with 6+ legs. I have a lizard in the house somewhere but i know he is doing more housework than I am - he can live.

...i don't mean my ex, he wouldn't be living here anyway - just thought I'd clarify that point.

Critters in the house don't get me too riled up. Afterall, everybody has to be someplace. (At least that's what the guy said when his girlfriend's husband opened her closet door and asked him what he was doing there). They are generally easy to shoosh out. The ones that I will not abide are coc*roaches. I remember seeing one on the floor of the kitchen in our first house late one night. The next day we had every coc*roach SWAT team in town at our address. Like an old friend of ours used to say; 'there's nothing shameful in having coc*roaches. It's keeping them that's shameful'. The only spider I will kill is the brown recluse. The rest are escorted out the door, except the wolf spider is welcome if he minds his manners and doesn't wind up in my corn flakes.

jeb - I can't even squish a coc*roach as they are so revolting. I have been in a near-car accident when i flipped down my sun-visor and one dropped onto my lap...thank god there was no one behind me to run up my rear-end and to see the mad woman jump out of a car ...and keep jumping...and tearing at her clothes...and generally have no decorum about her whatsoever...
What do they say? for every coc*roach that is sighted - there are 10 more of them lurking. They are the true enemy.

Would have loved to have seen that! Shades of Arlo Guthrie. 'I was jumping up and down yelling Kill....Kill.... and he was jumping up and down yelling Kill....Kill.... And pretty soon everybody else was jumping up and down....' It is the smart coc*roaches that always fool me. When I go to step on them, just before my shoe comes down, they snap their little fingers so it sounds like I squished them and I pick up my foot to see, then the little bas***ds run away and hide.

omg - alice doesn't live here any more!!! it has been donkeys years since I've heard that! wonder if its on youtube?

oooops big boo booo - i got so excited - Alice's restaurant - and yes - its on youtube...

Ok - something serious to ponder on...
Should the Japanese be allowed to continue with whaling? School kids get fried whale meat served to them...

That is an interesting question. Don't know much about it though. My first reaction is to ask why kill a whale when there are more readily replenished sources of protien. My second is to realize that Spok and Captain Kirk aren't real. They can't come back and save the earth with the last two whales in the world. And third, there must be one hell of a lot of school kids if it takes a whale to feed them all. I'll have to do a little googleing to get more information on this subject to give a halfway intelligent response to the question.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/bizfocus/archives/2007/03/18 /2003352853

Gives you a fairly good summary of the debate...I had heard on the radio that in testing fish markets for Minke whale meat other species had been identified, namely the Blue whale. There are enough alternatives to be had. Had it been a centuries old tradition you could probably understand their stance, but it seems it isn't.

Before Spock and Kirk, there was a splendid science fiction novel called ''The Deep Range,'' by Arthur C. Clarke. It was a story about ranching whales and taking them to market, herding them along their migratory paths, using little submarines instead of horses. Good read.

To get at the whale meat debate, you have to first distinguish between endangered whales and those that are plentiful. Leave the endangered ones out of it, because that's a different issue.

Then ask, does a whale have a greater right to exist than a cockroach? Who says so? If we decide that things we like (or perceive as similar to us) will live, and things we don't like (or are different) will die, what does that make us?

If the dominant culture on the planet were made up of people who believed that cows are sacred, what would our reaction be if they proposed a trade embargo on the US and Australia because people there slaughtered and ate cows?

Ian:
You're throwing morality into the pot. That's not fair. Now I have to get out of my smartalecky pants and into something less comfortable. How about if we broaden the scope and discuss mores? Fundamental arenas could include; tribal, national, regional, social, political or even gender. Once we have discovered the source, cause and effect of why a group of people react the way they do to an issue, then we can unload on the whales vs. cockroach debate. What if we were to discover a tiny sect who saw the cockroach as something to be revered? Case in point: This week's CSI-NY found a guy who murdered a chef to protect a cockroach. This discussion could debate the differences in mindset that created the concept of wiping out the bison to destabalize an entire society to the dewy eyed fantasy world of Bambi. I could really get on a soapbox about people who think it is perfectly ok to yak on their cell phones on the golf course. Then the discussion has to be narrowed to right vs. wrong and can those who feel one way accept that those who feel the other, may be as right as they are. We may need to call in the help of Hegel and Descartes and then let Spinoza tie it all up in a neat little package.

The original question was regarding whales, so lets start there. How are whales perceived as one species among thousands on this earth? I'll start a list and invite additional input, positive or negative.
They are:
part of an eco-system.
perceptivly smarter than cows.
social creatures (matriarchal or patriarchal?)
the largest creatures (abundant resources?)
mysterious - entertaining (commercially viable for eco-tourism)
The next question is; what, of these or other characteristics, is it that any specific group identifies with, that gives that group the sense of morality which determines their ethical stance?

Ian:
I have been going back and re-reading the first two pages. Your comment posted 18/Mar/07 11:46 AM (Isn't that neat?) suggests the potential for censorship of the forum. Rosemry's instructions at the top of the page should preclude any concerns about this. Open discussion of issues, the sharing of ideas and voicing of opinions can harm no one unless those comments become directed at individuals as a personal attack. I would hope that we are all mature enough to recognize this and share discourse in a positive manner. We can all learn something from each other and I look forward to my daily dose of the forum. I hope it has a long healthy life.

The ecosystem debate is an interesting one. If we give blanket protection sea lions, and they destroy an entire population of salmon, and then starve themselves, what have we done? For some reason, the ocean escapes the usual rules we use for the land. We could restore the population of black bears in Manhattan...at a cost. No one would propose that. We thin herds of deer, but not gray whales. The ocean seems to be a place we regard as some sort of Eden; and the creatures we like, or which are perceived as resembling us (by Americans) are minor deities.

Our attitude toward dolphins is another example of fantasy. If they are so gifted and intelligent, why did they not show enough basic survival instinct to avoid tuna seines? Anyone who has ever hunted wild turkeys knows that they disappear the day the season opens, after strutting along the highways for the weeks preceding opening day. Looks like turkeys are a lot smarter than Flipper. In the midst of the political turmoil over whaling, Norway, Russia, Iceland and Japan have begun to use the term ''speciesism'' to describe the American position.

And by the way, Aquinas can, but Immanuel Kant.

I have argued for a long time that ubanization has isolated populations from their environment to such an extent that they have become blind to their relationship to it. Pre-industrial cultures just 'knew' what would happen if A then B. Knew is probably a poor choice of words here. Attuned may be bore correct. With isolation comes supposition, chuckle headed ideas, tail-less cats and worst of all, ignorance. Speciesism may not be too far off the mark. On the other hand, casting despersions to one group can create a sense of arrogance on the part of the other. It might be a good idea to ask the people who are attuned to their environment, what they think. I'm thinking of the Inuit.
Turkeys are the dumbest critters in the woods. They can't read the Outdoor Scene in the Sunday paper like the deer can. They learn by observation. But they are smart enough not to pee on an electric fence. (See Will Rogers quote)

There is an exchange from the Tokyo Times on the subject of whaling. To gauge the strength of some people's feelings on the matter, there are comparisons between whaling and the treatment of Australian POWs on the Burma railway during WWII.

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=872

The Japanese claim the minke whale population is thriving. The killing of them will not endanger the species, but like i said, other whale species have supposedly been caught up in the 'kill'. Personally, I don't believe in whaling, there is nothing 'humane' in the practise for a mammal that is higher up on the evolutionary 'tree' than most creatures on this planet (probably including some humans). This could then turn into a debate on the culling of many mammals that could be seen to be causing an imbalance in the environment - seals, kangeroos etc. I visited a disused whaling station recently and I swear it felt like a cemetry...it saddened me no end.

...I should have said that it is the Japanese that claim that the killing of minke whales will not endanger the species...

Animal population control is fraught with wild guesses and half baked research. Biologist who have studied specific species are often puzzled by population fluctuations. I doubt that there is a Japanese marine researcher who can positivly state how many minke whales there actually are. Another marine tragedy that is taking place is the decreased population of sharks in some areas. The Chinese taste for shark fin soup leaves sharks thrown back into the sea with their fins cut off.

The problem with stock assessment is the methodology used. Some are outdated, some depend more on statistics than real observation, and some are biased. You can't survey the ocean the way you do the land. For example, you could use road kill as a great way to come up with a stock assessment for racoons, skunks, possums, and even deer. But with bears it would be completely ineffective. And one bear hit by a truck, if it ever happened, would make the scientists fall into two camps: the bear population is higher than it has ever been, or alternatively, all the bears we see are dead, the population is in trouble. Google ''Worm and Myers'' for a larger discussion on this, especially the criticisms.

Jeb: most shark finning is prohibited now, with worldwide treaties that prohibit the offloading of shark fins in signatory countries. If you can't sell it, there's no point in taking it. About the only ones still doing it are the Chinese and Taiwanese who fish on the high seas and return to their own country. [I used to do it. It was a long time ago, and a different world then.]

Comments?


The Berlin Zoo's abandoned polar bear cub Knut looks cute, cuddly and has become a front-page media darling, but an animal-rights activist insisted Monday he would have been better off dead than raised by humans.

'Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal-protection laws,' animal-rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.

'The zoo must kill the bear.'

For more on the subject...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260122,00. html

wish some whales will be spared still in the ocean when i go for the whale watching this summer!!!and agree with jeb,why kill a whale??

Ian - sorry, I will respond eventually, just chortling ever so slightly over 'fuzzy Knut's frolicking'. but just quickly - Frank's statement doesn't seem to benefit either humans or the bear, the bear is being cared for, surely instinctually it would want to live? ok - it may not be the way nature intended it to live...but it's in a zoo anyway.

'instinctively' - don't even know if instinctually is a word!

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair so Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he was a bear Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair so Fuzzy Wazzy wasn't fuzzy was he was a beouch somebody looking over my shoulder
Every cause has it's share of overzelous fanatics. Based on his position regarding Knut, simple logic would indicate that this zoo watcher's bag is a few peanuts short. If that way of thinking became popular, all the animals in all the zoos in the world should be killed including the endangered species being bred to preserve the species. With all the publicity going on about Knut, the people will emotionally adopt him and he will become the darling of the zoo. That animal rights loudmouth will get shouted down no doubt. And with 'cute' in the equation, well, this guy has no chance of getting his way.

On second thought, this is taking place in Germany. No telling how the Germans deal with such stuff. And if the EU gets involved who knows?

It's interesting that Germany is the greenest of the EU countries these days. For example, the animal rights activists there have succeeded in prohibiting sport fishing. You can still fish with a rod and reel, but you have to take it home for food. No ''catch and release.'' Thay may have a point. Can you imagine doing the same with a deer...put an apple on a tree stump with a big god-awful hook it in...Bambi comes along...drag Bambi around the woods for an hour...finally hoist Bambi up a tree and take a proud picture of yourself with your catch....then drop Bambi onto the ground, take the hook out, and sent it on its way.

I think that conservation alone does not justify the existence of zoo's but a strong commitment to individual animal welfare, promoting natural behaviours, natural enviroments etc should be the main contributory factor in question..

André:
Zoos are an ancient concept that have taken on a life of their own, no pun intended. The Roman emperors brought back exotic animals to amaze their subjects from the far distant lands they had conquered. That zoos are already in place, well staffed by veteranarians and biologists, what better place to take on the task of species conservation? Disbanding and leveling all the zoos might satisfy a group of people but then an intirely new infrastructure whould have to be built up to replace the one that was lost.

Ian:
I have been interested in watching the outcome of banning mountain lion hunts in California. Biologists say one thing, animal rights people say another and the few folks who have nearly or did wind up on a mountain lion's dinner plate have something else entirely to say about it.

And the same goes for bears. Concerning deer (Bambi); 40 years ago, if someone saw a deer around here it was front page news. in the past 15 or 20 years the population has exploded. And with that explosion has come unsubstantiated reports of mountain lion sightings. It is nothing to see 5 or 6 or more reports of car/deer collisions a day in the county court news during the rut. Farmers complain of deer predation on their forage crops. About 10 years ago, the state game and fish boys authorized an antlerless only deer permit just for that reason. And how much does urban sprawl have to do with all this?

Interesting statistic...animals kill about 200 people annually in the US. A few dogs, the occasional snake, a horse here and there, even bees. But 3/4 of the fatalities are people who die in collisions with deer.

It would be useful to have a direct link on the home page to the Forum page, with a notation about the number of comments posted. It would save the trouble of clicking, scrolling, clicking, scrolling...to see if there were any new comments posted.




I'm also curious to know if it is possible to post a recipe on the Recipe Page here. If so, why? A joust about Hollandaise versus Bernaise?

At the moment, there is a string of jokes about Alzheimer's being posted in Comments. Anyone who has had to deal with a family member with Alzheimer's knows what a heart-breaker it is, as well as being inexorably fatal. Why can we joke about that, but not cancer?