skip to main |
skip to sidebar
During the course of writing this blog over the past couple of years, many of my readers have come to appreciate a certain civility and thoughtfulness that I try to bring to my work. It's obvious by the subjects that I discuss that I am pro-conservation, pro-ocean, and pro-shark to name a few, but I rarely engage in rude put-downs or coarse language.
But PETA's latest billboard campaign truly tests my resolve. By showing a human leg dangling from the jaws of a white shark with the headline, "Payback is hell," this pro-animal rights group sets public awareness and support back a few notches by reinforcing stereotypes of the shark as mindless killers. Or actually, not mindless at all but cunning and vengeful - right out of a bad Jaws sequel.
Though PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) spouts some obligatory quotes about humans being the ultimate predator, not sharks; their real message is an anti-meat, pro-vegan position - which is fine to express but not at the expense of one of the very animals you claim to be protecting.
They may have thought, "Oh, people will get it. It's just a shark, just a picture." Well, in a world where American presidents have their nationality and their patriotism questioned, where climate change is expected to be cured by prayer, and where fallen soldiers are called "faggots" and said to have deserved to die; it's not all that hard to imagine many people viewing the PETA billboard and confirming to themselves that sharks are selecting humans for attack and therefore do not need our protection or concern - proof that the only good shark is a dead shark.
There have been many who have been assaulting PETA for this billboard and their stated rationale (as a follow up advertisement to a recent shark bite incident near the Gulf of Mexico.)
"With the recent shark attack in the news, we thought that it was a good time to bring this discussion up that will hopefully save lives, both human and animals," PETA Campaign Manager Ashley Byrne told The Huffington Post. "Sharks are not the most dangerous predators on Earth, we are. Americans alone kill billions of animals for food every year, including fish. And while sharks are natural carnivores, people can choose what they eat."
That's right, Ms. Byrne, sharks are natural predators, feeding on a wide range of animals which, in turn, helps to maintain a healthy and balanced ecosystem. And with their continuing loss through commercial fishing, that balance is quickly being thrown out of whack. But the 50 injuries and 5 fatalities that people experience from sharks on average each year are not the result of a concerted campaign of retaliation, as your billboard moronically implies.
Shame on you. If you feel you need to promote such a ludicrous statement to support your cause, then I suggest you rethink your cause. People can be fooled with misleading images and headlines and so, because of that, it is incumbent on anyone who believes a cause to be righteous to deal in truth always.
"Payback is hell." It's stupid, lame, misleading and basically just a flat out lie. And it's serious, not intended as humor or satire - so we will take it as the serious statement that it is and I along with many of my conservation and shark advocate colleagues will choose not to ignore but to soundly repudiate it. If you wish to express your views to PETA regarding the billboard, you may fill-out an online message form at the Peta website. Click here.
One of the more disturbing moral dilemmas between man and nature is the use of animals for scientific or medical research. While the desire amongst many is to treat these subject animals in the most humane way possible, there will always be a strong argument for using them in research rather than expose a human to possible harm - particularly if it involves research for disease cures.
While the ethical debate goes on (and there has been some progress for the animal rights activists regarding the use of animals for cosmetic testing and other non-life threatening pursuits), the one thing no one wants to see is mistreatment of the animals that are captured or bred for these purposes. Many seem to agree that is the least we could do.
Long-tailed macaque monkeys are a primate species that has been used in a wide range of research from the early days of the space program to today. They are also somewhat prolific, being listed as of "least concern" for endangerment by the IUCN. Macaque monkeys are bred in several African and Asian countries primarily to supply the research field with test subjects.
Off the southeastern coast of Africa, east of Madagascar, lies the island nation of Mauritius, which is home to at least four breeding farms to service its customers - the United States is the largest importer of primates from Mauritius, followed by breeders in Spain, Israel, and Puerto Rico. But according to a report by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), monkeys are being seriously and cruelly mistreated in Mauritius, perhaps due to an attitude that views the long-tailed macaque monkey as a pest worthy of eradication.
According to the Associated Press, a report just released by the BUAV cites instances of monkeys being kept in small, restrictive wire cages; showing clear signs of injuries; and even being swung around by their tails by the trapper/handlers. Inquiries by AP to several Mauritius government agencies have gone unanswered.
Quoting AP, "'The animal was clearly terrified, yet the trapper routinely removed him from the cage and tormented him by picking him up and swinging him around in the air by the tail,' the report said. "This particular primate also had injuries to his forehead.'"
The long-tailed macaque monkey has been introduced as an invasive alien species over the years in several locations including Hong Kong, western New Guinea, Palau, and Mauritius. It has proven to be a successful predator and in so doing, disrupted the natural balance, particularly in island nations where isolated species are unaccustomed and unprepared for the impact of alien species. While it certainly may be considered a pest on the island of Mauritius, mistreatment of this animal, particularly when it serves an economic value to the islanders, does not seem in any way justified.
The BUAV's agenda is clear and so their report may be viewed by government or industrial officials with a measure of bias. Whether that impacts the reports ability to change conditions in the Mauritius monkey trade remains to be seen. But as the debate continues as to whether mankind is to continue to use animals - monkeys or otherwise - for research purposes, providing a measure of dignity and respect for an animal that is providing us with a benefit would not seem to be an impossible goal.
Read the Associated Press news release.
Controversy is now dogging the white shark tagging efforts of Dr. Michael Domeier of the Marine Conservation Science Institute. The SPOT (smart positioning or temperature) tagging began in Isla Guadalupe under the eyes of a film crew for a National Geographic Channel program to air on the 19th. It involves a technique whereby the shark is hooked and reeled on board, aerated with a water hose, while the crew literally drills and bolts a satellite transmitting tag to the shark's dorsal fin.
This is a rather elaborate tagging technique that has generated much concern within the shark conservation community (click here for prior posting about the Isla Guadalupe taggings, and here are two from other sites: click here and here).
Now, Dr. Domeier has moved northward to the Farallon Islands and, with the approval of Maria Brown, superintendent for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, has been tagging sharks there but with less than optimal success. Apparently, one shark swallowed the hook deep into its throat causing the bait's float to become lodged in the shark's jaws, thereby blocking access for the aerating water hose and requiring the cutting of the hook by working straight through the shark's gills. All in all a disaster in humane animal treatment as far as I'm concerned.
While there are concerns about the stresses this type of tagging places on the shark, there is also the question as to the need for more data acquired in the Northern California area. Dr. Barbara Block of Stanford, Dr. Pete Klimley of UC Davis, and others have amassed a considerable body of data that tracks the migratory patterns of these animals. They and their colleagues just recently issued a detailed report that can be viewed in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, published online on 11/04/09 in the Biological Sciences section ("Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks").
I always felt that this particular tagging technique was a more elaborate mousetrap than necessary. Now its efficacy has become controversial, the California data may ultimately be redundant, and the National Marine Sanctuary must defend a decision to allow catching a protected species in a manner that would most likely not be allowed for, say, a protected marine mammal.
Too many questions, too much controversy. . .
Read article in Bay area bohemian.com.
During the course of writing this blog over the past couple of years, many of my readers have come to appreciate a certain civility and thoughtfulness that I try to bring to my work. It's obvious by the subjects that I discuss that I am pro-conservation, pro-ocean, and pro-shark to name a few, but I rarely engage in rude put-downs or coarse language.
