Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: SpayVac� Managing wildlife without slaughter?
Next: Most early humans ate primarily plant foods...
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 03:12 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et6k8s$4dt$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message > news:86gdv25vcvg63a7pbnkbdlejdg7auft5fe(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:06:30 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> >> wrote: >> >> >"Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message >> >news:y0hJh.38687$lY6.20732(a)edtnps90... >> >> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> >> > news:et3pe6$v67$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> > >> >> > Omnivores are carnivorous. Where are meat-eating adaptations? >> >> >> >> The brain. >> > >> >'Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a >> >reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. >> >This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods >> >have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. >> >> It is man, the hunter gatherer. Humans utilized every food source >> they could in the past. There are some places in the world where even >> rodents are considered for the menu, along with all the edible plant >> species.. > > 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have > been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance > on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not > least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. > From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods > were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during > the interglacials. ' > http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm > > "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary > divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, > and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion > & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric > lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lop� Reserve, Gabon, p.179, > Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, > No. 1270 > > 'Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that > the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides > both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems > wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting > and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer > nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of > low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says > that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet > basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, > to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have > never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter > that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research." Precisely. Primates naturally prefer food sources with the highest availability. This is not a conscious preference but one driven by the environment. In an environment rich with fruits and herbivorous food sources there is no need to expend the effort to obtain meat. That is due to the purely logistical differences in obtaining plant versus animal food. Given equal access to both carnivorous and herbivorous sources, primates would naturally prefer the food that gives the biggest bang for the buck.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 03:21 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et6d6r$1ij$8(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > Do you have any valid argument, or are you just a pro-sealing troll? I consider all sides of a conflict and weigh the evidence accordingly... my arguments are never based on a single side or facet. ARAs consider only their side of a conflict to be the correct side, there is no other side to consider. Therefore... no... I can never have a valid argument with an ARA.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 03:56 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et6d6t$1ij$10(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > > Why? What it shows is that there is no need for seal meat. Why is there a need for anything? Why do you need a PC? Justify to me the loss of wildlife habitat that results from the product life cycle of that computer sitting in front of you. You think you're pure in your beliefs but I can guarantee no matter what you do, you will never be pure in your practices (not unless you're willing to go live with the apes). >> > There is also a growing black market demand >> > for the seal penis bone in the Far East as some sort of voodoo >> > quack remedy for impotence. >> >> The seal hunt is legal, the trade in such animal parts is not. Go after >> the >> criminals. > > You are the ones meeting their 'demand'. You can stop it. Who is "you?" Do you think everyone who supports the hunt is directly involved in it? >> > There are few indigenous peoples involved in the commercial >> > seal "hunt". Inuit or Native people in the North hunt mostly in >> > the arctic and primarily ringed seals. Most of the sealers in the >> > Gulf of St.Lawrence are residents of the Magdalen Islands >> > of Quebec. These are French speaking people. Most of the >> > sealers of the Newfoundland Front are descendents of the >> > European immigrants. >> >> And? > > This "hunt" is not done to meet indigenous requirements. Who cares? Canada has a trillion dollar economy which does not revolve around "indigenous requirements." > Was the reason for colonisation just to exploit the abundant wildlife? Apparently you're quite ignorant of Canadian history. Do they teach kids that stuff these days? >> > There are about 4500 Inuit in Newfoundland. However, the >> > original Newfoundlanders, the Beothuk, were driven into >> > extinction by the European immigrants. The last member of >> > the Beothuk nation died in 1912. The Newfoundlanders had >> > a bounty on the Beothuk and most were slain by MicMac >> > Indian bounty hunters from New Brunswick and Quebec. >> > Newfoundlanders also drove the Newfoundland wolf, the >> > walrus, and the Labrador duck to extinction and extirpated the >> > polar bear, and the pilot whale from Newfoundland territory.... >> >> The sons are responsible for the sins of the father? > > The sons are clearly continuing the sins of their fathers. It's only a sin in the minds of ideologically-driven ARA fanatics who watch too much Walt Disney.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 03:59 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et6d71$1ij$14(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:xvhJh.38694$lY6.15090(a)edtnps90... >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> news:et3pbs$v1f$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message >> > news:lnWIh.75072$cE3.59687(a)edtnps89... >> >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> >> news:et0rqr$phu$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> >> >> >> > I care about the seals and the environment. Duh. >> >> >> >> Harp Seals are not in any great danger of extinction, far from it, the >> >> populations are quite healthy and have been stable for years. >> > >> > 'While the harp seal is not on Canada's species at risk list, it is >> > unlikely that the population can continue to withstand the current >> > levels of exploitation. >> >> <snip all usual ARA propaganda> > > Not a valid argument, again. Y'all seem to excel at ~that~. Parroting ARA websites wholesale is not argument, it's spamming >> The World Wildlife Fund supports the seal hunt. They've taken the >> realistic >> approach and believe a sustainable hunt is the best solution for all >> parties. The ARAs are ideologically driven radicals that have no >> connection >> to seals or the communities that hunt them, other than this type of >> activism >> is a very good way to raise funds and keep their leaders employed. If >> the >> WWF and respected conservationists believes the hunt is sustainable, >> that's >> good enough for me. > > http://www.wickedwildlifefund.com/abuse.html > > The WWF Endorses the Killing of Wild Animals, Too Ahhh... of course a nice, balanced website to provide your opinion (in place of the one you don't seem to have).
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 04:02
"pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et6d77$1ij$17(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:BeiJh.38699$lY6.2489(a)edtnps90... >> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> > news:et3o5j$ui6$2(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> > >> > They belong to no one. You cannot truthfully own other beings. >> >> The world doesn't run on the theoretical ethics of misguided animal >> rights >> activists. All major religions support a human-centric view of the >> world, >> that we are superior beings and hold dominion over the natural world. To >> claim that one "cannot truthfully own other beings" is moot and >> irrelevant. > > 'Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals Still no opinion of your own? |