Ethics of Fishing
January 28, 2005 at 8:45 pm #333
Isn’t fishing sadistic? People catch a fish by hooking it and then suffocating it by pulling it out of the water…..then they throw it back in(catch and release) so it can get hooked again.
January 29, 2005 at 1:22 pm #19214
I think taking lives is always wrong & that too if other better options R available..
If we have some religion which includes killing organisms , we have not made the religions & customs so we R not guilty here, we shud respect religions
if they R really original[/color] , but keep in mind if these religions do not affect our MOTHER earth adversely.And seriously, test if they have any meaning today.
These religions may have been non- hazardous when they began , because at that time humans may be disturbing ecobalance to a lesser extent.
Also, I think killing plants is also not good , but its natural for us ,we R adapted for eating veg. as main diet , so its not wrong as this is expected by MOTHER nature [but only for survival]
I believe all organisms have feelingas but they go on reducing with reducing complexity
So , killing a plant or bacteria is better than killing a fish…………………………..
If still want to kill them , give them les pains.
January 30, 2005 at 12:51 am #19219quote mithrilhack:
Ever seen a cat catch a mouse?
January 31, 2005 at 8:45 pm #19263
Yeah, the cat plays with the mouse until it dies. But do we have an obligation as humans not to stoop to the level of cats?
January 31, 2005 at 11:34 pm #19267
It really disappoints me that so many people still haven’t figured out the right question to ask. There is no generalization possible regarding whether fishermen or hunters are bad people. While many of them are, it is not because they fish or hunt. Some may be greedy and take animals which they shouldn’t or more than the population can sustain, which is clearly wrong. However, at the end of the day, we all must eat something to survive. Most city slickers choose to buy their meat and fish at grocery stores, because they don’t know how to harvest themselves and believe the whole concept of fishing and hunting is sadistic. Most of these individuals have no problem eating veal, chickens that spent their whole life in a 12 inch box without ever standing up, or eating farm raised fish / game so long as its all cut up and they don’t have to see it before its processed.
Others choose to harvest their own meat and vegatables either out of pride, tradition, or lack of confidence in the commercial system of maximizing profits, which includes injecting steroids, antibiotics, or others into their meat to make it bigger and bulkier. The crops are genetically modified and then sprayed with herbicides, once again in the interest of maximizing profits. Many of us prefer to catch our own fish to fill our freezers than buy farm raised fish, fed on dog food, in small tanks way over natural holding capacity, and loaded with disease and bacteria not naturally found in the lakes and rivers.
Do fish feel it when they’re hooked? You better believe it. Does it hurt? I would say that it must. But on that same token, millions of people stick chunks of metal through their faces and bodies every year, but no one is suggesting that the tatoo shop owner is sadistic for allowing the practice. I know that the fish I keep to eat and the deer / moose / bear that I harvest don’t threaten the sustainability of the population, and as such, pride is my sentiment towards the situation. I’ve let go many fish, especially in small brook trout streams where the population is vulnerable. Science studies indicate that the large majority of released fish survive to breed again, and by selectively keeping those fish which are foul hooked for the supper table, the survival rate for released fish keeps increasing.
And so, if I catch 50 brook trout in an afternoon, and keep 5 for supper for myself and my family, it doesn’t make me feel bad or unethical. I know that the trout that I’ve eaten have lived the best lives possible, not stuck in boxes and fed dog food for their lives. I know that the one’s I release will likely spawn again in following years.
Maybe the best question is, “Don’t you think that keeping a chicken in a box that’s too small to stand up in for its entire life, while it lays eggs for your omlette, and then killing it for your local Kentucky Fried Chicken shop a little sadomasochistic?”
February 1, 2005 at 1:17 am #19269
Thank-you for pointing out those things whitemoose.ca! I respect hunters like you (I’m assuming that you’re a hunter) and I’m glad that you have brought up issues like this and I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
February 1, 2005 at 5:11 am #19273
Here’s the vegetarian’s argument: we can subsist on plant diet without resorting to violence.
February 1, 2005 at 6:23 am #19278
We shud kill organisms if & only if we don’t have any other better option.
February 1, 2005 at 3:24 pm #19290quote 2810713:
I know what your saying- I don’t like people who hunt for sport
February 2, 2005 at 12:51 am #19321
I don’t really understand where all this touchy, feely sentiment comes from regarding fishermen and hunters. City people feel so good about their vegatarian diets, but unfortunately have lost touch with the reality of farming. I’m going to speak about michigan only, because thats the only place where I know the farmers, but I’d wager that its very similar in other states / provinces. Animals love to eat farmers crops and farmers love to sell their crops to people. Farmers are issued “block permits” meaning that for every acre of farmland they own, they can harvest approximately a dozen (often more depending on the township) deer that are eating the crops. No permits are needed for other animals like raccoons, ground mice, prarie dogs, or other nuisance animals. Basically, we live in a world where people from the city believe that by only eating farm produced vegatables, they are not contributing to killing animals, which is a common misconception (because they have no idea how it actually works). So in many cases, vegatarians are actually paying farmers to kill deer and other animals simply by buying the produce. They get that nice, touchy, feely sensation because they themselves didn’t have to partake in killing off the wildlife, but it doesn’t mean that they didn’t encourage or FINANCIALLY SUPPORT it. Grow your own veggies in your backyard if you really care about the animals… otherwise, just be content to be in the club of uniformed and idealistic animal lovers.
(Pic of a baby loon I found approximately 1 mile from any water on a logging road. LIkely dropped, but not killed, by a bald eagle.)
2nd, the arguement about Humans should only kill organisms if they have to. If I do recall correctly (maybe the details are off a bit), the religious finatics in India were using the same arguement to protect the rats that were living in the grain silo’s. Rather than putting up traps to kill the animals, they let them live in the grain, defecate, and fornicate where they wanted to. Then, they sold the grain to people, and everyone was getting sick. Big surprise right? Bottom line, I respect the decision to become a vegetarian and would likely go that way myself if I couldn’t harvest my own meat (because of my lack of confidence in the commercial system), but understand that there are many times when the best action is to kill animals, for food, or to prevent them from destroying human food.
February 2, 2005 at 1:16 am #19322
“It is our goal to bring about responsible hunting, fishing, forestry, and natural resource use including the use of alternative energy sources such as co-generation plants through the spread of the truth.”
-I finaly got a chance to visit that site – I wasn’t aware of such a site and I’m glad I now know!
February 6, 2005 at 9:17 am #19394novastar_Participant
The answer depends on how u define fishermen being bad….. If u think of it as killing fishes, then of course they are bad….. If u think of it as they are fishing to provide us with food containing proteins, then it’s not that bad….. Many people will say being a vegetarian means not killing animals…. It’s somehow true, but it means u are killing plants….. It’s not totally true as if we all become vegetarians, then won’t herbivores have to fight with us for food? Generally, man will get the food as we have technology…. So it is an indirect way to kill animals….. If we do not want to kill anything, then we might as well not eat! If we do not eat, we will all starve to death and it means killing ourselves…. so everything leads to death….. it’s nature and thus, we cannot help it….
February 10, 2005 at 2:40 pm #19497
Yes in this world organisms eat other organisms… we must do this to live; so it is necessary to eat vegetables and fish- I don’t know why there is such a big issue about this kind of thing – We need to eat food – is that such a crime?
February 10, 2005 at 8:33 pm #19509
Well….milk doesn’t require killing anything.
February 10, 2005 at 8:37 pm #19510
Alright, I will rephrase my statement – most organisms eat other organisms
– Thank-you for pointing that out mithrilhack 😀
February 12, 2005 at 1:03 am #19541
Have you ever been to a factory where milk is produced? It’s pumped from cows via machinery. The machines are really tough on the cows, and so many of the cows develop cists from the friction. The cists break causing puss and blood to enter the milk. Then we drink the puss, blood, hormones, steriods, and other crap thats mixed in with the milk. Lucky us… We didn’t have to kill anything to get the nutrients that we need to survive….
Once the cow is dry and no longer gives milk, it is slaughtered for human consumption or animal feed. So did we really not kill anything by drinking milk? Again, like the farmer and block deer permit example, just because the product you’re buying doesn’t directly kill animals, we should not be duped into believing that we’re not financially supporting farmers to kill animals by buying their products.
Is this really the alternative to consuming animals that vegatarians and animal activists are pushing for? I can’t imagine that these groups, with such a focus on protecting animals, would buy milk and support a system where animals are enslaved their entire lives, stuck in small cages, have their babies taken away from them almost immediately so that we get to drink the substance that is meant to nurture life… Then (like the KFC chickens and eggs example) when they run dry and can no longer produce milk, we slaughter them for the meat…
Its important for everyone to visit the local farms and see just what we’re supporting. Maybe if more people knew, there would be more demand for healthy animal products, and they would show up in more grocery stores… I buy bacon, milk, and eggs. I’d like to be able to say that those animals lived good lives, but I doubt it. At least the deer, moose, bear, and fish that I harvest have lived life to the fullest, and the meat’s not loaded up with crap that farmers injected to make money… But the government is making sure that its safe right? They’re always acting on behalf of the public right? The drugs that cost half as much in Canada as they do in the states really aren’t safe for consumption as President Bush tells us, Right?
The one thing that really bothers me about wild game in Northern Ontario is that our public forests are sprayed by chemicals, AKA herbicides… to save our multi-national forestry companies some money. This is the battle I’m actively fighting!!!
If anyone else is interested, help would be appreciated.
February 12, 2005 at 9:16 pm #19548
I’m not one of those Peta freaks who fight for stupid causes such as sending fire trucks to rescue kitties when people are dying nearby because of an actual fire. I’m simply asking if catch and release is sadistic to fishes.
February 14, 2005 at 7:16 am #19584
I’m in the process of finishing off my mariculture MS. Some people say what I do is wrong. Breeding and raising frys to be assimilated into caged populations for human consumption does seem like a rather cold and heartless act.
Here is how I usually answer.
The Earth’s natural fisheries cannot sustain the human population’s over-fishing forever. Not only does mariculture provide food from a controlled environment and is quite renewable when compared to wild populations, but it is also used to re-populate areas where over-fishing has decreased populations.
People have to eat. Some of those people live in environments where a quality source of protein is not readily available, such as several third-world countries. Aqua-culture provides them with what they need.
I know the question posed was whether fishing is wrong, so I will say this so as not to get completely off-topic 😀 I believe that anyone who consumes meat has a moral obligation to hunt and kill a living creature at least once in their life, not for sport, but just to actively participate in the food-chain that they are a part of. Anything else would be hypocritical.
If this is a moral argument though, then none of my comments matter. A moral argument cannot be won or lost by logic because a person’s belief systems are purely subjective and not supported by scientific thought. That’s why I chose to become a biologist. I don’t have to put up with this shit on a day to day basis. Give me hard analytical data and I’m a happy camper 🙂
February 14, 2005 at 8:30 pm #19594
I hate to argue for the Peta ppl but here’s what they would say:
Meat is a good source of protein but not as good as legumes, etc….
Second, I agree that current agricultural production will not match the future populations. But, currently there is enough food(nutrition-wise) in the world to feed everyone. It’s been proven by an Indian economist that the problem is inequality of wealth and distribution. Heck people in some countries kill sharks, cut off the fin and throw the rest of the carcass into the sea. I know while third-world countries suffer from starvation, americans are suffering from obesity.
So basically…if there is enough food for the whole world and if that food can be obtained without heartless cruelty, should we continue the present course?
February 14, 2005 at 11:02 pm #19605quote mithrilhack:
Well, you’ve kind of answered your own question by quoting the Indian economist. Since people are unable to recieve food because of unequal distribution, how can they eat it? By placing a system of agriculture under their control instead of exporting food and trusting a corrupt system of government to distribute it equally, the populous is much more likely to recieve the nutrition they need.
And when it comes to feeding people who are starving by providing the highest quality of nutrition possible that will help their development the most effectively, the question of animal rights and morality is rendered null and void. I’m sorry, but I could care less about the feelings and rights of another species when the human species in developing countries is in need of an immediate source of sustenance in order to survive. Plants do not provide the same quality of protien as animal flesh within the same acreage of production.
As I said before though, moral arguments cannot be resolved under the umbrella of logic.
February 15, 2005 at 12:51 am #19606
Is farming sadistic? Because the whole issue really is about feeding, and the requirement that people be fed. I got you that you don’t like the idea of catching a fish with a hook in its face, and letting him go…. but they do survive to live another day, and spawn again… which is more than I can say for the deer taken under farmers block permits…
As far as fish farms go, agreed that people need food and its a good way to provide that food. As for myself, i’d rather go all natural.
So the issue is really about the amount of pain inflicted on the fish when they bite the lure, and are caught. Because most serious trout fishermen don’t take the fish out of the water when they catch it, and so there is no starvation of oxygen issue. But, on the same point, does it hurt a fish to come out of the water for a minute anymore than it does a human to go underwater for a minute. Some fish like sturgeon can live out of the water for hours, and then be released without harming them.
Are there any scientists in the room that may be able to shed some light on how fish feel pain as opposed to humans. I’ve never seen anything conclusive, but i’m interested to hear. Is it like getting an ear pierced, or more like ripping out someones tongue? I would hope and bet that its more like an ear piercing…
P.S. Its very difficult to manage a fishery if its impossible to let spawners go. The only way to let spawners go, is to catch them first. Generally, unless sight fishing, an angler doesn’t have the option of choosing which fish will bit the lure, so his only option is to let the spawners go after hooking them. That is…. if he wants to make sure that there will be plenty of fish for years to come.
February 17, 2005 at 3:33 am #19663
You’re right Joe. This thread was supposed to be about fishing physically hurting the fish (I think). Somehow I was drawn off topic.
As far as fish feeling pain, fish have between 40 and 60 pain receptors around the jaw and mouth. So they do feel pain. You can actually test this yourself if you happen to have a fish tank handy. Take a small sterilized needle and retrieve a fish from your tank. Slightly pierce the inside of the mouth in several spots and return it to your tank. Now feed your fish. You’ll notice that the pierced specimen will be hesitant when feeding or may not feed at all for a period of time. You may also notice behavior such as the fish rapidly sucking in water or brushing its mouth against plants or the wall of the tank. After a while, the nervous stimulation of the pain receptors by the needle will fade and the fish will resume feeding.
Now whether this affects your judgment when it comes to fishing is up to you. I’m an avid fisherman, although I eat everything I catch unless it’s inedible, but I would never judge others for fishing or hunting for sport. This is a personal choice made by others and it’s really none of my business how others decide to conduct their lives. Some may condemn me for the experimentation and subsequent dissection of fish and other marine life for the pursuit of knowledge. That’s fine. I’m the one that decides to make those decisions and so accept full responsibilty for my actions.
February 17, 2005 at 8:24 pm #19675quote :
I beg to differ on this point. Since animals are a secondary source, they should be harder to raise than crops. Second, any proteins stored by the animal should come from the plants. I don’t think amino acids are created by animals(I know animals can make proteins, but I think ultimately the raw materials are from plant sources).
February 21, 2005 at 7:38 am #19717quote mithrilhack:
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this! No offense, but everything in this post is pretty much completely false, purely based on some sort of weird deductive reasoning and no scientific basis what so ever. I don’t have the time or the patience to explain elementary biology, you can take an entry level course at your local JUCO for that, which I suggest you do if you’d like to pursue this subject. Or just pick up a used bio book somewhere. In fact, I don’t think I’ll be posting here anymore. I don’t mean to sound aloof, but I honestly thought this was a forum for those that were in the field or had at least taken the time to understand biology’s rudimentary concepts. Boy was I proven dead wrong. Sorry to have wasted everyone’s time.
February 21, 2005 at 1:57 pm #19722
Just to let you know buraku, you are basing your opinion on one person and assuming things about the rest of us – and mithrilhack knows a lot – look at some of his other posts…
February 21, 2005 at 5:23 pm #19726
Thanks for the kind remarks dar.
Let me explain my reasoning. You know that animals are higher up on the food chain than plants. And you should know that as you go up the chain, energy decreases due to inefficiency. Therefore, animals would be less nourishing than the equivalent of plants eaten at the lower level. Now you might be saying, “but you can’t digest cellulose!” Well, true, but I’m talking about proteins.
The only sketchy part is when I said that amino acids are acquired exclusively from plant sources. Can anyone verify or disprove that?
February 21, 2005 at 8:46 pm #19729quote mithrilhack:
A few problems here:
Plants tend to use a lot of their energy in form of sugar (cellulose being one) and have a reduced protein content compared to animals.
A second thind is that we, human cannot produce all the required amino acids from scratch, so we need to get them from food. And it is harder to get all those amino acids from plants, than to get them from meat.
In fact animals are probably much more nourishing than plants, but they are in fact more costly to produce, energy wise.
As for the humanity of animal raising it’s a different question, that some people are trying to adress in organic or sustainable agricultural practice….
February 21, 2005 at 10:09 pm #19730quote Canalon:
I think you mean a lower concentration. I think the total amount would be similar.
February 22, 2005 at 9:41 pm #19741
[quote=”mithrilhack” I think you mean a lower concentration. I think the total amount would be similar.[/quote]
I meant a lower percentage of protein in terms of weight.Hence, eating 1kg meat yielding more proteins than 1kg of plant, even the rricher in proteins (as soy). But I do not see what you call total amount, anyhow…
February 23, 2005 at 12:46 am #19743
Well from my original posting I said that animals get their amino acids from plants. So thats why I think the total amount of proteins in an animal, while concentrated, is equal to or less than(inefficiency) the amount of proteins in the plants eaten by the animal.
February 23, 2005 at 2:18 pm #19749quote mithrilhack:
Nope! Not really since amino acids can be both degraded and synthesized by animal, plants, and the bacteria in the guts of the animals.
Only plants can convert inorganic carbon (i.e CO2) into organic (in general as starch), but after that many transformations can occur to make all carbon molecules needed to sustain life. And plant are not the only one to be able to carry them out.
February 23, 2005 at 8:45 pm #19771
You’re right, I looked it up and it seems that non-essential amino acids can be formed from common materials in the body. For instance alanine can be formed when pyruvate(from carbs) + NH3 molecule.
February 23, 2005 at 9:05 pm #19775quote mithrilhack:
Of course I’m right 😉
And “essential amino acids” can vary between species. And meat provide a greater variety of those AA essential for human than plants. But a balanced and carrefully chosen vegetarian diet can provide enough of all AA. It’s simply harder to do.
February 25, 2005 at 11:55 am #19850
Now,I think, the question doesn’t remain limited to fishery.
As Canalon says, it is harder to get adequate amounts of all required AAs from veg. diet.
But, I think it is better to do this harder job rather than killing other animals. Killing other animals may disturb ecological balance or make some species extinct. So, we should give away the laziness and eat vegetables.
February 25, 2005 at 2:05 pm #19851quote :
Killing animal raised for food production probably do not disturb any ecological balance… And sometimes animals could themselves become a danger for another species (I recently read about dears leading american ginseg to extinction…. in a region where natural deer predators are almost extinct too). And fishing can also be essential in regions where the land is not rich enough to provide all the vegetables needed.
In myhumble opinion a balanced use of both meat and vegetables is probably the best. And meat add so much different and delicious taste to food 😉
February 25, 2005 at 8:32 pm #19862
Meat does taste soo good. But this goes back to the question, if a specie is dying due to a superior specie beating down their numbers, should humans intervene? This actually is more of a world politics question if you think about it.
February 25, 2005 at 10:42 pm #19867
If we are causing a specie to decline in population then we should do something… If not then just let nature take its path.
February 25, 2005 at 11:20 pm #19870quote thank.darwin:
The problem is that there are so many unknown factors in anything like this, that there is no way we can say that we ARE causing the decline, and there is no way we can say we are NOT causing the decline.
February 26, 2005 at 4:39 am #19873
It would kinda depend on how “direct” you want to look. I mean if you go thru how we do one thing and it leads to another which causes another…ad infinitum…and it causes extinction, then of course it would be impossible. But say if we are only looking at direct, like say hunting or pollution then it should be easier to clarify.
February 26, 2005 at 1:09 pm #19884
February 28, 2005 at 4:59 am #19929
If we are causing a specie to decline in population then we should do something… If not then just let nature take its path.
ya, if we are doing some non-natural activities which affect the nature adversely then we must do some more non-natural or natural activities to nutralize those adverse effects.
Not knowing the effect of our acts on the nature can create new problems , thus we should know how much and in what way do we contribute to the problem. This knowlwdge will also help create solutions.
And meat add so much different and delicious taste to food
May be, I am a veggie 😀
March 8, 2005 at 4:40 pm #20218jr659Participant
oh come on how can you tell me that fishing is wrong, or that fishermen are bad people are bad. however people who fish for sport alone and not for food are doing something very wrong. you can’t tell me there all the same. you can’t stereotype, put them all in the same catogory.
March 9, 2005 at 8:34 pm #20277MrMisteryParticipant
You are right jr659. people who fish for food do nothing wrong, fishing for sport however is a different story. I don’t know how it is in other countries but here wherever there is a pond with fish in it you see people just “relaxing and spending some time by themselves” as they describe it.
March 11, 2005 at 10:07 am #20358
Yea, I M also saying the same, we can kill the fish within a certain limits so that it doesn’t damage earth’s ecobalance, See I don’t object fishing for food , but only when there is no other optio , so I M not trying to ban it. But, people kill other organisms for fun , their enjoyment etc, I think they’re going to be a mouse next life.
March 24, 2005 at 11:21 pm #20791
I think this fits in here…
From: Joel T.
To: email@example.com ; Gerry.Weber@mczcr.gov.on.ca ; James.Antler@mczcr.gov.on.ca ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Dave.Harnish@mnr.gov.on.ca ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Rob.Galloway@mnr.gov.on.ca ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Info@noto.net ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Todd@noto.net ; Jimgrayston@hotmail.com ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Jerry_Ouelletteco@ontla.ola.org ; Grassy@wi.net ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Tom.Croswell@tembec.com ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Dianne.Corbett@mnr.gov.on.ca ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Ruth Edwards ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Joel T.
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:50 PM
Subject: White Moose – Recent News & Pic’s…
Mr. Bob Johnston,
I would like to begin by stating that I’ve been highly impressed by the efforts of your staff and yourself to help me establish a walleye hatchery on Nemegosenda lake. It is my sincere hope that your team will perform with the same excellence in regards to the white moose projects. Fortunately for your team, the first task requested by my group will require little “work” other than a pen stroke with your signature. The document should indicate that as the individual with express authority from the Minister of Natural Resources to protect the White Moose in WMU 30 and 31, you authorize removal of moose (which are more than 50% white)
from the hunting roster for 2005.
You had indicated that such an act would require consultation with a team of biologists and no protection could be afforded without determining these animals to be a new species. However, this requirement was not needed to afford protection to the kermode (spirit) bears of BC. Nor was it needed to protect white moose in such jurisdictions as Alaska or Labrador. The apparent view of those responsible for implementing hunting regulations in these areas (and others) is that such rare animals are more valuable to the public alive, as the best viewing and photography opportunities come to an abrupt halt if the animal perishes. I, and thousands of others, see no valid reason why the same type of legislation would not be enacted to help protect these extremely rare animals. In fact, Resolution 05-66 was passed by City of Timmins on March 7, 2005 to formally request of the Minister of Natural Resources to regulate the hunting of White Moose and afford them a protected status as a unique symbol of Northern Ontario.
I should note that by no means am I asking for a permanent removal of moose, which are more than 50% white, from the hunting roster in Ontario. When the Armstrong strain of white moose is no longer such a rarity, the hunt should be re-opened and regulated. There should be permits issued specifically for White Moose. I’m proposing that Ontario begin to finally make use of its resources to their fullest potential and place these animals under tempory protection, similar to putting money in a bank to allow it to grow.
My research has indicated that no such legislation has been enacted because the MNR would prefer these animals removed from the general population, seemingly out of fear that they will spread faulty genes to the general herd. Personally, I don’t think that evolution has simply stopped because humans have become so technologically advanced. These genes may actually be a blessing. A white moose would seem to have a distinct advantage over a brown moose during the winter months. Furthermore, if it is true that wolves hunt with their noses in the summer, white moose would seem to suffer no great disadvantage to brown moose. More interestingly, this strain appears to have an odd variation involving grey guard hairs (even on the calves) which i’ve not seen on other strains of white moose. Is it really that far fetched that this strain may have the genetic ability (with a little luck) to produce moose which can molt from brown to white seasonally, similar to a snow shoe rabbit? Due to the uniqueness of these animals, it would seem that the best way to protect them is a live capture and relocation into a large, mixed composition, fenced in, park. Given the fact that trains, automobiles, natural hazards (like falling through the ice), and natural predators are factors beyond our control, a fence is seemingly a temporary necessity.
If it is the case that these animals are merely genetic defects as the MNR apparently believes to be the case, separation from the herd would seem to be the most sensible solution. However, given the immense value in terms of creation and diversification of employment opportunities that could be created by these animals (in an area largely devoid of industry), a live capture and relocation into a large fenced in, mixed habitat, park would seem to be the most logical solution. Interestingly, both of our opinions lead to the same conclusion regarding the best course of action.
So, the second request that I am making of you is that you have your staff start the paper work process (which I and others will gladly assist) to issue the permits for a live capture and relocation of the White Moose in WMU 30 and WMU 31. Ordinarily, I would believe that only the Minister of Natural Resources would be capable to authorize such a live capture, but given my reciept of a recent letter from the Honorable David Ramsay (the current Minister of Natural Resources), it would seem that this authority has been delegated to your person. I will be providing more details very shortly regarding the proposed transfer location for captured white moose.
Thank you for your time and I am eager to continue working with you for the betterment of Northern Ontario.
March 25, 2005 at 12:28 am #20796quote mithrilhack:
Absolutely right. It would make it easier to clarity. But it’s also a gross oversimplification.
Why does my plant grow?
Oversimplified answer: I water it.
Full answer: It is an organism that carries out cell division, photosynthesis, and glycosis with the following reactions:
<<insert enough chemical reactions to literally fill an entire library of books>>
March 25, 2005 at 2:18 am #20801
Ummmm, should we allow the email addresses to be posted here?
March 25, 2005 at 5:51 pm #20809PoisonParticipantquote mithrilhack:
I have doubts too mithrillhack. I’m not sure if it is a good idea or not.
May 10, 2005 at 12:17 am #22290Canaduck_89Participant
I don’t know about anyone else, but I like to fish. I don’t consider it a crime. I fish for eating. People who fish for sport do hurt the fish, even when the let them back, but i don’t think it would have any mental effect on the fish would it ( Not saying it still isn’t a bad thing to do)? I mean don’t fish have a memory of about ten seconds? I could be wrong, if anyone would correct me i would be glad.
May 10, 2005 at 10:57 am #22302
While I am not going to argue the ethics of fishing, as it is a biologists duty to remain neutral on such matters, I will input here that while a fish’s nervous system does have mechanoreceptors, and can feel the pressure of a hook in its mouth, it does NOT have nocireceptors, and therefore cannot feel pain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.