PETA urges Jimmy Carter to stop fishing

[Lefty48197]

This probably belongs in an "animal rights" or a "hunter/fisher's rights" forum, but we don't have one, so I posted it here.

This is from today's issue of USA Today, pg 3A.
"PETA asks Jimmy Carter to stop fishing.
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals urged former president Jimmy Carter to give up fishing, saying the activity is inconsistent with the Nobel Peace Laureate's humanitarian efforts. The group said it's request, in a letter to the Carter Center, was prompted by Carter's recent appearance on NBC'S The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. Carter told Leno of the pain he suffered when he accidentally hooked himself through the face on a fishing trip.
'We're asking President Carter to think this through and to grant fish peace by leaving them in the water where they belong.' PETA President Ingrid newkirk said. A Carter Center spokesman declined to comment.

Catching fish is inconsistent with Carter's HUMANITARIAN efforts?

[Fiona]

1. Shouldn't that be Fishitarian?

[solinvictus]

2. PETA..

They can be ridiculous at times.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Too many times

They hurt their cause

[trotsky]

5. Ridiculous? Try totally counter-productive.

Half the shit they do turns more people OFF the animal rights movement. They need to figure out exactly what it is they are trying to accomplish, because a lot of it isn't helping any animals.

[Redneck Socialist]

4. We have both (sort of)

Hunting/fishing (and other outdoor stuff) group http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=271

Animal rights/vegetarian group http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=231

As to the topic at hand, I'll just say Jimmy's Da Man! and leave it at that.

[Wickerman]

32. here's fine

we try to keep politics out of the Outdoor forum and hunting fishing out of here. Since this is political I think this is the best forum. Maybe we should have a PETA forum? :crazy:

[demosincebirth]

6. Does thatt mean Jumbo prawns, too?

[electric-eye]

7. If you believe thinking, feeling creatures have a right to life

then you believe thinking, feeling creatures have a right to life

Good on PETA.

[tuvor]

9. Uh, so screw those fish-eating bears, is that it?

Sorry, your argument doesn't fly as long as there's an indelible food chain.

[electric-eye]

13. Uh, I'm not a bear

and neither is Jimmy Carter.

Man doesn't need fish, or the flesh (or organs or intestines or teeth or nails) of any creature in order to sustain his life.

If the "indellible" food chain must continue as you see it, then a more humane of harvesting could be found. I mean, a metal hook disguised as food that rips thru the mouth of the fish so much so that he can the be hauled out of his environment and die a slow suffocating death - that's what happens, right?

imho, its your argument that needs attendance

[tuvor]

15. Hang on a minute!

You just finished implying that fish have a right to life. Period. What does the fish-eating bear do? It takes that "right" away. So, either you have to do something to ensure the fish survives, or fish don't have any rights after all.

And if it's about being humane after all, then couldn't PETA just ask Mr. Carter to kill the fish humanely asap, instead of telling him he should give up altogether?

[electric-eye]

16. ?

Yes, I stated that if you believe thinking, feeling things have a right to life, that's what you believe. Why exclude fish?

Of course fish have a right to life. Did someone leave that up to me to determine? Or you? Of course they have a right to life, to live.

Does man kill fish, yep, and everyting else that moves.
Do bears kill fish, they sure do.

Does man have an accessible ability to reason? Its a vanishing ability, but its still there.

Do bears? I don't know - and I wouldn't know how to communicate such anyway.

Point? I don't believe there is a conflict in believing fish have a right to life yet believing I should not kill bears who fish. I do, believe it something altogether different to reason with fellow man over the killing of other thinking, feeling creatures.

You're speaking apples and oranges, imho.

If you could justify human behavior by animal behavior, then I could come over and take a dump on the windshield of your car, right?

not the same

[tuvor]

18. One more try.

Take humans out of the equation for a minute, because right or wrong, that's how I've been looking at your argument that fish have a right to life.

Now that you've done that, I don't think you can say on the one hand that a fish has a right to life, and then on the other hand say it's okay for the bear to take that right away. Otherwise the "right" you speak of has no meaning.

If you're saying the fish has a right not to be killed by humans, then that's a whole different kettle of fish, no pun intended. And I would never get involved in a debate about that because it's futile.

Does that make better sense? Sometimes I don't communicate as well as I think I do.

ON EDIT: By the way, welcome to DU! :hi:

[electric-eye]

19. its really pretty simple

I would like to see an argument that fish don't have a right to life.

I just wanted to say that.

You put me in the position of being some omnipotent being. I believe fish have a right to life, I think it is self-evident, but I can only speak from a mere mortal p.o.v.

I don't think we can take humans out of the equation, because the fact that we're discussing this puts us in the equation.

You're speaking of a universal, definite law with no loose ends, and I sure ain't the guy to even attempt such. I believe fish have a right to live - they absolutely do and fishing is a sad excuse for a sport, imho - but I cannot tell you why that right should or shouldn't apply when the predator's a bear.

Maybe the subject should be - does man have a right to kill?


on edit: thanks for the welcome

[tuvor]

21. I guess I'm a poor communicator, then.

Cheers, and we'll see you around.

[Lefty48197]

22. Actually, bears don't eat fish. They just rip the skin off and eat it, and

leave the carcas, flesh and all to rot.

[NorthernSpy]

29. the bears are doing their part

Bears also like to selectively eat the roe, but nature doesn't often leave meat to rot on the bone. Raccoons, seagulls and others are happy eat what the bears leave. Ultimately, all those nitrogen compounds become more and bigger trees. It all works out right.

[trotsky]

23. How do you determine what can think and feel?

Supposedly you believe fish can.

What about shrimp?

Scallops?

Plankton?

Crickets?

Plants can even detect changes in their environment (feel) and initiate actions to adapt to those changes (think). Guess we can't eat anything, huh?

[electric-eye]

24. GLORIOUS question!!!!!!!!!

:toast:

[trotsky]

25. Um, OK, I asked it of you. Do you have an answer?

I'd love to hear it.

[electric-eye]

26. Oh, you're serious

Well, you draw that line as well as I do. You're aware of that I hope.

Surely you wouldn't put a hook thru a kittens mouth and then tell stories about how it struggled for its life.

So there's a line for you as well.

I believe fish to be thinking, capable of pain. Why, I don't know, I don' t have any magic words for extreme examples. Plants?

The glorious part of your questian is that you acknowledge there is a line - a line determined by our own moral selves, whcih divides those "expendable, killable" life forms, and those upon whom it would be a crime to kill, or harm. There is that line, yes?

So, I apologize for answering your questions so inadequately, but I ask you - answer your own question - How do you determine what feels and thinks?

Who decides what lives and what is slaugthered without mercy?

I wish it were me to make that decision.

[trotsky]

27. That's not my question.

I didn't ask "Who decides what lives and what is slaughtered without mercy?"

You are the one who said that we can't kill anything that thinks or feels. I want you to tell me how we can make that determination. You will need to define "think" as well as "feel" and then explain how we detect each.

I will answer your questions, but you should answer mine first.

[electric-eye]

28. actually, it is

this is from my post - that you are reacting to

----------------
So, I apologize for answering your questions so inadequately, but I ask you - answer your own question - How do you determine what feels and thinks?
--------------
Your question was: "How do you determine what can think and feel?"


Yeah, I asked the other question too, but I clearly represented your original question as well.

How do I answer the "how do you determine" question?

Well, all I know is that I think a fish and a mink and cow and pig are among those who can think and feel. I can't tell you how I determine that. It seems self-efident to me. Would you need to see an animal react in fear and pain before you believed it? (plenty of pics about)



I can tell you that you don't have to eat dead animals to live.

[trotsky]

30. So in other words,

your definition is much like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Nice, workable definition there. Just admit you can't answer my question, won't you?

I answer it by saying: I don't care if it thinks or feels. In my culture, some animals have been deemed food and acceptable for human consumption. I consume the flesh several of those animals on a regular basis. Yes of course I would like to minimize the suffering of those animals when being raised and slaughtered. And I actually make purchasing decisions based on that. But I'm not going to stop eating meat.

I can tell you that you don't have to eat dead animals to live.

No, you don't. But you will have to make sure to take vitamins and be very careful with your diet to make sure you get all the protein your body needs. Meat offers nutrients and protein in a convenient package that tastes GREAT.

What I can't stand is vegetarians or vegans who get high and mighty about how anyone who enjoys eating meat is somehow an evil person who likes to make animals suffer. Thus, why I hate PETA.

[lynne]

33. Can you tell me . . .

- if we don't need to eat dead animals to live - WHY Mother Nature endowed each of us with those lovely sharp flesh-tearing and meat-ripping canine teeth? It would appear that evolution and Mother Nature thinks we DO need to eat dead animals or we would not be equipped to do so.

Eating them live is just too barbaric - even for me.

[tuvor]

8. Do they actually explain why consuming fish is not "ethical"?

Or did they just need an "E" word when they were formed, to make a pronounceable acronym?

[slackmaster]

10. IMO it belongs in The Lounge

Because it's absurd.

Catching fish is inconsistent with Carter's HUMANITARIAN efforts?

I'm sure it would seem so to a fish.

:argh:

[SHRED]

11. Oh well

I doubt if they would approve of me either.
Even though I catch and release only, and I know how to fish. 99% are mouth hooked with no blood.
No petroleum exhaust was dumped in the water to move my vessel either!!


This 9 pound bass was released and swam away strong.

[soleft]

12. Wow, I'm actually to the right of someone

[noamnety]

14. Olbermann weighs in on the issue

“ We're not talking about the kind of pain a fish might feel if he lost his girlfriend to a better-looking mackerel.”
— Keith Olbermann of cable television's MSNBC

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/fishing/columns/guest_columnist/1558324.html

I've got a bit of the survivalist in me, fishing for food doesn't bother my ethics. But messing with animals purely for amusement doesn't sit well with me at all.

[yinkaafrica]

17. Yuppies who practice catch and realease should just take the fish

A headless fish does not live too long

[SHRED]

20. With all due respect

Catch and release removes the head?

:wtf:

[Squatch]

36. I am an almost exclusively C&R fisherman.

I try to keep the head attached when releasing the fish. They tend to live longer with a caphalus.

[pinniped]

31. del.

.

[alwynsw]

34. See what shows up when I leave for a few days!

I read the thread. I'm an omnivore. My teeth prove it. That settles it. (If you don't underss9tand the teeth issue, look it up.)

Once again, with props to Ron White: I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat carrots.

[Township75]

35. It doesn't bother me that this was posted here, but...

it would probably be better to have this in the outdoor life forum, where we talk about fishing more than in the Gungeon.

I guess we can let the mods decided.

I would be really surprised if he quit...and I don't understand the inconsistency thing either.