I think we are being persuaded by the wrong people

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Wailua Boy said:
Really, who is to say either way. I see both sides of the argument. I can say I have loved a dog as much as a human but it is a different love granted. I know my dogs would give their life for me and my family and their is something to be said about that. The love of a child is something rooted a little deeper in our DNA. We are biologically programmed to hold them most dear, well they are 50% our genetics...
Click to expand...

the issue I and others who share my view have is not with how much someone can love their pet. no one disagrees or looks down on anyone who loves their pets like a family member. we all get that.

the issue we have is if it came down to saving one, would you choose your pet's life over a human? doesn't matter if it's a dog, cat, gerbil, lion or fish.

if I was stuck on an island with a stranger and my dog, and we were gonna starve to death, would I kill the stranger so that my dog and I can eat his flesh and survive?

I know that's a silly scenario but just answer it. for me, I would put my dog down so that me and the stranger can survive.

if you would end the stranger so you and your 4 legged companion can survive, you are crazy in my book. that's insane to me
 
I'm just being the devils advocate more than anything but there are cultures that value all forms of life equally and we should respect that, even if differs from our own view points.

To answer your question. If stuck on an island hopefully I would be fishing/hunting for food but if resources ran out. I would consume a pet over a human. Actually depends on the person, a child molesting menace to society, maybe a different story.
 
no I hear you.

I feel that all life is precious. all creatures deserve respect and we couldn't survive without them.

but we are the superior species. to me, there's no arguing that. now that's not to say I don't have compassion for them, or that I think they're stupid animals. i'm just not gonna act like we are equal to them. because we're not
 
I would really of liked to hear from a lot more members on this topic. However I am glad that most of you who have responded do think like me. Some may not think it is possible to lose our hobby but that I do disagree with. As I mentioned before our governments are weak and will cave toward anything they believe will give them more votes. Also as I mentioned earlier our children are now being brain washed at school by the animal rights way of thinking.
I only hope that I am fretting over nothing. Here is a thought to ponder though a few years back green peace was allowed to sue an oil company for the deaths of some ducks in a tailing pond in Ft. Mcmurray. Now if the government will fold to a group opposed to the pil industry what hope do we as fish hobbists have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FMA4ME
The Govt didn't fold, Bill, the oil companies weren't following the laws of our Province, regarding keeping birds off of their toxic tailing ponds, which in turn was causing the needless deaths of hundreds of ducks. They got exactly what they had coming to them - and IMO Syncrude should have been fined a LOT more.
 
Hello; there are some very specific humans I will not do anything for. Most other humans I will help to one degree or another. I have no problems with most dogs, with the exception of those that bite me or try to bite me. Cats I try to ignore. I fly fish for recreation and keep freshwater tropical fish in glass tanks.
I get that there are issues with our hobby with regard to how fish are collected, transported, kept in commercial and home aquariums. There have been a number of "are we cruel" threads on this forum about all the issues. I have known about the issues for a long time. I started keeping fish around 1959. I have kept tropical fish anyway. One concession the last few decades has been to try to only keep tank raised species.
I do not know if the animal rights folks will muster enough support to restrict our hobby. I will not be pleased about it if they do. I like the hobby but could live without my fish. I will have to be forced out however.
What are the odds of fishkeepers banning together in a significant way to prevent the demise of the hobby? I think they are a bit low. The best chance has already been mentioned; the money involved in the fish hobby trade.
Our worst enemy likely being the hobbyist who release non-native fish into local waters instead of killing them when they no longer want them.
This thread has moved me from my complacency at least. I will pay attention for a while. I will try to dismiss those that color way too far outside the lines. I predict that their rants will turn people off more than draw people to their way of thinking. Perhaps, Wild bill, you can archive some of the choice comments from this thread for future reference.
 
*Whistles*. Monster Fish Keepers, Monster Attitudes as well :) . But...let's get back to the original topic, right? From what I can tell, this thread is slowly going through a slippery slope, from fish, to animal rights, to "what if" scenarios. I can't judge, because I don't know what's going through all of y'alls heads right now. Let's get back to the original topic, shall we? This is what I do know:
I know that I'm new to monster fish, and I still have a lot to learn. And there are members here who've posted stuff that I don't agree with. But at the same time, I know that we have a shared passion for fish, and that's what unites us. We can discuss why we'd kill/not kill Homo sapiens in the Lounge. It sounds like a (very disturbing but also) very interesting topic to at least read. So, put down those thoughts that you're right and he/she is wrong. Sometimes, you must agree to disagree, and that's perfectly fine.
I know that some of PETA's members have to be good people. But like in the above paragraph, I have to agree to disagree. If I found my tanks smashed by extreme ARA's who thought they were doing a good deed, I would be devastated. I've seen the videos that show animal abuse on PETA's website, and I agree that animals shouldn't be kept in those conditions. I also disagree that we should not keep pets. When extreme ARA's start targeting our fish tanks, then I hope that the aquarists will not lay about like sheep, and start fighting back properly.
I know that aquarists evolve. Our hobby is fraught with death. Those of us who hang on, do our research, and learn to not always trust the pet shops information (actually...I got into college by writing this :) ). We're quite possibly the most equipped to deal with ARA's targeting, because y'know what? We deal with emergencies very, very often. We have to keep our nitrates low, we have to make sure that our fish recover from getting sick, we have to (insert blah here). We learn. Some of us know almost everything about their specialization, like zoodiver and his elasmobranchs. So when ARA's spout that fishkeeping's cruel, we can easily spout back "actually, (insert reference here)". Who has more experience here, the overly emotional ARA? Or the knowledgable aquarist?
Just my 2 cents here. And if I offended you, PM me along with reasons so I can further explain myself...and if you disagree, I'll agree to disagree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kittiee Katt
I seriously don't see a ban on fishkeeping in our lifetime

and if there was, I think all pet owners (cats, dogs, reptiles, etc) should join the fight against a fishkeeping ban.

because if they succeed in a fishkeeping ban, it's only a matter of time before they move on to the next animal keeping ban
 
a question for those who feel that animals' lives are equal to human lives, do you eat meat or use product that come from animals?

I would hope the answer is "no"

otherwise, it'd be pretty ridiculous....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom