So when does the criminal trial begin for all of the "constitutionally protected" animals the PETA shelters euthanize every year?

Dear PETA,

Until you stop the wholesale slaughter of animals at your own headquarters (new window), kindly STFU.

Peace and bacon be unto you,
T_O_R, Esq.

Shut down all the major zoos and places like seaworld, and see how much money goes to helping animals or the environment. People contribute more money to conservation efforts through admission to those places, and buying items, and donations when there's a major attraction like Shamu, Dolphins, Pandas, Manatees, etc. etc.

More money is contributed when people can go somewhere and see animals up close, identify with them, and enjoy themselves. In other words, people don't give a shiat about conservation when they can't make an immediate connection to some of the animals in some way. It's the same reason why sport fishermen and hunters often contribute the most money to conservation efforts. People contribute money through hunting/fishing permits to do outdoor activities they enjoy and the DNR has the ability to use it for conservation. The situation works a lot better than just demanding taxes or money for conservation, where people can't see an immediate return for their contribution. It would be great if people were simply willing to give money for conservation efforts out of the goodness of their heart, and because it's the right thing to do, but that is not at all realistic. That's where people like PETA fail. You cannot make people believe in your cause by being obnoxious and yelling like a crazy person, or making demands that are completely outside of societal norms or beliefs.

"This is truly a historic day for the law and for the animals," spokesman David Perle said. Kerr added that "for the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human."

Um... You need to learn you some history, dude. Non-human animals were put on trial in our nation's history, and quite a few European countries too. They were not only charged as defendants in crimes, but used as witnesses who gave testimony. So historically, the law did treat them on the same level as humans. Then we grew up and realized it's stupid to do that. Maybe you should, too.

Non-human animals absolutely do deserve some rights and protections under the law. But people they are not. Slavery it is not. Tone down your privileged white middle-class impotent rage for a moment, dude.

I suppose it's a matter of degree and proportion.

Yes, humans are omnivores, and eating meat is natural. Yes, the natural world is cruel and harsh - the survival rates and suffering of animals in the wild is brutal. And yes, it's a slippery slope to try to anthropomorphize the natural world and apply modern Enlightenment concepts and legalities to nature and animals.

Yet, these whales are highly-intelligent creatures - how intelligent we don't even know yet, but certainly very intelligent and perhaps even sentient (by our definition). To callously treat them cruelly simply to sell tickets to what amounts to a circus side show is distasteful, and reflects badly on those who do it and those who buy the tickets and watch the shows. Humans really should be more thoughtful about how they treat animals of all kinds, and be more cognizant that many species are probably more perceptive, intelligent, and emotive than we suspect.

Basically, humans who gratuitously treat animals in a callous or cruel manner are arguably a lower form of life than the animals they mistreat. After all, we are supposedly intelligent enough to extrapolate the consequences of our actions. If you regard yourself as human, act like it.

Keyword: Ethical

Ethical treatment. Sorry if that is too much to ask.

/I know, PETA got usurped by the fanatics years ago.

Well it would be nice if animals could stop being used like that. Thing is, from an outsiders perspective, it's so hard to know the truth. Those against it say they're kept in horrible conditions and in constant pain and cry a lot, whereas those for it say they're kept in nice conditions, happy and well fed. Who to believe? Then those against say the trade in capturing and selling these animals for parks leads to huge collateral damage to ecosystems, but those for them say that they raise money that goes back to supporting the ecosystems.

If I wasn't so lazy I'd research it all and draw my own conclusions, but since this is fark... you tell me what to believe, provided you're neither a PETA member, nor a seaworld type park owner.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: I don't think that wild birds should be caught and "domesticated." It's a horrible experience for the bird. Getting a hand-raised bird from a breeder is different. They see humans as their flock, and can be great companions - if you know what you're doing. (Yes, I know that every exotic bird in a home in America has captured wild birds in their ancestry. Can't do anything about those now, though.)

Raptors in particular should definintely not be handled by anyone who doesn't know what they're doing.

I worked a little bit with 2 wild animal rehab places, and sometimes they can't be reintroduced to their former wild environment. When possible, these guys become teaching aids for K-12 wildlife speakers or zoo critters. When I worked with them we dealt with a blue heron, a great horned owl, a turkey vulture, all sorts of raccoons, opossums, squirrels with regular-sized nuts, and I got to help raise a litter of small hoary bats! You don't know freaky until you have a juvenile bat who's learning to fly try to crawl up your shorts! If he bites you, it's an instant death sentence for him because you have to necropsy his brain to prove he doesn't have rabies. Still, you teach a bat to fly by throwing him into the air and hoping he figures it out, which is kind of funny when they bounce.

Raptors are tough, because during the recuperation they will usually imprint on the rehabber, which makes them unreleasable. But sometimes you can go through the process of rehabbing without them seeing a human, and release them (the first time they actually see the people) and watch them scarper off like Mormons at St. Patrick's Parade. Then they sit on a limb and look around for a while to get their bearings and calm down, and all manner of things are well.

But you have proved that Al has chosen your family for his flock. He fits, he's happy, and the rest of the flock loves and cares for him. That's not anthropomorphizing, that's just behavior you expect in intelligent social critters. And he makes for an unbeatable pirate costume. I'm betting the Orcas have similar 'pod-mate' feelings for their humans, but PETA ironically can't conceive of that level of socialization.

Does he talk?

I think PETA should concentrate on the slaughterhouse and puppy mill side of things. It is good to keep the zoos honest too, but frankly it is the least of the animal cruelty going on, and there is some benefit for the larger population of animals for humans to get the aquarium and zoo experience.

I'm all for treating animals kindly, and with great care. BUT. If you're going to say they are being "exploited" or used as "slaves" then you are going to have to show that they have enough cognitive reasoning abilities to be upset, or embarrassed by where they are, or have the understanding that they are "captive" and long for a life out in the free world. Until then - just make sure they are treated well, and shut the fark up.

Mugato: Nemo's Brother: This is what liberals actually believe.

Right, apply the lunatic fringe to all "liberals". That's fair. Would you like a similar set of criteria applied to all conservatives? Didn't think so.

If you want to label extreme liberals and extreme conservatives as lunatics, I have no problem with it.

I'm not sure how I feel on cetaceans being kept in captivity, but I am a believer that if pack/pod-dwelling animals are kept, they should be kept in groups as close as possible to those in the wild. Wolf packs, dolphin pods, etc. And as much enrichment as possible should be provided, though zoos are really getting better at that. San Diego, Omaha, and Des Moines especially are doing well at it.

Also, Tikillum is an individual of a species. Just as John Wayne Gacy doesn't represent all humans, neither does Tikillum represent all orcas. In his case, I'd be interested in comparing his brain structure to that of a) other orcas, b) other cetaceans, and c) to that of human serial killers/prisoners kept in solitary confinement for a long time

\Finishing degree in Animal Science with a focus on nutrition and enrichment
\\ Hope to work at a zoo if I don't get into grad school

A prof at my school with whom I've had several classes is one of the witnesses and experts in the Victoria (Canada) Tillicum death case, where a trainer was killed in '91. Shortly thereafter SeaWorld bought the whale and shipped him to Florida. 2nd death by Tillicum, a homeless guy broke into seaworld at night and decided to go swim. With the Orcas. With Tillicum. They came back to work in the morning to find a dead guy at the bottom of the pool. (94) Third one was fairly recent, 2009, where the trainer was using 'face time' (as it sounds) and the whale grabbed her and took her down til she drowned. Said Prof is frequently flying down to Florida to take part in one of the several court cases against Sea World.

I am not blaming Tillicum in any way, shape, or form - you cannot take the hunter out of a predator. There have been other orca incidents at seaworld (hundreds of them, but SeaWorld has an excellent PR team and a lot of money to burn - they pay off their staff, promote them, settle out of court, etc). There have been other fatalities in the Cayman Islands Acquarium.

It's a moral debate whether to allow keeping large animals in captivity or not, and I'll try not to touch on that. For the record I believe only when education takes a top priority - IE sacrifice a few to save many. The wild whales are in trouble too. However, Seaworld only nominally educates people - they are a profit driven theme park that exploits the animals as rides and workers, not educational tools. I wish they would get shut down for all their dirty antics - they are as bad as Disney.

For the record, Tillicum is an Icelandic whale.

Hopefully the Judge will impose Rule 11 sanctions against PETA's lawyer for signing his name to such a load of crap.

Next up, KFC will be on trial for mass murder.

You can't keep them as slaves, then you definitely can't kill and eat them

If the plaintiffs are orcas, it is not clear that it is they who bring this case to the court.
If the plaintiffs are orcas, it is not established that they have any right to bring this case to court.
If the plaintiffs are not the orcas but PETA, they have no standing in this case, as they have not been harmed, and an orca cannot grant power of attorney to PETA, as it has no right to enter into contracts.
If the animals perform tricks which are done voluntarily by the animal in exchange for the immediate payment in fish, it isn't clear that it can be said to be slavery, as it is both voluntary and compensated. The orcas can at any time refuse to perform, and are not punished corporally or otherwise for refusing to perform. It would then be debatable whether this condition is somehow different from the work of a police dog or seeing eye dog.
I suppose the case would rest primarily on the idea that an orca can bring forth a lawsuit, a rather larger case than a district court judge is likely to be able to adjudicate. That matter must rest with the Congress and Supreme Court, for currently, the Constitution provides zero legal rights to animals.
If the orcas cannot bring forth a lawsuit, PETA cannot, because they have no standing in the case, as the orcas are the property of Sea World, and they can use their property as they see fit, providing that no violation of law is taking place. I cannot sue a person halfway across town for painting his shed bright green, because him doing so cannot possibly have caused my physical or financial harm. The law deals with livestock and other animal property in the same way. I cannot sue a farmer for underfertilizing his grain, slaughtering his chickens, or overwatering his fruit trees. If the treatment of these orcas is improper, it must rise to the high legal standard of "animal cruelty", which is:

cruelty to animals n. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.

Sea World has no sadistic motive to inflict suffering on their orcas, as their orcas are extremely valuable and expensive both to maintain, to treat, and to replace. Their trainers (I've met several) without exception love orcas, and are trained animal behaviorists who love animals even when they misbehave. Sea World is one of the most respectful animal handling corporations in the world, if not #1, and I have no reason to believe that if such behavior were measured, Sea World would not be #1 in this area. Any trainer who injured, underfed, or neglected an animal worth millions of dollars to Sea World would be fired on the spot. Orcas are intelligent, and if abused, they would gladly ingest their trainers. But no evidence suggests that orcas are sentient, and no legal precedent links sentience with legal rights. Current legal standards are all about humanity, not sentience, for even a non-sentient human has rights under the law.

So, unless PETA can provide evidence that SERIOUS neglect and injurious harm is being needlessly inflicted on these animals, they have no case.

Rich Cream: Aquapope:
That's just not true. You ever see wildebeests cross a crocodile-filled river?
You ever watch a moth burn up in a bug zapper?

Apparently they don't know it's dangerous.



You ever hear of a firefighter climb a 100-story skyscraper to save somebody even as it falls.

You ever hear of people letting other people die? Or even killing them?


Juvenile baboons will take on a lion to protect their tribe - they're more expendable than breeding females or the troop leaders.

Young-uns acting foolishly aggressive in a threatening situation? Who says we aren't evolved from monkeys?

And do you now claim to know what baboons think?


You should take some biology classes...

Ugh. I think you guys took too many.

Wow you doubled down on "stupid" with "you know too much"?

Good luck with that strategy.

Man, don't try and elevate all life force to any level of equality. The "Humans are tops" group has quite the sensitive egos.

Superior much?

Rich Cream: All living things will move away from a source of danger, whether it is heat, or light, or whatever.

That's just not true. You ever see wildebeests cross a crocodile-filled river? You ever watch a moth burn up in a bug zapper? You ever hear of a firefighter climb a 100-story skyscraper to save somebody even as it falls. Juvenile baboons will take on a lion to protect their tribe - they're more expendable than breeding females or the troop leaders.

You should take some biology classes...

Rich Cream: fark semantics. All living things will move away from a source of danger, whether it is heat, or light, or whatever.

And that translates to consciousness? A bug's body whose head has been chopped off will often do the same. So what you're saying is even with the "thinking" part of the body missing, it "knows?" Nerve reactions aren't proof of consciousness, or an organisms ability to consciously feel emotions or even stress related to their surroundings. Not in the anthropomorphic manner that some humans try to apply to any living being.

Or is it just black and white to you? If the organic matter has a nervous system advanced enough to avoid a harmful situation that would prevent it from passing on it's genetics, it means it has the ability to consciously comprehend that it has been in a stressful or painful situation?
Or are you just confused about what people mean when they say "feelings" as related to emotions/consciousness, or "feeling" as related to a nerve impulse that causes physical pain? Because the two, though related in many cases, are not the same.

meanmutton:

Do you really think, though, that a virus "knows" it is being harmed? What about a fungus? A tree? Obviously, you've decided that a clam, lacking a brain, "knows" it is being harmed. What else falls into that category? I'm assuming you think that an ant "knows" it's being harmed, comprehends the concept of pain and suffering.


fark semantics. All living things will move away from a source of danger, whether it is heat, or light, or whatever.

You might want to say a tree only "responds" to an insect infestation or to being cut. Or a brainless clam is only "reacting", but it's not as if you're much different.

jst3p: Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: I appreciate that, but I assure you - the evenings are the highlight of my day just because I get to be with the little bugger. He's my best buddy ever

Your bird?

That's kinda sad.

No way. I have plenty of friends and family. And, I'm obviously leaving out the human race here. You've never heard someone say that their dog is their best friend? Really?

But I digress. He's the one that comes flying to the front door shouting "hello" when he hears my car in the driveway. He's the one that hops onto my shoulder and runs happy laps around my head. He's the one that wants to snuggle up to my neck and snooze or preen my eyebrows. He does a hundred hilarious things a day, and is just pure joy for me.

On the other hand, every single human that I know - including the ones I love the most - cause some degree of stress at some time or another. If you think your loved ones are different, then you're not one of the thousands of Farkers who were biatching about their families last Thanksgiving.

I think that's why people love their pets so much, anyhow. It's a relationship that (if it's good) has no ulterior motives, no true stress, only basic expectations to fullfill - and is only based on a desire to be together.

As best buddies go, one could do much worse.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: I LOVE my bird. His wings aren't clipped and he's very rarely in his cage unless he decides he wants to hang out there. He goes outside with me - and has flown off my shoulder only to head to another member of the flock.

If I'm not home, he's likely to be found in his special bird bed in his favorite room of the house (the bathroom) or on his perch at the front window.

When I'm at home, he's nearly always on my shoulder, or arm, or hand, or inside my shirt, or trying to drink out of my glass. He's a happy and well adjusted member of a family.

Oh, and he was a stray that I rescued almost five years ago.

Terribly cool. What kind of bird? Pictures? Do you have any legal problems owning a 'wild' bird (for instance, in Kansas you can't own anything without a special license proving you know what you're doing - other than chickens and ducks, etc.)?

But I'm sure the bird-slavery folks will claim your bird is an Uncle Tom House bird who sold out his avian brothers. I think he's probably just a bird that likes your family and knows a good low-effort lifestyle when he sees it.

Rich Cream: Sharing living space with an animal doesn't make it a slave. Birds, fish etc are likely captives but not slaves. My cats can leave if they want, but they don't, dammit!


/"I love birds. Let me clip his wings so he can't fly and I'll keep him in a cage to boot!"

sigh

WTF is that last line about? FYI, a lot of birds aren't caged animals.

I LOVE my bird. His wings aren't clipped and he's very rarely in his cage unless he decides he wants to hang out there. He goes outside with me - and has flown off my shoulder only to head to another member of the flock.

If I'm not home, he's likely to be found in his special bird bed in his favorite room of the house (the bathroom) or on his perch at the front window.

When I'm at home, he's nearly always on my shoulder, or arm, or hand, or inside my shirt, or trying to drink out of my glass. He's a happy and well adjusted member of a family.

Oh, and he was a stray that I rescued almost five years ago.

So, what exactly was your point?

Burke Turkey: For the record I believe only when education takes a top priority - IE sacrifice a few to save many. The wild whales are in trouble too. However, Seaworld only nominally educates people - they are a profit driven theme park that exploits the animals as rides and workers, not educational tools. I wish they would get shut down for all their dirty antics - they are as bad as Disney.

Could not agree more.

"Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Ulises and Corky have been captive and subjected to treatment that we feel is slavery,"

Kind of insulting that we keep using their slave names.

So if we pay them minimum wage, it wouldn't be slavery, right? And since they don't have pockets or hands, we can manage their money for them and buy them fish. We get to see Orcas, they get a good job with healthcare, which is nice. A good deal all around.

End Orca slavery!

antidisestablishmentarianism: Rich Cream: /except fish, they have no nerve endings so they don't feel the mutilation that occurs when their lip is ripped off.
//yeah, right.

I hear clams have feelings too.

/no chowder for you..


All living things know when they are being harmed. To think otherwise is ignorant.

/hates seafood anyway

cgraves67: Pinner: I bought one of my slaves just over a month ago. I'm about to feed them both in a few minutes. They've been bugging me for food for over 2 hours now. I'll yell at them again after I'm done with this post.
I'll probably sell off a few of their babies later this year.
At least they watch the house when I'm gone.
They're licensed and legal. For now.

I had my house slaves sterilized without their permission. I order them about and make them do tricks for their food. I do not permit them to wear clothing, but I force them to wear collars at all times. I frequently throw things out in the yard just so they have to bring it back to me. It's very demeaning for them.

My newest slave is just over two months old. We dragged him out of the trash heap where he'd been living in perfect freedom.

We slapped a leash and collar on him and took him against his will for examination and injections. Further, we force him to walk alongside in public still wearing the leash and collar. Often for an hour or more.

We discipline him for arbitrary infractions, such as urinating indoors and following his natural instincts that tell him to attack our other slaves. We then find other ways to exploit those instincts, for our amusement.

Legal child slavery FTW!

ExperianScaresCthulhu: yves0010: PETA tried something like this at my local aquarium. They wanted them to release the Dolphins and Matinees into the wild. But the aquarium brought up the best argument, The dolphins in the shows were born in captivity and would die in the wild. The matinees were all severely injured and couldn't survive in the wild. So releasing them into the wild would actually kill them.

I hope the judge is teasing PETA and making them think hes being serious about letting this go to trail.

PETA doesn't care. :( PETA takes the ultra hard line that it's better to die in the wild than live in captivity. I'm like, sure, if you're an elephant chained up in a sick, frakked up backwoods circus with no companionship or stimulation. But PETA is anti-pet ownership and anti-any captivity, even if it's in the best interests of the individual animal who would die or be extinct otherwise. Fk 'em.

That"s my take on PETA and Greenpeace. Heck, I loved what the State of Florida did the Greenpeace when they boarded a tanker and tried to take it over. They arrested them all and charged them all with a 100 year old piracy law that was still on the books.

yves0010: PETA tried something like this at my local aquarium. They wanted them to release the Dolphins and Matinees into the wild. But the aquarium brought up the best argument, The dolphins in the shows were born in captivity and would die in the wild. The matinees were all severely injured and couldn't survive in the wild. So releasing them into the wild would actually kill them.

I hope the judge is teasing PETA and making them think hes being serious about letting this go to trail.

PETA doesn't care. :( PETA takes the ultra hard line that it's better to die in the wild than live in captivity. I'm like, sure, if you're an elephant chained up in a sick, frakked up backwoods circus with no companionship or stimulation. But PETA is anti-pet ownership and anti-any captivity, even if it's in the best interests of the individual animal who would die or be extinct otherwise. Fk 'em.

Old argument is old.

Slaxl: but since this is fark... you tell me what to believe

I am not a peta person or a vegetarian or a hunter or even a gun owner. That said, watching trained and usually caged wild animals for amusement makes me feel.... uncomfortable. I don't enjoy it. I'd rather they live out their normal lifespan under as normal as possible circumstances for their species and then we not trap any new ones. I suppose that makes me a pussy. So be it.

PETA tried something like this at my local aquarium. They wanted them to release the Dolphins and Matinees into the wild. But the aquarium brought up the best argument, The dolphins in the shows were born in captivity and would die in the wild. The matinees were all severely injured and couldn't survive in the wild. So releasing them into the wild would actually kill them.

I hope the judge is teasing PETA and making them think hes being serious about letting this go to trail.

Sharing living space with an animal doesn't make it a slave. Birds, fish etc are likely captives but not slaves. My cats can leave if they want, but they don't, dammit!


/"I love birds. Let me clip his wings so he can't fly and I'll keep him in a cage to boot!"

sigh

There is NO TRIAL, just a hearing on whether the judge should throw the case out (he will).

Slaxl: Those against it say they're kept in horrible conditions and in constant pain and cry a lot, whereas those for it say they're kept in nice conditions, happy and well fed. Who to believe?

Its not that hard
the animal is enslaved and imprisoned
Thats not nice

Do we care ? mmmm kinda
does the constitution cover it ?

// it barely covers humans

Wow, just wow. The crazies really did it.

They're going to get their arses handed to them in this sham.

+ 1 subby.

Nicely done.