Guest guest Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Well I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with u Raja, for two reasons: 1. The myth that caging animals raises awareness that is later effective in conservation is a false one, as animals are not the issue. The issue is habitat, and by taking the animals from that habitat we are asking people to forget about that habitat. This is already the case. Without preservation of animals in the wild, and the actual land they occupy, the entire effort is futile - unless caging is the focus and future of all species. 2. The myth that conservationalists can¹t study and conserve animals without removing them from habitat is false; the technology to work in the field is there, but requires more money and more willpower on the part of humans. Two things they usually lack. I believe these myths overshadow and overide anything to do with superstitions & hunting. If habitats were properly protected in the first place, the hunting issue would not be a problem. In other words, we are barking up the wrong tree right now, and the forest is burning behind our backs. Jigs ps. Raju, I thought about this more after replying to u personally; some may think that the ocean is a special case, as it¹s an awfully large habitat to protect. But just because the problem is large, it should not be ignored, in fact, it should be a focus just because the problem is so vast. We have the technology to drop landers on Mars and circle & study Jupiter. We can target a single Iraqi family (or group of Terrorists) from thousands of miles away with a smart missile. As a species, we can surely study & protect the largest creatures of the seas without capture and caging. > On 9/12/08 11:15 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1 wrote: > >> Dear Herojig, >> I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air Zoos >> only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the students >> community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign by showing the >> species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in the wildlife >> reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world. >> >> Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation >> about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights. >> >> Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the betterment >> of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time immemorial. So the >> temporal display of animals in cage can serve a purpose more effectively than >> putting off the shows altogether and allowing myths and superstitions to do >> its rounds while hunting go unabated all over the world. >> >> Regards >> >> Raja Chatterjee >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig wrote: >>> Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all new >>> board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding of any >>> animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition, " conservation, " >>> experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed wildlife >>> safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u speak >>> of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make a buck >>> off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled >>> RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this: >>> >>> http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799 >>> >>> Here's a damning quote from that travelogue: >>> " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the increase >>> in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an Emory >>> University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it affect >>> their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how much >>> stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. " >>> >>> How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that a >>> whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with humans? >>> Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love their >>> belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right. Perhaps they >>> are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned like some >>> many of their relatives. >>> >>> In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an American >>> sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was euthanized >>> because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of the tank >>> all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank cleaning >>> chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I would >>> have rather been harpooned. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jigs, >>> Advisor >>> Www.animalnepal.org <http://www.animalnepal.org/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1 >>> <http://rajachatterjee1 /> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear AAPN Friends, >>>> >>>> RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned >>>> across >>>> the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists >>>> around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in >>>> Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to stop >>>> this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and >>>> ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them on >>>> public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping them >>>> captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks may be >>>> released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on the >>>> issue. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Raja Chatterjee >>>> Secretary, THE JUNGLEES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 Pradep, welcome to this discussion! But there is so much more that can be done, other then ur proposed “nothing less,†which is not a bad idea by any means, but just as impractical perhaps as this one: Humans could stop populating horizontally, without stopping reproduction. That’s to say the means of population would have to be changed. The ban would be on expansion, or encroachment into animal-occupied land. The ban should be immediate, and global. Humans could expand vertically, but not horizontally on the surface of the planet. All animal-occupied territory today should be declared sovereign, and placed under control of the UN (a new UN inter-agency would need to be formed, call it Animal Nation for a lack of a better name). Representation for that nation would have to be human, until such time that the technology for animal -->human language translation is possible. These leaders should come from the Animal Rights movement, many of which are currently in jail or about to be jailed. Again, the agenda would be thus: > 1. Ban all human development of natural habitats where animals currently > reside and that is not currently under human development. This would include > all land already set aside as nature reserves, parks, and protected areas AS > WELL as any other land near or around such habitats that can be reclaimed for > animals easily (places that would not require massive relocations of humans, > like say the hills that surround LA). > 2. Ban the relocation of any animal (or it’s parts) from these protected zones > into a human zone. All animals currently being held in captivity would be > allowed to live out their natural life, but not be allowed to breed (sorry > about that, but necessary). > 3. Ban the dumping of human-generated garbage/waste/radioactive materials in > any Animal Zone. This would include all oceans of the world (Oceans are a > special case here, where there would be an allocation of transportation lanes > to humans, but no development rights). > 4. UN Peacekeeping forces would be deployed to ensure adherence to the Bans, > and the UN Security Council should be modified to be able to deploy such > forces as needed. > There ya go, problem solved. All development in Animal Zones of the world > would be required to directly benefit animals, ie. ensuring that flow of > fresh water is not restricted, or the pollution of air drifting from Human > zones would have to be monitored and controlled. So what you begin to see > developing here is reminiscent of sci-fi novels of the past, with Humans > clustered in protected environment domes, self-contained and hardly > interactive with the greater world in which they inhabit, as in the case of > life on fictional Mars for example. Pradep pointed out this strategy > precisely, Animals can live without humans, and perhaps at this point that > would be their only salvation. Humans may have a hard time living without > Animals in cages and confines, but so be it. Tough. They will just have to get > over the loss. > Cheers, > Jigs in Nepal > > > On 9/13/08 10:11 AM, " Pradeep Nath " <vspcadeep wrote: > >> Nothing less than a ten year ban on human population on this Earth will the >> wildlives and others are back. >> >> Zoos and other form of entertainments are a form of earning money . How can >> we call >> it an education and awareness when the reality is not shown. People and >> children will >> learn from the practicals but not from the signboards displayed in front of >> the kennel of >> a tiger. >> >> As all the hills and forest are getting occupied under various schemes and >> deals by one >> mode or the other without any scant respect to the species existence , it is >> only a matter >> of time that nothing will be left. >> >> Even sparrows and crows are hard to find . >> >> It is human versus the other living ones. The big question is can humans >> live without them or can they live without humans. The answer you all know. >> >> Best, >> Pradep. >> >> >> >> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Herojig <herojig wrote: >>> Herojig <herojig >>> Re: Whale Shark at Display >>> " Richard O'Barry " <ricobarry, " 'raja chatterjee' " >>> <rajachatterjee1, " Jigme Gaton " <herojig, " Dr.Chinny >>> Krishna " <drkrishna >>> Cc: aapn >>> Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:51 PM >>> >>> Great example on this point ric. Big cats would be another. The collective >>> we have made such a mess of that, and it all began back in the ³Born Free² >>> days of conservationism. Human interference with this breed has just brought >>> chaos to untold numbers of animals, all under the guise of protection. >>> Imagine what it would be like today if during the 60¹s more folks & large >>> orgs had advocated and spent 100% of their resources on preserving habit, >>> and then working with governments to have all zoos deplete their stock thru >>> bans on import and captive breeding, perhaps encouraging them to invest in >>> traditional wildlife habitats as ³nature zoos.² It could have been done, >>> and the results of not doing so was foretold, and now in the 2000¹s we have >>> tigers getting loose and eating zoo patrons and Vegas stars, and all breeds >>> of wild animals being bought and sold and rehashed from traditional zoos to >>> ³preserves² to hunting safari ³parks² to heck even people¹s apartments. All >>> the while the natural homes for animals is dwindling down to discreet bits >>> between human homes. >>> >>> ³Don¹t it always seem to go you don¹t know what you got till it¹s gone/They >>> paved paradise to put up a parking lot/They took all the trees, put Œem in a >>> tree museum/And charged people a dollar and half just to see Œem.² >>> -- Joni Mitchell, from ³Big Yellow Taxi,² written in 1970. >>> >>> On 9/12/08 7:50 PM, " Richard O'Barry " <ricobarry@bellsouth .net >>> <ricobarry%40bellsouth.net> > wrote: >>> >>>> > <<<Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next >>>> generation >>>> > about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.>>> >>>> > >>>> > I have to respectfully disagree too. >>>> > >>>> > Consider the fact that Japan has 50 dolphinariums. People see the captive >>>> > dolphins everyday. >>>> > >>>> > 50 dolphinariums translates into millions of people who have seen the >>>> dolphin >>>> > show and are now educated and " convinced to protect wildlife and animal >>>> > rights " . The largest dolphin slaughter on the earth is going on right >>>> under >>>> > their nose and yet very little is being done to stop it. The >>>> dolphinariums and >>>> > zoos in Japan do nothing to stop the slaughter - neither does JAZA or >>>> WAZA. >>>> > >>>> > The captivity industry is all about money and jobs - not education. >>>> > >>>> > -- ric o'barry >>>> > www.SaveJapanDolphi ns.org <http://www.SaveJapa nDolphins. org >>>> <http://www.savejapandolphins.org/> > >>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dr.Chinny Krishna <drkrishna (AT) aspick (DOT) com >>>>> <drkrishna%40aspick.com> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 'raja chatterjee' <rajachatterjee1@ gmail.com >>>>> <rajachatterjee1%40gmail.com> > ; 'Herojig' >>>>> >> <herojig (AT) gmail (DOT) com <herojig%40gmail.com> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Cc: aapn <aapn%40> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Friday, September 12, 2008 6:19 AM >>>>> >> >>>>> >> RE: Whale Shark at Display >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear Raja, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I am sorry that I cannot agree with you as to the " educational " value of >>>>> >> zoos. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> There is, in my opinion, only one valid reason for such places to exist >>>>> >> and that is >>>>> >> for the captive breeding of endangered species. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Most so called zoos are sub-standard menageries which must be closed >>>>> >> down. >>>>> >> I am afraid that Herojigs is absolutely correct in what he has stated. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Regards. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> S. Chinny Krishna >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> aapn <aapn%40> >>>>> [aapn <aapn%40> ] On Behalf Of >>>>> >> raja chatterjee >>>>> >> 12 September 2008 11:01 >>>>> >> Herojig >>>>> >> Re: Whale Shark at Display >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear Herojig, >>>>> >> I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air >>>>> >> Zoos >>>>> >> only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the >>>>> >> students community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign >>>>> >> by >>>>> >> showing the species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in >>>>> >> the wildlife reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next >>>>> generation >>>>> >> about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the >>>>> >> betterment of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time >>>>> >> immemorial. So the temporal display of animals in cage can serve a >>>>> >> purpose >>>>> >> more effectively than putting off the shows altogether and allowing >>>>> >> myths >>>>> >> and superstitions to do its rounds while hunting go unabated all over >>>>> >> the >>>>> >> world. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Regards >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Raja Chatterjee >>>>> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig (AT) gmail (DOT) >>>>> >> <herojig% 40gmail.com> com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> > Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all >>>>> >> new >>>>>>> >>> > board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the >>>>>>> holding >>>>> >> of any >>>>>>> >>> > animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition, >>>>> >> " conservation, " >>>>>>> >>> > experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed >>>>> >> wildlife >>>>>>> >>> > safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark >>>>>>> situation u >>>>> >> speak >>>>>>> >>> > of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make >>>>> >> a buck >>>>>>> >>> > off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled >>>>>>> >>> > RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this: >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > http://travel. <http://travel./> >>>>> >> <http://travel. msn.com/Guides/ article.aspx? cp-documentid= 527799 >>>>> <http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799> > >>>>> >> msn.com/Guides/ article.aspx? cp-documentid= 527799 >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Here's a damning quote from that travelogue: >>>>>>> >>> > " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the >>>>> >> increase >>>>>>> >>> > in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an >>>>> >> Emory >>>>>>> >>> > University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it >>>>> >> affect >>>>>>> >>> > their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how >>>>> >> much >>>>>>> >>> > stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. " >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that >>>>> >> a >>>>>>> >>> > whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with >>>>> >> humans? >>>>>>> >>> > Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love >>>>>>> >>> > their belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right. >>>>> >> Perhaps >>>>>>> >>> > they are just content in the fact that they are not getting >>>>>>> harpooned >>>>> >> like >>>>>>> >>> > some many of their relatives. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an >>>>> >> American >>>>>>> >>> > sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was >>>>> >> euthanized >>>>>>> >>> > because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of >>>>> >> the tank >>>>>>> >>> > all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank >>>>> >> cleaning >>>>>>> >>> > chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I >>>>> >> would >>>>>>> >>> > have rather been harpooned. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Cheers, >>>>>>> >>> > Jigs, >>>>>>> >>> > Advisor >>>>>>> >>> > Www.animalnepal. org <http://www.animalne <http://www.animalne/> >>>>>>> <http://www.animalne pal.org/ <http://www.animalnepal.org/> > >>>>> >> pal.org/> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1@ >>>>> >> <rajachatter jee1%40gmail. com> gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Dear AAPN Friends, >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely >>>>>>> condemned >>>>>>> >>> > across >>>>>>> >>> > the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists >>>>>>> >>> > around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in >>>>>>> >>> > Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to >>>>> >> stop >>>>>>> >>> > this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and >>>>>>> >>> > ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them >>>>> >> on >>>>>>> >>> > public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of >>>>>>> keeping >>>>> >> them >>>>>>> >>> > captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale >>>>>>> Sharks >>>>> >> may be >>>>>>> >>> > released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on >>>>> >> the >>>>>>> >>> > issue. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Regards >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Raja Chatterjee >>>>>>> >>> > Secretary, THE JUNGLEES >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.