Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: RiverRunner on October 14, 2011, 04:17:06 PM

Title: Gut & chuck.
Post by: RiverRunner on October 14, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
So I was out fishing today at my local river, was doing my usual walk and scout for fish when I came across 2 dead spring 25+ lbs laying in between some rocks. Seemed like an odd spot for these fish to end up after they spawn and die. I decided to take a closer look and realized someone had cought the fish and taken all the roe out leaving the fish to rot. What's the point in this? ??? I find it pointless to kill a fish of this size just so you can have more roe to catch more fish.  Consume the meat at least. Really bothers me to know people are doing cupcakes like this in a river that needs every fish it can get.

RiverRunner
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 14, 2011, 04:29:02 PM
Yeah I saw the same thing on the fraser, only with pinks. But even so, it is quite a waste of a perfectly good fish, and a life. Sure its just a pink, but I have always been of the mindset that we are ALL animals, and thus equal. Maybe not completely, but I do think the waste of a life is never morally acceptable. It really makes me sad to see others whose actions show their idea of superiority. But I guess if they are within the law, then we must let them do as they please. I dont know if its legal/illegal, but its a damn shame! Makes me glad there are forums like this for others to at least voice their opinion and concern of the fish.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: vancook on October 14, 2011, 07:22:28 PM
If you're going to kill it you better eat it. Especially the females. The potential offspring lost because of roe harvesting and not consu
Ing the fish is ridiculous
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: silver ghost on October 14, 2011, 07:29:43 PM
I agree with all of you guys. I have seen this done on both the fraser and the vedder, and i'm sure it's even worse on the stave.

And it's a surprise to some that chum runs aren't what they should?

Mind you, it's not just because of roe fisheries, and the chum could just be late this year, but targeting chum just for their roe is wasteful and could make the fish even more sought after than any other species due to the high value chum roe has in the sushi markets AND for bait.

It doesn't matter if it's legal or not as the law does not and never has AND never WILL have any moral component to it. Even if it's legal it still is wrong in my books.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: silver ghost on October 14, 2011, 07:30:49 PM
spend the $8 at a tackle shop for a pound of roe [sure it isnt always sustainably sourced, but i'd like to think it is, AND I know that a lot of it is from fish farms)
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Kype on October 14, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
and yet more evidence of the lack of supervision of angling which should be there ........... still never bumped into a CO in over 3 years across many rivers and lakes.

all anglers should respect the life of a fish (of any animal!) people who treat fish in this way are not even close to being anglers.

pity them but more pity the poor fish ..... as if it hasnt already run the gauntlet to even get into the river.

sad
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Matt on October 14, 2011, 08:06:26 PM
spend the $8 at a tackle shop for a pound of roe [sure it isnt always sustainably sourced, but i'd like to think it is, AND I know that a lot of it is from fish farms)

I really doubt shops get any roe from farms.  I strongly suspect farmed salmon are harvested prior to maturity as soon as they reach a harvestable size, there'd be no sense in feeding a farmed salmon extra food when that food is ultimately going to gamete production.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 14, 2011, 08:18:44 PM
I don't agree with it either but I'm also not naive enough to think that this practice has anything to do with the low Chum returns. Would be interesting to know how much of the roe from the Strait of Georgia chum fishery ends up as bait or what happens to the chum meat from that fishery. It may seem perverse but at least those gutted carcass feed back into the river and support new life.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: bcguy on October 14, 2011, 08:32:19 PM
Once again the question of ethics raises its ugly head.
Is it legal to take roe? Of course it is...as long as you have the fish in your possession.
If you are truly concerned about the potential reproduction of females and complain about roe harvesters, I would throw the question back why you would keep a female. What is the difference beween keeping a female and consuming, and not consuming, but using the roe, are the results not the same? A potential lack of reproduction? I my self believe in catch and release unless choosing to consume, but utilizing the roe if it is a female.
But to take it one step higher, what about commercial fisheries dedicated to pet food and fertilzer production.
It's like bitching about the guy flossing a Sockeye, but then stopping by to purchase a Sockeye from Save-On caught in a net?!?!?! Because somehow it is found to be more ethical. :-\
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: silver ghost on October 15, 2011, 01:38:44 AM
Once again the question of ethics raises its ugly head.
Is it legal to take roe? Of course it is...as long as you have the fish in your possession.
If you are truly concerned about the potential reproduction of females and complain about roe harvesters, I would throw the question back why you would keep a female. What is the difference beween keeping a female and consuming, and not consuming, but using the roe, are the results not the same? A potential lack of reproduction? I my self believe in catch and release unless choosing to consume, but utilizing the roe if it is a female.
But to take it one step higher, what about commercial fisheries dedicated to pet food and fertilzer production.
It's like bitching about the guy flossing a Sockeye, but then stopping by to purchase a Sockeye from Save-On caught in a net?!?!?! Because somehow it is found to be more ethical. :-\

you raise some very valid points which I cant really argue with. Although I think for me it's the 'waste' factor that bothers me the most, people seem to be desensitized when they go "awesome, a female chum, that'll save me 8 bucks on roe, lets rip out the eggs and throw the meat back"

But im sure far worse stuff goes on with commercial fishermen at sea we dont even know the half of.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: silver ghost on October 15, 2011, 01:39:21 AM
I really doubt shops get any roe from farms.  I strongly suspect farmed salmon are harvested prior to maturity as soon as they reach a harvestable size, there'd be no sense in feeding a farmed salmon extra food when that food is ultimately going to gamete production.

hmm yeah, I never thought of that
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 15, 2011, 05:49:01 PM
Also there is very little farmed Pacific salmon and I am pretty sure it would be illegal to use Atlantic salmon roe?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Blackgivesway2blue on October 15, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Also there is very little farmed Pacific salmon and I am pretty sure it would be illegal to use Atlantic salmon roe?

why exactly would it be illegal? roe is roe
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: dboy on October 15, 2011, 06:41:23 PM
I would not kill a salmon without the intention of consuming it. If desperate for roe and dont have money for bait, walk around peg leg, KWB or some place like that and mooch off wool-using fishers when they gut their catch...

Last week however, I found a dead female pink in good shape so slit the belly and took the roe. I have a feeling this was a discarded fish caught by a fisherman.  I certainly wasnt about to eat the fish but at least the roe went to use. 
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 15, 2011, 06:45:09 PM
I would not kill a salmon without the intention of consuming it. If desperate for roe and dont have money for bait, walk around peg leg, KWB or some place like that and mooch off wool-using fishers when they gut their catch...

Last week however, I found a dead female pink in good shape so slit the belly and took the roe. I have a feeling this was a discarded fish caught by a fisherman.  I certainly wasnt about to eat the fish but at least the roe went to use. 

So you are admitting to illegal activity?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Blackgivesway2blue on October 15, 2011, 07:01:07 PM
if its way past death and already on the shore, than i dont see nothing wrong with taking the roe, im pretty sure thats what dboy meant.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 15, 2011, 07:05:52 PM
So you are admitting to illegal activity?

To what illegal activity are you referring? What article of what law did he violate?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 15, 2011, 07:25:43 PM
Because you might be introducing some kind of pathogen from the farmed fish into the river. Most commercially available angling roe is from Chum, where do you think it comes from? If you are concerned about are buying it you might be better off  purchasing the single eggs from local hatcheries that some tackle shops sell and making roe bags.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 15, 2011, 07:48:48 PM
To what illegal activity are you referring? What article of what law did he violate?

It doesn't matter how it died. It is illegal to remove roe from a dead fish.
I don't know the exact statute but it is enforced similar to non commercial or FN people using nets:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/SFG-GPS/SFGfresh-GPSdouce-2011-eng.pdf
"It is illegal to sport fish for salmon and trout, except by angling."

Fraser Valley guides are very aware of this and are careful not to get caught.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 16, 2011, 09:02:36 AM
It doesn't matter how it died. It is illegal to remove roe from a dead fish.
I don't know the exact statute but it is enforced similar to non commercial or FN people using nets:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/SFG-GPS/SFGfresh-GPSdouce-2011-eng.pdf
"It is illegal to sport fish for salmon and trout, except by angling."

Fraser Valley guides are very aware of this and are careful not to get caught.


The same Fraser Valley guides who grab floaters and slice them up for sturgeon bait?  They get "caught" doing this all the time, as they make no bones about it all.  This is not the same as using nets without a commercial license as those fish are alive when they swim into the net, so I do not see how it could be enforced under the same article.  All one would need to do is hook the dead fish in the mouth and it was caught it by "angling."
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Shmoke Shaman on October 16, 2011, 09:53:11 AM
'Eat what you kill'  That's the rule my father taught me.
'Fishing for roe' ? is that what it has come down to?
There is a purpose why we fish, I'm pretty sure its not for roe.
Its not like there is a shortage of roe. The cost of roe is not absurd either.
I know that it is illegal to do that with caviar, but they are called 'Poachers'
Is this another form of poaching? if not, just no respect to ocean then?
I just don't understand the 'Fishing for roe' concept.
That person should of just let the two salmon spawn.
What a waste in my opinion.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Carich980 on October 16, 2011, 11:54:43 AM
I've heard some people especially with pinks, salt the roe and eat it. Don't know about the other species as I would think it would all make me gag but to each their own. Might not just be guys taking the roe for bait.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 16, 2011, 12:07:22 PM
The same Fraser Valley guides who grab floaters and slice them up for sturgeon bait?  They get "caught" doing this all the time, as they make no bones about it all.  This is not the same as using nets without a commercial license as those fish are alive when they swim into the net, so I do not see how it could be enforced under the same article.  All one would need to do is hook the dead fish in the mouth and it was caught it by "angling."
Try snagging a dead fish in front of a CO and see if they call it angling...
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanL on October 16, 2011, 12:37:12 PM
I've heard some people especially with pinks, salt the roe and eat it. Don't know about the other species as I would think it would all make me gag but to each their own. Might not just be guys taking the roe for bait.
Salted roe (ikura) is a common delicacy and very easy to make yourself, but yeah, it's not for everyone. But I dont think anyone wanting roe for human consumption would risk acquiring it from a fish that died under unknown circumstances/timeframe.

I would wager harvesting roe from a carcass is darn near 100% for bait...

Regarding the legality, if you were to hypothetically pick up a floater for sturgeon bait, would that just count towards your daily retention limit, and therefore entitle you to the roe inside it?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2011, 01:16:32 PM
It doesn't matter how it died. It is illegal to remove roe from a dead fish.
I don't know the exact statute but it is enforced similar to non commercial or FN people using nets:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/SFG-GPS/SFGfresh-GPSdouce-2011-eng.pdf
"It is illegal to sport fish for salmon and trout, except by angling."

Fraser Valley guides are very aware of this and are careful not to get caught.


Truthfully, I don't see this as any different from picking up a floater in the Fraser and using it for sturgeon bait, which is a very common practice by guides and sports alike.  I don't think that could be construed as "angling".
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 16, 2011, 01:44:30 PM
Try snagging a dead fish in front of a CO and see if they call it angling...

COs watch people snag salmon in the mouth all the time... it is called flossing...but really that is another discussion.  What makes this practice illegal may be the wasting of the fish.  I do think they would have something to say if you caught a salmon (a live one), sliced it open and took out the roe then tossed the carcass back.  It IS illegal to waste your catch.  If you are not intending on consuming the fish you catch, you are required by law to release it "quickly and gently" to the water. While I have not come across any regulation that deals with salmon that are already dead.  It IS illegal to have more than 1 kg of roe in your possession unless you have a freshly dressed fish from which more than 1 kg of roe could have been taken so if you take more than 1 Kg of roe from the dead fish, you would be violating that article. Even if you took less than the 1kg, it could still be said that you "wasted" the catch since you did not use the whole fish.  It is just such a grey area as there is not specific regulation against it, it would come down to a judge's interpretation alone.  A fly fisherman's life is so much less complicated, we just need to remember when we can or cannot use a strike indicator.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Bently on October 16, 2011, 02:12:53 PM
The salmon roe you guys buy from Tackle Shops {AKA -  Berry's Bait and Tackle as well as many others} is damn near all from Farmed Fish. They get it delivered in quantities that range from 1000lbs to 2500lbs per delivery.

 I know this because I help them cure it and put it into the tubs that you buy.

Selling farmed salmon roe is perfectly legal as long as you are a legit company/business. It's no different than selling a salmon like Safeway does. ::)

You guys that say all this crap should get your facts straight before typing, you make yourselves look like complete B.E.A.K.S :D
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: BwiBwi on October 16, 2011, 02:32:00 PM
Gutting a salmon and just keeping it's roe is illegal.

Tidal regulation:
possess any fish caught while sport fishing that is dressed or packed in a manner so that the species cannot be easily identified, measured where size limits are applicable, is of hatchery origin where hatchery salmon are allowed, and the number of fish readily counted where quotas are applicable.

Freshwater:  (under Transporting and Exporting Fish)
Leave the head, tail and all fins on your catch until you get them to your permanent (ordinary) residence.We suggest you immediately remove the gills and internal organs of any fish you keep to reduce spoilage.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 16, 2011, 02:50:48 PM
Gutting a salmon and just keeping it's roe is illegal.

Tidal regulation:
possess any fish caught while sport fishing that is dressed or packed in a manner so that the species cannot be easily identified, measured where size limits are applicable, is of hatchery origin where hatchery salmon are allowed, and the number of fish readily counted where quotas are applicable.

Freshwater:  (under Transporting and Exporting Fish)
Leave the head, tail and all fins on your catch until you get them to your permanent (ordinary) residence.We suggest you immediately remove the gills and internal organs of any fish you keep to reduce spoilage.

Those regulations are governing the butchering of the fish so that it is no longer able to be identified, measured, and counted. Neither of them would apply since you would have no fish in your possession, just the roe.  The regulation applying to roe is stated above and refers to the amount of roe (1kg). As I mentioned above, the applicable regulation would be the one prohibiting the "wasting" of the catch, which would include tossing the carcass after harvesting the roe.  It specifically states that if you are not intending on consuming the fish (due to age, species, or quota limits) you must release it quickly and gently to the water.  So if you want the roe, you must keep the whole fish and consume it (of course if you choose to throw it away later or fertilize your garden with it, no one could stop you).
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: bigsnag on October 16, 2011, 03:09:27 PM
You don't need to use roe to catch fish. I quit using that stuff years ago and took up fly fishing as a personal challenge after being successful at other techniques. Look at all the fishing reports where fellow fishers are catching coho,springs, and steelhead successfully not using roe but with spinners,wool and spoons. They catch their fair share and get almost as many strikes as the roe fishers /flossers.
Rodney has no problem putting a limit of coho on the beach as do many others not using bait.
I'm not saying to stop using roe bait altogether but to conserve our fishery by using other types of terminal tackle. You don't always need to use bait to catch fish.Reducing the need for roe will allow more eggs to spawn. In a small way this will reduce the need for killing females for bait.

As for seeing a gutted fish in the water,how do you know it was caught and gutted just for it's eggs. Many of us has seen a dead salmon washed into the shallows intact.It may have been gutted after the fact. It may have died from not surviving the rigors of the spawning migration,a poor release from mishandling, or getting off the hook after a protracted fight. The thought of waste doesn't come into question if you don't need the roe and you won't run afoul of the regs if you get caught with roe and no fish to show from where it came from. I've seen this rule enforced on the Stave where a fellow gave the roe from a fish he kept to another. The recipient was then busted by DFO on site who witnessed the transaction for contravening the regs and recieved a ticket.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 16, 2011, 06:03:28 PM
The salmon roe you guys buy from Tackle Shops {AKA -  Berry's Bait and Tackle as well as many others} is damn near all from Farmed Fish. They get it delivered in quantities that range from 1000lbs to 2500lbs per delivery.

 I know this because I help them cure it and put it into the tubs that you buy.

Selling farmed salmon roe is perfectly legal as long as you are a legit company/business. It's no different than selling a salmon like Safeway does. ::)

You guys that say all this crap should get your facts straight before typing, you make yourselves look like complete B.E.A.K.S :D
Interesting, what kind of farmed fish is Berries roe from?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: canso on October 16, 2011, 07:00:21 PM
Interesting, what kind of farmed fish is Berries roe from?

They told me Chum, I think he is mistaken about the farmed fish.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 16, 2011, 07:27:58 PM
I thought it was Chum too, if I am wrong I apologize for being a beak. As far as I am aware there is no farmed Chum only Coho and and Chinook. I just find it surprising given the worries about transfer of material between different rivers that it would be ok to chuck the guts from a fish farm into our local rivers.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 16, 2011, 07:47:45 PM
Truthfully, I don't see this as any different from picking up a floater in the Fraser and using it for sturgeon bait, which is a very common practice by guides and sports alike.  I don't think that could be construed as "angling".
It may be a common practice but it is also illegal.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2011, 08:03:50 PM
It may be a common practice but it is also illegal.

Where is that defined as illegal?

Non-tidal regs (below Mission Bridge)
Is it?  http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/docs/1113/fishing-synopsis_2011-13_provincial.pdf

Tidal (downstream of Mission Bridge)
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/law-loi/restrictions-eng.htm
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 16, 2011, 08:15:57 PM
Go up about 20 posts. I don't have any further information.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Bently on October 17, 2011, 08:30:50 PM
Interesting, what kind of farmed fish is Berries roe from?

It's farmed Atlantic Salmon roe, I guess the hats outta the bag now :o, and to the other guy..... no I'm not mistaken at all.

Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: nickredway on October 17, 2011, 09:05:15 PM
Thanks, not sure whether that would make me more or less inclined to buy it.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Zackattack on October 17, 2011, 09:24:36 PM
It's farmed Atlantic Salmon roe, I guess the hats outta the bag now :o, and to the other guy..... no I'm not mistaken at all.



Can anyone confirm if Berrys is indeed using farmed salmon Roe?
Since I was just there and asked out of curiosity where they get the chum roe from, and they told me its sold off by the commies to them.
Even if it is Atlantic roe thats fine. Just id rather not be lied to...
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: cutthroat22 on October 17, 2011, 09:27:49 PM
I asked for fresh Boraxed Chum Roe when I buy roe @ Berry's.  I would hope that is what I get.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Zackattack on October 17, 2011, 09:28:52 PM
The same Fraser Valley guides who grab floaters and slice them up for sturgeon bait?  They get "caught" doing this all the time, as they make no bones about it all.  This is not the same as using nets without a commercial license as those fish are alive when they swim into the net, so I do not see how it could be enforced under the same article.  All one would need to do is hook the dead fish in the mouth and it was caught it by "angling."

Ya went on a guided sturgeon trip recently and was shoked to find out that they are not allowed to pickup dead fish in the river and use them as bait! They must catch live fish and then ROT THEM!! Seams like a huge waste. We were motoring past tonnes of dead pinks the other week and the guide wouldnt pick them up. He was using rotted previously caught fresh fish from the summer... seams like an odd rule
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: rjs on October 17, 2011, 10:09:44 PM
It's farmed Atlantic Salmon roe, I guess the hats outta the bag now :o, and to the other guy..... no I'm not mistaken at all.



So the roe I bought at Berry's might have the Infectious Salmon Anemia virus ????

interesting !
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Bently on October 18, 2011, 05:45:06 AM
Can anyone confirm if Berrys is indeed using farmed salmon Roe?
Since I was just there and asked out of curiosity where they get the chum roe from, and they told me its sold off by the commies to them.
Even if it is Atlantic roe thats fine. Just id rather not be lied to...

People, don't get me wrong, the roe you buy from Berry's {other tackle shops too} is still a great product and works very,very good. I have caught many, many fish using their roe. The fact of the matter is, is that if they were to come out and say it is "Farmed" they might see a decline in sales.

The roe you get is a perfect product, done {cured} very well, with the eggs being above average size. Don't think for one minute that just because it's farmed roe that the fish won't want to eat it, like I said earlier, it works great!! Don't hesitate to buy it.

"Sold off by the commies".........that's a good one, but hey wait just a second, doesn't most people on here think that salmon farmers "ARE the commies !! :D :D :D
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 08:25:28 AM
Sure its just a pink, but I have always been of the mindset that we are ALL animals, and thus equal.

Do you have any idea of the politicaly devastating possiblities that could come out of rubbish like this if it ever caught on?
It really erks me when people equate us (humans) with animals. We are not animals. We reason and have the ability to apply morality and ethics to our lives. Animals can not do that. Animals cannot reflect on past feelings and experiences.....only instinct.

Although....there is one guy for sure who would agree with you....his name was Adolf Hitler and he had no problem using humans for scientific experiments in the same way we test things on rats and such...ie cosmetics, drugs...etc..although he took it a step further and did experiments like surgery while the person was awake with no freezing and such...etc...etc.

As for wasting fish....I agree completely.....it's unfortunate that some waste our resourses like that.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: typhoon on October 18, 2011, 09:19:03 AM
Ya went on a guided sturgeon trip recently and was shoked to find out that they are not allowed to pickup dead fish in the river and use them as bait! They must catch live fish and then ROT THEM!! Seams like a huge waste. We were motoring past tonnes of dead pinks the other week and the guide wouldnt pick them up. He was using rotted previously caught fresh fish from the summer... seams like an odd rule

It is definitely not a waste. Dead salmon contribute massively to the health of the ecosystem, from feeding smolts to fertilizing streams for the next generation. Rotting is good.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: silver ghost on October 18, 2011, 10:11:32 AM
Try snagging a dead fish in front of a CO and see if they call it angling...

they call bottom bouncing angling, so why couldnt one just floss a dead fish

***add: most of the pinks i've seen retained in the vedder this year would be referred to as "dead" by most

"FOR THE SMOKER"
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: cutthroat22 on October 18, 2011, 10:24:57 AM

It really erks me when people equate us (humans) with animals. We are not animals. We reason and have the ability to apply morality and ethics to our lives. Animals can not do that. Animals cannot reflect on past feelings and experiences.....only instinct.

Humans are 100%  animal.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 18, 2011, 10:34:46 AM
Do you have any idea of the politicaly devastating possiblities that could come out of rubbish like this if it ever caught on?
It really erks me when people equate us (humans) with animals. We are not animals. We reason and have the ability to apply morality and ethics to our lives. Animals can not do that. Animals cannot reflect on past feelings and experiences.....only instinct.


Laughably wrong and completely ignorant.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: cutthroat22 on October 18, 2011, 11:05:05 AM
Back the "Chum Roe".  I will have to inquire at Berry`s next time I`m in.  Whether the roe works or not it shouldn't be sold as fresh "chum roe" if it is not.  @ $12/lb (inc tax)for a pound I would expect the real thing.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Ed on October 18, 2011, 11:20:35 AM
Humans are 100%  animal.

More evidence that prove we are animals... sometimes a lot worse than animals! Being Chinese myself I feel ashamed that this occurred in China recently. View at your own discretion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66Tc0QpXx-Q   *warning Graphic Content*
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: bigblockfox on October 18, 2011, 11:28:26 AM
that one is tough to watch .how did that driver not notice. o wait he did notice just choose not to care. hope he gets charged with manslaughter.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Ed on October 18, 2011, 11:52:19 AM
that one is tough to watch .how did that driver not notice. o wait he did notice just choose not to care. hope he gets charged with manslaughter.

I think they already caught the original driver and the truck driver.. hope they get life in jail... oh wait its china..you get executed with a rifle.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 12:17:02 PM
Laughably wrong and completely ignorant.

Ok...so if humans and animals are equal....I can assume you and your children will have no problem being the guiney pig for any new pesticides that need testing? You won't have a problem with threshold testing of it on your children to study long term effects?

Yeah...whatever...I'm pretty sure you would be barking about your 'HUMAN rights' pretty quick if that were to ever happen.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
More evidence that prove we are animals... sometimes a lot worse than animals! Being Chinese myself I feel ashamed that this occurred in China recently. View at your own discretion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66Tc0QpXx-Q   *warning Graphic Content*

What that says to me is that sometimes the 'choices' that certain people make....would make them resemble animals. That still doesn't prove us to be animals though.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: ChumChaser on October 18, 2011, 12:24:30 PM
 Wow that video is disturbing, how could all those people go by and not do anything. China must have one f'ed up culture, with that mentality a gut n chuck is a walk in the  park. If they have no respect for human life how can we expect them to respect the life of a fish.   :o
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: cutthroat22 on October 18, 2011, 12:29:46 PM
What that says to me is that sometimes the 'choices' that certain people make....would make them resemble animals. That still doesn't prove us to be animals though.

Stolen from wikipedia

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Family:    Hominidae
Tribe:    Hominini
Genus:    Homo
Species:    H. sapiens

You are an animal. Make sense?
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 05:06:29 PM
Stolen from wikipedia

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Family:    Hominidae
Tribe:    Hominini
Genus:    Homo
Species:    H. sapiens

You are an animal. Make sense?

You aren't paying attention. I never said we weren't mammals as is the physical aspect. I said that animals should never have equal rights with human beings. Human beings must be valued above animals no questions asked. If you can't understandand the logistics, rationality, and common sense in that, then you probably don't understand why the world is going to crap either.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 18, 2011, 05:19:26 PM
You aren't paying attention. I never said we weren't mammals as is the physical aspect. I said that animals should never have equal rights with human beings. Human beings must be valued above animals no questions asked. If you can't understandand the logistics, rationality, and common sense in that, then you probably don't understand why the world is going to crap either.

I think the point being made, Robert, was that the animal testing that you are concerned about being imposed on humans (if we are indeed just another animal) should not be done to animals either!  The First Nations had a similar belief system whereby animals and humans were the same, both could change form from one to the other as they were both "spirits".  That is why, before a hunter dispatched an animal, he first thanked it for allowing him to capture it.  Animals deserved a level of respect they do not receive in a Judaeo-Christian world where man holds dominion "over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 18, 2011, 05:22:28 PM
It is definitely not a waste. Dead salmon contribute massively to the health of the ecosystem, from feeding smolts to fertilizing streams for the next generation. Rotting is good.

I think the "waste" being referred to by Zack was that the guides must kill a perfectly good salmon and intentionally rot it to make the "stink bait" that is soo effective for sturgeon.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 18, 2011, 05:50:17 PM
More evidence that prove we are animals... sometimes a lot worse than animals! Being Chinese myself I feel ashamed that this occurred in China recently. View at your own discretion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66Tc0QpXx-Q   *warning Graphic Content*

This was just shown on Global tonight.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Ed on October 18, 2011, 06:30:24 PM
Wow that video is disturbing, how could all those people go by and not do anything. China must have one f'ed up culture, with that mentality a gut n chuck is a walk in the  park. If they have no respect for human life how can we expect them to respect the life of a fish.   :o

guess human life isn't as important when there are 1.3 billion in your country and poverty. Another reason why there is no decent fishing areas in China unless you travel to mongolia or something. I wouldn't go far and say that "china must have one f'ed up culture", because if you put it that way then most of European culture/North American Culture is even more f'ed up.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Ed on October 18, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Ok...so if humans and animals are equal....I can assume you and your children will have no problem being the guiney pig for any new pesticides that need testing? You won't have a problem with threshold testing of it on your children to study long term effects?

Yeah...whatever...I'm pretty sure you would be barking about your 'HUMAN rights' pretty quick if that were to ever happen.

If you're trying to insult or downplay human behavior, I think it is unfair to call it being like an "animal" because in an environmental point of view i'm sure the so called animals create a lot less environmental impact. I don't think the North Atlantic Cod industry was wiped out because of the sharks were eating all the fish.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
If you're trying to insult or downplay human behavior, I think it is unfair to call it being like an "animal" because in an environmental point of view i'm sure the so called animals create a lot less environmental impact. I don't think the North Atlantic Cod industry was wiped out because of the sharks were eating all the fish.

I won't disagree with this. As evidence shows...humans have the capacity to ruin the planet in ways that animals could not. However.....in no way does this have anything to do with people giving the same value to animals as they should be doing with other human beings.

When I say 'acting like animals'.....I mean the carnal sense as in the dominate buck who beats up the other 'boys' so he can have all the does. It's that type of behavior I'm getting at....In the same sentence I could put human greed and corruption on the same level......so in a sense....humans sometimes make 'carnal' choices that resembles animal type behavior.

How would you feel if you had to get into a fight with another man twice a day because those men wanted sex with your wife? I'm pretty sure you'd use your 'human rights' and call the police.
Animals in nature don't have that luxury....nor should they......they are ANIMALS....We are HUMAN...We are NOT the same.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: joshhowat on October 18, 2011, 07:06:26 PM
Bait ban.

Problem solved.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 18, 2011, 07:08:15 PM
I think the point being made, Robert, was that the animal testing that you are concerned about being imposed on humans (if we are indeed just another animal) should not be done to animals either!  The First Nations had a similar belief system whereby animals and humans were the same, both could change form from one to the other as they were both "spirits".  That is why, before a hunter dispatched an animal, he first thanked it for allowing him to capture it.  Animals deserved a level of respect they do not receive in a Judaeo-Christian world where man holds dominion "over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

How can you say that? Animal testing done as humanly as possible benefits mankind. I don't agree with animal testing for things like cosmetics because cosmetics are an EXTRA, and not a NEED. However, when it comes to pesticides and medical drugs, I want to know my family and friends and myself are going to be safe in taking them. If a bunch of rats have to die for that.....then so be it. All human beings are more valuable then rats....or any other animal.

And for the record....Man has held dominion over animals since mankind was created. Who are you to say otherwise or change that?

BTW....why on earth do some hunters do that? I've seen a few hunters who 'thank' the animal for allowing them to catch and kill it.
There is only One who should be thanked for whatever bounty you receive when hunting or fishing.....and I can assure you He is NOT the animal itself.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: clarki on October 18, 2011, 07:24:14 PM
Laughably wrong and completely ignorant.

Not sure if this response is consistent with the admonishment to offer constructive criticism in your fishing report thread, marmot.

To believe that humans are not animals is consistent with a world view that Robert G., and many others, myself included, believe. That world view is not laughably wrong or completely ignorant, it is just different than yours.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 18, 2011, 07:38:18 PM
Do you have any idea of the politicaly devastating possiblities that could come out of rubbish like this if it ever caught on?
It really erks me when people equate us (humans) with animals. We are not animals. We reason and have the ability to apply morality and ethics to our lives. Animals can not do that. Animals cannot reflect on past feelings and experiences.....only instinct.

Although....there is one guy for sure who would agree with you....his name was Adolf Hitler and he had no problem using humans for scientific experiments in the same way we test things on rats and such...ie cosmetics, drugs...etc..although he took it a step further and did experiments like surgery while the person was awake with no freezing and such...etc...etc.

As for wasting fish....I agree completely.....it's unfortunate that some waste our resourses like that.

Wow. Godwins law I guess eh?

But none the less.

Quote
Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa.

Yes. Humans ARE animals. Im not concerned if you like it or not, it is a fact, and you cannot logically disagree with it. Because Humans have the ability of self awareness and mind like no other, does not negate the fact that we are still an evolution from a certain kingdom in the natural world. Because one animal has an ability that is unique to that speices does not make them their own kingdom. Although semantics, my point remains. And the only devastating possibilities that lay within my statement are by those who are unable to think about it with a little common sense. Is a salmon the same as my girlfriend? Sure, they are both animals, they could both be females, they both have eyes, they are both a life. Does that mean Id put the death of a salmon on the same level as the death of my lady? Of course not! Because Im not a radical extremist. The only people who could, or would take what I said to mean that are those extremists. And nothing I say will change their idea if that is how they look at things. As I said though, I do not favour the death of either example when it is needless.

And hitler? Again, godwins law. What a joke. Also, hitler was ONE OF THOSE RADICAL EXTREMISTS! Although, Germany did make major medical breakthroughs. But I assume that because I said that, you will take it to mean that I am in favour of and agree with what they did.

But now, after reading the rest of this thread, I see that you automatically jump to the idea that me saying Humans = Animals is basically Animals = Equal. Well, as I said, and you conviently misquoted out of context in order to start this little rant fest

"but I have always been of the mindset that we are ALL animals, and thus equal. Maybe not completely, but I do think the waste of a life is never morally acceptable."

To break it down. We are Animals (Scientific fact), and we all belong on this planet (My own idea.) As such, a waste of a life is that, a waste of a life. If that life serves a purpose, be it people living and completing goals to better the world (Or our idea of it) or a fish spawning, or providing nourishment to a person, bear, enviroment, then thats ok to. For someone to kill a fish for some roe and thats all is my idea of a wasted life. And thats all.

Quote
To believe that humans are not animals is consistent with a world view that Robert G., and many others, myself included, believe.
You can believe we are not animals all day long. Scientific naming says youre wrong. Thats all. If you mean that we are above other life forms on the food chain, or in terms of life worth, then I cant say you are wrong, as THAT is an opinion.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 18, 2011, 09:12:04 PM
How can you say that? Animal testing done as humanly as possible benefits mankind. I don't agree with animal testing for things like cosmetics because cosmetics are an EXTRA, and not a NEED. However, when it comes to pesticides and medical drugs, I want to know my family and friends and myself are going to be safe in taking them. If a bunch of rats have to die for that.....then so be it. All human beings are more valuable then rats....or any other animal.

And for the record....Man has held dominion over animals since mankind was created. Who are you to say otherwise or change that?

BTW....why on earth do some hunters do that? I've seen a few hunters who 'thank' the animal for allowing them to catch and kill it.
There is only One who should be thanked for whatever bounty you receive when hunting or fishing.....and I can assure you He is NOT the animal itself.

I can say it, Robert, because you mentioned cosmetics testing in your original response and pesticides in a subsequent post, neither of which I would argue is a "need." 

Now, it was not my intention to get into a theological debate with you, I respect your beliefs and you are welcome to believe what you like.  Who am I to say otherwise?  I am simply someone who has studies other belief systems and was only sharing one with you.  Not everyone on this planet believes the same as you, that "Man has held dominion over animals since mankind was created."  In case you missed it in my previous post, I was sharing a belief system of many First Nations people, who believe that man and animals are interconnected and share a common origin.  Their creation stories are very different from the Genesis story I quoted above.  The Sto:lo, in whose territory many of us live, believed that "...the world was mixed up until the three sons and daughter of Redheaded Woodpecker and Black Bear came into the world to make it right. They travelled through Stó:lô territory transforming people into resources like salmon, sturgeon, beaver, stones, mountains, and trees. Because the resources were once people, they are to be respected. The Stó:lô believe the original person’s life force still lives inside each animal and natural feature" ("Bridge Between Nations: A History of First Nations in the Fraser River Basin").  So it is not so much a case of people are animals, but rather animals are people too.  Such a belief system encourages a more respectful treatment of animals and the environment in general than one where man holds "dominion."  Many elders see the challenge facing the current generation is a result of the adoption of western values and the disconnect between this and theose traditional belief systems.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: TheChumWhisperer on October 18, 2011, 09:12:37 PM
Bait ban.

Problem solved.

Bait bans encourage snagging, flossing, general beek behavior on the river, just look at what happens at the Cap in the fall.  I think a wool ban and a restriction on leader length would be 10x more effective..
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 18, 2011, 11:58:43 PM
I can say it, Robert, because you mentioned cosmetics testing in your original response and pesticides in a subsequent post, neither of which I would argue is a "need." 

Now, it was not my intention to get into a theological debate with you, I respect your beliefs and you are welcome to believe what you like.  Who am I to say otherwise?  I am simply someone who has studies other belief systems and was only sharing one with you.  Not everyone on this planet believes the same as you, that "Man has held dominion over animals since mankind was created."  In case you missed it in my previous post, I was sharing a belief system of many First Nations people, who believe that man and animals are interconnected and share a common origin.  Their creation stories are very different from the Genesis story I quoted above.  The Sto:lo, in whose territory many of us live, believed that "...the world was mixed up until the three sons and daughter of Redheaded Woodpecker and Black Bear came into the world to make it right. They travelled through Stó:lô territory transforming people into resources like salmon, sturgeon, beaver, stones, mountains, and trees. Because the resources were once people, they are to be respected. The Stó:lô believe the original person’s life force still lives inside each animal and natural feature" ("Bridge Between Nations: A History of First Nations in the Fraser River Basin").  So it is not so much a case of people are animals, but rather animals are people too.  Such a belief system encourages a more respectful treatment of animals and the environment in general than one where man holds "dominion."  Many elders see the challenge facing the current generation is a result of the adoption of western values and the disconnect between this and theose traditional belief systems.

Thanks for sharing that. I had a general idea of some FN cultures but nothing in depth at all. I will need to read up and learn more of this, as it really hits home for me.

And that is really a good way of putting it. Its not this species is better than that one, its just that we ALL deserve respect, and really some appreciation. Animals ARE people too!!! Thats something my girlfriend would say. Well, yell out wildly. Actually its something she HAS said.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 10:54:43 AM
Ok...so if humans and animals are equal....I can assume you and your children will have no problem being the guiney pig for any new pesticides that need testing? You won't have a problem with threshold testing of it on your children to study long term effects?

Yeah...whatever...I'm pretty sure you would be barking about your 'HUMAN rights' pretty quick if that were to ever happen.

Did I say that humans and the rest of the animal kingdom should be treated exactly the same or did I say that your statement about humans not being animals was laughably incorrect and ignorant?

Spend more time understanding the post and less time reacting to it.  Your understanding of animal intelligence falls short of what kids learn in highschool these days and your understanding of where humans sit within the animal kingdom falls short of what they are taught in grade school.  Your understanding of what differentiates humans and animals sounds more like what a preacher might say.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
How can you say that? Animal testing done as humanly as possible benefits mankind. I don't agree with animal testing for things like cosmetics because cosmetics are an EXTRA, and not a NEED. However, when it comes to pesticides and medical drugs, I want to know my family and friends and myself are going to be safe in taking them. If a bunch of rats have to die for that.....then so be it. All human beings are more valuable then rats....or any other animal.


I will agree with you on this from a utilitarian standpoint.  You lost me when you started spouting off about god.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
Not sure if this response is consistent with the admonishment to offer constructive criticism in your fishing report thread, marmot.

To believe that humans are not animals is consistent with a world view that Robert G., and many others, myself included, believe. That world view is not laughably wrong or completely ignorant, it is just different than yours.

The world view was not what I was referring to.  The notion that animals are not capable of anything more than instinct, is.  It is a belief held by many when we have scientific PROOF that animals exhibit complex behaviour, including learning.  It is ignorant and incorrect to say otherwise.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 19, 2011, 02:29:15 PM
The world view was not what I was referring to.  The notion that animals are not capable of anything more than instinct, is.  It is a belief held by many when we have scientific PROOF that animals exhibit complex behaviour, including learning.  It is ignorant and incorrect to say otherwise.

I never said that learning and instinct weren't compatible, but complex behavior in animals in no way gives proof of them having the ability to reflect on past memories/experiences and the pondering of right and wrong.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 19, 2011, 02:32:03 PM
I will agree with you on this from a utilitarian standpoint.  You lost me when you started spouting off about god.

That's because most people don't want to listen when the conversation has anything to do with Him.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 19, 2011, 02:42:25 PM
Did I say that humans and the rest of the animal kingdom should be treated exactly the same or did I say that your statement about humans not being animals was laughably incorrect and ignorant?

Spend more time understanding the post and less time reacting to it.  Your understanding of animal intelligence falls short of what kids learn in highschool these days and your understanding of where humans sit within the animal kingdom falls short of what they are taught in grade school.  Your understanding of what differentiates humans and animals sounds more like what a preacher might say.

Actually, your first response to me was nothing more than a useless troll post. I was only answering back to that jibberish....perhaps I should have know better.
My first post in this thread was in response to the person (NOT YOU) who said that animals and humans are equal. You responded to me with your troll post even though I hadn't said anything to you....so I assumed you agreed him. Perhaps that might explain to you why you got the response that you receieved. If you can't comprehend that....then I can't help you.

As for my understanding animals...that is completely irrelevent. My understanding of human beings is what counts....that being said.....human beings have more value than animals. Animals are not equal in value to human beings. I don't care how smart you say animals are or whatever else. They are simply not designed like human beings. We are unique in ways that no animal will ever compare to. If you can't see that....then you need to stop spending all your time with your pets and maybe invest in some human relationships.....you might just see that we're different from animals.

Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: bigblockfox on October 19, 2011, 04:20:15 PM
How can you say that? Animal testing done as humanly as possible benefits mankind. I don't agree with animal testing for things like cosmetics because cosmetics are an EXTRA, and not a NEED. However, when it comes to pesticides and medical drugs, I want to know my family and friends and myself are going to be safe in taking them. If a bunch of rats have to die for that.....then so be it. All human beings are more valuable then rats....or any other animal.

And for the record....Man has held dominion over animals since mankind was created. Who are you to say otherwise or change that?

BTW....why on earth do some hunters do that? I've seen a few hunters who 'thank' the animal for allowing them to catch and kill it.
There is only One who should be thanked for whatever bounty you receive when hunting or fishing.....and I can assure you He is NOT the animal itself.

who is this one you speak of that should be thanked? lets see how off topic we can get. lol
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
I never said that learning and instinct weren't compatible, but complex behavior in animals in no way gives proof of them having the ability to reflect on past memories/experiences and the pondering of right and wrong.

A learned response is not the same as an instinctual response.  You are incorrect and are talking as if you know a lick about animal behaviour.  Animals exhibit memory and have the ability to act based on those memories. 

Before talking about animal behaviour, go to school and learn about it.  Then come back and it will be a two sided discussion. 
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 06:26:26 PM
That's because most people don't want to listen when the conversation has anything to do with Him.

To me it's offensive when people expect me to listen to them talk about faith.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 19, 2011, 06:30:07 PM
To me it's offensive when people expect me to listen to them talk about faith.
As well when someone feels the need to correct your scientifically backed statement based on thier own ideology. I respect others right to their own beliefs. But when you use your own to say someone elses opinion is wrong, is pure ignorance and disrespectful.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 19, 2011, 06:44:25 PM
If you really want to know what I think about the whole "dominion over animals" thing that Robert G mentions...

I think it's a giant pile of you know what that is responsible for a good part of the rape of the natural world by humans.  So Robert G, thank you personally for perpetuating that ideology.  A shining beacon of progressive thought.

Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 19, 2011, 07:41:34 PM
As well when someone feels the need to correct your scientifically backed statement based on thier own ideology. I respect others right to their own beliefs. But when you use your own to say someone elses opinion is wrong, is pure ignorance and disrespectful.

While using your faith in God to try to disprove scientific fact is dubious, I do not think Robert was doing that.  However, to use your own beliefs to say someone else's opinion is wrong, is not ignorant or disrespectful, it is an argument, a difference of opinion.  That is precisely how an opinion is proved right or wrong... by argument.  Since an opinion, by definition, is a statement that cannot be proven true by observation or experimentation (scientific method), the only way to prove it is to create an argument.  Now, while an opinion supported solely by the "faith" that it is true, is not as strong as an opinion supported by scientific fact, they are still both opinions.  The statement that "Man deserves to hold dominion over all animals" is an opinion that cannot be proven true (or false) by a scientific experiment.  That is to say, it may be true (or false) regardless of the intelligence of the animals, if it is indeed the Will of God who created both.  However, as an opinion, that statement may be challenged by another opinion that "all things are deserving of equal respect", which also cannot be proven true by scientific observation or experimentation.  Both sides can present arguments (or choose to rest solely on "faith"), but ultimately only the final judgment will decide if man deserved to dominate the world and all the animals in it, or if he violated a sacred trust to respect and honor his fellow creatures. Only God, or Mother Earth, will decide.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Ed on October 19, 2011, 07:49:58 PM
Actually, your first response to me was nothing more than a useless troll post. I was only answering back to that jibberish....perhaps I should have know better.
My first post in this thread was in response to the person (NOT YOU) who said that animals and humans are equal. You responded to me with your troll post even though I hadn't said anything to you....so I assumed you agreed him. Perhaps that might explain to you why you got the response that you receieved. If you can't comprehend that....then I can't help you.

As for my understanding animals...that is completely irrelevent. My understanding of human beings is what counts....that being said.....human beings have more value than animals. Animals are not equal in value to human beings. I don't care how smart you say animals are or whatever else. They are simply not designed like human beings. We are unique in ways that no animal will ever compare to. If you can't see that....then you need to stop spending all your time with your pets and maybe invest in some human relationships.....you might just see that we're different from animals.



I agree that humans are different to animals, but  I don't think its right to generalize "animals" as being something negative.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 19, 2011, 08:15:23 PM
While using your faith in God to try to disprove scientific fact is dubious, I do not think Robert was doing that.  However, to use your own beliefs to say someone else's opinion is wrong, is not ignorant or disrespectful, it is an argument, a difference of opinion.  That is precisely how an opinion is proved right or wrong... by argument.  Since an opinion, by definition, is a statement that cannot be proven true by observation or experimentation (scientific method), the only way to prove it is to create an argument.  Now, while an opinion supported solely by the "faith" that it is true, is not as strong as an opinion supported by scientific fact, they are still both opinions.  The statement that "Man deserves to hold dominion over all animals" is an opinion that cannot be proven true (or false) by a scientific experiment.  That is to say, it may be true (or false) regardless of the intelligence of the animals, if it is indeed the Will of God who created both.  However, as an opinion, that statement may be challenged by another opinion that "all things are deserving of equal respect", which also cannot be proven true by scientific observation or experimentation.  Both sides can present arguments (or choose to rest solely on "faith"), but ultimately only the final judgment will decide if man deserved to dominate the world and all the animals in it, or if he violated a sacred trust to respect and honor his fellow creatures. Only God, or Mother Earth, will decide.
I agree with everything you said.  I was referring to robert saying my opinion is wrong based on his opinion. As you stated, it is a difference of opinion. There is no right our wrong there. Just different thoughts. Maybe I read what he wrote in a different tone than what he intended, and mistook his starting his opinion as fact.

But as I took it, I was wrong, because his opinion differs than mine. I accept to agree to disagree because they are different ideas. But if I read what he write correctly and in his eyes an wrong because he thinks something else, then I do find that disrespectful and ignorant.

Oh and I should add, to clarify in case I my post was being misread (more like I fail to coherently convey a message :P )

As well when someone feels the need to correct your scientifically backed statement based on thier own ideology.(The Humans not being Animals part) I respect others right to their own beliefs. But when you use your own to say someone elses opinion is wrong, is pure ignorance and disrespectful. (The whole "My belief system states man dominates over animals, thus what you think is wrong")
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 19, 2011, 08:35:24 PM
Yes, the stakes are indeed raised whenever the "opinion" is a matter of "faith" as it is no longer a simple "difference of opinion", since the disagreement calls one's very belief system into question.  You need to be mindful and understanding when someone guards their faith "religiously" as it is a personal and deep rooted belief that defies logic and reason.  That is why it is call Faith.  Try not to be offended, and not to be offensive.  The greatest discussions and debates can grow out of a clash of faith, but so too can the deadliest and nastiest of conflicts.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: bj23 on October 19, 2011, 08:36:08 PM
Gut & Chuck???
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 19, 2011, 08:50:41 PM
And I never said that an opinion cannot BE wrong, I said that it cannot be PROVEN wrong by scientific observation or experimentation.  The opinion that man "holds dominion over animals" may indeed BE wrong, but you cannot PROVE it is wrong by conducting an experiment (on animal intelligence for example).  However, if salmon really WERE people transformed into salmon, and as such are deserving of our respect as they offer themselves up to sustain us (see "How the Salmon Came to Squamish Waters," a Coast Salish oral tradition of the origins of the salmon runs here), then those guys that blew up that Pink salmon on YouTube will have to answer to the Great Spirit, whether they believed they held dominion over the salmon or not.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: holmes on October 19, 2011, 11:13:30 PM
quote:
All human beings are more valuable then rats....or any other animal.


i totally disagree with this statement, there are some humans that are a total waste of skin and are using up valuable oxygen, and those rats or other animals that they use in testing are giving us very valuable info., how valuable is a guy like pickton?, or manson, or david koresh?.... >:( ....holmes*
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: cutthroat22 on October 20, 2011, 01:37:06 AM
Does manimal sound better?

Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 20, 2011, 08:25:37 AM

i totally disagree with this statement, there are some humans that are a total waste of skin and are using up valuable oxygen, and those rats or other animals that they use in testing are giving us very valuable info., how valuable is a guy like pickton?, or manson, or david koresh?.... >:( ....holmes*

What this says to me is that you don't have the capacity in you to forgive unconditionally....thus one of the main reasons the world is the way it is.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 20, 2011, 08:37:31 AM
A learned response is not the same as an instinctual response.  You are incorrect and are talking as if you know a lick about animal behaviour.  Animals exhibit memory and have the ability to act based on those memories.  

Before talking about animal behaviour, go to school and learn about it.  Then come back and it will be a two sided discussion.  

You really aren't reading my posts..are you? You're too busy slinging crap at me to pay attention to what is being said.
I already stated that in the physical sense that human beings are mammals....what part of that don't you understand?

As for you comment on a 'learned response'.....that too is a part of instinct. Instinct is natural and it is also enhanced by learning.....it's both....and I already pretty much said that, so I don't know why you're slinging crap at me.
Can a dog learn to shake a paw? Does a dog remember the paperboy that hits him with a newspaper?  Sure....but that has nothing to do with being able to reflect on past memories/experiences or decipher right from wrong.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 20, 2011, 08:53:01 AM

As well when someone feels the need to correct your scientifically backed statement based on thier own ideology.(The Humans not being Animals part) I respect others right to their own beliefs. But when you use your own to say someone elses opinion is wrong, is pure ignorance and disrespectful. (The whole "My belief system states man dominates over animals, thus what you think is wrong")

That's just the thing though....I said that animals and humans are not designed equally...but the fact is....there is documented evidence to prove what I said is more than opinion....therefore is not disrespectful or ignorant.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: DanJohn on October 20, 2011, 09:19:40 AM
That's just the thing though....I said that animals and humans are not designed equally...but the fact is....there is documented evidence to prove what I said is more than opinion....therefore is not disrespectful or ignorant.
No sir, I agree with you that we are VERY different in some aspects. I do not deny that one bit. I was not referring to differences between Humans and other animals, but that you will state others are wrong because of your own opinion. But this thread is getting away from itself, and becoming more about world view, and less about fish.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: troutbreath on October 20, 2011, 09:52:09 AM
What this says to me is that you don't have the capacity in you to forgive unconditionally....thus one of the main reasons the world is the way it is.

http://pastorsvoice.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-god-forgive-unconditionally.html

I fish conditionally.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 20, 2011, 06:18:50 PM
 :-X
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 20, 2011, 08:58:26 PM
You really aren't reading my posts..are you? You're too busy slinging crap at me to pay attention to what is being said.
I already stated that in the physical sense that human beings are mammals....what part of that don't you understand?

As for you comment on a 'learned response'.....that too is a part of instinct. Instinct is natural and it is also enhanced by learning.....it's both....and I already pretty much said that, so I don't know why you're slinging crap at me.
Can a dog learn to shake a paw? Does a dog remember the paperboy that hits him with a newspaper?  Sure....but that has nothing to do with being able to reflect on past memories/experiences or decipher right from wrong.

Robert, I've taken this stuff at university level and can assure you that your understanding of the topic just isn't where it needs to be to be making the statements you are...  I'm not slinging crap at you. I'm telling you that you don't know enough about the topic to speak as if you have authority on the matter, that's all. 

Claiming that a learned response has anything even remotely to do with instinctual behavior is a good indicator of your level of understanding of it.  Again I'm not slinging crap, I'm just telling you that according to what we know of animal behavior, what you are saying is not even remotely accurate.  It's fascinating stuff, If it interests you at all you really should look deeper into it.  Dolphin studies are particularly mind blowing...

As far as right and wrong goes, I'd argue that it is entirely subjective.  Humans are no different from any animal in that respect, we LEARN that certain responses yield positive emotional results and certain responses yield negative ones.  These vary from culture to culture too, and have varied across time.  It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of. 



Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Robert_G on October 20, 2011, 10:05:33 PM
It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of.  


If you have really studied this at the university level, then you know there is 0 evidence of what I just bolded in your post...period. Morality is NOT simply learned behavior and there is nothing out there in any credible documented form that you would be able to use for your argurement......but I'm pretty sure you already know that.
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: Sandman on October 20, 2011, 10:35:03 PM
It's a fairly straightforward argument to make that what you attribute to morality is simply learned behavior...the same type of learning that many animals are capable of.

William Golding (Lord of the Flies) would certainly seemed to agree with you.  However, while you may not think Robert knows what he is talking about,  Kenan Malik (Man, Beast, and Zombie)certainly seems to know his stuff (he studied neurobiology at the University of Sussex), and Robert's humanist ideas are not so different from Malik's. If you are interested in seeing what Malik has to say about what Science can or cannot tell us about human nature (the subtitle of Man, Beasts, and Zombie) then check out this interview (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html)) by Jeremy Stangroom in which Malik presents what he thinks are the fundamental differences between humans and animals.  Of particular interest to me as an environmental historian are his views about the duality of humans as both the "object" and "subject" of scientific study, and the preeminence of language as the defining differentiation between us and animals for the role it plays in our capacity to learn from the past. He claims that "our very capacity to do science, our very capacity to study nature objectively, reveals paradoxically the sense in which we are not simply immanent in nature, but also in a certain way transcendent to it."  Also, according to Malik, language plays a crucial role in facilitating the self-consciousness, rationality and agency of human beings.  Like humans, all animals have an evolutionary past, but only humans make history.  Equally fascinating is that his rejection of animal "rights" is predicated on the claim that animals cannot be granted "rights" as they cannot assert those rights, so even if we wanted to grant them rights, we could not do so without distorting the very meaning of a "right".
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 21, 2011, 07:10:23 PM
If you have really studied this at the university level, then you know there is 0 evidence of what I just bolded in your post...period. Morality is NOT simply learned behavior and there is nothing out there in any credible documented form that you would be able to use for your argurement......but I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Direct evidence of morality being a learned and not innate behaviour?  Look around you.  If you cannot see differences in how a persons perception of "what is amoral" depends on their experience, you have blinders on Robert.  In different cultures, different things are morally acceptable... that is unless you believe that some cultures are "evil". 

As for evidence of "morality" in animals, you should expose yourself a bit and do a little reading on complex social behaviour in chimps... it's not going to jive with your world view... just a heads up  :-*
Title: Re: Gut & chuck.
Post by: marmot on October 21, 2011, 07:20:55 PM
William Golding (Lord of the Flies) would certainly seemed to agree with you.  However, while you may not think Robert knows what he is talking about,  Kenan Malik (Man, Beast, and Zombie)certainly seems to know his stuff (he studied neurobiology at the University of Sussex), and Robert's humanist ideas are not so different from Malik's. If you are interested in seeing what Malik has to say about what Science can or cannot tell us about human nature (the subtitle of Man, Beasts, and Zombie) then check out this interview (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html (http://www.kenanmalik.com/interviews/animal_stangroom.html)) by Jeremy Stangroom in which Malik presents what he thinks are the fundamental differences between humans and animals.  Of particular interest to me as an environmental historian are his views about the duality of humans as both the "object" and "subject" of scientific study, and the preeminence of language as the defining differentiation between us and animals for the role it plays in our capacity to learn from the past. He claims that "our very capacity to do science, our very capacity to study nature objectively, reveals paradoxically the sense in which we are not simply immanent in nature, but also in a certain way transcendent to it."  Also, according to Malik, language plays a crucial role in facilitating the self-consciousness, rationality and agency of human beings.  Like humans, all animals have an evolutionary past, but only humans make history.  Equally fascinating is that his rejection of animal "rights" is predicated on the claim that animals cannot be granted "rights" as they cannot assert those rights, so even if we wanted to grant them rights, we could not do so without distorting the very meaning of a "right".

Yep!  I agree about the importance he places on language as an indication of intellectual development.  BUT.... his argument regarding animal rights is lousy!  If we cannot grant animals rights based on their inability to assert those rights, then we should not be granting rights to people incapable of asserting their rights, at least if we are going to talk about this on a practical level.  To me that is a large hole.

I would say that there is enough evidence pointing to complex social behaviours in animals that perhaps language is not the only indicator we should be looking at.

BTW... I support animal research from a utilitarian perspective :D