<<I agree, if people were to allow the dolphin to live a normal life, not train them to entertain they would be better off.>>
Here is a deeper point for you to consider. If you believe that putting a dolpin into a swim-with program is wrong because it is cruel to the animal, why would you stop there?
Have you ever gone to a circus?
Do you wear leather (belts, billfolds, carseats, sofas, etc.)?
Do you drink milk, or eat foods that have milk products in them?
Do you eat hamburgers, steaks, etc.?
Do you wear makeup, or do you have family members that wear makeup?
Do you take medicine when you get sick?
Do you eat bread?
Do you eat honey?
Do you drive in a car that uses gasoline?
Do you live in a house that has wood in it?
Do you use electricity?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then you are guilty of animal CRUELTY and CARNAGE. There are websites that I could point you to that argue just as passionately about their focused animal cause as does Dartoid. Go back up and read my post where I mentioned how we get milk. Did you know about that? The milk you drink has come to you at a terrible and painful price for the cows that produced it. IMO, we are far more cruel to our cows than anything that has happened to a dolphin in a swim-with program.
Dartoid has already indicated that he goes on cruises. Do you realize that perhaps thousands of marine mammals are "bumped" every year by cruise ships? That is the equivalent of you or I getting run over by a truck. In other words, they possibly get hit by the very ship that our dolphin friend is riding on. Think of it, while Dartoid is on the deck, sipping an umbrella drink and comptemplating the horrors of the dolphin kills in Japan--some whale, porpoise, dolphin, or manatee caught below the ship's bow is being crushed, maimed, killed, or permanently injured.
The fact that you are alive means that there have been literally thousands of animals that have been treated inhumanely and have died for your benefit. You may not realize it, but you ARE an animal killer, just as surely as those fishermen in Japan that buthered those dolphin. The fact is that ALL animals would likely be better off if they didn't have to deal with MAN.
But if we decide that putting a dolphin in a swim-with program is morally wrong, then we are hypocrites, because we are ignoring the plight of hundreds of other animal species that deserve the very same moral decision.
Yes I do see the dilemma here and I couldn't agree more that there are issues with most everything. I too have been on a number of cruises and too guilty of alot that was stated in your list.
I believe this post has opened the minds of others to look at the cause of the dolphins and now with your post it has also turned the light on many other issues.
So I think the important thing here is to relize that a discussion has helped and drop all the attaches on those trying to add their thoughts regardless of how passinate they present them.
If Dartoid hadn't started this post I believe alot would not have been learned , at least I know that its made me think. And YES I know that all he writes does not need to be accepted as FACT but it sure has made others think and speak out.
So lets thank him and you for that.
I don't have the time or energy to get deeply into the whole conservation-animal welfare-animal rights debate -- where you seem to be headed. I posted here -- on a site related to the cruise industry -- specifically because the cruise industry promotes and makes money off of encouraging people, who have no sense that there is a issue here (regardless of what side they might take if they studied it), to flood the gates of dolphin "swim with" facilities.
What it all comes down to is this: if one believes an animal -- any animal -- can feel fear and pain, then one must eventually ask themselves (and all of us do) if there is not some line that we are not willing to cross. Most human beings, even in countries like China, Vietnam and the Philippines -- where dogs are eaten -- will not tolorate cruelty to a dog or cat.
You write as if you simply don't care. What's a little killing, butchery and pain? It's just a dolphin, whale, cow or a squirrel. You write that everything, almost, that most any of us do or touch in our daily lives in some way touches and, thus, implicates us in cruelty to animals.
I don't disagree. We'd have to live on Mars for it to be otherwise. Nothing's pure. But there are decisions we all can make. There is such a thing as the process of incremental disengagement. We can decide not to kick a dog. We can disengage further, perhaps, by not eating veal. We can take another step by not wearing leather.
Each person has to draw their own line in the sand -- define what they simply will not accept. You, it seems, are comfortable with pretty much any sort or level of suffering that may be caused to any animal. You don't even distinguish between suffering that may be caused to an animal to find a cure for some horrible disease vs. misery that might be caused for the sake of vanity (to create a new lipstick or perfume) or entertainment (as with the swim with programs). This is all fine by me. Your decisions are your decisions.
However, to suggest that others who do not totally disengage (in essence just move to Mars) are hypocrites is about as ridiculous as it gets.
can you guys not drop this issue? cruiseguy you agreed w/ runnergal, and here you go on aguing w/ something neither of you will "win". Please take your discussion elsewhere because no one wants to hear you guys fight and argue for a month.
<<I posted here... specifically because the cruise industry promotes and makes money off of encouraging people, who have no sense that there is a issue here (regardless of what side they might take if they studied it), to flood the gates of dolphin "swim with" facilities. >>
Just looking for some moral consistency, Dartoid.
If you think it unfair to bring up the origins of make-up on a cruise board, then please entertain my entirely germane and appropriate question of how you can be against kissing a captive dolphin, but apparently be entirely for "bumping" a dolphin in the wild while on a cruise ship, of which you admittedly participate in. Maybe you don't have a sense of the issue of "bumping"; i.e., the sanitized word for crushing and maiming of marine life by big ships. If you cruise, you are participating in an activity that destroys the very animals you are so passionate about. Draw your convoluted conclusions as you will...
<<You write as if you simply don't care. What's a little killing, butchery and pain? It's just a dolphin, whale, cow or a squirrel..., it seems, are comfortable with pretty much any sort or level of suffering that may be caused to any animal.>>
Thanks for the demonization, Dartoid.
At this point, the level of logic you are offering is beyond rational thinking. This is the way most conversations go with the AR crowd. I will dismiss you as you did Cruiseguy. We are going in a tautological, maddening circle (to coin a oft-used phrase here). I'll give you back your thread. Convert a kiddie to your cause, and you will somehow feel better about yourself. As you would say, "ramble on".
You got it right -- I dismissed Cruiseboy. He thinks what he thinks, doesn't know why and couldn't explain it if he did.
You on the other hand (whether you believe this or not) I thoroughly respect. While I may not agree with you or understand why you can, seemingly, be so nonchalant about the misery man causes animals, I appreciate that you have reasons for taking the position you choose to take. I have my reasons as well.
I can't say I appreciate being called a liar or an extremist or any of the other names you have called me. I can't say I appreciate being slammed for sharing just one side of the story when all I set out to show was that there was another side. I can't say that I appreciate being accused of employing convoluted logic -- irrational logic . I can't say I appreciate it being accused of sharing biased information when, in the same breath almost, you (just as one example) direct people to a 7-8 year old story about Ric O'Barry, knowing full well that his book (referred to in the story) has been published and that it presents an entirely contrary set of facts, since corroborated by many of the others quoted in the story you posted. I can't say I care a whole lot for a lot of what you've done in the conduct of your mission to encourage people to seek the truth in the midst of my "lies" but I accept that you have done what you felt you had to do. And again, I respect you passion and ardor and ability to express and argue your point of view.
Please though, DON'T accuse me of moral inconsistency. I am hardly the one here trying to convince anybody to do anything less than moral. And I am not saying that you are. Don't "paint" me by accusing me of something that is simply not the case. It's as flimsy a tactic as the politician who stands up before a press conference to deny they leaked the story about their opponents unusual sexual proclivities, solely for the purpose of "creating" the story and damaging their opponent's credibility, knowing full well the story is untrue. I am the one here advocating for compassion for animals.
I did not, and you know it, set out to "demonize" you in my last post. I posed a question, pondered if you will, what seems to be your level of comfort with hurting and killing animals. I truely don't understand it. Perhaps hurting and killing animals does bother you, just a little bit, sometimes?
I have said and I'll say again -- as long as any of us live on this planet we can't avoid the reality that much of what we eat or wear or do cost animals their lives. As I have also said before, we have to make choices -- or at least we can make choices.
My choice, even in the face of inconsistencies ("bumping" into a whale while on a cruise vs. taking a stand elsewhere -- against, in the context of this discussion, confining intelligent creatures to a life of hell) is to travel the road of incremental disengagement the best I can.
That's the best anybody can do. It comes back to the whole issue of knowledge blended with values. You're not right or wrong or evil for the position you take. The same should apply to me. Depending on other's perspective different people would say we're both nuts.
Not that dismissals are meant to be "accepted" but I do gratefully acknowledge yours of me. Happy hunting.
CHEERS to CruiseMates' Anne Campbell (quoted below from last weekend's USA Today), whoin very simple but poignant terms dispells the fantasy of that dolphin "swim with" programs.
"I wandered from my beach spot to the Dolphin Encounter and stopped in my tracks," she recalled in a recent newsletter. "These highly intelligent, beautiful mammals were in cages as they pulled tourists through a small area of water." She returned as the park was closing: "Tears filled my eyes as I saw one dolphin, his head raised above water, staring out to sea, held back by a link fence."
well first of all, the slashing thing is sad, but it has nothing to do with what your talking about.. sorry, but were not swimming with dead dolphins. there alive..
dont get me wrong. i love dolphins, and i hate how certain animals and stuff are treated. but swimming with dolphins is a fun activity that is a great experience, and im sure many people do not want to do it.
dolphins at many aquariums are very well taken care of (true others arent) and are eventually brought back to the wild..
and just so you no, certain cruise ships are ending swimming with dolphins to let them free..
i definetly feel its wrong though to keep the dolphins in captivity. still, ive always wanted to swim with dolphins ... im gonna train dolphins and orcas when im older... its not as if the dolphins are living alone.
I didn't drag up this old post to debate the issue all over again, only to compliment Anne Campbell on recognizing the obvious. As the Humane Society of the United States put it in the same article: Dolphins "don't want to be with us as much as we want to be with them — and in captivity, it's never their choice."
You say that "swimming with dolphins is a fun activity." That is hardly the case for the dolphins. Playing checkers with a prisoner in jail may be fun to you. But the prisoner is still in jail.
I'm curious since you note that "dolphins at many aquariums are... eventually brought back to the wild" if you can tell me which are the many acquarims that have done this?