Recently, GreenPeace has released a video criticizing the purse-seining industry (for tuna). Apparently, purse-seinning companies aren't happy about it. They claim that it is highly biased. Well of course they will! What else would they do?

Sit back and, be oh, right, we have a whole bunch of bycatch, whatevs. NO! Of course not! They will obviously counter GreenPeace's claims. Is this not human nature?

Whether or not either argument has significant value, I am currently unsure. However, what I will agree with, is bycatch must at all costs, be limited. Even if the purse-seining community contributes little to this issue (which is highly unlikely) it contributes! You know what happens when dozens, hundreds, or thousands of industries do the same thing? We end up with a problem. Common sense no? It seems not. When will people understand that if you do something, it is likely thousands, or millions of others do the same thing? And just as 1+1=2, 1+1,000,000 others = 1,000,001. If that makes any sense.

Flickr (labeled for reuse)

According to WildAid demand for shark-fin soup has fallen by as much as 70%. About time. This of course is fantastic news, if these statistics are even vaguely true, it seems that sharks are finally getting a break. If shark finning had continued at previous rates, or forbid even higher, there would have been an inevitable collapse. Finally, they have a chance.

A chance to recuperate. We've waged war on a community that never asked for it. It's about time we act like the civilized creatures we like to call ourselves. Otherwise we better start asking ourselves what exactly civilization means.

Flickr (labeled for reuse)

Born in a field.
Raised in a barn.
Trained from birth.
Forced to run.
Aching limbs.
Pounding heart.
Determined to please.
Can't go on.
Running from day one till they can no longer serve.
Sold with malice.
Shot without dignity.
Broken and alone.
Slavery is still a thriving business.

Wikipedia (labeled for reuse)

I ride. You probably know this if you be been following me for a while.

I think it's about time to refine our question. We've asked: how can we stop overfishing? And the answer: well I dearly hope it's rather obvious to you, stop (or at least decrease) fishing. Common sense, no? Alright, we know the answer to question one. And guess what? Fish stocks are going up. Finally.

And we wonder why sharks attack humans. I saw this article in the news today: "Watch dramatic moment daredevil swimmer jumps onto shark after being dared by pals". Jumped on top of a shark. Really? And we give them all this bad rap because they attack us. Of course. And we believe in justice. I truly weep for humanity.
A dare. That is all that is needed. You dare someone, and because they were dared they'll do it. Seriously? How can we do this and in the same breath say we are intelligent beings.

Why'd you jump on to a shark?
Well... I was dared.

How does this go unpunished? If someone tackled a human and their excuse was, "I was dared." They would, at the very least, be fined.

Reports like this, just emphasize the lack of respect many people have for animals. If you believe yourself to be more intelligent/evolved than another creature, alright that's you're choice, however, you also take up the responsibility for that creature.

Think of it like a monarchy. The monarchs of old believed themselves to be more powerful than their subjects (true), thus they were able to demand certain things, however, it was also their responsibility to protect their subjects. It is about time that humanity takes on the responsibilities of sovereignty.

Flickr (labeled for reuse)

The racehorse industry has been allowed to run rampant- for 200 years!! As far as I know, every other industry has strict protocols. Don't you think you're forgetting something? Like, the only sport that puts an un-consenting animal at deadly risk? You'd think it would have the most regulations. But no. Because, as we've established logicality is not a strong point in animal conservation.
And we call ourselves "creatures of reason." Cute. Real cute. You keep on telling yourself that.

The Melbourne cup happened. Two horses died. Japan's Admire Rakti died of an unidentified heart issue. There should have been screenings prior to the race, to see if there were any underlying heart conditions. This is a pivotal test for human athletes. If they have a heart condition they cannot compete. Is it too much to give horses the same courtesy? Do you think they want to race? Do you believe this sort of racing allows them to enjoy their freedom? If you do, I'm sorry but your imagination has been substituted for fact. Fact and perceived fact are two completely different things. Just because you believe horses are having the time of their lives, in no way makes it true.

Freedom. Is freedom being forced to run everyday, with aching limbs, burning lungs, only to be locked up into a stable? If that's you're idea of freedom, slaves are free people. And if you agree with that statement, I can't help you. Go back to primary school. Maybe someone there can knock some sense in to you.

What these animals are subjected to, is nothing less of slavery.

Granted a number of owners/trainers care for their animals. But, this sport is simply not safe, nor humane.

Wikimedia commons (labeled for reuse)

For most racehorses, training begins as soon as they are born. With their first race at 2-3 years, these perilous races are known as, Undertack races. Many participants will end their lives on that track: with developing minds and bodies, many cannot hope to control themselves. Many will shatter cannonbones and shins, ending their careers and lives.

For those who survive, training will continue. In some cases, pain-masking, and performance-enhancing drugs will be added to the mundane routine.

These horses will comply, because they don't know not to. You think dogs are loyal? Horses, entrust their lives to their riders, they need to trust their rider without doubt. When you make them ride down that street, they are trusting you, that there isn't a lion behind the corner. Although, that is perhaps an absurd example, I hope you get the idea.

These 'lucky' horses, will put their everything in to complying. They will run their hardest. Give a horse a home. And they will give you their heart. You want to know what people do with it? Shoot it. Literally.

In the frequent occurrence, that a horse sustains an injury, the common practice is to euthanize it. If not euthanize it, sell it to someone who will sell it to a butcher. This is the thanks that they get.

They give us everything. And what do they get in return? Drugs, torture, abuse, and death.

Morality. Keep pulling down the cover of imagination. But, don't complain when I call you delusional.

Deviantart (labeled for reuse)

A human contracts rabies; what happens? They go to the doctor, they receive two shots. One that inhibits the progression of the disease, and another that will eventually eradicate it (in that person).

An animal contracts rabies; what happens? It's shot.

Well, I can evidently see what our society values. It's not that I believe dogs should be held above humans, however, as rabies is a disease that commonly affects animals, with detrimental consequences, would it not be smart to come up with a cure? For animals. And not just humans.

It's fantastic that we've come up with a human cure. Great, wonderful, I truly am pleased. However, shouldn't the next step be to find a cure for dogs, foxes, bats, and all the other mammals that are affected?

Who decided that we are worth more? Who decided committing mass genocide against foxes (to eradicate rabies), is just?

Currently, we have an epidemic infiltrating our ranks: Ebola. Anyone who suggested eradicating everyone who is infected, would be met with fierce (and deserved) backlash. It simply isn't a viable nor moral option.

Although, animals cannot be held on the same level as us, don't we owe it to them, to try? We know this disease exists, we've found a cure for humans, doesn't it seem possible to do the same for dogs? Shouldn't we try and find a way to solve this issue without shooting any animal with symptoms?

flickr (labeled for reuse)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I hope you know where this quote is from. If not, Google it. If we can't even apply this to all humans, what hope do we have for animals? Sometimes, I just sit there, and question how we got here. We may think we've evolved, advanced, become better than before. But at what cost? Have you taken a look around you?
Where have the trees gone?
Where are the open prairies?
The blue skies?
The flocks of passenger pigeons?
The schools of hammerheads?
The open blue sea?
The pristine ice caps?

Do animals not deserve rights? They are alive, are they not? They follow the seven functions that a living thing most follow. So? Why don't they have rights? Although, I'm not going so far as to say, they should hold the same rights as humans, however, they need to be shown some respect. It simply isn't humane to kill animals for their extremities, whilst they're still alive; force them to perform for their entire lives; or committing mass genocide.

For those who don't believe killing animals qualifies as genocide, here is the definition; "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group". It seems that these truths are not self-evident to quite as many people as we've hoped [and I'm not even talking about non-humans].

Wikimedia commons (labeled for reuse)

One billion people rely on fish: whether that be as a food source, income, or both. Let me repeat that, one billion. This rant doesn't apply to anyone part of that one billion. Now calculate in probably another 1-2 billion people who also eat fish.
Personally, I eat fish. However, for the most part I try to eat fresh-water fish, and purchase fish from sustainable species, and packages that have been approved by Marine Stewardship Council. However, I could still reduce my consumption, currently I eat fish probably less than once a week. Anyone who eats fish as anything other than a necessity (whether that be for a living or a food source), is a contributor to overfishing.
The majority of people who rely on fish, continue with traditional fishing: methods that have been thriving for thousands of years. These methods, ranging from spearfishing to hand-fishing, are for all extensive purposes sustainable. People who utilize these methods are limited in their catch, and their methods are highly selective: meaning that everything that is caught is used. Unlike the highly unsustainable fishing practiced by developed countries.
It has reached a point where these fish reliant communities are struggling to survive.
We don't only disrespect fish. We disrespect people less fortunate. People who've lived off the sea for thousands of years, are now struggling to feed themselves and their families.

 "We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others." ~Will Rogers

Wikipedia (labeled for reuse)

This post is brought to you by, "Australian idiot" who surfed on a dead whale. Let's go through the steps, shall we?

1. On a boat with his friends
2. Sees a dead whale
3. Decides, the next intelligent thing is to get on top of the whale
4. Is too 'preoccupied' to realize that there are Great Whites eating the whale.

Seriously? Do you know why shark attacks exist? Because, of idiots like this. Of course, if you provoke an animal, it has a good chance of warranting an attack. Thank goodness, the sharks didn't attack this daredevil, otherwise the article title would've been something more like, "Man attacked by shark." This is what usually happens. The shark gets all the blame.

Even neglecting the school of sharks circling the whale, I have another bone to pick. Two bones actually.

1. Do you not have a sense of dignity?
2. Do you hold so little respect for other species?

If you want to argue that riding on the corpse of a dead whale is dignified, be my guest. I for one, believe this to be utterly barbaric. Not only is does this show no respect for the environment, it implies a total lack of sophistication.

"What did you do today?"
"Oh, nothing much. Just went surfing on the back of a decomposing animal."

Sounds great. You should put it on your CV. Sometimes, I truly question, if people think about what they are doing. If at any point this man, even allowed a lick of critical thinking to occur, he would've (hopefully) realized the idiocy of his actions.

At some point you have to grow up. And for goodness sake, gain some self-respect.

We don't live alone on this planet- think about that sometimes.

Geograph (labeled for reuse)

That SeaWorld has been getting some bad rap, is a gross understatement. The many issues surrounding their captive orcas have been grabbing headlines for months now. However, what many seem to be forgetting, is their other activities. Just now I saw another article about SeaWorld rehabilitating a rare Risso Dolphin. We would do well, not to ignore their good deeds. That isn't to say that something needs to be done about the current state of affairs.

Wikipedia "labeled for reuse"

The article I've just read, has informed me that Western Australia has changed their shark culling regulations. The word "imminent" threat has been changed to "serious" threat. Essentially, changing the laws to allow shark culling if a shark is seen near an occupied shoreline. If the shark exceeds three meters, and is presumed to be a white, bull, or nurse shark, "preventive" measures are allowed to be taken, in the form of killing. With shark populations already declining world-wide, invoking a policy allowing sharks to be killed, merely from being spotted, is outrageous.

Wikipedia Tiger Shark "Labeled for reuse"

Footage was caught of a ghost shark. Little is known about these oddities, however, they are probably a completely different species: although, related to sharks.

Also known as deep sea chimaeras, they are definitely not "lookers". The ghost shark researchers were able to film, was covered in parasites, and they claim it didn't look healthy. It makes me wonder, and dread, what other species may be facing. Is this shark's condition an anomaly, or are other sharks facing similar conditions? More importantly, is this a consequence of our callous actions, or is the cause natural? Regardless, I believe, more research should be done, to determine why this animal looks the way it does, and what is the cause for its parasitism.

Wikipedia "labeled for reuse"

Another shark attack... This one claimed the life of an 18 year old boy on a fishing trip. He was reportedly bitten on the upper thigh, and subsequently succumbed to blood loss soon after. I don't wish to seem callous, with my reports, my heart goes out to all those who are lost and who've lost at the jaws of sharks. However, it must still be kept in mind, that these animals are not man-eating machines. The don't set out maliciously to attack humans. When compared to other death-traps sharks are relatively unlikely to harm you, you are more likely to die at the hand of a vending machine.

Nonetheless, shark attacks do seem to be happening more frequently. Although, I could be mistaken, unfortunately I don't have access to any exact values. If the media is anything to go on, they seem to be reporting ever more on shark attacks, which begs the question, why? What is the cause for these increased attacks? I doubt they've suddenly developed a grudge; could it be a lack of food? Although, this issue is, most sharks don't eat their human victims, so this is somewhat unlikely. If sharks are indeed, attacking more, I pray we find the reason as soon as possible.

Wikipedia "labeled for reuse"

As I've been absent from the inter webs, for a couple months now, I have to get caught up on all the incoming news. Needless to say, it may take a while...

Let's begin here. I've just finished reading an article about another SeaWorld response, concerning, what else? Their orcas. Their reasoning has now evolved to include, "we need them for research into Killer Whales." Opposers, note a number of fallacies with this argument, mostly including their lack of research, however, all this aside, this is still nowhere near a sound argument. The excuse of so many, "research". This word has begun to take on a different meaning: namely, an excuse for almost anything.

Research, simply isn't a good enough reason to keep highly intelligent animals in confinement. If we tortured random civilians, but kept a record of their response, would that make it any less immoral? Why should "research" be any more of an excuse for SeaWorld? On another note, shouldn't we be learning about the wild orcas anyway? It is rather indisputable, that captive orcas are profoundly changed, in comparison to their free cousins, so how could their data be any help?

It is time for SeaWorld to own up to their mistake, and take measures to atone themselves.

flickr "labeled for reuse"

Once again, industries are demanding a change in fish quotas with increasing fish stocks. Well let's think about this proposal, shall we?

For years and years we've driven fish populations down into the ditch, then with much reluctance some countries decide to impose quotas. And guess what? They WORK. Why else would they have been suggested?!?!? Guess what industries want to do now? Increase fishing quotas. Do you understand what that will do to fish populations? Plummet them right back down to the dark ages. Why? Because more fish are being fished! Again!

I am astounded.

Save the fish y'all- yup still, no.

Wikimedia commons (labeled for reuse)

Finally, drug rules are starting to be adapted. I would say that I'm happy, but it's marred by the fact that it should've been done earlier! These sorts of activities, that require an animal to participate (without choice might I add), need to put the animal's safety first. It's different for people. They consent with participating, you can have them be put in as much danger as you want, as long as they consent to it. If it's their choice I don't care. The issue with horse racing, is the horses never gave consent. They never said they wanted to endanger their life, with little in terms of gratitude. And for this reason, the least, the BARE minimum, that we must do, is provide adequate protocols to ensure their safety. For goodness, sake, if they aren't going to be allowed to make their own decisions, at least make sure they don't needlessly risk their life, every time they go out onto a track.

flickr (labeled for reuse)

Top Venezuelan racing horse Rio Negro, has been poisoned: with a dose of cortisol that could've killed him. This industry has been allowed to run rampant, to the point of threatening everyone involved in it. And the horses are suffering the blunt of it. Not only are they forced to race, to the point of death, pumped full of drugs, and generally mistreated, they are now embroiled in racing politics. This industry can no longer be considered a sport. In order to get an upper edge someone has poisoned the forerunner of upcoming Derby. Rio Negro, is now battling for his life.

When will these animals be allowed to live? Since we discovered their use, they've been under their power. When, will people decide that they've done enough? Suffered enough?

Wikimedia commons (labeled for reuse)