Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Daniel Wilson
St. David's, Ontario, Canada
Recent Activity
-
Daniel commented on the article |Hi Catrina, I understand what you're saying but disagree with your conclusions. Maybe Tilikum attacked Dawn because she wore her hair a certain way. Maybe Keltie Byrne was drowned because she splashed in the water a certain way. Maybe the 11-year-old girl who was bitten at Marineland by a beluga moved her hand a certain way.
Maybe the people who have been attacked by dolphins in swim-with programs were wearing the wrong colour bathing suits. I could go on about all the people who have been injured and attacked by animals at zoos and circuses too.
The point is, these animals are wild and potentially dangerous. People have no business capturing and caging them, and then forcing them to perform and interact with us for our amusement.
Ellen is right. These animals are frustrated, so sometimes, when they're in particular mood, they'll lash out. Experiments and research are pointless. Common sense should tell us not to play with wild, potentially dangerous and unpredictable animals.
-
Daniel commented on the article |
Got ya. Again, thanks for posting this.
-
Daniel commented on the article |
Thanks for the article Stephanie! I'd like to clarify a few things.
First, Tilikum's nickname is Tilly, not Telly.
Second, you mention "deaths" back in British Columbia. There was only one. Tilikum killed Keltie Byrne, a 20-year-old trainer at Victoria's Sealand of the Pacific marine park in 1991 after she slipped and fell in the whale pool. Two other orcas assisted in the drowning death of Keltie Byrne. Sealand closed down in 1992.
Finally, you wrote that Tilikum is not dangerous. I would argue that he is. I would argue that all whales held in captivity are wild, and therefore potentially dangerous animals. The National Marine Fisheries Service says they are too.
In a 2004 report to the United States Marine Mammal Commission, the University of California found that captive cetaceans had injured more than half (52%) of marine mammal workers.
SeaWorld trainers have sustained numerous injuries while performing with or training orcas, including bites during feedings, ruptured kidneys, lacerated livers, fractured bones, and near drownings.
These animals are dangerous, and the potential for human injury and death is just another reason we shouldn't keep them in captivity.
-
Daniel commented on the article |We don't have Columbus Day up here in the Great White North but our Turkey Killing Day Part One (Part Two is Xmas) falls on the same day. Still, history always favours the conquerors. I remember my martial arts teacher telling me that history labelled Magellan a great explorer too, but to the Filipinos he was a murderous pirate.
Just think about all the great "men of medicine" who experimented on animals (needlessly I might add) or even Teddy Roosevelt, known for his compassion towards that little bear cub (the inspiration for our teddy bears) but still an avid hunter/killer of other animals.
I read Ishmael many years ago too (followed by The Story of B, and My Ishmael) and the movie Instinct, starring Cuba Gooding Jr. and Anthony Hopkins, was inspired by it. These books definitely had an influence on me.
Thanks for your perspective too Stephanie!
-
Daniel commented on the article |Bea wrote: "This means in their minds, they have already accepted the fact that current conditions for animals are beneath their standard... and not "humane". Yet, I am quite certain most didn't and won't eliminate those products until "2015"."
This is a brilliant observation! If they believe things are so bad, why aren't they boycotting current conditions?
Hmmm...
-
Daniel commented on the article |
Stephanie, your last post was brilliant. It's like you're inside my head! And I'm not in any camp either. I've successfully managed to piss off people in all camps.
I would however like to make a few points on what Eric wrote.
He said: "The fight for better conditions serve not only to lessen the suffering of animals, but also as AR education in themselves."
I would argue (because I like arguing) that the fight for better conditions reinforces the idea that animals are property, and that we should take care of our property so IT can better serve us, in the same way and for the same reasons we take care of our cars and houses.
And while I understand Eric's "rape" argument, I can't agree with it. We DON'T live in a world where rape is accepted. It's a utilitarian argument and I don't agree with utilitarianism.
But we did have slavery, and while there were some who advocated for better treatment of slaves, the abolitionist movement won out because most people realized that slavery itself was wrong, and that any reforms to something that is wrong is still wrong.
If anyone needs further "proof", I'd suggest they read:
Cheers!
-
Daniel commented on the article |
Lisa, I hear what you're saying, and I hope I'm not coming off as militant. I would never be condescending to a person who, out of respect for animals, switched to organic meat or cage-free eggs.
I ALSO would congratulate them for taking a step in the direction of compassion, and then tell them the truth about "humane" animal products and what's wrong with them (the products, not the people).
My tone in these online discussions is a lot more forceful and direct because we're taking about approaches and "philosophies" with animal advocates and not necessarily responding to the general public's questions on how they can be more animal-friendly.
I'm convinced that the happy meat campaigns will only make people feel better about eating animals and actually increase, not decrease, the number of animals killed for their flesh.
Tolerance and understanding to those seeking to make the change to veganism, but the message and the end goal should always be VEGANISM.
-
Daniel commented on the article |
"So, my inclination is to pat people on the back for attempting to eliminate the more gruesome forms of cruelty from their diets."
Lisa, we wouldn't pat someone on the back if they cut down on their child abuse or eliminated some of the more gruesome forms of child abuse, and say that at least they're considering the children they abuse. We don't advocate for bow hunting instead of gun hunting; padded traps instead of steel leg-hold traps, so why advocate for more gentle animal exploitation?
Maybe our minds do open a bit at a time, but we can't condone any animal exploitation. Society doesn't tolerate a little bit of armed robbery now and again, and nor should we in regards to violence towards animals.
To exhaust the point, you don't tell an alcoholic to cut down on his or her drinking, or switch from beer to wine. You suggest cutting it out altogether.
My two cents.
And Stephanie, I thought your column was pretty clear that it WASN'T a veal protest.
-
Daniel commented on the article |
Amen to that, sister! Anything less is a lie.
