|
Post by sbell on Jan 25, 2011 18:10:58 GMT
CCM is a fraud and I can prove it now. He talked to much. So is Griffin, they team up together. Mods: I can't believe you let them get away with this!!!! He has not read the peer reviewed paper as he claims. He read a newspaper article instead. That is right!!!! he doesn't even know that there is a difference between the two. He knows nothing of science and how it works. He doesn't even understand what a peer reviewed paper is. He has an agenda. He claims PETA has an agenda but he is the same - an extremist!!! His quotes follow as proof of this. For example - ALSO from Masons paper - "So far," says Mason, one of the authors of the new study, published in the journal Science, "we've got 300 African elephants in zoos in Europe, and no one's yet reached 50."
And, from her paper, and regarding wild elephants - A few superannuated wild elephants have actually reached their 70s
The paper also goes on to say -
"In the past 10 years, zoos have spent or committed to spend about $500 million to build or upgrade enclosures designed to improve the lives of 250 animals — but nothing so far suggests that does much to improve captive elephants' health or longevity"The above words do not appear in the peer reviewed paper. If you know ANYTHING about science you know they would never talk in these terms in a formal paper. I was trying to stop wasting my time with him so I didn't pick up on it right away and just wanted to end the conversation - because I knew he was full of it. To CCM You are a fraud... claiming to understand science, you don't even know it's most basic methods. How dare you claim I am ignorant of science. How dare you preach to everyone letting them think you know more than you do. You are an agenda. Go back a read his and my last few comments and it will be clear. A SCIENTIFIC METHOD ALWAYS WINS! How dare you mislead people who might not know better. Hi Blastoidea. So you want to do our jobs for us? Nobody here is innocent. You were all asked to cool it. Do it or there will be repercussions (did you know that the Moderators now have expanded authority here?). I do not expect a response to this post. Or the one that spawned it. Doing so is not a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 18:29:22 GMT
Why not publish the data and shut the scientist/critics up with proof!!! Something they always demand? I obviously agree more data would be good. I said I'd like to see that information as well. You said that you have no idea how US zoos would know the status of their elephants lifespans? All they'd need to do is go through the studbook and records of the animals in their collections. I agree, only the future will tell us if the Elephants born and young in todays zoos are healthy in another 50+ years. I already provided you with plenty of good hard facts though that their are elephants in US zoos who were born pre 1960 who are still alive and well. That is one of those things you said was a "minor fact". There is a lot of taking sides I guess as long as you mean both of us. You have clearly been on the anti-zoo side of things from the beginning of this. Throughout this entire thread you have claimed I am presenting everything as "one sided". You said I did that when I was talking about my views on outreach & the practices involved, (really aimed more at Griffin initially) and I replied directly that I did not feel that live animal outreach had any sort of paramount on learning about animals, conservation, or feeling connected. Of course, you then simply disregarded that I said that. I'd love to see how you view fair and balanced if you think what you have presented is such. You certainly had nothing good to say about elephants in captivity, or zoos, only critical, negative things, while I voiced what I felt was a more evenly balanced perspective, even though as I said the whole time, I feel zoos are a "good thing". I'd say its more then accurate to say I have a great deal more experience in real life with zoos, both private & AZA accredited then you do. If you claim that because I feel zoos are good makes anything else I say invalid, (you seem to several times) I call shenanigans on that - if thats the case, then because you clearly view zoos as bad, then anything you say is as equally invalid... In general housing elephants seems to come with lots of challenges to do it well. Some places do a good job and some places do a bad one - right now today - considering all the variables and measures of success. I think if you read my comments that is what I was getting at. I did not really see that this as "what you were getting at". Yes, you mentioned it, but not in any sort of particularly detailed way. I CLEARLY I brought this up multiple times, (That housing and providing for elephants would be a challenge) and NO WHERE did I say "everything was peachy" regarding the state of these animals in captivity. Here, from earlier in the thread is another quote to that effect - "Yes, I think Canada should keep an elephant of they can provide for it. If they are not suffering, and I don't believe they are, then so be it. Enclosure too small to provide proper husbandry? Well, then they should build a bigger one or part with the elephants, plain and simple." I did say, and I'll say it again, that study along with the other information provided on the issue did not give me any reason to think that elephants should NOT be in captivity. It does indicate something is either awry in the zoos in question, their husbandry practices, or in the numbers of the study. You seem to think (along with many others) that the study shows undoubtedly that elephants in captivity are suffering. Thats really not a scientific conclusion to draw from that, and as you yourself said - "You can play numbers different ways just to make your point.". The reading (albeit brief, I couldn't find the real paper, but rather bits and pieces of things online and so forth) I have done on the issue left me with plenty of question about elephants in captivity and in Canada (Really, I wouldn't expect Canadian elephants to fare well, but the numbers & clear success at reproduction of the Asian Elephants at the Lion Park make me wonder how they are doing that ?) I never claimed to be any real source on elephants. Neat animals indeed, not really my forte. I"I feel some here try TOO hard in the zoos are only good and lets minimize any problems approach. I think it is bad "science" and bad for real debate." IBut that does not mean I was wrong or have been defeated. Only a really big * would say something like that! Bad for real debate? I am starting to feel the only thing you think is good for real debate is if people agree with you. Got to love the name calling as you walk out the door, though the use of the * is creative, I'll give you that. I know you are most likely referring to me, but whats funny is if you read back I first commented on here about how zoos and zoo policy does have serious weak points - here - "Zoos, everything else aside, are businesses, and they are run as such. Any AZA standing, and all that aside, they are not conservation warehouses. Sure they contribute to conservation, and many captive breed animals, but they generally have financial incentives to do so. They are not federally funded, and like any other business, the bottom line tend to be the bottom dollar. Feel however you want about that, Its how things are."YOU responded in length to that, and just before this, also shut down Griffin with - I"Griffin, I am done talking to you about this. I will discuss it with others though." Because clearly, nothing he had to say was worth listening too, right ? - Oh thats right, he didn't agree with you either. And the whole time you continue to fall back to the same things you said then. I was never trying to "win" anything, but I did say (and still say!) that you are making claims that you then lack facts to support. So, as much as you are now trying to paint me as little more then a "zoo spin politician", and say I didn't do anything but take sides, I am afraid its a load of manure.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 18:30:40 GMT
Sbell, I posted the above before I saw your (or blastoideas) most recent posts. I was responding to the post before those. I will not post any more on this thread if you want that to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 25, 2011 18:39:01 GMT
Sbell, I posted the above before I saw your (or blastoideas) most recent posts. I was responding to the post before those. I will not post any more on this thread if you want that to be the case. Understood (I think a couple came in while I was typing). But yes, I think this needs to stop (but I would rather not lock the thread).
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 11, 2011 2:34:38 GMT
Er, I wrote a post but I deleted it cause I really don't want to support Blastoidea's last attittude. I started writting it to support some of his initial considerations on how there are clearly some more important issues to deal with than creating a Mammoth. Are we repoblating the seas with whales or the lands with lynx or the air with condors? Nope. Are we looking for feeding and clothing the poors on the world? Nope. There are no news on projects like that. I don't think we have reached that level of consciousness and responsibility yet as human beings, we are still mainly driven by ego and economic benefits. All other kind of beneficts wich aren't economic or ego feeding are not important. Talks about our sickness indeed. Instead of creating projects to erase human suffering, we create projects to make money out of anything.
That is reality.
I consider Blastoidea had a point there, and that's something I wanted to save. I don't support his latter hunger to be right though.
Said that, in an hypothethical/fictional teenage-minded world where issues like morals or responsibility didn't mattered, I'd love them to create a horde of Mammoths, put them in a park and let me hunt them with a laser gun. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 11, 2011 2:56:48 GMT
Er, I wrote a post but I deleted it cause I really don't want to support Blastoidea's last attittude. I started writting it to support some of his initial considerations on how there are clearly some more important issues to deal with than creating a Mammoth. Are we repoblating the seas with whales or the lands with lynx or the air with condors? Nope. Are we looking for feeding and clothing the poors on the world? Nope. There are no news on projects like that. I don't think we have reached that level of consciousness and responsibility yet as human beings, we are still mainly driven by ego and economic benefits. All other kind of beneficts wich aren't economic or ego feeding are not important. Talks about our sickness indeed. Instead of creating projects to erase human suffering, we create projects to make money out of anything. That is reality. I consider Blastoidea had a point there, and that's something I wanted to save. I don't support his latter hunger to be right though. Said that, in an hypothethical/fictional teenage-minded world where issues like morals or responsibility didn't mattered, I'd love them to create a horde of Mammoths, put them in a park and let me hunt them with a laser gun. ;D Only if you get to wear a jet-pack at the time!
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 11, 2011 3:37:28 GMT
Of course! ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Feb 11, 2011 10:57:42 GMT
Are we repoblating the seas with whales or the lands with lynx or the air with condors? Nope. Yes, we are. Read more about it here. cacondorconservation.org/programs/Wither it will be successful long term or not is a complete unknown, but we are indeed doing just that. And Lynx - wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Mammals/lynx/Sadly can't say we are doing much in the way of whales, but that, similar in many ways to elephants has to do with the very nature of the beasts at hand. Smaller critters, and generally critters with less "culture" are much easier to reestablish & reintroduce and protect via captive populations. There have been more problems with the Condor project (and almost every parrot project to date) then there ever was reintroducing Lynx.
|
|
|
Post by haretrinity on Mar 9, 2011 18:46:53 GMT
Wow... This got political fast... Got to say; I don't think it would be all THAT bad. 1) Captivity: LOTS of animals are born in captivity and that tends to automatically increase their lifespans because of the lack of stress (for example; even pet rabbits their expected lifespan doubles if they live indoors). I think humans have a fairly over-idealised view of the wild generally; yes, there's often room to run, but then you also spend all your time not sure about where your next meal's coming from and worrying that something's going to eat you or that some other form of death will strike. Space becomes less and less important in the interest of safety; some animals, like rats, can live their entire lives in an area the size of a medium garden. My example creatures are much smaller than those in question but my general point is that captivity ISN'T SO BAD. I'm assuming we wouldn't be carting mammoths off to some third world country's zoo but instead hold it up to high standards (I've been to both low-quality and high-quality zoos; in the latter the animals all seemed quite relaxed and playful). I imagine any mammoth produced would be in a large free-roaming park-like enclosure anyway, and I'm fairly certain ANY signs of discomfort would be picked up on quickly and with enough funding to find a solution, maybe making breakthroughs for other large animals living in human care. 2) Scientific value: No, cloning a mammoth wouldn't have MUCH scientific value beyond the "told you we could do it" type. However, it would be a landmark event with a lot of publicity and ensure that the funding is sufficient to continue such research. I'm waiting for my pet dodo. [...Heehee, lookit this little critter: ] EDIT: Sorry up front if I've repeated things, it's a long thread and I just thought I'd add in what I know (rabbit lifespan,zoos I've been to, etc) as well as what I think (dodo; want one).
|
|