Political Crossfire Forums

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21963 Location: Minnesota

http://www.katu.com/stories/84756.html

A quite humerous story. Apparently the sea lions won't follow the Endangered Species Act since they know they are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. By using this loophole they can once again feast upon their natural prey. Good thing us humans know how important this specific species of endangered salmon are.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

John Galt wrote: http://www.katu.com/stories/84756.html

A quite humerous story. Apparently the sea lions won't follow the Endangered Species Act since they know they are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. By using this loophole they can once again feast upon their natural prey. Good thing us humans know how important this specific species of endangered salmon are.

I say kill the sea lions in that area. They are far from endangered. What's the big deal.

Leon Czolgosz · Joined: 05 Apr 2006 Posts: 190

animal protection is based on cuteness factors.

Dolphin safe tuna is an example.

That is tuna that was caught not harming any dolphins.

Apparently, tuna fish isn't cute enough to be protected by PETA :roll:

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject:

Let the Sea Lions eat what they naturally eat. The only reason those Salmon are endangered is because of Humans anyway.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: Let the Sea Lions eat what they naturally eat. The only reason those Salmon are endangered is because of Humans anyway.

Yes, but it's not a natural condition for the sea lions to be able to block off the Columbia river, and eat all salmon coming through. We have to fix what we broke, and part of that, IMHO, is to kill the sea lions that have learned this abberant behavior.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote:
Yes, but it's not a natural condition for the sea lions to be able to block off the Columbia river, and eat all salmon coming through.

Prove it. Prove it's not a natural condition and prove that they are "eating all the salmon".

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Yes, but it's not a natural condition for the sea lions to be able to block off the Columbia river, and eat all salmon coming through.

Prove it. Prove it's not a natural condition and prove that they are "eating all the salmon".

Well, they are eating a sizable percentage of salmon. I guess, I just don't see the sense in allowing an un-endangered species to endanger an endangered species.

Also, the sea lions have penetrated the fish ladder, which is certainly NOT a natural environment (for evidence, see the initial post)

lucidnightmare · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject:

They need to import some Eskimos to that area.They'll eat the damned things.

Better yet some of those military trained sharks.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote:

Also, the sea lions have penetrated the fish ladder, which is certainly NOT a natural environment (for evidence, see the initial post)

Shooting a tranquilizing dart at them and moving them isn't enough? Is killing always the answer?

perdidochas wrote:
Well, they are eating a sizable percentage of salmon. I guess, I just don't see the sense in allowing an un-endangered species to endanger an endangered species.

I'm stilling trying to understand why that matters so much all of a sudden? Human activity is what caused the Salmon to become an endangered species, the seals are just eating what they naturally eat. And our activity is killing them to this day!! How come no one here is upset about that? How come no one here is upset about countries still whaling, those are endangered species as well. Are Humans the only ones that can kill endangered species? Is that what this is about?

lucidnightmare · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Leon Czolgosz wrote: animal protection is based on cuteness factors.

Dolphin safe tuna is an example.

That is tuna that was caught not harming any dolphins.

Apparently, tuna fish isn't cute enough to be protected by PETA :roll:

Tuna can't jump through hoops and bounce balls on their noses either.But they sure taste better I guess.I wouldn't know though,they won't let me eat dolphins to find out.

George W Bush

John Galt wrote: http://www.katu.com/stories/84756.html

A quite humerous story. Apparently the sea lions won't follow the Endangered Species Act since they know they are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. By using this loophole they can once again feast upon their natural prey. Good thing us humans know how important this specific species of endangered salmon are.

This is assuming Sea Lions have the mentality to read and abide by such acts.

I guess you were being funny.

So heres the complimentary "LOL" for you, John Galt.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Also, the sea lions have penetrated the fish ladder, which is certainly NOT a natural environment (for evidence, see the initial post)

Shooting a tranquilizing dart at them and moving them isn't enough? Is killing always the answer?

Tranquilizers aren't used in sea lions. If you use a tranquilizer, you might as well just kill them. Think logically, if a sea lion is tranquilized in the spilway of the dam, it will drown. Also, the main thing being suggested is that certain sea lions be killed, not the population as a whole. They want to kill a few select ones, such as the one that has discovered how to get in the fish ladder.

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Well, they are eating a sizable percentage of salmon. I guess, I just don't see the sense in allowing an un-endangered species to endanger an endangered species.

I'm stilling trying to understand why that matters so much all of a sudden? Human activity is what caused the Salmon to become an endangered species, the seals are just eating what they naturally eat. And our activity is killing them to this day!! How come no one here is upset about that? How come no one here is upset about countries still whaling, those are endangered species as well. Are Humans the only ones that can kill endangered species? Is that what this is about?

1) I don't like the fact that whaling still occurs, but it's not top on my list of concerns. Whales are no longer in danger, IMHO. They are for the most part recovering.

2) Why concerned with this? Somebody posted it, and I responded. Otherwise I don't really care.

3) Human activity caused the problem (in more than one way), so we've got to fix it.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21963 Location: Minnesota

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Also, the sea lions have penetrated the fish ladder, which is certainly NOT a natural environment (for evidence, see the initial post)

Shooting a tranquilizing dart at them and moving them isn't enough? Is killing always the answer?

Yes, it always is.

Quote:
perdidochas wrote:
Well, they are eating a sizable percentage of salmon. I guess, I just don't see the sense in allowing an un-endangered species to endanger an endangered species.

I'm stilling trying to understand why that matters so much all of a sudden? Human activity is what caused the Salmon to become an endangered species, the seals are just eating what they naturally eat. And our activity is killing them to this day!! How come no one here is upset about that? How come no one here is upset about countries still whaling, those are endangered species as well. Are Humans the only ones that can kill endangered species? Is that what this is about?

Had we invested more in coal energy and less in hydroelectric, this problem wouldn't exist. But some ingenious dam builders managed to take into account the salmon even if I would have said screw em, and built a damn that has a "ladder" for the salmon to climb upstream. It actually is quite amazing. Well, the sea lions think it's amazing too, since it bottlenecks the fish in very shallow water. And so the sea lion is eating naturally (all beings eat other beings naturally by the way, unless you're getting food through a tube, so say, the sea lion is part of our natural diet, if we can kill it, skin it, and feat upon it's bloody flesh) but it would not be able to feast had it not been for us caring so much about hydroelectric power. And so damned if we do, damned if we don't... lets go back to living in caves.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21963 Location: Minnesota

George W Bush wrote: John Galt wrote: http://www.katu.com/stories/84756.html

A quite humerous story. Apparently the sea lions won't follow the Endangered Species Act since they know they are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. By using this loophole they can once again feast upon their natural prey. Good thing us humans know how important this specific species of endangered salmon are.

This is assuming Sea Lions have the mentality to read and abide by such acts.

I guess you were being funny.

So heres the complimentary "LOL" for you, John Galt.

Apparently, animals do not abide by our silly laws, yet some argue they should have "rights." Well, they ain't got no rights if they can't participate as reasonable beings in society and abide by the laws.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote:

Tranquilizers aren't used in sea lions. If you use a tranquilizer, you might as well just kill them. Think logically, if a sea lion is tranquilized in the spilway of the dam, it will drown. Also, the main thing being suggested is that certain sea lions be killed, not the population as a whole. They want to kill a few select ones, such as the one that has discovered how to get in the fish ladder.

Your right, because if the sea lion fell unconscious without closing it's nostrils, it'd drown, inhaling water into its lungs, although they are used in some cases (when Divers are close, etc.). All I'm saying is, if they really want to take those Seal Lions away from there they can use other none lethal means. I don't agree with killing an animal to save an animal (unless it's a Human and their life is in danger), especially when its just doing what it does naturally.

perdidochas wrote:
3) Human activity caused the problem (in more than one way), so we've got to fix it.

I agree with you there, but killing these Sea Lions wouldn't fix anything.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 7106 Location: Ohio

I really don't see why it matters if a species becomes extinct. Now, if that species would somehow affect us (which it very well may, with the food web & all) THEN we should do something...

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21963 Location: Minnesota

Perhaps unleashing whales into the stream, Killer Whales for example, would be perferable? After all, it would just be one animal naturally killing another. That way the guilt is gone, and that's all that matters.

As a child I found a sea lion. It was decapitated, by a whale most likely. Unfourtently it had been discovered also by flies, or I would have maybe made a pelt out of it. The flies were the type that gouged the flesh however, and ruined it.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: I really don't see why it matters if a species becomes extinct. Now, if that species would somehow affect us (which it very well may, with the food web & all) THEN we should do something...

Go back to the first grade and learn about ecosystems, then you'd understand.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 7106 Location: Ohio

That would tell me why we should waste time fixing something that doesn't affect us in any way?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Tranquilizers aren't used in sea lions. If you use a tranquilizer, you might as well just kill them. Think logically, if a sea lion is tranquilized in the spilway of the dam, it will drown. Also, the main thing being suggested is that certain sea lions be killed, not the population as a whole. They want to kill a few select ones, such as the one that has discovered how to get in the fish ladder.

Your right, because if the sea lion fell unconscious without closing it's nostrils, it'd drown, inhaling water into its lungs, although they are used in some cases (when Divers are close, etc.). All I'm saying is, if they really want to take those Seal Lions away from there they can use other none lethal means. I don't agree with killing an animal to save an animal (unless it's a Human and their life is in danger), especially when its just doing what it does naturally.

Doing what comes naturally, in unnatural conditions. Fish ladders are unnatural. Therefore a sea lion feeding in a fish ladder is occuring under unnatural conditions.

I have no problems with killing animals to save endangered species. If I saw a cat crawling up a tree into an endangered bird's nest, that cat is dead. We have too many house cats loose in this country anyway. I feel the same in this case. The sea lion is not endangered. The salmon are. Salmon have priority. The only case where the endangered species doesn't have priority is when they are preying on humans.

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:
3) Human activity caused the problem (in more than one way), so we've got to fix it.

I agree with you there, but killing these Sea Lions wouldn't fix anything.

Temporarily, it would allow more salmon to get through. The salmon population is down to 88,000 individuals. It's not hard to see how 1000 sea lions could exterminate them, especially considering the artificiality of the environment.