Originally posted by disstress Originally posted by Phoenixs Originally posted by Umbrood The only horrid news here is that people, in this day and age and on the net, fall for these cams. Just look at that picture, now honestly, do you think that there is even a one in a TRILLION chance to catch a shark with that dog as bait? Not saying this story couldnt be true, cause it could, but it is NOT damnit, its like that old jar-kitten thing that was around a few years back, I could understand why people fell for that back then cause the internet was kinda new, but believeing this thing is just bloody stupid.
Dude what is wrong with you? You remind me of the people that believe holocaust never happened. Just because it's so cruel, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think that it's more likely that a animal rights organization tortures animals than people that really do it. Why should they do this propaganda? They hate poor fishermen so much that they have to get the whole world to punish them? It's just stupid to say that this is propaganda. Propaganda is used to "target" something. There is no target here.
This story is true. Remember these are poor fishermen that don't have the money to get huge chunks of meat as bait. These animals are free for them to capture. If it works for fishing sharks? Yes. The fishermen travel to reefs and places where they know the shark is. Then they throw small meat bits and stuff into the water to get the shark to the area around the boat. Then the animals with the hooks are dropped into the water. I think it's much more likely that a sharks bites on a hook with something that moves than a lifeless piece of meat.
I can tell you have never been shark fishing, yet you are trying to tell someone how it works. The shark is not more likley to attack a dog than a piece of bloody chum. The only way that this would work is if the fishermen were chopping the dogs up and using them for bait in that way. Unless this is a sport of some sort, this isn't happening.
In order for this to work, the shark would have to take a bite that would completely consume the dog. Otherwise the hook would rip and the dog would just be torn to pieces and no shark would be caught.
As far as there being no target, you are wrong. Many people are opposed to shark fishing. Also, there are many people that are against sea fishing, they believe that we will destroy the supply of fish in the ocean.
Sea fishing is a very large industry, and if someone can target an exotic catch like a shark, and have the freakishly stupid animal rights activists boycott it successfully because of a made up story in a far off remote place, then they may think that they can prevent shark fishing everywhere. Granted the logic isn't air tight, but neither is the logic of most animal rights activists.
The dog would be bleeding heavily with a hook like that in his lip. And it's not sure that they only put the hook into the lips of the animals. Like I said before I don't think the fishermen can afford anything else than these animals they get for free, so how are they supposed to get these big chums of meat? I don't know what sharks you think of but I'm assuming that the sharks they are fishing after are pretty big 2-3 meters. A shark like that takes the dog in 1 bite easily.
I have never heard about a animal rights organisation that is against see fishing. And the animal rights people haven't said a single thing about shark fishing. They just said that threating animals like that is bad.
And btw, is AshenHand your alt on this forum?
Originally posted by AshenHand This is a fake story that all started from a Peta attempt at drawing in supporters. The dog got accidentaly hooked (by his own actions) and peta used the picture as an ad campaign that it displayed on several billboards around various cities saying "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why would you do it to a fish?"
The general population saw this and automatically assumed that people were now using dogs as fish bait. Which in turn led to the fake news sites exploiting it for their personal gain.
It's not physical possible that a dog did that by accident. And if it where the hook wouldn't be in his flesh in a so clean way. The news about this was in most major newspapers in my country, you saying they are fake?
Originally posted by Phoenixs Originally posted by disstress Originally posted by Phoenixs Originally posted by Umbrood The only horrid news here is that people, in this day and age and on the net, fall for these cams. Just look at that picture, now honestly, do you think that there is even a one in a TRILLION chance to catch a shark with that dog as bait? Not saying this story couldnt be true, cause it could, but it is NOT damnit, its like that old jar-kitten thing that was around a few years back, I could understand why people fell for that back then cause the internet was kinda new, but believeing this thing is just bloody stupid.
Dude what is wrong with you? You remind me of the people that believe holocaust never happened. Just because it's so cruel, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think that it's more likely that a animal rights organization tortures animals than people that really do it. Why should they do this propaganda? They hate poor fishermen so much that they have to get the whole world to punish them? It's just stupid to say that this is propaganda. Propaganda is used to "target" something. There is no target here.
This story is true. Remember these are poor fishermen that don't have the money to get huge chunks of meat as bait. These animals are free for them to capture. If it works for fishing sharks? Yes. The fishermen travel to reefs and places where they know the shark is. Then they throw small meat bits and stuff into the water to get the shark to the area around the boat. Then the animals with the hooks are dropped into the water. I think it's much more likely that a sharks bites on a hook with something that moves than a lifeless piece of meat.
I can tell you have never been shark fishing, yet you are trying to tell someone how it works. The shark is not more likley to attack a dog than a piece of bloody chum. The only way that this would work is if the fishermen were chopping the dogs up and using them for bait in that way. Unless this is a sport of some sort, this isn't happening.
In order for this to work, the shark would have to take a bite that would completely consume the dog. Otherwise the hook would rip and the dog would just be torn to pieces and no shark would be caught.
As far as there being no target, you are wrong. Many people are opposed to shark fishing. Also, there are many people that are against sea fishing, they believe that we will destroy the supply of fish in the ocean.
Sea fishing is a very large industry, and if someone can target an exotic catch like a shark, and have the freakishly stupid animal rights activists boycott it successfully because of a made up story in a far off remote place, then they may think that they can prevent shark fishing everywhere. Granted the logic isn't air tight, but neither is the logic of most animal rights activists.
The dog would be bleeding heavily with a hook like that in his lip. And it's not sure that they only put the hook into the lips of the animals. Like I said before I don't think the fishermen can afford anything else than these animals they get for free, so how are they supposed to get these big chums of meat? I don't know what sharks you think of but I'm assuming that the sharks they are fishing after are pretty big 2-3 meters. A shark like that takes the dog in 1 bite easily.
I have never heard about a animal rights organisation that is against see fishing. And the animal rights people haven't said a single thing about shark fishing. They just said that threating animals like that is bad.
And btw, is AshenHand your alt on this forum?
Originally posted by AshenHand This is a fake story that all started from a Peta attempt at drawing in supporters. The dog got accidentaly hooked (by his own actions) and peta used the picture as an ad campaign that it displayed on several billboards around various cities saying "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why would you do it to a fish?"
The general population saw this and automatically assumed that people were now using dogs as fish bait. Which in turn led to the fake news sites exploiting it for their personal gain.
It's not physical possible that a dog did that by accident. And if it where the hook wouldn't be in his flesh in a so clean way. The news about this was in most major newspapers in my country, you saying they are fake?
Nope, I don't need forum alts lol. I just think that animal rights activists are moronic. And no, the shark will not consume a full sized dog in one bite. Again, you are trying to explain something you know nothing about.
"see fishing" isn't anything, however "sea fishing" is, and Greenpeace is one of the biggest orginizations against it and learn about Paul Watson to see the connection there.
BTW where are the "major newspaper" stories about this, I can't seem to find them online.
Once, more, your biggest arguement is the fact that they cannot afford chum. If that is the case, then they would cop the dogs and cats up and use them as chum.
Originally posted by Orcc The hook's real, its in the video. But, like the one guy said on the one message board (linked to previously) using them as bait is completly impractical if not impossible: "We are shown lots of stay animals and then a dog with a hook though it's upper lips. While it is a vile thing that somebody has done to this dog I cannot see how in any way somebody could then use this animal alive for shark fishing. Were the animal towed behind a boat it would pull the hook through its lip leaving it to swim about. If it were thrown off the boat to swim about and it were to be taken by a shark again the lips would be ripped, leaving an empty hook and no shark. Nope, this whole thing stinks worse than a week old shark mixed with wet dog, I sense a set up. I will poke about still further but so far I have seen absolutely no coroboration of this seemingly ludicrous story." Not only that, a shark swallowing a dog that size whole while being possible, isnt likely. Also the chance of the hook actually then catching in the sharks mouth is near impossible. I think its all a bunch of crap made up to make something out to be worse than it really is.
That is the same thing I thought up. Besides, how effective is a hook on the upper lips? I would guess that they would rip off, but if not, a shark in my guess would just creep from behind and take the back off.
Maybe this hook in dog thing is just...eh...a thing for some peirced up guy who likes to fish
Originally posted by AshenHand This is a fake story that all started from a Peta attempt at drawing in supporters. The dog got accidentaly hooked (by his own actions) and peta used the picture as an ad campaign that it displayed on several billboards around various cities saying "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why would you do it to a fish?"
The general population saw this and automatically assumed that people were now using dogs as fish bait. Which in turn led to the fake news sites exploiting it for their personal gain.
That dose make sence...besides, I found turtle along time ago with a hook throught the upper mouth, through the head. Still alive.
It's not physical possible that a dog did that by accident. And if it where the hook wouldn't be in his flesh in a so clean way. The news about this was in most major newspapers in my country, you saying they are fake?
Yes, and please give us a link to said newspapers?
Mate, I understand some people are gullible but think of it this way, if this were true do you not think FOX, NBC, BBC, ABC or any number of newspapers would JUMP on this story, it is a GREAT story and had it been true it would have been ALL over the place, not just the net but every news channel on the planet would blow this up, huge.
The fact that they have not, not even the more obscure ones is proof enough that they at least found it to be untrue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I just wondered because he had the exact same opinion as you in your I hate PETA thread.
Greenpeace has nothing in common with the animal rights organizations we are dealing with in this case. Greenpeace is a enviromental organizations.
With saying they can't afford the chums I mean that after they have bought the food for their family and the fuel for the boats they can't afford to buy bait. And I don't think they are used to bying bait. In those countries you capture your bait. That is the tradition. Most things they do is after the traditions.
Originally posted by Phoenixs ok, I just wondered because he had the exact same opinion as you in your I hate PETA thread.Greenpeace has nothing in common with the animal rights organizations we are dealing with in this case. Greenpeace is a enviromental organizations. With saying they can't afford the chums I mean that after they have bought the food for their family and the fuel for the boats they can't afford to buy bait. And I don't think they are used to bying bait. In those countries you capture your bait. That is the tradition. Most things they do is after the traditions. This is the biggest newspaper in Norway: http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=107905
Find out about Paul Watson and his connections to PETA. PETA and Greenpeace have very tight connections in very subtle ways. These terrorist orginizations (yep I said it) need to be stopped and held accountable.
As far as that site goes, I can't read it, but it appears to be the same thing as the RSPCA site.
And Verdens Gang's only source is RSPCA, wich leads us back to square one.
Again im not saying that it is unbelievable something like this wouldnt happen, im just saying that THIS particular story is NOT true.
I can very well imagine that if using dogs and cats for shark bait would be an effective way then many would use it, but using the dog in the picture would be like hunting whales with knitting needles attached with yarn and cows glued to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Coronado is an Animal Liberation Front operative who served some 4 years for having torched a Michigan State University lab on Feb. 28, 1992. More interesting, immediately before and after the MSU fires, Coronado mailed two packages, one to PeTA founder Ingrid Newkirk, the other to PeTA member Maria Blanton, who Newkirk had asked to receive the package. Records found at Blanton's home showed that Coronado planned additional attacks on universities, one of which involved Alex Pacheco, another PeTA founder. A footnote states: "Significantly, Newkirk had arranged to have the package delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred."
PeTA likens the ALF to the Underground Railway and to the French resistence, defends violent actions (including vandalism and arson) in the name of animal liberation, and conveniently overlooks the injurious and life-threatening hazards to first-responders, pedestrians and motorists created when emergency vehicles dash to the conflagrations created by ALF "freedom fighters," and when firefighters fight the arsonist's blaze.
Don't blindly support a company or orginization because you think its "neat" or they do "good", look into the background and complaints, then campare with reputable sources. Now I want someone that actually reads all the information I provided, to come back witha reasonable arguement against my statements.
I've been searching for reputable sources holding this information and the only thing I can find is the sun. lol BTW if you don't know, the sun will take any story as long as you make up* I mean send in a photo. They even pay for it. The sun is a tabloid paper.
Originally posted by disstress I think I found the source of this story lol http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005450292,00.html I've been searching for reputable sources holding this information and the only thing I can find is the sun. lol BTW if you don't know, the sun will take any story as long as you make up* I mean send in a photo. They even pay for it. The sun is a tabloid paper.
Ahhhhh The Sun. Yeah I think it was the Sun that put out the story about this Giant chicken in Brazil that would swoop down from the mountians and carry away villagers. The locals called the chicken "Cocka-doodle-doom". Now thats what I call entertainment.
But seriously if this story about the shark bait ends up being true you can count on me raising Caine over it. No living creature should be treated like that.
Comments
Dude what is wrong with you? You remind me of the people that believe holocaust never happened. Just because it's so cruel, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think that it's more likely that a animal rights organization tortures animals than people that really do it. Why should they do this propaganda? They hate poor fishermen so much that they have to get the whole world to punish them? It's just stupid to say that this is propaganda. Propaganda is used to "target" something. There is no target here.
This story is true. Remember these are poor fishermen that don't have the money to get huge chunks of meat as bait. These animals are free for them to capture. If it works for fishing sharks? Yes. The fishermen travel to reefs and places where they know the shark is. Then they throw small meat bits and stuff into the water to get the shark to the area around the boat. Then the animals with the hooks are dropped into the water. I think it's much more likely that a sharks bites on a hook with something that moves than a lifeless piece of meat.
I can tell you have never been shark fishing, yet you are trying to tell someone how it works.
The shark is not more likley to attack a dog than a piece of bloody chum. The only way that this would work is if the fishermen were chopping the dogs up and using them for bait in that way. Unless this is a sport of some sort, this isn't happening.
In order for this to work, the shark would have to take a bite that would completely consume the dog. Otherwise the hook would rip and the dog would just be torn to pieces and no shark would be caught.
As far as there being no target, you are wrong. Many people are opposed to shark fishing. Also, there are many people that are against sea fishing, they believe that we will destroy the supply of fish in the ocean.
Sea fishing is a very large industry, and if someone can target an exotic catch like a shark, and have the freakishly stupid animal rights activists boycott it successfully because of a made up story in a far off remote place, then they may think that they can prevent shark fishing everywhere. Granted the logic isn't air tight, but neither is the logic of most animal rights activists.
The dog would be bleeding heavily with a hook like that in his lip. And it's not sure that they only put the hook into the lips of the animals. Like I said before I don't think the fishermen can afford anything else than these animals they get for free, so how are they supposed to get these big chums of meat?
I don't know what sharks you think of but I'm assuming that the sharks they are fishing after are pretty big 2-3 meters. A shark like that takes the dog in 1 bite easily.
I have never heard about a animal rights organisation that is against see fishing. And the animal rights people haven't said a single thing about shark fishing. They just said that threating animals like that is bad.
And btw, is AshenHand your alt on this forum?
It's not physical possible that a dog did that by accident. And if it where the hook wouldn't be in his flesh in a so clean way. The news about this was in most major newspapers in my country, you saying they are fake?
Dude what is wrong with you? You remind me of the people that believe holocaust never happened. Just because it's so cruel, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think that it's more likely that a animal rights organization tortures animals than people that really do it. Why should they do this propaganda? They hate poor fishermen so much that they have to get the whole world to punish them? It's just stupid to say that this is propaganda. Propaganda is used to "target" something. There is no target here.
This story is true. Remember these are poor fishermen that don't have the money to get huge chunks of meat as bait. These animals are free for them to capture. If it works for fishing sharks? Yes. The fishermen travel to reefs and places where they know the shark is. Then they throw small meat bits and stuff into the water to get the shark to the area around the boat. Then the animals with the hooks are dropped into the water. I think it's much more likely that a sharks bites on a hook with something that moves than a lifeless piece of meat.
I can tell you have never been shark fishing, yet you are trying to tell someone how it works.
The shark is not more likley to attack a dog than a piece of bloody chum. The only way that this would work is if the fishermen were chopping the dogs up and using them for bait in that way. Unless this is a sport of some sort, this isn't happening.
In order for this to work, the shark would have to take a bite that would completely consume the dog. Otherwise the hook would rip and the dog would just be torn to pieces and no shark would be caught.
As far as there being no target, you are wrong. Many people are opposed to shark fishing. Also, there are many people that are against sea fishing, they believe that we will destroy the supply of fish in the ocean.
Sea fishing is a very large industry, and if someone can target an exotic catch like a shark, and have the freakishly stupid animal rights activists boycott it successfully because of a made up story in a far off remote place, then they may think that they can prevent shark fishing everywhere. Granted the logic isn't air tight, but neither is the logic of most animal rights activists.
The dog would be bleeding heavily with a hook like that in his lip. And it's not sure that they only put the hook into the lips of the animals. Like I said before I don't think the fishermen can afford anything else than these animals they get for free, so how are they supposed to get these big chums of meat?
I don't know what sharks you think of but I'm assuming that the sharks they are fishing after are pretty big 2-3 meters. A shark like that takes the dog in 1 bite easily.
I have never heard about a animal rights organisation that is against see fishing. And the animal rights people haven't said a single thing about shark fishing. They just said that threating animals like that is bad.
And btw, is AshenHand your alt on this forum?
It's not physical possible that a dog did that by accident. And if it where the hook wouldn't be in his flesh in a so clean way. The news about this was in most major newspapers in my country, you saying they are fake?
Nope, I don't need forum alts lol. I just think that animal rights activists are moronic. And no, the shark will not consume a full sized dog in one bite. Again, you are trying to explain something you know nothing about.
"see fishing" isn't anything, however "sea fishing" is, and Greenpeace is one of the biggest orginizations against it and learn about Paul Watson to see the connection there.
BTW where are the "major newspaper" stories about this, I can't seem to find them online.
Once, more, your biggest arguement is the fact that they cannot afford chum. If that is the case, then they would cop the dogs and cats up and use them as chum.
That is the same thing I thought up. Besides, how effective is a hook on the upper lips? I would guess that they would rip off, but if not, a shark in my guess would just creep from behind and take the back off.
Maybe this hook in dog thing is just...eh...a thing for some peirced up guy who likes to fish
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
That dose make sence...besides, I found turtle along time ago with a hook throught the upper mouth, through the head. Still alive.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, I just wondered because he had the exact same opinion as you in your I hate PETA thread.
Greenpeace has nothing in common with the animal rights organizations we are dealing with in this case. Greenpeace is a enviromental organizations.
With saying they can't afford the chums I mean that after they have bought the food for their family and the fuel for the boats they can't afford to buy bait. And I don't think they are used to bying bait. In those countries you capture your bait. That is the tradition. Most things they do is after the traditions.
This is the biggest newspaper in Norway:
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=107905
Find out about Paul Watson and his connections to PETA. PETA and Greenpeace have very tight connections in very subtle ways. These terrorist orginizations (yep I said it) need to be stopped and held accountable.
As far as that site goes, I can't read it, but it appears to be the same thing as the RSPCA site.
And Verdens Gang's only source is RSPCA, wich leads us back to square one.
Again im not saying that it is unbelievable something like this wouldnt happen, im just saying that THIS particular story is NOT true.
I can very well imagine that if using dogs and cats for shark bait would be an effective way then many would use it, but using the dog in the picture would be like hunting whales with knitting needles attached with yarn and cows glued to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
Isn't it abit far calling these people terrorists? Who do they hurt?
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm
another source
http://www.undueinfluence.com/peta.htm
Rodney Coronado is an Animal Liberation Front operative who served some 4 years for having torched a Michigan State University lab on Feb. 28, 1992. More interesting, immediately before and after the MSU fires, Coronado mailed two packages, one to PeTA founder Ingrid Newkirk, the other to PeTA member Maria Blanton, who Newkirk had asked to receive the package. Records found at Blanton's home showed that Coronado planned additional attacks on universities, one of which involved Alex Pacheco, another PeTA founder. A footnote states: "Significantly, Newkirk had arranged to have the package delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred."
http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/10/vlasaks_rhetori.html
PeTA likens the ALF to the Underground Railway and to the French resistence, defends violent actions (including vandalism and arson) in the name of animal liberation, and conveniently overlooks the injurious and life-threatening hazards to first-responders, pedestrians and motorists created when emergency vehicles dash to the conflagrations created by ALF "freedom fighters," and when firefighters fight the arsonist's blaze.
http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=282
Just a link with more stupid PeTA crap:
http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2001/000247.html
More links supporting PeTA as a terrorist group:
http://www.cdfe.org/peta-probe.htm
And since someone said PeTA isn't against fishing I found some links to proove that you are wrong:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/17/national/main656288.shtml
http://fishinghurts.com/
http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/petaempathy.htm
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/07/05/dirks05.htm
Don't blindly support a company or orginization because you think its "neat" or they do "good", look into the background and complaints, then campare with reputable sources. Now I want someone that actually reads all the information I provided, to come back witha reasonable arguement against my statements.
I think I found the source of this story lol
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005450292,00.html
I've been searching for reputable sources holding this information and the only thing I can find is the sun. lol
BTW if you don't know, the sun will take any story as long as you make up* I mean send in a photo. They even pay for it. The sun is a tabloid paper.
Ahhhhh The Sun. Yeah I think it was the Sun that put out the story about this Giant chicken in Brazil that would swoop down from the mountians and carry away villagers. The locals called the chicken "Cocka-doodle-doom". Now thats what I call entertainment.
But seriously if this story about the shark bait ends up being true you can count on me raising Caine over it. No living creature should be treated like that.
PeTA's alternative to using dogs as bait: