Animal Cruelty Laws in Japan? Do they exist?

[Kyoto Returnee]

Do laws exists and if so, are they policed?

I've noticed how cruel some people treat dogs, leaving them tied up on leads 24/7, and no doubt other animals included as my wife keeps remidning me.

I used to see this often in the Kansai area..

Anybody else seen and/or heard first hand accounts of animal cruelty in Japan?

I know ARK (Animal Rescue Kansai exists) It's a non governmental organisation. http://www.arkbark.net/ (http://www.arkbark.net/) :122:

[Mikawa Ossan]

I think this the closest thing to what you are looking for. I have no idea how rigidly it is enforced.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8B%95%E7%89%A9%E3%81%AE%E6%84%9B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8 F%8A%E3%81%B3%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2% E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B

[centrajapan]

I've noticed how cruel some people treat dogs, leaving them tied up on leads 24/7, and no doubt other animals included as my wife keeps remidning me.

I used to see this often in the Kansai area..

true. In Norway it is too cold to have dogs outside so they are kept inside. It becomes completely different. Dogs here don't bark as they do in Japan and are less stressed.

[Kyoto Returnee]

I think this the closest thing to what you are looking for. I have no idea how rigidly it is enforced.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8B%95%E7%89%A9%E3%81%AE%E6%84%9B%E8%AD%B7%E5%8 F%8A%E3%81%B3%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2% E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B

Got through the translation. Thanks for posting.

[Sarapva]

Thanks for starting this thread, Kyoto - I've thought of starting a similar one. It's good to know that there are animal rights groups in Japan like ARK, and I know there's a Japan Greenpeace. I'd be interested also in any other information about animal welfare in Japan. I'd like to try to understand the Japanese way of thinking about animals.

Is there an English translation of that wikipedia article, Mikawa Ossan?

[Mikawa Ossan]

Is there an English translation of that wikipedia article, Mikawa Ossan?
http://www.med.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/lac/law&standard.html

This is not a translation of the page I gave a link to earlier, but rather an English translation of the laws in question.

[Astroboy]

Japan drops humpback whale hunt

A controversial Japanese mission to hunt humpback whales has been temporarily abandoned, a top government official says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7155255.stm

Again Japan bows to the external pressure. This is what Anglo-American aimed.
They say... "because we don't like, Japan must not do whaling."
Only hatred remains in Japan.

Japan is not a Islamic country, but I am more pro-Islam now!

[Kyoto Returnee]

Japan drops humpback whale hunt

Again Japan bows to the external pressure. This is what Anglo-American aimed.
They say... "because we don't like, Japan must not do whaling."
Only hatred remains in Japan.

Japan is not a Islamic country, but I am more pro-Islam now!

They may have "bowed" to external pressure, but they are still killing whales and dolphins.

It would be interesting to know exactly what "silent" pressure is in Japan.

I'm sure it's huge. I know most Japanese I have spoken to think it is barbaric and state they could never eat whale.

I would say the killing lies with the old boys in government and the hunters who get paid to slaughter the beautiful creatures..

I miss the point. What's Islam got to do with the whale and animal cruelty issue?

[Goldiegirl]

To me it seemed that many dogs were merely an accessory in Japan. They were dressed up and paraded around, but I couldn't see that there was a real attachment. Actually I get that impression a lot while in Japan. Of course all people are different and this was just my personal observation. My husband too, although he had a cat when growing up, nothing was spent on its care or well being. It was just there. If it ran away or got killed...oh well...

sorry I just had to add this. Do Japanese people really believe that you have to kill whales to study them scientifically? That is just so absurd and utterly ridiculous, perhaps we should then hunt gorillas, snow leopards, pandas and other animals to "study" them. I would think tracking them with radar and observation would be a better way to study whales than to kill them. AND if it is for science why then do they EAT them?

[pipokun]

...
sorry I just had to add this. Do Japanese people really believe that you have to kill whales to study them scientifically? That is just so absurd and utterly ridiculous, perhaps we should then hunt gorillas, snow leopards, pandas and other animals to "study" them. I would think tracking them with radar and observation would be a better way to study whales than to kill them. AND if it is for science why then do they EAT them?

Just google "Hunting Africa".
You can find so many proud hunters. (I know some money from the European/American hunters helps the preservation of animals.)

I heard KFC Japan conducts a ceremony every year for the chicken they use like many universites or corporate science laboratories do.
Killing animals and showing your appreciation to the lives is not mutually exclusive. If Japan consumed animal lives excessively, I mean there were super obese people eating much with dieting pills, or just dumped them for our scientific reserch, it must be a problem.

[Goldiegirl]

Yep money spent on hunting does go for preserving the very same animals that are being hunted, the difference is we don't "sugar coat" the hunting by saying it is for science. My husband and I argue on whaling weekly, he truly believes it's "science". I am amazed that anyone would believe that one! What a whopper!

[Sarapva]

http://www.med.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/lac/law&standard.html
This is not a translation of the page I gave a link to earlier, but rather an English translation of the laws in question.

Thanks, MO! It looks like these are for animals used in experiments. I wonder if there are any government laws about animals in general - pets and wild animals?

posted by Kyoto Returnee:
I would say the killing lies with the old boys in government and the hunters who get paid to slaughter the beautiful creatures..

This is from the BBC in a different story related to the one Astroboy posted:

In the past officials from Japan's foreign ministry complained privately that a small but vocal minority in parliament and in the fishing industry were tarnishing the country's image abroad, by insisting on the right to continue whaling in the face of international condemnation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7156288.stm

It sounds like the pro-whalers in Japan are a miniority that knows how to get its voice heard. But it also sounds like the rest of the Japanese government might be against whaling.

As for the "scientific research": I think the Japanese whalers and the IWC both know it's just a legal term to cover the IWC's compromising because of Japan's insistence that they keep their whaling tradition.

[Astroboy]

Thanks, MO! It looks like these are for animals used in experiments. I wonder if there are any government laws about animals in general - pets and wild animals?
posted by Kyoto Returnee:
This is from the BBC in a different story related to the one Astroboy posted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7156288.stm
It sounds like the pro-whalers in Japan are a miniority that knows how to get its voice heard. But it also sounds like the rest of the Japanese government might be against whaling.
As for the "scientific research": I think the Japanese whalers and the IWC both know it's just a legal term to cover the IWC's compromising because of Japan's insistence that they keep their whaling tradition.

Congratulation. You win for the time being.

BTW it is interesting to see that foreigners cannot see "inside Japan".
Western media e.g. BBC/NY times... looks idiots.
Probably Westerners cannot read Japanese text, while it is already times of internet and translation software. In other words, they always rely on limited English source for information about Japan.... being the same as 100 years ago.

[centrajapan]

Yep money spent on hunting does go for preserving the very same animals that are being hunted, the difference is we don't "sugar coat" the hunting by saying it is for science. My husband and I argue on whaling weekly, he truly believes it's "science". I am amazed that anyone would believe that one! What a whopper!

Had it not been for Japan's sceince we would not have known that various whale spicies are no where near being endangered. Japan's scientific research programme has been hailed by the IWC Scientific committee. The Scentific Committee consists of both tolerant and racist scientists.

I don't think any country is as tolerant and kind to forreign irrational sentiments as Japan is.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Thanks, MO! It looks like these are for animals used in experiments. I wonder if there are any government laws about animals in general - pets and wild animals?

I'm sorry, I should have been more thorough. Apparently the English version does not translate most of the law (at least for the first one "Law Concerning the Protection and Control of Animals"). I'll be having a lot of time soon, so I might even translate the rest myself for you. (But keep posting here, as otherwise I might forgot about this.....sorry. Sounds bad, but it's the honest truth.m(__)m)

[Sarapva]

Thank you, MO! I'll do some searching myself for Japanese welfare laws. I'm sure there's an English version somewhere online.

Posted by Astroboy:
Congratulation. You win for the time being.

I'm really not trying to win anything. I'd like to just come to some understanding. Maybe you could help us westerners to understand how Japanese people think about animals(?). Do you know of any animal welfare laws?

[Astroboy]

I don't think any country is as tolerant and kind to forreign irrational sentiments as Japan is.

....and they change the rule as they did before.
They will again change the rule when whales become a threat to other resource of sea.

[pipokun]

Yep money spent on hunting does go for preserving the very same animals that are being hunted, the difference is we don't "sugar coat" the hunting by saying it is for science. My husband and I argue on whaling weekly, he truly believes it's "science". I am amazed that anyone would believe that one! What a whopper!

What is coated on the only people in the rich oil-producing state having the right to whale? And Alaska is also one of the states who is tackling with the problem, obesity, isn't it?

As said, protecting animal right and consuming animal is not mutually exclusive, but it is a problem to cosume excessively.

[Kyoto Returnee]

As said, protecting animal right and consuming animal is not mutually exclusive, but it is a problem to cosume excessively.

"Scientific Purposes"

[Goldiegirl]

I would just like the Japanese people to say they HUNT whales...there's no need to lie and say it is for science. What has whale hunting have to do with obesity in Alaska. Oh, so maybe if Japan kills all the whale Alaskans will be skinny?

[Sarapva]

I've found some information about Japanese animals welfare laws. This is from an article about animal welfare laws in Japan:

Companion animals are the most protected category of animal group in Japan. In 1973 the Law for the Protection and Management of Animals was enacted which included a standard of proper feeding and custody of dogs and cats (Takeuchi, 2003). This was amended in 1999, with a name change to the Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals and the standard changed from "dogs and cats" to home animals" which includes those kept at schools and in shelters (Takeuchi, 2003). Penalties for the unnecessary killing of an animal increased from a maximum of US$250 to US$8500 and/or up to 1 years imprisonment, while for animal abuse from US$250 to US$2500 (Takeuchi, 2003). The first felony conviction, for the torture and killing of a kitten, occurred in 2002 (Wikipedia, 2007).

http://www.helium.com/tm/553714/essay-discusses-socio-economics


And this is from Animal Refuge Kansai (ARK):

In 1973 the Japanese hastily put together a law called the Animal Protection and Control Law in time for the visit to Japan of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II. They wanted to show the world they cared about the welfare of Japanese animals. This law however, dubbed the ' sieve law' was primarily designed to protect people from animals, not the other way around. It was totally ineffective, unknown (to authorities like the police) and therefore unenforceable. It had no definition of cruelty and the handful of truly terrible cases that have been prosecuted in nearly 30 years have been let off with a paltry 30,000 yen ( 250 US $) fine, less than one would get for stealing a bicycle.

It was generally acknowledged by everyone that the 1973 law was in need of repeal so a coalition of over 100 animal groups joined together to begin planning and lobbying for this. However differences emerged within the coalition over what people wanted or expected. Some wanted experimental animals included in the new law. Getting a law before the Japanese Diet requires a lot of backroom lobbying of MPs from the ruling Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP). Since big business and politics go hand in hand in Japan, any talk of controlling the way pharmaceutical companies dealt with experimental animals was obviously an anathema to politians. In fact they said that unless the clause about experimental animals was dropped, they wouldn't co-operate at all. Unbeknown to the majority of coalition members, all of whom had paid a membership fee, secret negotiations took place between the 'well-known', well-in with the government' animal welfare groups and the LDP. They announced the new law (hardly debated) as passed, a fait accompli. Members of the coalition were furious at the way they had been passed over without any consultation. They were even more furious when they saw that the new law was virtually the same as the old one dressed up with a few cosmetic changes.

The small changes include a name change from Protection and Control to Doubutsu Aigo (Love Animals) Protection and Control Law and a raising of fines for cruelty. The only redeeming feature of the new law is that it has to come up for revision within 5 years, so we have three years to go. Whether an effective revision can indeed be realized, depends on the unity of opinion among animal welfare groups and getting sympathetic politicians working on our side.

http://www.arkbark.net/e/index.htm

[Elizabeth]

What is coated on the only people in the rich oil-producing state having the right to whale?
Hunting is Alaska is sanctioned through the International subsistence whaling exemption. Same with Russia, Canada, etc. It is a condition that doesn't apply to the Makah nation off Seattle, as one example, who always build an appeal not on grounds of subsistence, but rather of 'cultural necessity.'

Nothing to do with oil-richness which, by the way, doesn't trickle down to any particular benefit to the indigenous people.

[maxcohen]

I read a recent story about a guy beating a chihuahua to death because "It scared him" 0.o

[Otenba]

I agree that most dogs I've seen looked like accessories. Most were pure-bred toy breeds like Pommeranians, Chihuahuas and other tinys, and ofcourse Shibas. Their character is something else. I'm very involved with the breed Akita (Japanese type, not American bootleg) and many breeders boast with having imported Akitas from Japan. However, those dogs and their direct descendants/offspring often come with personalities... Stay away. Do not touch. Do not get close.
For the simple reason that those dogs don't get cuddled or socialized in Japan most of the time. They're kept in kennels, even small crates, all day, for the sole purpose of looking pretty and making their owner look prestigious which has to do with the history of the Akita. Japanese people I talked to about Akitas, often said those dogs scared them. After listening to their experiences, I would bring up my 2 Akitas which were bred in France, and mention how much they loved people and physical contact. "USO!"...

Although, except for Akitas, I noticed that large dogs seem to have better owners. While I've seen toy dogs to be degraded to just that - toys - large dogs seem to trigger a greater sense of responsibility and they did not wear diamond collars, but their owners did seem like they had a bond with their animal. Even shared a bench to sleep on together. Unfortunately, Akitas seem exempt from this and doomed to live in cages in too many cases.

About whaling for science: apparantly, everything is tolerated in the name of science, but some science must yet proove it's purpose. I mean, I've seen "scientists" tie a cat to a table, NOT sedate it, cut it's head open, remove its brain with a tea spoon and replace it with cotton balls. The only science I saw being done there, was "How far can a normal person actually go in their cruelty without flinching?"....

And if that killing is meant to preserve the same species of whales... Well, after you killed 98 out of a 100, 2 have indeed been "preserved". Let's hope they're not both of the same sex.
No, I do not think that only rich, oil-blessed nations should be allowed to kill, drop nukes, throw their weight around and so on. They should ALL be under stricter international control if they cannot control themselves. This may sound cheesy, but if my child will one day ask me where she or he can see dolphins in real life after having fallen in love with them from pictures, I don't think I could take telling my kid that they've all been butchered. As cheesy as it may sound, we should ALL be concerned and enthousiastic in preserving this one and only world we live in, and its unique life forms that have made so many happy - alive.

I've seen one animal shelter having a stand in Shinjuku to collect donations and spread information. Everytime someone got involved with them, they looked so happy it seemed like they didn't get much attention. I'll never understand how you can "love" your pet only as long as it's cute. My 5 cats and 2 dogs make me so happy. Warm, cuddly, no opinion, unconditional acceptance of their keeper and so modest. They deserve better than being deserted after growing out of their pink dress.

[Sarapva]

Well said, Otenba! Thank you for all that "inside" information.

[mael]

I used to see many dogs tethered to short leashes who never got taken for walks or patted and petted.

They'd usually lunge at people walking past and scare the bejesus out of them. I for one contemplated a swift kick in the chops on several occasions. But of course the poor things are that way because of their apathetic owners.
Then there are the dogs who bark all night long. Now those canines came close to being dealt with by me. - But that was years ago when I lived in Koshien.

Now I live on a small island south of Kagoshima, and y'know; it's not much better. I sure wish people wouldn't get a dog on a whim and then make everyone suffer for the dozen or so years it'll live. Or at least stick a muzzle on the ones that frighten everyone and bark all the time.

I've got a cat - or rather the cat has got me. I feed it and so it 'loves' me. But unlike a well-trained dog, I'm sure the moggy would eat me if it got the chance.

I ought to be reported because of my goldfish. I haven't changed the water in my 100 litre tank for a year!

[Pachipro]

It really bothered me in Japan when I would walk by the same house day after day and their poor dog was kept on a short tether at the side of the house and never once taken for walk that I had seen. It was not just this one dog, but many other large dogs. Most of the "sissy" small dogs were loved and kept in the house by their owner. I could never understand it as I was brought up with dogs and they were always kept in the house, played with, fed, walked. TYhey became "one of the family".

One Japanese person told me that large dogs should be kept oiutside and never allowed in the house. When I questioned him as to why have one then, he replied because it was "cool".

When I moved to the south here in the US I noticed the same thing. Large dogs were kept outside and are rarely allowed in the house, but a small "sissy" dog was always allowed in the house. Here in the south, they use them mostly as guard dogs for their barking, but it is as sad as in Japan. When I asked an aquaintance about this here he said basically the same thing the Japanese man told me. Large dogs are to be kept outside and not allowed in the house. Rain, snow, hot, cold, the poor things are kept outside and rarely walked. A very sad situation indeed.

I don't know what the laws are in Japan, but they should be updated and enforced. If one is going to have a dog, they should be cared for and walked and played with as a member of the family even if they are kept outside. If not, then they should be forbidden to have one. At least here in the US if one's animal is kept outside on hot days or on really cold days one can call the police and they will be cited for cruelty to animals.

[Otenba]

@mael
Putting a muzzle on a dog for longer than maybe a walk outside, is animal cruelty. A muzzle DOES allow a dog to bark, only not to bite. And most muzzles don't allow dogs to drink. Japanese climate + dehydration = certain death.
I agree the curs should be socialized better though. I hate dogs jumping up fences baring their teeth at me for walking by. There's that Rottweiler here, I swear, one day he'll make it over the fence and judging from his behavior, he WILL kill someone.

[Sarapva]

Here's a web page that explains why it's dangerous to keep dogs chained:

http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_chained.asp

We can’t think of a crueler punishment for these social pack animals who want—and deserve—companionship, scratches behind the ears, walks around the block, and the opportunity to curl up at your feet at night.

“Chaining a dog is arguably the single most dangerous condition in which to maintain a dog.”
–Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks
Many communities across America and beyond have learned the hard way that chaining dogs is dangerous to the public, especially children. Chaining dogs—also called “tethering”—is a safety hazard for both dogs and communities.

[Otenba]

The quote you posted explains nothing, it's merely an emotional blurb about how dogs deserve cuddling, and a few quotes about how chaining dogs sucks.
I've read the link, and it's merely statements and "boohoo dogs deserve better". The linked list of attacks, well, few cases include the place of attack or the victim's behavior/location, plus, just as many attacks include dogs that have not been chained. Any list of dog attacks, chained or not, can grow that long.
If a trespasser is attacked by a dog on that dog's own ground, it hardly matters whether that dog was chained or not. Dogs usually defend their territory, thank god, and there's an easy way to avoid it: don't trespass, it's a crime anyways.
The dogs that have broken free and attacked: yes, having been chained may be the cause of aggression, but that is not due to the chain as an object, but due to what it meant to the dog: being excluded from the outside world, not being properly socialized and warmed up to humans and other "things" if he had been chained for the most important part of his life. A dog that has lived in a kennel or (unchained) in some backyard or basement, will be just as dangerous. Take the 2 Pitbulls in Switzerland for example, they have been living in a basement until managing to break out. First thing they did was kill a young boy.
Chaining ruins a dog ONLY when the chain has permanently banned it from socializing and getting to know the outside world. But this can also happen without a chain. If my garden had no fence, I'd put my dogs on a (long) leash or chain as well, but I can assure you they will not become blood-thirsty monsters, for the simple reason that I will take them along everywhere I go so they can interact with people and get some fresh air. However, if you trespass, you will have to face 100% logical consequences. Mauling trespassers is not the fault of a chain but of the trespasser, ONLY.

[Sarapva]

This might have been a better page to explain why chained dogs attack:

http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_chained_why.asp

The short answer, according to renowned animal behavior specialist Shelby Marlo, is that “dogs who are forced to live their lives at the end of a chain suffer from severe psychological, emotional, and behavioral effects.”

According to Sue Sternberg, an expert in dog aggression, “A chained dog is an unsupervised dog, so without human intervention, the chained dog can, and usually does, rehearse aggressive behavioral sequences over and over again.” Sternberg continues, “For the chained dog, these behavioral sequences get stronger and stronger, and his aggression increases with every passing day. … It is usually only a matter of time … before a mauling occurs.”

[mael]

I just think that if people must have their dogs then they should be INSIDE the house or inside their property - Not just behind a fence or at the end of a leash/chain.

People'd soon learn to take the mutt for walkies if it poos on the floor and barks all the time.

[Otenba]

Barking and shitting inside ain't a question of walking, it's a question of education. I'm not very well at the moment so I can't take my dogs outside much, yet they never bark or **** inside :D Education, education, education....

[mael]

Barking and shitting inside ain't a question of walking, it's a question of education. I'm not very well at the moment so I can't take my dogs outside much, yet they never bark or **** inside :D Education, education, education....

... ... someone who became a relative of mine recently took their hound to the local pound for recycling (lethal injection). It would have been about eight years old, and was originally a present for her son. But the novelty effect wore off within a short space of time and it was thereafter left outside in all weathers on a really short chain.

It was not a small dog. It was quite big and very capable of seriously injuring or killing someone if it had the chance. It barked all night and attacked anyone who came near it INCLUDING the owner.

Now had that dog shared the house with the family then things would most likely have turned-out very different. The unfortunate neighbours wouldn't have had to 'enjoy' it for one, and it may have been capable of providing comfort for the family and maybe it would have helped to have prevented the family from falling apart? Well anyway it's gone now and good riddance. It lived longer than it would have were I to have been living within hearing distance of the noise it made.

Another relative by an altogether different marriage used to have a dog as well. But this was a little pomeranian. I don't think it ever got further than the elevator, and it is unlikely it ever walked on grass. But it was loved and doted on for all its thirteen years of life. It used the balcony for its calls of nature, and only yapped when there was a stranger around the apartment. - Funny thing was that the dog would bark like crazy whenever the caretaker of the apartments was about - perhaps it knew something we ought to have known about him? After such a sedentary existence the dog wasn't much good for games. In fact it broke its leg jumping off the sofa. It got a decent funeral as well.

Personally I would be averse to living somewhere where there is a dog because I have learned from experience that the chances are that I'm going to be kept awake at night by its barking. And when a neighbour suddenly gets a dog then I usually feel my days are numbered there. I'd be happy for a ban on dogs outside in certain areas, like in the cities and town, and even in the suburbs - unless it was kept inside and only went out on a leash for periodic walks. - Or if the owners had to get the animal operated on to stop it barking.

The laws on animal cruelty here are not enforced much. And even though it doesn't affect me, I think people can do what they like to their animals. It's up to their individual conciences. But if the laws governing cruelty to animals is enforced in public then that'd be nice. (I don't like to see acts of cruelty in public).

[Otenba]

omeone who became a relative of mine recently took their hound to the local pound for recycling (lethal injection). It would have been about eight years old, and was originally a present for her son. But the novelty effect wore off within a short space of time and it was thereafter left outside in all weathers on a really short chain.
That's just disgusting, such people should be prohibited to ever keep a pet again. Which would be the case in some European countries. F*ck up too bad with your previous pet, and you will be punished next time someone reports you having a new pet.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Now I live on a small island south of Kagoshima, and y'know; it's not much better. I sure wish people wouldn't get a dog on a whim and then make everyone suffer for the dozen or so years it'll live. Or at least stick a muzzle on the ones that frighten everyone and bark all the time.
I've got a cat - or rather the cat has got me. I feed it and so it 'loves' me. But unlike a well-trained dog, I'm sure the moggy would eat me if it got the chance.
I ought to be reported because of my goldfish. I haven't changed the water in my 100 litre tank for a year!



Did you get your goldfish on a whim? It just seems kinda hypocritical, that on the one hand, you rant at those who get animals and don't look after them properly, but then confess to keeping your goldfish in squalid conditions! That tank must look disgusting after a year without cleaning...

You should do a 30-60% water change once a week with dechlorinator and clean the filter sponges out roughly on old waste tank water whenever the filters current starts to weaken. Not doing water changes often enough will cause a build up of toxins in the tanks water which will put a strain on the fishes kidneys and shorten its natural life expectancy.

It has been scientifically proven that fish do feel pain and stress, and that goldfish do actually have a decent short term memory of 3-4hrs and a long term memory of many months, and that they also have the ability to differentiate between different people's faces etc.
Whatever opinions you may have on fish and animal cruelty/neglect, there is no good excuse to neglect pet fish- if anything, because pet fish are at our total mercy (they can't escape like a cat can), so you should display even more responsibility towards the upkeep of fish.
Go get some dechlorinator and do that water change :cool: ! Since the tank has not had a water change for so long, you don't want to shock the fish too much by doing a massive one, so just do a few small ones over the following days- the fish will really appreciate it :cool: .

[Sarapva]

That's right - Thanks, Tokis. Fish aren't respected enough for the intelligent beings they are, and still aren't understood enough to be taken care of properly in a lot of instances.

Fish are still exempt from animal welfare laws in the U.S. They do feel pain, recognize humans, and can even have a sense of humor. But I wouldn't encourage anyone to get a fish tank who doesn't already have one. There are too many things that can go wrong in a "closed system", especially for a beginning fishkeeper. And as Tokis said, the fish can't go anywhere - they're completely at our mercy for their health and well-being.

I think Italy has a law against keeping goldfish in bowls. Other countries will probably be following Italy's lead as people become more educated about fish.

[moffeltoff]

Laws can be broken or pushed aside by money.
Every buisness ,that produces money will sooner or later be established with or without consent by the lawmaker.
The problem is not ,that there are no laws ,the problem is ,that the democratic system which relies on ethical roots such as the idea of equality concerning the law, dignity of any human being (and to a certain extent ,that of animals as well) and the idea of the people governing themselfs is in total contrast to the capitalistic economy we live in today.
Friedmans and Hayeks promises of individual freedom and prosperity have moved so far out of most peoples reach ,that even with greatest personal effort they are barely seizable.
But donｴt get me wrong I donｴt believe in communism ,I believe ,that to a certain point competition is a good thing ,but I also believe ,that in order for a nation to truly be democratic all aspects must be democratic including the economy.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

That's right - Thanks, Tokis. Fish aren't respected enough for the intelligent beings they are, and still aren't understood enough to be taken care of properly in a lot of instances.
Fish are still exempt from animal welfare laws in the U.S. They do feel pain, recognize humans, and can even have a sense of humor. But I wouldn't encourage anyone to get a fish tank who doesn't already have one. There are too many things that can go wrong in a "closed system", especially for a beginning fishkeeper. And as Tokis said, the fish can't go anywhere - they're completely at our mercy for their health and well-being.
I think Italy has a law against keeping goldfish in bowls. Other countries will probably be following Italy's lead as people become more educated about fish.



I agree :cool: .

I think its a real shame that so many countries in the world (including my own homeland, England) don't do enough to protect fish from mistreatment/cruelty and neglect.
Japan is no exception with this- for example, on the one hand, while i love the traditions and flamboyance of the summer festivals in Japan, i don't like the traditional goldfish scooping games that are so often played at such festivals.

Most goldfish won in such games get taken to their new home (after experiencing large changes in temperature being swung around in a tiny bag all night long) and dumped in a cold bowl filled up with undechlorinated tap water. The fishes new owner might go out in the next few days and buy some food for the fish (of which they will probably over or under-feed the fish with), but the fish is unlikely to ever have its living accommodations upgraded to anything more than a cold un-filtered tiny bowl.
Putting a goldfish in an un-filtered small bowl is literally giving it a death sentence- a goldfish can never thrive nor grow to maturity in such conditions. Most bowl goldfish live just days/weeks/months in their bowl before the toxins from waste build-up in the bowl kills them, however occasionally you might get a goldfish that lives for a few years in a bowl. But this is nothing in comparison to the life expectancy it should live for, which for a goldfish should be between 15-25years or more (the longest lived goldfish ever recorded so far lived to 47years old- and it lived in a large filtered properly maintained tank as well).

So i totally think that bowls advertised as living accommodation for goldfish should be banned, as well as the giving away of goldfish as prizes at fairs- especially considering that these animals can experience suffering and distress.

Proof that goldfish are intelligent;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQKZOaB6cY&NR=1

:cool: .


With the Japan and animal cruelty thing, although i'm sure that its not intentionally cruel to animals in this particular manner, the inbreeding problem of Japan's pedigree pets has become extremely bad due to the fad pet crazes that so often quickly come about in Japan and which demand masses of a certain pedigree animal to be bred from a small population of such animals present in Japan at the time of the pet craze in question.

Also, on a darker note, there is also intentional inbreeding amongst the pedigree breeders in Japan. Pedigree animals like toy dog breeds are incredibly desirable in Japan, however at the same time, even more desirable is pedigree
toy dogs that have slight flaws which make them more unique and thus desirable.
For example, take "blue" Chihuahua's- these are a very rare color variant of the usual coloring found in Chihuahua's. People pay big money for these little odd dogs, and the Japanese are no exception. Because of the high demand for such rare pedigree dogs and the high profits that can be made from breeding them, many have taken to breeding these dogs. If you inbreed the dogs, the rare blue gene is far more likely to show up in litters though, so unfortunately many people intentionally inbreed these little dogs in the hope of producing blue chihuahua pups in litters, to be sold for large amounts of money.
But the inbreeding is so intense, it has horrible effects on the inbred dogs- not only terrible mental disorders, but also horrific physical deformities. The breeders cull such deformed dogs, but the amount of culling that is involved to produce one rare variety can be immense, and the rare variety pup that is produced may itself have noticeable inbred defects in its nature and health etc.
For more info, check out this news article;

"Japan, Home of the Cute and Inbred Dog";

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28dogs.html?fta=y


Personally, i think this intentional/knowing intense inbreeding of animals amounts to animal cruelty, and that the Japanese government should put into place rules and regulations to help prevent breeders inbreeding pedigree animals like dogs too much. What do you think?

[Sarapva]

Personally, i think this intentional/knowing intense inbreeding of animals amounts to animal cruelty, and that the Japanese government should put into place rules and regulations to help prevent breeders inbreeding pedigree animals like dogs too much. What do you think?

I agree completely. People need to change their thinking about animals, not just in Japan but everywhere. Here, betta fish are used as prizes at parties, like the goldfish in Japan. Of course, they usually suffer the same fate from being in the hands of someone who doesn't know the proper way to take care of them.

Animals are not objects to be manipulated to get the "right" one (like the inbreeding), or thrown away because they're not the right one. They're living things with feelings and the capacity to feel immense pain, just like us. They also have differing personalities like us. We need to take more responsibility in our treatment of animals, and be stewards of them along with the environment and the earth.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Yeah betta fish always seem to be quite mistreated- i've seen some of those horrible tiny bowls for betta's directed at children sold on ebay, like this one;

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-DISNEY-PRINCESS-BETTA-BOWL-SO-CUTE_W0QQitemZ360076621504QQihZ023QQcategoryZ20755 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I mean dude, that must only contain a liter or two of water tops!

Fish have to be the most mistreated animals in the pet world, however there is also so much cruelty in other types of pet keeping too...I agree with you that the problem is everywhere in the world (although Japan does seem to be worse in some area's of pet keeping in comparison to certain countries in the west etc).

I think that ignorance is the main cause of the problem here though. While on the one hand, its true that animals tend to have better rights these days, overall human population knowledge on keeping animals doesn't seem to have improved that much, which is not good considering that we now have a greater access to buying a greater variety of animals more than ever. Not only that, but our cultures are more materialistic and instant than ever now days, which isn't good since because of this, so many people buy animals on a whim or as accessories or status symbols etc.
I'm sure most people care about animals though, and if they knew what they were doing was causing harm to their pet, i'm sure many would would stop doing what they were doing.

I personally don't think that certain animals should be deliberately advertised as great amusements for children to have. While its certain that pets can be fantastic for kids, kids now days expect a lot more from games and toys and entertainment in general, and so most young children bore very easily when it comes to pets like goldfish and hamsters etc (which only get forgotten and neglected when the child does bore of it). I don't think parents should use pets to teach their kids responsibility, and i don't think parents should give their children pets of their own until they are older and more responsible.
I cringed the other day when i was down at the petshop buying some pet food, when i saw a mother who had just bought her little boy some fish and this little boy was holding the bag and shaking it, trying to make the fish panic and move. Of course, the weary looking mother had just given into her sons persistent winging to let him have some fish, and was not paying any attention towards him as he terrorized his new fish in their bag- i felt so sorry for those fish.

[Sarapva]

I personally don't think that certain animals should be deliberately advertised as great amusements for children to have. .... I don't think parents should use pets to teach their kids responsibility, and i don't think parents should give their children pets of their own until they are older and more responsible.

I'm in complete agreement here. Unfortunately, pets and especially fish are the unwilling recipients of our mistakes while we learn how to take care of them. I know how you felt when seeing that little boy shaking a fish bag. His mother should have at least taken that opportunity to teach him to show some respect for the fish instead of thinking of them as just another "toy" for her child. This is what I think is wrong: people everywhere have the perspective that animals are here for our entertainment or amusement or food, when in reality animals have much of the same feelings we have.

PETA's slogan sounds more true all the time to me: "Animals are not ours to eat, to wear, to experiment on, or to use for our entertainment."

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-uncompromisingstands.asp

[RolandtheHeadless]

The most interesting issue raised here is why Westerners think it's necessary to lecture others about morality and impose their own value system on others.

I think it's a reflection of the Western Christian evangelical tradition. Now that may seem like a contradiction -- after all, the Christian Bible does say that all animals and plants were put on earth by God for human use.

But it's not Christian doctrine that's being reflected here; it's the mindset that it's entirely appropriate to moralize and impose one's values on others.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The most interesting issue raised here is why Westerners think it's necessary to lecture others about morality and impose their own value system on others.
I think it's a reflection of the Western Christian evangelical tradition. Now that may seem like a contradiction -- after all, the Christian Bible does say that all animals and plants were put on earth by God for human use.
But it's not Christian doctrine that's being reflected here; it's the mindset that it's entirely appropriate to moralize and impose one's values on others.


I'm not a religious person and i am not trying to impose my values on non-westerners anymore than you are trying to impose your views on me- i was merely having a debate/discussion with others and that is all. Everybody is concerned about morality and ethics, and so they should be- would you rather live in a society where nobody cared about other people's ethics/morality/values and how they behaved?

[grapefruit]

I agree with the idea that people should pay more attention to how animals are treated and try to reduce the suffering experienced by animals. But, unless you are vegetarian, it is impossible to grant animal rights to all sentient beings. What is more likely to happen instead is that people draw their attention only to those animals that they feel close to or familiar with. Those who love dogs naturally emphasize how dogs should be treated. Those who enjoy whale watching might feel uncomfortable observing Japanese scientific fleet crossing the ocean and hunting whales. Such preferential attitudes might appear hypocritical to those who happen to be involved with particular animals. They might feel "why are you suddenly talking only about whaling while neglecting other animal sufferings including the animal which you had for lunch today?"

But, I'm curious why we are less critical about how fish are treated. Peter Singer mentions our insensitivity to fish that fish are normally slowly suffocated when they are caught. The same Japanese person who will be disgusted to witness some animal being slaughtered does not necessarily feel ill to see some fish moving its mouth at the edge of his plate or might enjoy such a scene as a sign of freshness.

Yet, again this might be a cultural issue. Ordinary Japanese do not feel comfortable seeing a chicken sold with its head still attached, but Chinese people display the opposite reaction: appearing tasty.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I agree with the idea that people should pay more attention to how animals are treated and try to reduce the suffering experienced by animals. But, unless you are vegetarian, it is impossible to grant animal rights to all sentient beings. What is more likely to happen instead is that people draw their attention only to those animals that they feel close to or familiar with. Those who love dogs naturally emphasize how dogs should be treated. Those who enjoy whale watching might feel uncomfortable observing Japanese scientific fleet crossing the ocean and hunting whales. Such preferential attitudes might appear hypocritical to those who happen to be involved with particular animals. They might feel "why are you suddenly talking only about whaling while neglecting other animal sufferings including the animal which you had for lunch today?"


My personal feelings on animals and rights in general is this: All animals are equal and so should all be treated equally and well. I don't believe it is wrong to kill an animal for food, however i do think that animals raised or hunted for food should be treated well and have their basic needs attended to properly (like decent amount of space to roam in, good diet, clean living quarters, animal not kept in isolation if it is sociable animal etc), and should not be caused to suffer unnecessarily (for example when the animal's time is up, it should be killed in a humane and attentive manner, even if it is more costly to do so).

If all animals were treated this way, then much of the cruelty involved in the animal human world (for example like in certain farming industries) would be immediately eradicated. Unfortunately though a lot of people put profit before animal welfare and so the animal suffers throughout its entire existence (which is highly immoral/wrong).

But, I'm curious why we are less critical about how fish are treated. Peter Singer mentions our insensitivity to fish that fish are normally slowly suffocated when they are caught. The same Japanese person who will be disgusted to witness some animal being slaughtered does not necessarily feel ill to see some fish moving its mouth at the edge of his plate or might enjoy such a scene as a sign of freshness.

Yet, again this might be a cultural issue. Ordinary Japanese do not feel comfortable seeing a chicken sold with its head still attached, but Chinese people display the opposite reaction: appearing tasty.


I think a lot of people are insensitive to fish because a lot of people are unfortunately very ignorant about fish and believe them to be on the same level intelligence and feeling wise as that of insects, mollusks, bugs etc.
I think a lot of people see the fish more as an object, a piece of food (like those Asian people who like that "live fish on the dish" sashimi meal), rather than a living, breathing, feeling creature.

Ordinary Japanese do not feel comfortable seeing a chicken sold with its head still attached, but Chinese people display the opposite reaction: appearing tasty.

I think that is possibly because;

a. The Japanese don't like seeing the head on the animal because it makes the animal seem more real to them- the Japanese (like many other people), like their ham to look like ham and not look like a pig. Any indication that the meat was once a cuddly living animal makes the meat-eater in question feel guilty and very uncomfortable.

Personally, i don't think such people should be eating meat at all- if you cannot properly and comfortably come to the terms with the fact that what you are eating is an animal, then you shouldn't try and hide in denial and continue to eat.
I personally believe that the decision to eat meat should not be one that should be taken lightly or ignorantly- eating an animal means killing it, and to kill anything is a grave matter. If you don't know where your food (i.e. animal produce) comes from and how it is prepared, then you really shouldn't be eating it, because otherwise how can you say that you've really thought through what you are doing when you are choosing to live in partial ignorance about what you are doing?

I eat meat, not often i admit, but i have no gripes about killing, preparing or eating an animal. I do however care massively how the animal i eat was raised in life and killed- i am against practices that cause the animal unnecessary suffering (like battery and 0 grazing farming). This is my moral decision i have undertaken- i want to know where my food comes from, what it was and how it was prepared and i know i can handle this and i don't feel uncomfortable about doing it.

b. The Chinese: I believe the Chinese in the case don't feel uncomfortable about the head on the chicken like the Japanese do purely because their animal culture is still one where animals are viewed as commodities, objects, investment etc and nothing more.

The Japanese live in a culture where they are (literally) generally very far removed from the animals they eat- farms are kept on the outside of cities and towns, out of sight of where people live. So there's not much in people's lives to be reminded of food animals or to learn from them etc.
In this animally sterile environment, the cutism culture fills its place- people are surrounded by cute pictures of everything everywhere, and this includes cute pictures of animals. The Japanese love the cute pictures of chicks, cows and horses, but these pictures are not realistic and are often far removed from the real thing.
So the Japanese would have no problem seeing a cute picture of some happy chicks and chickens on a box of chicken soup noodles, because they don't really relate the cute pictures to actual animal they're eating- and besides, the pictures look cute don't they? (egg/chicken rice seasoning/furikake);

http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp175/Tokis-Phoenix/Chickeneggfurikake.gif

Don't the hen and chicks look so happy in their picture? Isn't it blissful?

So when confronted with the real thing;

http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp175/Tokis-Phoenix/Chinesechicken.jpg

This shatters the cute distant blissful ideal the Japanese in question has going on- they don't want to see a dead unhappy looking chicken, all they want to see is some nice nondescript prepared chicken in a packet with some happy cute pictures on it; they don't want a sight that makes them feel guilty or uncomfortable with what they want to eat.

The Chinese do have a cute culture of sorts, but its more recent and nowhere near as ingrained into society as it is in Japan. Animals in China are generally still pretty much at the object/item stage in terms of worth. The Japanese are at the animal fantasy phase, caring about animals but also largely living in ignorance of them in a very farm animal removed society. We in the west are in different phases at the same time (in fact everyone is going through the different phases everywhere) but also a 3rd phase- the realization of what the animal really is and are beginning to come to terms with it and try and work our morals around animals, which has spawned a whole load of different groups of people trying to come to terms with animals ethically/morally in their own ways (like the vegans, vegetarians, hardcore meat-eaters etc).

Anyways, its just a theory as to why the Japanese feel uncomfortable with the chicken with head attached, and the why the Chinese generally don't :relief: .

[pipokun]

...
I think a lot of people are insensitive to fish because a lot of people are unfortunately very ignorant about fish and believe them to be on the same level intelligence and feeling wise as that of insects, mollusks, bugs etc.
I think a lot of people see the fish more as an object, a piece of food (like those Asian people who like that "live fish on the dish" sashimi meal), rather than a living, breathing, feeling creature.
...


I posted somewhere about the memorial services at KFC Japan or university/corporate laboratories before.
The following site really has the interesting and comprehensive list of animal related memorial services in Japan.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~RN2H-DIMR/ohaka2/ohakalink.html

Whale, horse, cattle, pig, reptiles, fish, dog, cat, bird, insect and etc.

Of course, at zoos/aquariums,

Followings are something drawing my interest. Japan is still in wonderland, at least, for me and I suppose that Japan should not learn a lesson from the sterile and violent activists in other countries.

http://www.t3.rim.or.jp/~yoshimi-/fukiya/photo02/V-a212.jpg
明治32年（33年？）のペスト流行時に防疫のため殺された鼠の霊を供養するため、
35年に建立。

A memorial tomb established for the killed rats at the time of the pestilence epidemic in 1899 or 1900.

Microbe Mound
http://www11.ocn.ne.jp/~kinzuka/page009.html
The site has the English page!

I am terribly sorry for my insensitivity or ignorance of them, the over 100 year old rats in the epidemic and the microbe.

[grapefruit]

I think a lot of people are insensitive to fish because a lot of people are unfortunately very ignorant about fish and believe them to be on the same level intelligence and feeling wise as that of insects, mollusks, bugs etc.
I think a lot of people see the fish more as an object, a piece of food (like those Asian people who like that "live fish on the dish" sashimi meal), rather than a living, breathing, feeling creature.

I have noticed that lots of Japanese describe aloud how tasty fish appear in the water when they are watching fish in an aquarium. Similarly, I have also noticed many Chinese people do the same thing when they spot ducks outside. No Japanese will be frightened to see a fish head on their plates and no Chinese will be frightened to see a chicken head on their plates. I don't think their insensitivity towards these animals has roots in viewing foods as objects or their ignorance toward these animals, for they all are aware that these animals are alive and look cute when they spot them. Also they are familiar with the animals.
Besides, I don't think they believe these animals are unintelligent. The view that animals vary in intelligence and are ranked accordingly is more likely to have stemmed from the West or the Bible in which animals were described as something subordinate to human beings. American conservative Christians' stubborn resistance toward evolution often appeals to the difference in intelligence between man and apes. This kind of view is highly unlikely to gain ground in countries where the Buddhist thought of reincarnation is deeply grounded in culture.


The Japanese live in a culture where they are (literally) generally very far removed from the animals they eat- farms are kept on the outside of cities and towns, out of sight of where people live. So there's not much in people's lives to be reminded of food animals or to learn from them etc.
In this animally sterile environment, the cutism culture fills its place- people are surrounded by cute pictures of everything everywhere, and this includes cute pictures of animals. The Japanese love the cute pictures of chicks, cows and horses, but these pictures are not realistic and are often far removed from the real thing.
So the Japanese would have no problem seeing a cute picture of some happy chicks and chickens on a box of chicken soup noodles, because they don't really relate the cute pictures to actual animal they're eating- and besides, the pictures look cute don't they? (egg/chicken rice seasoning/furikake);


Your point that animals are treated as something "cute" makes sense. But, this also seems to present here in the US. One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.

Mysteriously though, many Japanese can have the cute image of fish but at the same time feel comfortable seeing signs of fish while eating it. The head, bones, and tail do not appear to frighten them.

[Sarapva]

The Japanese are at the animal fantasy phase, caring about animals but also largely living in ignorance of them in a very farm animal removed society. We in the west are in different phases at the same time (in fact everyone is going through the different phases everywhere) but also a 3rd phase- the realization of what the animal really is and are beginning to come to terms with it and try and work our morals around animals, which has spawned a whole load of different groups of people trying to come to terms with animals ethically/morally in their own ways (like the vegans, vegetarians, hardcore meat-eaters etc).

This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals, but we're all moving toward the same end (gradually realizing that animals have feelings like humans and treating them accordingly).

In the U.S. it seems that overall we're still in the phase of denying that animals suffer, but there are so many animal rights groups and sanctuaries all over the country that industrial farming techniques are becoming known to more people now, and slowly laws are changing. The Pew Commission has just finished a 2-year investigation into the practices of factory farming and has concluded that things that have been "normal" practices are too inhumane to continue: calves in veal crates, pigs in gestation crates, hens in battery cages, and the production of foie gras (force-feeding ducks and geese). California is moving toward changing its laws for factory farms.

This is a link where all this information can be found, the Farm Sanctuary in New York and California where they take in rescued farm animals:

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/

I personally have not eaten any meat or fish for about 3 years now, and wouldn't go back to it even if I knew the animals had lived well and been slaughtered humanely. I think it's healthier and I like knowing that I'm not contributing to factory farming. I believe, though I wouldn't push this on anyone else, that it's not right to kill animals for food when we have enough food already.

[RolandtheHeadless]

"This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals. . ."

This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?

". . . but we're all moving toward the same end (gradually realizing that animals have feelings like humans and treating them accordingly)."

What evidence is there that animals have "feelings like humans"? This is a startling and extraordinary proposition -- and extraordinary propositions require extraordinary proof.

I've never heard of an animal having a depth and complexity of feelings to approach humans. Ever see a pack of wolves eat the guts out of a living caribou, while the caribou cries for maybe twenty minutes before the wolves sever a main artery and accidentally put it out of its misery? The wolves show no remorse or empathy for the caribou.

When the wolf starts respecting the "rights" of the caribou, I'll consider respecting the "rights" of the wolf. But maybe the wolves haven't caught up yet in their development.

It seems to me that animal-rightist beliefs are just a kind of religion. There is no scientific or rational proof, just beliefs that are taken as a matter of faith. I was glad to read, however, that at least you're not ready to push your religion on anyone else.

[Taiko666]

Don't the hen and chicks look so happy in their picture? Isn't it blissful?

So when confronted with the real thing;

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.

One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.

Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

[grapefruit]

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.



Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

I do think some advocates go extreme. Every summer, the square on my college campus is visited by these extremists with an array of huge pictures of slaughtered animals (by the way, pro-choice advocates also do the same thing). Some (or maybe most of) people do not want to see such gross pictures at lunch time. It is a public space and people come out to have lunch. I'm not saying that advocates should be banned from showing pictures. But, they should have a decency to choose a place and time or at least warn people. I respect ideas sought by animal rights groups but I don't like the extremist ways. I like the logical persuasion like what Peter Singer does. He is one of the favorite people.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals, but we're all moving toward the same end (gradually realizing that animals have feelings like humans and treating them accordingly).


This i agree and disagree with ("animals have feelings like humans").

I believe that animals do share many feelings/emotions in common with people, but they also lack many feelings/emotions that we have- what feelings or emotions an animal shares in common or lacks in comparison to us depends on the type of animal.

I grew up on my mums farm, and because it was a very isolated farm, i spent much of my spare time getting to know and looking after the various animals on the farm. I will give some example's of animals (based on my lengthy personal experiences) which have or don't have certain feelings/emotions that we have;


Chickens;
Chickens are animals that do share certain feelings in common with us, and i do believe they are actually quite intelligent animals (at least more so than cats).

Hens are very maternal animals and visibly seem to take great joy in raising chicks, and chicks themselves are also very emotional creatures- chicks cheep a lot and have different types of cheeping noises for the different emotions they feel- they make different cheeps for happiness/content, distress/pain and upset/anger.

When a hen starts to sit on her fertile eggs in an effort to hatch them, she goes to great lengths to achieve this- she will eat and drink as little as she can so she can sit on her eggs for longer to prevent them cooling down (and thus killing the chick inside). When sitting on her eggs and confronted by a threat, she will sit very still- if the threat/intruder approaches, she will try and peck the intruder even if the intruder (say a person or fox) is much bigger than her- only if her life is truly at stake will she consider abandoning her eggs, and even then many a hen has known to be killed by a fox for sitting on her eggs and refusing to abandon them.
(I might add here that not all chicken eggs are fertile and that hens only show this attachment to their eggs when they feel broody, usually in the spring and summer months- you can tell when a hen is broody simply by the fact that she will start to sit on her eggs a lot, instead of leaving them after laying them which is usually the case.)

As the chicks develop in the eggs, once they are developed enough they will start to cheep inside their eggs even though this happens long (weeks or many days) before they actually hatch. The hen can hear her chicks in her eggs and so she will "talk" to them- this helps develop a bond between the hen and chicks before the chicks even hatch (it also helps the chicks recognize their mother- unlike various other birds, chicken chicks do not imprint by sight but rather by sound). It also helps the chicks recognize threats or friends before they even hatch, for example if you go up to the hen and talk to her and she doesn't feel threatened by you, the chicks will register your voice (and so you as an individual) who is not a threat to them because their mother doesn't make aggressive noises at you (this is actually quite handy if you want to have close contact with the chicks when they hatch but don't want them to be automatically afraid of you).
The hen uses a special tone of clucking when talking to her chicks which sounds subtle and friendly.

When the chicks hatch, the hen will look after them to the best of her abilities- as soon as they are out of the nest she will start teaching them how to eat and what is good to eat. When the chicks are cold sit she will sit on them to warm them up and she will not leave them behind wherever she goes.

This sounds like blissful motherhood for any mother, especially human doesn't it?
But this doesn't mean chicken mothers are like human mothers.

Chickens instinctively roost on things like rafters or branches if they are given the option to- this helps keep them safe from predators like foxes when they sleep.
But it takes a long time before chicks are capable of flying anywhere and so hens have to nest on the ground with their chicks for many months before their chicks are capable of flying up onto safer places. Most hens do do this- however some hens do not (its usually the less experienced ones, although not always).
Some hens will just fly up into the rafters at night, and despite the constant crying/distressed cheeping of their chicks, the hen will ignore her chicks and fall asleep in the rafters. In the morning, she will descend from the rafters to find her chicks dead and cold on the floor (chicks are extremely vulnerable to hypothermia) and she will show no sign of grief whatsoever towards her chicks and simply walk out of the chicken house and socialize and eat with the other chickens as per normal- she will mate with the rooster/s and show no sign of grief or loss.

Now the thought to any human mother of letting her children die in the cold night, hearing their crying but being unmoved by it, and then ignoring their cold dead bodies in the morning and then simply going out to a cafe to socialize and even have sex with their boyfriend seems absolutely shocking and unthinkable to us.
Not all hens are like this (if they were they wouldn't survive as a species), but enough are. As a kid i dealt with this problem in a forceful way- if i found any hen up in the rafters at night ignoring her chicks i would catch her and put her and her chicks in a nest box and lock her up in it overnight with her chicks to ensure that she sat on them and didn't let them freeze to death overnight.

And hens can be vicious towards other hens chicks- if another hens chick comes close to another hen and her chicks, she will viciously peck the poor lost chick; usually the hen usually just does this enough to chase the chick away, but sometimes the hen will continue to pursue it and kill it. This is another thing that would be unthinkable to us humans.

And roosters do not make good role models at all. Roosters are constantly sex crazed birds and naturally spend the bulk of their day fighting with other roosters, taking their hens and mating with them or finding lone hens and trying to convince them to let them mate with them. Chicken social politics are very turbulent and if you spend enough time around chickens you will see hens swap between roosters and their hen groups every day.
Roosters show absolutely no concern over hens chicks (even if they are their own) and hens with chicks will usually avoid roosters as much as they can.
The pursuit of sex is all roosters care about and if they can, they will rape hens- which is why its so important to ensure that a rooster has plenty of hens, because if he only has one he will harass her so much trying to mate with her he will pull the feathers off her neck and make her bleed and give up her will. Roosters may even on occasion try to rape each other, and their fights with each other can be extremely vicious and cruel.
(I might add that not all roosters are as bad as each other, old roosters who are past their mating days often give hens much comfort and are not aggressive etc)

The loving attentive hen may have a lot in common with the human mother at times, but the rooster is a primitive animal that cares nothing for his young or the thought of forcing himself upon his hens, or murdering his brothers/father if he can.

And so chickens aren't like us- they do have some emotions/feeling in common with us, but often at times they seem to positively lack important emotions/feelings that we have, and this is why it would not be correct to treat chickens like humans. All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
BUT, this doesn't mean that we should treat them uncaringly or with disdain- they are intelligent animals, and most importantly of all, they are visibly able to suffer or experience joy (for example when chickens are happy and healthy, their comb upon their head appears full of color and is stuck on end- unhappy/unhealthy chickens combs are often dull in color and droopy etc. This is also not to mention the fact that they also have different noises/clucks for different feelings/emotions).
And this is why we should look after them well.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals. . ."
This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?



This is based on from what i know and have seen so far, but as far as i am aware the animal rights movement largely started off in the west- for example the RSPCA was founded/started in 1824, and most of the most prominent and successful animal rights groups were also created in the west.
When animal welfare became one of social concern in Japan is generally said to be after the World War II, when large number of stray dogs was the serious social problems. It was 1948, when Japanese Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals (JSPCA) was first founded and began an active campaign for the importance of Animal Welfare and against the cruelty to animals.
So the Japanese took almost 100years to catch us with us on the animal rights/welfare front (and because this was also after they lost the war, you could argue that it was possibly more so because of western influence).

http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2003&PID=6490&O=Generic


Of course there are Japanese which do seem to show a great amount of consideration towards animals (Like Hayao Miyazaki of Studio Ghibli- in many of his movies he has a strong environmental and animal protection motive/lesson, like in his movie Pom Poko, which i recommend btw), but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that its taken a long time for the Japanese to catch up with us on the animal welfare front (and that this is probably largely from western influence/pressures) and other countries in Asia like China have pretty much no enforced animal welfare protection laws at all.

All i am doing is stating the facts of reality here (i open for debate though)- yes it might sound condescending at times, however trust me its a lot more difficult to find the information/facts that could be used to argue that Japan and other countries in Asia are as developed and concerned as us about animal rights, than to find info/facts which suggests this isn't really/always the case etc.


It seems to me that animal-rightist beliefs are just a kind of religion. There is no scientific or rational proof, just beliefs that are taken as a matter of faith. I was glad to read, however, that at least you're not ready to push your religion on anyone else.


The rights of animals is a flawed concept technically because to have a right you must be able to debate/defend/dispute it- animals cannot do this and so the notion of them having rights is a completely human one indeed and one that animals are probably certainly not aware that they even have rights or understand the concept of rights etc.

HOWEVER. Although i use the term "animal rights" often, i do this more so out of convenience (everybody understands the concept/idea/meaning of animal rights), but i think that "Human to animal morality/ethics" is a more accurate term (however its a bit long winded so i'll stick to just "animal rights", especially since i've clarified now to you what i'm on about).

Anyways.

Animal rights is not a religion because there is no worship involved- its more a philosophy of ethics/morality. However i completely disagree with you when you say there is no [scientific] proof (or logical educated assumption for that matter) that animals do not have feelings because there is actually a great deal of proof and study suggesting this. For example;

"The difficulty is, of course, that the argument becomes more tenuous the further that you go away from the human being. Nonetheless animals, and by this I mean mammals primarily, do show homology of structure and function, they have similar pain receptors to those that we have, the neural transmitters used are the same and, indeed, if you use PET scanning you find that similar areas of the brain are activated when similar occasions occur. They also show very similar responses to the world that we do. Scientists often devise experiments to ask animals what counts for them, what matters for them, and those experiments do show that animals respond as if pain does matter to them so we would argue that pain and suffering are very important issues."

"(Dr Hubrecht) When I was a student, anthropomorphism was very much frowned upon but I believe there is a growing acceptance that some of the mental states that we have are very close to those of animals. For example, people now talk about boredom as being a problem for laboratory animals. It is difficult to show of course but under the circumstances in which animals might be bored they behave in similar ways to the ways humans behave in those sorts of conditions. There is also, I believe, some evidence from studies of brain activity which again show that the same sorts of areas of brains are activated, particularly in non-human primates, on which a lot of the work has been done,―as in humans."

"(Dr Kirkwood) It seems to me likely that fear and pain might have evolved at a very early stage of evolution; as soon as an organism starts moving around in its environment it is likely to need sensitivity to adverse stimuli to help steer it in the right direction. As the cognitive powers of animals, as their abilities to process information, evolve more, so they put themselves at risk of more complex types of unpleasant feeling. If you can see into the future, then not only might you feel instant fear but you might dread fear in the future which produces anxiety. So anxiety for me is having a conceptual ability to look into the future. If you can remember the past then perhaps you can dread things that happened in the past, so as cognitive powers develop you are more at risk of more complex types of unpleasant feeling. Maybe there are some that we alone are capable of, for example, guilt and embarrassment, and maybe they are peculiarly human because to feel guilt or embarrassment you have to know what another person is thinking about you, which is a very complex type of process. However, we cannot rule out at this stage that other animals, possibly the great apes, have processing powers nearly up there with us. For me these things may perhaps be answered better in the future as we get a better understanding of the cognitive powers of animals. Undoubtedly the right strategy at the moment is to give the benefit of the doubt, but it remains a very difficult thing to say at what point you stop giving the benefit of the doubt. If you give the benefit of the doubt to absolutely everything then you perhaps waste your resources, so it is a very difficult issue I think.";

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/1112003.htm

Fish have also been scientifically proven to feel pain, and since pain/suffering is a feeling then you can certainly argue that fish do have feelings;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

Etc.

Yes its true that some animal rights groups are practically cults in the way they go about animal rights and some of these groups are very extreme- some even appear to put animals above people. And this is why i don't equate myself with any particular animal rights groups- as far as i am concerned, i have my own views/opinions/theories (which i continuously work upon) and i do not want nor need a group to represent the way i feel about things, (because as quite often is the case with most animal rights groups i know of i do agree with their cause overall, however i don't always agree with how they go about achieving it- and i don't want to be represented by a group whose conduct i do not always completely agree with etc).

Anyways, with the animal feelings thing- its scientifically proven that most animals feel pain/suffering and there is increasingly (and logical) sound evidence that suggest that animals feel a whole range of other feelings/emotions like boredom, grief, happiness, contentment etc. So i suggest you revise your current opinions on particular stuff like this as they are incorrect.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This kind of view is highly unlikely to gain ground in countries where the Buddhist thought of reincarnation is deeply grounded in culture.

Its not as ingrained as it used to be and i'm sure the thought of reincarnation is probably not thought off by most people when they eat their meat or farm their animals. The decline in business of Buddhist temples points to an increasingly less-religiously concerned population in Japan;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7582794.stm

Your point that animals are treated as something "cute" makes sense. But, this also seems to present here in the US. One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.



Well really these "vegetarian extremist" people use both tactics- a shocking real mix of pictures of the cruelty present in some animal practices, mixed with a cuddly and emotional dose of cute lovely animals.

I personally have mixed feelings on this. On the hand, i have absolutely nothing against those who show the horrors that are present in some area's of the animal-human world and neither do i have anything against those who make an effort to show people who amazing and lovable animals really are- i think its really good there are people out there doing stuff like this.

My issue arises when for example you get some people showing, i dunno, the horrors of farming, and they create the impression that the whole farming industry is rife with animal cruelty and neglect. This is not the case (i don't deny there's some truth in the matter to some extent though), and i think it is bad for progress because how on earth can we encourage those farmers who are making an effort to be better when some animal rights groups are painting them with the same brush they paint the bad farmers with?

IMHO, for true progress to be made on the animal rights/welfare/whatever front, then you need to encourage those farmers who do actually go to great lengths to try and look after their animals well (because believe me, it is difficult to do so when supermarkets have pushed the prices of animals products down so low, often its hard to be able to afford to give your animals any decent quality of life etc).
Animals are always going to be farmed, there is no way we can get around this fact of reality and future- so IMHO, the efforts need to be concentrated on improving the quality of life that farm animals have by encouraging better farming practices (while campaigning against or boycotting bad farmers) rather than simply trying to emotionally blackmail people out of the whole industry altogether (There's technically nothing wrong with that, when you do this you simply remove yourself from the problem, however IMO you can't change the bigger picture of farming by simply boycotting animal products altogether. Everything in the farming industry is about business, and to encourage better animal welfare you need to encourage better business etc).

Mysteriously though, many Japanese can have the cute image of fish but at the same time feel comfortable seeing signs of fish while eating it. The head, bones, and tail do not appear to frighten them.

As i said before, thats because i think people put fish in a different category to other animals. People often don't put fish on the same level as mammals like chickens, dogs, cats, cows etc- a lot of people even still believe misinformation like fish being not able to feel pain or not having the ability of a decent memory etc.

[Sarapva]

This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?

What evidence is there that animals have "feelings like humans"?

I've never heard of an animal having a depth and complexity of feelings to approach humans. Ever see a pack of wolves eat the guts out of a living caribou, while the caribou cries for maybe twenty minutes before the wolves sever a main artery and accidentally put it out of its misery? The wolves show no remorse or empathy for the caribou.

First of all, I said that I believe we in the U.S. are still in the stage of denying that animals have feelings. But I believe that each country is more advanced in some ways, and less advanced in others.

The feeling of empathy is one that seems to separate humans from animals, though I have heard of cases where an animal seems to feel empathy for another animal or human. This is why we need to realize that all animals have feelings of fear, happiness, frustration, etc., like humans. We get scared when our lives are in danger, and so do animals. The difference between us is that we have the ability to empathize; therefore, instead of behaving like animals ourselves and killing without thought of the animals' suffering, we should use our ability to feel what another is feeling and act accordingly (like killing quickly so as not to cause pain).

Anyone who has had a pet or observed an animal for any length of time (like Tokis described observing chickens) can see that animals have feelings. This is a quote from the PETA web site (the bold is mine):

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.


Yeah i never did really get why the Japanese do this so much- at least this sort of thing isn't very common in my country. The other day i saw this tub of Whale Sashimi ice cream (sounds disgusting i know :P ) with a cute picture of a happy whale on it, and i thought "Yeah that whale looks really happy at the thought of being eaten!" rolls eyes.

Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

I agree, its important that people make others aware about all the different faces of the animal farming industry so that people can make better informed choices about what they eat.

Its not that fast food restaurants like McDonalds and KFC actually try to cover up facts like where exactly they source their meat from, its that these places don't mention anything about stuff like this at all. So people end up assuming things are better than what they actually are, and become shocked when they are faced with the truth (which usually causes most such people (if they have any decent level of ethics/morality) to go vegetarian/vegan or at least boycott animal products produced by bad farming practices etc).

[pipokun]

it requires equal consideration.

Sounds great, and I require the equal consideration that the treacherous obesity in Japan is merely overweight in the 100 year advanced countries.

http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/pdf/d01.pdf
D.1 Dietary energy, protein and fat consumption

The people in the US/UK consumes much more
1000kcal/person/DAY
700(UK)
than the Japanese.

I don't know which measurement we should use to judge how humane/inhumane people are, but it is easy to use how much the people consume.
Each country has each food culture, so I think it is good to just compare the data with yourselves over the last 30 years.

Get Bikini-Ready With a FREE Weight-Loss Kit!
http://www.peta.org/feat_weight-loss_kit.asp?c=weekly_enews

The greater cause justifies the bikini conscious means?
Anyways, it would be more interesting, or at least fairer, if inhumane, meat-eating, and kawaii-conscious J girls were also to be enrolled in the next summer campaign.

[grapefruit]

This i agree and disagree with ("animals have feelings like humans").

And so chickens aren't like us- they do have some emotions/feeling in common with us, but often at times they seem to positively lack important emotions/feelings that we have, and this is why it would not be correct to treat chickens like humans. All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
BUT, this doesn't mean that we should treat them uncaringly or with disdain- they are intelligent animals, and most importantly of all, they are visibly able to suffer or experience joy (for example when chickens are happy and healthy, their comb upon their head appears full of color and is stuck on end- unhappy/unhealthy chickens combs are often dull in color and droopy etc. This is also not to mention the fact that they also have different noises/clucks for different feelings/emotions).
And this is why we should look after them well.

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence. Does that mean one does not feel anything when killing creatures that do not appear to have emotions or intelligence like mosquitoes, ants, or frogs? I am uncertain if my analysis is representative of Japanese behavior, but when I kill insects, I feel bad. I have not killed animals with my own hands so I don't no how my reaction would be on such occasions, but as far as killing insects are concerned, size or type does not affect my feeling.

Given this, my rational on eating meat and seeing dead insects on the windshield might stem from the same reasoning. I need to eat meat because that is what everybody else does. I drive my car because that is what everybody else does. I am aware of the pains that I cause to these creatures but I cannot live the life that I am accustomed to. What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway. I will not intentionally cause pain to animals but on things that are related to my survival, I have to close my eyes.



All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.


This startled me. I don't think Asians (at least Japanese and Chinese) have this type of logic.

[grapefruit]

Its not as ingrained as it used to be and i'm sure the thought of reincarnation is probably not thought off by most people when they eat their meat or farm their animals. The decline in business of Buddhist temples points to an increasingly less-religiously concerned population in Japan;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7582794.stm

This is mainly taking place in rural areas where the populations have dwindled. Besides, many Japanese associate the idea of being "Buddhist" only to occasions for funerals. Not going to temples does not translate into not believing in the religious teachings. The same applies to any religion. Not going to church does not necessarily mean losing faith in Jesus. Curiously, many Japanese go to a church for wedding, but this also does not reflect their religious belief as most of them are not Christian.

The world views are ingrained in society. Although most of the Japanese do not consciously engage in religious acts, that does not necessarily mean that they have thrown away religious beliefs and teachings. Japanese are simply not aware of them because the isolated small islands do not provide people with much opportunity to be exposed to other ways of thinking. It is hard to get out of old customs.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.


The rational behind the feelings/emotions issue is this: if an animal can feel these things (emotions/feelings etc), then it could be aware of its suffering (just like how we have the ability to be aware of our own suffering). If the animal can suffer just like we can, then for us to make the animal suffer it would be rather immoral. If the animal cannot suffer, feel emotions/feelings, nor pain and is not intelligent etc, then you could argue that because of this it doesn't matter how you treat the animal because its not going to be really aware of your treatment either way etc.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence. Does that mean one does not feel anything when killing creatures that do not appear to have emotions or intelligence like mosquitoes, ants, or frogs? I am uncertain if my analysis is representative of Japanese behavior, but when I kill insects, I feel bad. I have not killed animals with my own hands so I don't no how my reaction would be on such occasions, but as far as killing insects are concerned, size or type does not affect my feeling.


My point of the argument is that regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, all animals can suffer and so this is why you should treat all animals well. Animals vary a great deal with intelligence and emotions (i do believe most animals are relatively intelligent and can feel a certain degree of emotions though), but one thing is certain is that they can all suffer (and this is shown through stress/distress).

Insects/bugs are a gray area, but generally speaking, if you don't have to be cruel to such creatures then why would you want to be so?

Given this, my rational on eating meat and seeing dead insects on the windshield might stem from the same reasoning. I need to eat meat because that is what everybody else does. I drive my car because that is what everybody else does. I am aware of the pains that I cause to these creatures but I cannot live the life that I am accustomed to. What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway. I will not intentionally cause pain to animals but on things that are related to my survival, I have to close my eyes.

You don't actually need to eat meat to lead a healthy diet/lifestyle.
Also everybody is completely capable of changing the way they live/are, even if you are accustomed to living you life in the same sort of regime every day.

There are very few cases in life where you will be forced to be cruel to an animal, and even when it comes to your own survival you have options. For example, would you rather eat battery farmed eggs or free range eggs? Would you rather wear fake fur or real fur? Do you eat organic cereals or GM pesticide/herbicide dowsed cereals? Do you recycle your rubbish or just chuck everything in the same bin? Do you decide to ride a bike to work or drive a car? Do you donate to charity or fight for better rights etc?

We have choices concerning almost everything we do in life. But this is not to say that the choices available to us are all equally easy- sometimes the better choices mean making more effort to practice them. But the important thing is the moral/ethical value you place on things when you make choices and the lengths you go to to try and practice your ethics/morals in the choices you make.

What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway.

Yes animals kill each other all the time but that doesn't mean we have to act like animals.
At the end of the day we are animals (we're the intelligent ape), but we have built a society based on morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- we are above the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom in these respects, and if we are to sustain a positive and productive (rather than hypocritical) image of our society then we need to extend our morality/ethics to everyone and everything, and not just to what is convenient or beneficial to us etc.

This startled me. I don't think Asians (at least Japanese and Chinese) have this type of logic.

Can you clarify what you mean exactly when you say this please?

[Sarapva]

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. How we treat an animal shouldn't be based on how intelligent we think it is - we should always be mindful that any living thing can feel pain and has the capacity to suffer.

I think bringing up animals' intelligence is a way of arguing with the western mind-set about animals: that they are here only for our use. Most of us westerners haven't been brought up with the idea (like in Buddhism) that all animals should be treated with respect because they suffer just like us. Some westerners can be persuaded to treat animals better if they know how intelligent they are or that they have emotions (because then they can empathize better with them).

I like the Buddhist philosophy about animals, and wish we had more of it here in the west. I hope you keep your feeling about killing animals and insects, grapefruit. I think that's the more advanced attitude, and one we need to catch up with in the west.

[grapefruit]

The rational behind the feelings/emotions issue is this: if an animal can feel these things (emotions/feelings etc), then it could be aware of its suffering (just like how we have the ability to be aware of our own suffering). If the animal can suffer just like we can, then for us to make the animal suffer it would be rather immoral. If the animal cannot suffer, feel emotions/feelings, nor pain and is not intelligent etc, then you could argue that because of this it doesn't matter how you treat the animal because its not going to be really aware of your treatment either way etc.

So does it mean it is OK to kill human beings (or the fetus?) if they do not suffer or feel pain? It seems it is dangerous to base the decision purely on the suffering, emotions/feelings, and pain factor. There must be more to it.

The intelligent factor totally puzzles me. Does it mean you feel less empathetic about a dumb person being killed? Most of people will be outraged by such an opinion. So, it means the degree of intelligence should be irrelevant.




My point of the argument is that regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, all animals can suffer and so this is why you should treat all animals well. Animals vary a great deal with intelligence and emotions (i do believe most animals are relatively intelligent and can feel a certain degree of emotions though), but one thing is certain is that they can all suffer (and this is shown through stress/distress).

Insects/bugs are a gray area, but generally speaking, if you don't have to be cruel to such creatures then why would you want to be so?


If all animals should be treated well regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, then why do you consider insects/bugs constitute a gray area? Is it because the insects/bugs show less capability to be intelligent or feel emotions? It seems the notion of "we must save animals" exist before thinking about the issues of intelligence and emotions.



You don't actually need to eat meat to lead a healthy diet/lifestyle.
Also everybody is completely capable of changing the way they live/are, even if you are accustomed to living you life in the same sort of regime every day.

I agree. Sadly, it is difficult to live a life like that. Look at how all the West (including Japan) hesitate to change their lifestyle facing Global Warming. Yes, we can lead a perfectly healthy life style without driving cars, taking trains, or using air conditioners.


Yes animals kill each other all the time but that doesn't mean we have to act like animals.

We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.


At the end of the day we are animals (we're the intelligent ape), but we have built a society based on morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- we are above the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom in these respects, and if we are to sustain a positive and productive (rather than hypocritical) image of our society then we need to extend our morality/ethics to everyone and everything, and not just to what is convenient or beneficial to us etc.


What I meant was that the expression "above the rest of the animals" startles me. Why are we "above" any other animals? There is no "above" or "below". Such a notion implies that if a society incorporates more strong morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- foundations, the society is "above" the rest.

[pipokun]

So it isn't immoral at all when obese people eating safe and morally killed Tokis' chicken much more than the average Japanese.

I don't know English, but we call it gizen, hypocrisy in Japanese.

Sorry about our generalization, "Europeans have been eating meat for ages".
It is just wrong, but your history goes...
when their economy was not good, they ate less meat; and
when their economy was good, they ate more meat.

The eel pie in your country is a good example. People, esp., in London, ate the eel pie about 100 years ago as a meat substitute, but now, many moral Londoners think it as yucky.
Even from the point of an immoral eel loving Japanese, the recipe below should be refined.
http://www.cookitsimply.com/recipe-0010-02464t.html
(´д`)<not uma

Just wondering what would have happened if they had introduced a special eel cooking knife from Japan then.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So does it mean it is OK to kill human beings (or the fetus?) if they do not suffer or feel pain? It seems it is dangerous to base the decision purely on the suffering, emotions/feelings, and pain factor. There must be more to it.



Humans are above animals and different laws and ethics apply to people than animals (and when i talk of animals i mean creatures which are not human). We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people, we don't keep people as pets etc- an animal like a dog, cat, dolphin, mouse etc is not on the same level as a human being. Comparing animal and human ethics/morality is never going to work because animals are not people- the ethics/morality i talk concerns animals and animals only.


The intelligent factor totally puzzles me. Does it mean you feel less empathetic about a dumb person being killed? Most of people will be outraged by such an opinion. So, it means the degree of intelligence should be irrelevant.


I've never argued that the intelligence of animal is important when it concerns the value of its life.


If all animals should be treated well regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, then why do you consider insects/bugs constitute a gray area? Is it because the insects/bugs show less capability to be intelligent or feel emotions? It seems the notion of "we must save animals" exist before thinking about the issues of intelligence and emotions.


Insects/bugs are a gray area, because so far research has found that they have no intelligence, no feelings, no emotions, no pain etc. These creatures function on a robotic level.
IMHO the reason why you should avoid being cruel to these creatures though is because cruelty is not something that should be encouraged in human nature towards anything.


We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.
What I meant was that the expression "above the rest of the animals" startles me. Why are we "above" any other animals? There is no "above" or "below". Such a notion implies that if a society incorporates more strong morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- foundations, the society is "above" the rest.


We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?

We put ourselves, our family, our friends, our species first because we are human- if we don't look after ourselves and our own kind first and foremost, then we can hardly expect to stay evolutionarily successful. I disagree with you strongly that there is no above or below when it comes to humans and other animals- this notion in itself is a man-made concept. If you can't see why a humans life is worth more than an animals then i think you need to look a lot deeper.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So it isn't immoral at all when obese people eating safe and morally killed Tokis' chicken much more than the average Japanese.

I don't know English, but we call it gizen, hypocrisy in Japanese.

Sorry about our generalization, "Europeans have been eating meat for ages".
It is just wrong, but your history goes...
when their economy was not good, they ate less meat; and
when their economy was good, they ate more meat.

The eel pie in your country is a good example. People, esp., in London, ate the eel pie about 100 years ago as a meat substitute, but now, many moral Londoners think it as yucky.
Even from the point of an immoral eel loving Japanese, the recipe below should be refined.
http://www.cookitsimply.com/recipe-0010-02464t.html
(´д`)<not uma

Just wondering what would have happened if they had introduced a special eel cooking knife from Japan then.

(Who are you talking to specifically Pipokun or are you just making general points here?)

Of course it isn't really morally/ethically good/preferable to overeat when you are obese, however what can you do about people who do this either way? Do you suggest living in an ultra fascist state where our diets are completely regulated by the state and those who over or under eat are taken to special "reforming" centers and punished etc?

The only real way to effectively tackle obesity would be;
a. Increase the price of fattening foods
b. Tax the obese/overweight to make them pay for the huge strain they put on the NHS.
c. Those who claim disability benefits for being overweight/morbidly obese etc must be forced to go on a diet and exercise regime if they want the benefits money etc. Either that, or the money gained from benefits must be put into healthy food rations or some such similar things as so to ensure the person does not spend the benefits money on things that they don't need or will make their condition worse etc.

Or other such similar things etc.

Right now though in this country, fattening food is getting cheaper and cheaper, modern technology has made people's lifestyles easier and less energy consuming, people can claim benefits for being overweight and it is easier than ever to get benefits, and people get free health care etc- so its no wonder why on the whole the population is consuming so many calories and getting fatter and fatter.
Concerning the Japanese though, various factors have contributed to them being slimmer, although as far as i am aware these reasons a largely do to social/cultural pressures and the price of food etc. However i have heard that the obesity levels in Japan have risen overall over the last couple of decades too, although i have no statistics to hand on this. Your statement on Europeans earing more meat when the economy is good also applies to the Japanese.

[pipokun]

(Who are you talking to specifically Pipokun or are you just making general points here?)

Of course it isn't really morally/ethically good/preferable to overeat when you are obese, however what can you do about people who do this either way? Do you suggest living in an ultra fascist state where our diets are completely regulated by the state and those who over or under eat are taken to special "reforming" centers and punished etc?
...

My last post was for both general points and cruel obese people who unnecessarily consume morally prepared Tokis' farm animals. I think it is rather hard to find some numerical methods to judge how immoral you are, but the obesity is an easy data for a simple-minded person like me.

The average Britons consumed 300kcal/day more than 30 years ago. I don't think you should be an ultra fascist to get back your memory just 30 years ago.

According to the moral, oh no obesity, standards in the US or Europe, it is just overweight which our government loudly yells, "OBESITY RUINS JAPAN". But I partly agree with the noisy campaign, for Japan has a similar health insurance scheme like Europe which bears the cost equally among people, (I know the European ones are better than Japan's), not like individual responsibility country.

We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people
It is true, but I don't know why the EU nations are proud of their food sufficiency and safety?
The under 40% sufficiency of Japan is simply a joke, but EU nations can help more farming people outside EU, aren't they? If you import more chicken from outside EU with proper eco/animal-friendly and safe methods, the rest of the people would become more animal friendly as you claim.

*snip
battery farmed eggs or free range eggs
What if the aviation would hit your farm?
Cleanliness can be granted for both methods to eat raw eggs by using a washing machine and strict supply chain management, but the pandemic couldn't.

Reference
How to pack eggs
http://sc-smn.jst.go.jp/8/bangumi.asp?i_series_code=B030601&i_renban_code=131
From around 9:17, you can see the machine working.

[grapefruit]

Humans are above animals and different laws and ethics apply to people than animals (and when i talk of animals i mean creatures which are not human). We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people, we don't keep people as pets etc- an animal like a dog, cat, dolphin, mouse etc is not on the same level as a human being.
Just because we have laws and ethics, it does not mean we are above animals. As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons. What do you think of war? We killed millions of people. What do you think of atrocity?
We exhibits tons of ugly nature.
We don't farm people or keep people as pets, but we do farm animals, keep animals as pets, and eat animals as food. The example of not killing people for food, not farming people, and not keeping people as pets were listed as examples of unethical conducts. Yet, we engage in these seemingly unethical actions when it comes to animals. The human being, who engages in such behavior, does not look ethically superior to animals. It is just an excuse to exploit animals and avoid feeling bad about it. Defining we are superior to something and treating it unfairly was the rational for slaving and colonialism.
If we are aware that animals have emotions/feelings and intelligence, why do we still keep dogs as pets? No human beings want to be kept as pets. You can admit such conduct is ethically tainted or avoid admition by applying the concept of "superiority".

Insects/bugs are a gray area, because so far research has found that they have no intelligence, no feelings, no emotions, no pain etc. These creatures function on a robotic level.

So, I'm curious how YOU feel when you squash bugs. Do you honestly feel nothing because science proves that? Or you feel a tinge of guilt because you have killed a creature. Have you observed how ants appear to suffer if you spray one of those insecticides for ants? They struggle and curl up and look as if they are suffering.

IMHO the reason why you should avoid being cruel to these creatures though is because cruelty is not something that should be encouraged in human nature towards anything.[QUOTE]
so, you do agree that it is cruel to squash bugs, yet insist that human beings can keep doing this to bugs because we are superior to them? That sounds awful.
[QUOTE]
We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?
I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed. I bet they would respond more to their own monkey babies.

We put ourselves, our family, our friends, our species first because we are human- if we don't look after ourselves and our own kind first and foremost, then we can hardly expect to stay evolutionarily successful.
So this is motivated by self-interest.

I disagree with you strongly that there is no above or below when it comes to humans and other animals- this notion in itself is a man-made concept. If you can't see why a humans life is worth more than an animals then i think you need to look a lot deeper.
The fact that the notion is man-made should be irrelevant to the argument of human's ethical and moral superiority to animals.

[Sarapva]

This is a good argument - I personally don't know where I stand on the issue of whether people are "above" animals or not. I know we have more reasoning ability and the ability to empathize, but I think this gives us more responsibility to treat all other humans and animals in a respectful way (which of course we don't always do). As for killing insects, if it's necessary I try to kill them as quickly as possible so there's no pain involved, but I don't like killing anything.

Obesity is also rising in the U.S., though we don't have national health (yet), only huge insurance companies that make huge profits. Half of us don't have any health insurance.

[RolandtheHeadless]

"As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons."

Then you should go educate yourself more on the animal kingdom (and no, I don't mean watching more Disney films). Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.

"why do we still keep dogs as pets?"

The dog is a wolf that's evolved to depend on humans. It's a DOMESTICATED species, meaning it only thrives under care of humans. Do dogs like this deal? I'd say yes. As a human pet, a dog might live 15 years or more. But you'll never find a wolf more than half that age.

"I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed."

They'd probably prefer to save their own kind, just like us. The difference is, they probably don't hold debates about whether it's ethical to do so.

[grapefruit]

"As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons."
Then you should go educate yourself more on the animal kingdom (and no, I don't mean watching more Disney films). Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.
"why do we still keep dogs as pets?"
I did not know that. Thanks. :-)


The dog is a wolf that's evolved to depend on humans. It's a DOMESTICATED species, meaning it only thrives under care of humans. Do dogs like this deal? I'd say yes. As a human pet, a dog might live 15 years or more. But you'll never find a wolf more than half that age.

The point was not limited to keeping dogs. Any type of animals including those that are not domesticated.


"I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed."
They'd probably prefer to save their own kind, just like us. The difference is, they probably don't hold debates about whether it's ethical to do so.

Whether holding debates or not was not the point of the argument.

Tokis-Phoenix said, We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"? This rational that human life is worth more than those of animals was argued from the fact that we tend to save our children. I gave the example of monkeys to prove that that type of reasoning does not verify human life is worth more. It simply displays our self-centered view and disregard to animals' point of view.

[Tanya47]

A previous comment was made by 'Astroboy' about pressure on Japan to stop whaling 'because the Anglo-Americans don't like it'. That is a load of rubbish. Search the world and you will find there are people in Canada, India, Indianapolis, Australia, Poland, France, Argentina, Greece, Hungary, Israel and many more who oppose the horrifying activities. I have mentioned these places because I have friends and colleagues here who have the same notion that whaling and dolphin slaughter is cruel.

Find the Facebook group 'Save the Dolphins from Japan'

So many people are against it, we all share the same world, we all have a right to say what we want in this world, we want evil banished and that's what this is.

For those who want to continue to slaughter for science Mr Otemba has addressed this clearly above, take heed.

For those who want to continue for culture consider this statement from a facebook user:

"Culture and tradition is all well and good, but as we evolve and progress, we are supposed to gain a higher level of consciousness and better ourselves. Do we still sacrifice humans? That was also a tradition but we are cleverer now and we know it is barbaric (can't believe we were so thick in the first place). This act carried out by Japanese whalers and dolphin slaughterers is cruel and barbaric...my evidence is the dolphins bleeding to death in pain, convulsing and dying slowly. School children walking by, seemingly immune to this, they are the future and the future looks bleak to me right now."

I could not agree more, along with gaining intelligent it is important to learn compassion and care about all creatures of this world. Currently we are a vicious breed of people who slaughter as well as rape, hurt and murder humankind. The whole world want to end the fighting, the wars, the pain we cause to other people. And the whole world wants to put an end to this mindless violence against our own fellow creatures of the world.

Japanese people are not being shown in a good light here. The uncivilised actions of these animal abusers are tainting your country and tainting our world. Japan has a duty to its country to stop these atrocities, laws need to be put in place, and THESE LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. If this can be done, then you can regain respect, honor and pride. Seriuosly enough is enough.

Long live the Whales and Dolphins and all innocent creatures.

[grapefruit]

I could not agree more, along with gaining intelligent it is important to learn compassion and care about all creatures of this world. Currently we are a vicious breed of people who slaughter as well as rape, hurt and murder humankind. The whole world want to end the fighting, the wars, the pain we cause to other people. And the whole world wants to put an end to this mindless violence against our own fellow creatures of the world.
Japanese people are not being shown in a good light here. The uncivilised actions of these animal abusers are tainting your country and tainting our world. Japan has a duty to its country to stop these atrocities, laws need to be put in place, and THESE LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. If this can be done, then you can regain respect, honor and pride. Seriuosly enough is enough.
Long live the Whales and Dolphins and all innocent creatures.
Then, how come only targeting on whaling? how come not voicing against killing all animals? If you are choosing only one species, it sounds culturally biased.

[Tanya47]

Grapefruit: I am talking about Whales here because that is what the topic (from Astroboy) was about. I work in conservation for all living creatures, I am vegan and I love all animals and would not kill a tiny bug. I am not superior to anything, I have utter respect for all life, all innocent life.

Those causing pain I have no respect for. Let me make it clear, I am not talking about other topics here because it annoys me when people say "why don't you care about child poverty" on a site which is dedicated to "saving the Whales".

[Tanya47]

"Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.


Animals kill for survival, bears eat other bears where competition is high and food is scarce, eliminating numbers means more food. Wolves and chimps kill their own where their territory is threatened, it is to protect the whole pack pack...and again for survival.

Animals don't rape, are not paedophiles, and do not kill for greed.

Humans (with a "higher intelligence") are capable of killing their own family members for money, raping children for filthy lust, blowing up innocent people in the name of religion, torturing animals for money.

There is a stark difference here. Don't put animals in anywhere near the same light as some humans, they do what nature intended.

[grapefruit]

Grapefruit: I am talking about Whales here because that is what the topic (from Astroboy) was about. I work in conservation for all living creatures, I am vegan and I love all animals and would not kill a tiny bug. I am not superior to anything, I have utter respect for all life, all innocent life.
Those causing pain I have no respect for. Let me make it clear, I am not talking about other topics here because it annoys me when people say "why don't you care about child poverty" on a site which is dedicated to "saving the Whales".

I think you posted on the wrong thread....we are not talking about whaling at all:relief:

[Tanya47]

Hey I'm new to this, I quoted Astroboy, so was obviously talking about his thing. Anyway, animal welfare is animal welfare.:p