Butchering animals alive barbaric? By whose standards? The Chinese people do not find this barbaric, but rather an acceptable way of dispatching animals for culinary purposes. I understand how you may not like something like this type of butchering but, such is their way. They do much the same with many types of animals they use for food. I am pretty sure they would think of your use of the term barbaric as coming from someone who is trying to appear as socially superior. Are you superior socially to the Chinese? Are we superior and our ways superior to theirs? The same type of butchering of soft shell turtles is carried out right here in the USA. If you would like documentation, I offer to point you in the right direction to get the low down first hand. Just come to visit NYC's China Town (the one in Manhattan) and search the fish markets for one's that sell turtles. Their is one on Catherine Street that regularly sells Soft Shell Turtles and Bull Frogs as food items. As for the turtles, they cannot hit them on the head with a hammer reliably to kill them each time as the turtle retracts its head at the first sign of danger; they cannot shoot them as that is illegal in NYC; they can not rapidly cut their throats and bleed them out because again they retract their heads. If they whack them on the floor with a rapid and hard throw, it may or may not kill them, and probably would stun them; however, many of the internal organs may rupture ruining the meat. A stun gun may work fast and well but I imagine that would require some testing.
Go figure; I do not know the best way to off them - do you? If so, or even if you have some suggestions, why not write a letter to the Chinese Consulate in Washington, DC or write a letter to the United Nations. They would be appropriate places to start. Tell them how barbaric you believe is the act of butchering live turtles (well maybe use more respectable terms other than barbaric, and try to relate it into something that will garner sympathy for the turtles). Then give them a list of alternative methods for the butchers to use. Methods that are fast and reliable will likely be the ones easiest to get the butchers to change over to. Then give them an idea of how to spread the word throughout Asia and, how to get the people to accept your butchering methods and reasoning for them. Just so you know, I am not being facetious here but practical.
Quote:
There just has to be a better way. If anyone has any info, please reply to this post. I just want to get the message out there about conservation and so that others can be educated.
|
If you are truly appalled by the methods used to butcher turtles, don't settle for just getting the message out, do something. If you want to really make a difference to change it, then you have to start somewhere and you have to be able to finish also. Someone who cries foul is not as well accepted as someone who more or less silently says foul, then goes to work, then cries aloud: Eureka, I have the better way! PETA and the Humane Society of the US would likely be, in my opinion, abject failures in most of Asia. They succeed, I believe, fairly well in places like the USA because too many people here have nothing better to do than try to control the lives of others by being negative as opposed to finding workable solutions that incorporates the old ways with the new. In China and most of Asia, people are trying to survive and don't care too much about being politically correct in the eyes of others. They will not likely accept anyone who demands change of their customs without that someone first offering them a practical and pleasing alternative.
As far as using endangered species, it is rather a surprise, at least to me, that Vietnam is included on the list of countries that are supposedly ravaging their fauna for the Chinese meat markets. Vietnam has some rather strict conservation orientated laws on the books as I recall, which were hastened into law after the decimation of their snake populations for the same markets. The rodent populations boomed and the Vietnamese apparently learned their lesson. You would think they might have some foresight when it came to other animals.
Well now that I have looked at that site again, maybe it is not so strange that Vietnam is included on the list. Those pictures to which you referred, and the main site itself seemingly were made up in or about 1997. That information seems to be about 7 years old. I do not doubt that some of that is still going on today but, I must wonder about the validity of any statements implying that the problem has not been in some manner addressed since then regarding the wholesale exploitation of the listed endangered species. It would be nice to know if any of the countries in question have enacted and enforced any legislation to protect turtles since 1997.
By the way the quotes at the top of that site's page, the one attributed to William Beebe, is as far as I am aware quite incorrect. Anyone who would, in my opinion, carelessly place what I believe to be such a misquote at the top of their web page and then use it as a conservation page must be suspect, in my opinion, of being at the least careless and at the worst possibly someone who cares not one lick about accuracy in their reporting. I wonder how careful they were with the accuracy of all the info they included on the page. This may seem like nit picking, but it does make me wonder if the other quotes are correct.
This is the quote that that site attributed to Mr. Beebe:
Quote:
“When the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass away for such a one can be again.”
|
Not only is it incorrect in wording, but also in that it appears as a whole sentence and not a sentence fragment.
These are the words that, I believe, Mr. Beebe actually used, and I think this is also the complete sentence in which they were used:
Quote:
"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again."
|
That quote is, I believe, from: BEEBE, William.
The Bird, It's Form and Function (1906). It is so much more powerful, I think, when quoted in full.
Although I understand completely what he was saying, Mr. Beebe was strictly speaking somewhat incorrect when he implied it had to be the last individual of the species to pass away before one could ever be again. Actually, in many cases, the loss of chances of species survival would take place when the next to last of the species was lost, given that the last two were male and female. The hopes of continuing any species dependent upon males and females to reproduce would be lost once the last of either sex had been lost (not considering modern scientific hopes for DNA and artificial insemination). Therefore the hopelessness in the words: "...another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again" is arrived at even before the last individual of the species is lost. Just look at Lonesome George for a fine example of such in the herp world. Once he became the last of his species, hope for its continuation was lost despite his still living on (I think he is still alive???).
Of course, the Beebe quote contains, nonetheless, a very good sentiment and, possibly an excellent solution. In that quote maybe the answer of how to save the turtles: To reconceive the beauty of the work of nature may suffice to solve the threat to species problem. Of course we would need a bit of nature to help us out - our supplies could not have already been totally destroyed before we begin. For years people have, in essence, reconceived nature in order to use it, and that has often been done at great benefit to wild populations of animals. The crocodilian populations of the planet have been in danger of extinction because of the trade in their skins. Such trade was banned, and the bans had some positive effects and, a very bad effect also. The positive effects were more crocs and alligators in the wild, the bad effects were poachers killing off the wild crocs. This led to smuggling and an illicit trade in croc and alligator skins and meat. Now places like Australia and I believe, the USA allow commercial farming of these animals. The farming is the way we reconceive nature to our benefit, and in the case of crocodilians to their benefit. Because of farming, skins (at least from farm raised animals)became legal commodities in many places again. Once there is a large enough stock of such skins from successful breeding/ranching operations, the prices will fall somewhat, certainly below the black market prices. This helps eliminate poaching and the whole illicit trade in croc hides. Another benefit of this is the effect on the legitimate economy. More legal goods, more consumers, more jobs, more tax revenue generated, and so forth. Taxes raised from such efforts can be earmarked for use in wildlife conservation as are excise taxes on hunting and fishing goods here in the USA. Yes the sales of hunting and fishing supplies generates before market excise taxes that by law go directly to fund wildlife conservation - it is amazing how ultra leftist groups have been trying to have this law abolished and then put that money into the general fund. In fact the great majority of wildlife conservation programs in the USA are funded in great part by hunters and fisherman. The people who actually use the resource often are the ones to protect it, if only because when they use it they understand the true value of it.
The same could hold true for many species of turtles. Turtle farms in Asia are a thing that is not hard to imagine, especially since there are turtle farms already thriving in many parts of the world. Many species of turtles could be bred for food markets, for the pet trade and, for restocking of decimated wild populations. Such farms would increase productivity of the turtles or at least of the survivability of baby turtles. The farms would make it easier to collect turtles. It would quite possibly, after an initial price increase, lower the price of turtles on the market as there would be no need to take the risks of illegally capturing and then smuggling them. It was ease the burden on law enforcement regarding poaching, smuggling and illegal trade of turtles. It would create jobs maybe even for the now poachers/smugglers. Jobs would be created on the farms, in veterinary care, transportation, in regulatory offices (hopefully not too many bureaucrats though), and so forth. It would generate legal trade. It would generate taxes. The taxes, as shown above, could be used to fund conservation programs. Chances are that the animals used as food would be healthier than those taken from the wild. It is also possible that captive bred and raised animal might be released to restock wild populations from where the wild populations have been extirpated.
Yes with a good brush and some paint, the canvass can be worked into a fine reconception of how Nature meant it to be, with us living in harmony with and, even helping it survive.
All the best,
Glenn B