Hobbit Animal Deaths

[not_nadine]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/story/2012/11/19/new-zealand-hobbit-animal-deaths.html

:down:

[Todash]

Hmm. Sounds like that was avoidable.

[Spideyman]

:down::down::down::down::sad: That is still animal cruelty. One does not house/keep animals in unsafe conditions.

[GNTLGNT]

...one "preventable" death is to many...let alone this fatal farce...hopefully some heads roll for this, courtesy of an Orc's axe...

[Shasta]

Which means that Shasta will not be going to see this movie....

[mjs9153]

Enjoyed the first three films, but think they made enough money in them to house the animals used in this production humanely..why does Anna Sewell's children's book Black Beauty come to mind? Not right to use them for profit and not look out for their welfare..:glare:

[bryantburnette]

Peter Jackson's statements denying the production's role in the animal deaths seems pretty legit to me. I agree with PETA in principle, but that organization is run by lunatics; it seems to me like they were wrong to immediately brand the production as being at fault. And odds are they knew that, and took this action only to get themselves some free publicity. Two wrongs rarely make a right.

[Todash]

Peter Jackson's statements denying the production's role in the animal deaths seems pretty legit to me. I agree with PETA in principle, but that organization is run by lunatics; it seems to me like they were wrong to immediately brand the production as being at fault. And odds are they knew that, and took this action only to get themselves some free publicity. Two wrongs rarely make a right.I strongly dislike PETA.

[Todash]

I strongly dislike PETA.

Just to clarify: animal neglect or abuse is wrong. It's just that I think PETA, in balance, does more harm to the cause than good.

[Spideyman]

PETA has been known for their dramatics, and I personally do not agree with a lot of their actions. However, the wranglers who cared for said animals where the ones who brought this situation to light. They are the ones who said the production co. was responsible. The American Humane Ass. oversaw only the filming, not the facilities where the animals were kept. The wranglers expressed concerns to their supervisors, and the production co- Warner Bro.

The buck stops at the one who produced this film, who chose the facility site and ignore repeated concerns. If you produce a film you take responsibility for your actors as well as any animals involved. One can delegate to others, but in the end they are responsible.

One death, one injury was too much. Situation was brought to light and ignored.

[Todash]

PETA has been known for their dramatics, and I personally do not agree with a lot of their actions. However, the wranglers who cared for said animals where the ones who brought this situation to light. They are the ones who said the production co. was responsible. The American Humane Ass. oversaw only the filming, not the facilities where the animals were kept. The wranglers expressed concerns to their supervisors, and the production co- Warner Bro.

The buck stops at the one who produced this film, who chose the facility site and ignore repeated concerns. If you produce a film you take responsibility for your actors as well as any animals involved. One can delegate to others, but in the end they are responsible.

One death, one injury was too much. Situation was brought to light and ignored.This is true. Part of being in charge is, well, being in charge.

[mjs9153]

Saw an article yesterday where Jackson was responding to the charges,and flatly denying what was reported.He says the wranglers were a few malcontents that were not doing their job properly,were fired,and waited a period of time till just before the premiere to bring these charges..I guess it is turning into a he said/he said situation,without independent corroboration it is tough to say what really went on..:dunno:

[Bryan James]

Just to clarify: animal neglect or abuse is wrong. It's just that I think PETA, in balance, does more harm to the cause than good.

I agree with the first part. Anyone that knows me (damn those few) know it.

I also think that the proliferate jackasses at PETA can swallow my donkey's schlong emissions. Those smelly tards are just too damned obnoxious.

[bryantburnette]

without independent corroboration it is tough to say what really went on..:dunno:

It doesn't seem to be tough at all for some people, sadly, which is exactly why PETA went the route it went.

I am decidedly anti-abuse -- I've got five cats (one of whom is meowing at me quite vigorously at the moment for reasons unknown), which surely counts for something -- but I'm also decidedly anti-PETA. They are run by clowns, and are seemingly always pulling some stunt like this.

Is it possible that the production was responsible for the abuses? Sure, it's possible. But it's unlikely, and I'll tell you why: it's in everyone's best interests to make sure that things like that do not happen. You cannot account for every person who works for you, though, and it sounds to me as if this was the work of a couple of people who were incompetent at best.

In my mind, the worst you can say about the production is that it made a couple of hires that worked out poorly. Nothing ominous, or boycott-worthy, about that.

[Shasta]

Just want you all to know that I am a card carrying member of PETA and I have been for years. I don't agree with everything they due but they certainly aren't run by lunatics.

[Shasta]

I think I just wrote "due" instead of "do." Oops.

[Shasta]

I agree with the first part. Anyone that knows me (damn those few) know it.

I also think that the proliferate jackasses at PETA can swallow my donkey's schlong emissions. Those smelly tards are just too damned obnoxious.

I have no interest in doing that, thanks.

I'm not sure throwing paint on someone is any worse that making rude and disgusting comments while making fun of the metally hanicapped.

[GNTLGNT]

...sorry Shasta, couldn't help myself...

PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals:wink2:

[Todash]

I have no interest in doing that, thanks.

I'm not sure throwing paint on someone is any worse that making rude and disgusting comments while making fun of the metally hanicapped.

Well ... technically throwing paint on someone is assault. But yeah, Bryan, be nice, dude.

[Shasta]

Well ... technically throwing paint on someone is assault. But yeah, Bryan, be nice, dude.

Killing an animal for their skin is murder.....

But thanks for the back up!!!

[Todash]

Killing an animal for their skin is murder.....

But thanks for the back up!!!

That is actually a tough one for me. What's worse overall, killing an animal for its fur? Or dressing ourselves in warm plastic derivatives, which seems to be slowly killing the planet, including the animals? I truly don't know. So far I've chosen the latter--that is, I have never purchased anything made from the pelt of an animal killed only for that reason--but I'm not 100% sure I've made the best choice, only that I've made the choice that bothers my conscience the least. (I have to be honest, though; if an animal skin is the only thing standing between me and frozen death, I will be as humane as possible and waste as little as possible, but I'm going to choose my life over the animal's. I would feel bad about it ... but I would do it.)

I don't think animals are the equals of people. If they were, then we wouldn't really be any more responsible for them than they are for us. However anyone thinks we got here, to me it seems pretty clear that humans are, for better or worse, by default charged with the keeping of all the other animals while at the same time taking care of ourselves as a species. It's not always as cut-and-dry as it seems. For example, around here, lots of people go deer hunting every year. (You have to buy a tag for each deer you want to kill.) As a kid that seemed mean to me. As an adult I see what happens to deer when they are driven closer to human civilization and stressed by lack of food. Around here, other than perhaps the occasional fawn killed by a coyote, deer mostly don't have predators other than human. If their numbers are not kept in check, they will start dying from lack of food and diseases that attack stressed animals. (It's not hypothetical; it really does happen. The drought this year and the snows the few years prior were pretty tough on the area's deer population.) That seems much worse to me than a quick shot to the heart (where most hunters aim).

Humans are the only apex predators with an apparent conscience. This complicates things. Sigh.

[mjs9153]

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.5029093936859117&pid=15.1Todash go with the barbour sweater,wool blend,pricey but super warm,I have the one pictured and really don't need a jacket during winter except for really super cold days..and blocks the wind..no animals harmed either!:smile2:

[Shasta]

That is actually a tough one for me. What's worse overall, killing an animal for its fur? Or dressing ourselves in warm plastic derivatives, which seems to be slowly killing the planet, including the animals? .

There is a medium - like humanely gathering natural animal materials or using sustainable products.

And, the meat industry is one of the biggest killers to the planet.

But what it really comes down to is that I like humans a whole lot less than I like animals (present company excluded) and I think wearing people skin would help reduce the very ridiculous population. :oops:

And I also have to clarify that I 100% back up hunters. If you can look something in the eye and kill it then skin it, go for it. I cannot do that. What I really hate is the people who don't make the connection, buy meat in pretty little packages, and then say things like, "I don't want to think about it! If I do I'll never eat meat again!" Those people drive me absolutely insane.

(And I am not aiming to offend anyone here. This is only my opinion and if you don't agree that is 100% okay. I have plenty of people I love in my life that don't see eye-to-eye with how I feel. And I am certainly not aiming to convert anyone either. I hope you all live your lives in the way that is best for you.)

I also have to confess that I ran over my first animal this weekend - a squirrel - and I absolutely cannot stop feeling bad about it. I think this is a sure sign that I can't eat meat!!!

[Todash]

I also have to confess that I ran over my first animal this weekend - a squirrel - and I absolutely cannot stop feeling bad about it. I think this is a sure sign that I can't eat meat!!!
I eat meat ... but I still remember the one and only animal I ever killed with my car. I was about 18, driving my big ol' boat on the highway, and a big bird (probably a crow) got caught in a downdraft or something and flew into the spot where my windshield and hood met. I'm sure it broke its neck instantly. I cried. Poor thing. At least it was fast.

I don't want to hunt, but I have no problem with people who do. (Except I don't trust people who hunt purely for sport. Not that there's not an *element* of sport in hunting ... but to just kill something for the purpose of the hunt? I can't trust a person who would do that.)

[Shasta]

I eat meat ... but I still remember the one and only animal I ever killed with my car. I was about 18, driving my big ol' boat on the highway, and a big bird (probably a crow) got caught in a downdraft or something and flew into the spot where my windshield and hood met. I'm sure it broke its neck instantly. I cried. Poor thing. At least it was fast.

I don't want to hunt, but I have no problem with people who do. (Except I don't trust people who hunt purely for sport. Not that there's not an *element* of sport in hunting ... but to just kill something for the purpose of the hunt? I can't trust a person who would do that.)

Ug. Roadkill is a horrible, horrible thing. Thank god I was in a rental car, which I dubbed the "murder wagon" and my friends renamed "the involuntary manslaughter wagon" because if I had been in my car I may have had to sell it! Of course, if I was in my car it wouldn't have happened because the brakes actually work. I also tried to convince myself it had squirrel cancer and was in a lot of pain.

Yeah, people who hunt for sport = bad, bad people. (Sorry if you hunt for sport.)

[Todash]

But what it really comes down to is that I like humans a whole lot less than I like animals (present company excluded) and I think wearing people skin would help reduce the very ridiculous population. :oops:

I suggest googling Ed Gein if this really appeals to you. He did all kinds of crafty applications with human skin.

I know. I'm so wrong. :down:

[~Ally~]

I suggest googling Ed Gein if this really appeals to you. He did all kinds of crafty applications with human skin.

I know. I'm so wrong. :down:

I find Ed Gein fascinating, yet horrific. After all, he was the inspiration behind many fictional psychopaths in books and movies.

Also, I hate roadkill. Everytime I see it, no matter how small, I can't help but :eek2: and want to cry.

[Todash]

Yeah, people who hunt for sport = bad, bad people. (Sorry if you hunt for sport.)

Well, hey, I try not to antagonize people who kill things just to watch them die, but I admire your forthrightness. :rofl:

[Shasta]

Well, hey, I try not to antagonize people who kill things just to watch them die, but I admire your forthrightness. :rofl:

I dare them to try anything...... :laugh:

[Shoe]

I feel as though the really important issue here is being overlooked. How are they making THREE movies out of The Hobbit?

[Todash]

I feel as though the really important issue here is being overlooked. How are they making THREE movies out of The Hobbit?

I have wondered that myself. A lot.

[mjs9153]

Really three?Last I saw it was two,which was understandable,lot to cram in there,but three?:eyebrow:

[Shoe]

I heard it was going to be a trilogy. Which seems weird since it is the shortest book of the four. The others only got a movie a piece.

[bryantburnette]

Provided the movie are as good as the previous ones were, I'm more than happy for there to be three of them. The amount of complaining I've heard on this subject is ... confusing. If you aren't interested in the movies, then why should you care? If you ARE interested, shouldn't you be giving Jackson and team the benefit of the doubt for now?

[GNTLGNT]

....the third one involves a Middle Earth Game Show called..."Fork The Orc"...

[Shoe]

Provided the movie are as good as the previous ones were, I'm more than happy for there to be three of them. The amount of complaining I've heard on this subject is ... confusing. If you aren't interested in the movies, then why should you care? If you ARE interested, shouldn't you be giving Jackson and team the benefit of the doubt for now?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining, just curious.....an "Inquiring minds want to know" type of thing.

[mjs9153]

I'm curious where they will split the book,maybe the first at the time they leave Beorn's house and enter the forest,the second as the approach the Lonely Mountain,and finish with the dragon and the last battle..any thoughts?

[bryantburnette]

I'm curious where they will split the book,maybe the first at the time they leave Beorn's house and enter the forest,the second as the approach the Lonely Mountain,and finish with the dragon and the last battle..any thoughts?

That's the biggest concern I have. There are no natural breaking points, not in the same way there are in The Lord of the Rings. But I suspect that Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens were aware of that problem, and likely cracked it early on in the process.

Or, maybe, didn't. We shall see!

[atomicinchworm]

I will go ahead and say that if fur or meat = murder then PeTA's 97% kill rate in their "animal shelter" should = murder too.

Of course, I tend not to trust, follow, or believe anything the big three (Humane Society of the US, ASPCA, and PeTA) spew, because while they certainly talk a big talk, their actions are significantly louder. Any 'animal rights' organization that believes that animals are better off dead than alive is an animal rights organization that doesn't need my money or my support. That being said, I really wish that they hadn't strayed so far from their roots, because I really want to believe they care about animals. It is obvious they don't, but they certainly do care about donations and money.

Back onto the topic, I can see The Hobbit as two movies. I think three movies is really stretching the source material (which apparently they thought so too, since they are including stuff from other sources.)

[Todash]

Back onto the topic, I can see The Hobbit as two movies. I think three movies is really stretching the source material (which apparently they thought so too, since they are including stuff from other sources.)

Actually, you were on topic at first, then joined the off-topic part. Focus, padawan. Focus.

[Shasta]

I will go ahead and say that if fur or meat = murder then PeTA's 97% kill rate in their "animal shelter" should = murder too.

Of course, I tend not to trust, follow, or believe anything the big three (Humane Society of the US, ASPCA, and PeTA) spew, because while they certainly talk a big talk, their actions are significantly louder. Any 'animal rights' organization that believes that animals are better off dead than alive is an animal rights organization that doesn't need my money or my support. That being said, I really wish that they hadn't strayed so far from their roots, because I really want to believe they care about animals. It is obvious they don't, but they certainly do care about donations and money.

Back onto the topic, I can see The Hobbit as two movies. I think three movies is really stretching the source material (which apparently they thought so too, since they are including stuff from other sources.)

No one said it wasn't murder.

And because people don't fix their animals and are incredibly irresponsible there is an insane amount of over-population. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough money or room to go around. So when you have an older animal that has been around for months and months that no one wants to adopt and it's taking the place of six kittens that can be adopted quickly, what would you suggest they do?

Try doing a little research first or volunteering at an animal shelter before you make judgements. The situation isn't perfect but at least there are people who try instead of expecting someone else to do something about it.

[Todash]

No one said it wasn't murder.

And because people don't fix their animals and are incredibly irresponsible there is an insane amount of over-population. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough money or room to go around. So when you have an older animal that has been around for months and months that no one wants to adopt and it's taking the place of six kittens that can be adopted quickly, what would you suggest they do?

Try doing a little research first or volunteering at an animal shelter before you make judgements. The situation isn't perfect but at least there are people who try instead of expecting someone else to do something about it.

Simma down now, y'all! :smile2: Atomicinchworm is my niece, and so I can assure you that she knows the situation is not perfect because she really has done lots of work at shelters, etc., and is probably more concerned about the plight of animals in general than anyone else I know in meatspace. I know she might have come off a bit feisty, but I have to admit that substantively, I agree with her take on not only PETA but also the HSUS, but that's a quibble with the leadership, and not most of the members, who simply want to help animals and are choosing the best options available to them. Please let's not fight when we are pretty much on the same side. There are too many people who *don't* care to start infighting among those of us who do.

[Shasta]

Simma down now, y'all! :smile2: Atomicinchworm is my niece, and so I can assure you that she knows the situation is not perfect because she really has done lots of work at shelters, etc., and is probably more concerned about the plight of animals in general than anyone else I know in meatspace.

Dang it, Atominchworm, why didn't you say something? I would have been MUCH nicer! :blush:

I may have come across as harsh but I AM essentially agreeing - it IS murder and it's horrible and I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wish there were other options. Where we don't agree is that the leadership can do much about it, but yes there is room for improvement. As in most things. Like my knee-jerk reactions when discussing animals.

Sorry..... :down:

[Todash]

It's easy to get fired up when discussing something important to you. That's okay; it's intelligently deployed passion that makes the biggest real changes.

[atomicinchworm]

Aww. Sorry. I should have been a little bit less aggressive. ;) I have volunteered quite a bit in the past and am about to embark on another round of volunteer work at a local kill shelter/ animal control, who despite a massive intake of pit bulls and other large dogs is pretty damned close to being no kill. I've been on the front lines, as it were, and despite a short stint with a local retired racing greyhound group, have always volunteered at kill shelters to work specifically with pit bulls.

I get a little bit snippy when it comes down to PeTA and HSUS. Their leadership is broken; they no longer deserve the support of the good decent people who support them.

I would like to posit a scenario, as it were. Pet overpopulation isn't the problem. I know, I know. It sounds crazy. Some 20 million people look to add a new pet to their family every year. Only 3-4 million (which is still a terrible number) dogs and cats are killed every year in shelters. Shelter killing is still the number one cause of death of healthy dogs and cats. Communities, like Kansas City, for example, that work with the public and local rescues to move high risk animals out of shelters, have been successful in achieving pretty close to no kill. Overall, the American public loves pets. They want to help, and when they know there are good healthy stable pets available, they adopt them. Spay and neuter is important, but it's not the only piece. Shelters need to decide to stop killing. They need to hire compassionate people who care about the animals they are in charge of.

When HSUS and ASPCA stops fighting legislation that force animal control pounds to work with local rescues, and stops fighting legislation that helps animals in kill shelters, then I will respect that organization. When the HSUS doesn't give their 'shelter we love' award to a shelter that still literally gases 9 out of 10 animals that come through the doors and has been investigated for cruelty, I will respect them. As it stands, neither PeTA nor the HSUS nor the ASPCA deserve mine or anyone else's respect or support. I'd rather put my money, and my time, towards a local shelter to help local animals.

[Todash]

I think sometimes shelter workers get burnt out. Kind of like my comment in that thread about the cop who bought that homeless guy shoes ... Shelter workers see abused animals all the time and can, I think, forget that really, REALLY, most people love their pets and would never ever think of abusing them. So they get this mentality that they can only adopt an animal out to a perfect home, when really, any normal home is better than euthanasia or a life in a cage.

[Shasta]

Atominchworm - I would love to look into your claims a little further. I am a big advocate of being educated on both sides of an argument! Do you have any places I should look for info on this?

"Some 20 million people look to add a new pet to their family every year. Only 3-4 million (which is still a terrible number) dogs and cats are killed every year in shelters. Shelter killing is still the number one cause of death of healthy dogs and cats. Communities, like Kansas City, for example, that work with the public and local rescues to move high risk animals out of shelters, have been successful in achieving pretty close to no kill."

Terminator T - You might be right about that. My intense distaste for people has come from volunteering at shelters, and knowing that plenty of people still buy purebreds. (Well that, and driving on the 405 in LA.) And you know I agree that shelters/rescues need to loosen the reigns and let more people adopt, as well as make it easier.

[atomicinchworm]

I think there is burnout. It's hard, watching animals come in in bad shape, just to be killed by the shelter that promises to take care of them.

But I think there is less burnout in shelters run by compassionate directors, who care enough to try, who work with rescue groups, foster homes, who advertise their animals, and who foster good relationships with volunteers. It is sad when a very sick or aggressive dog is euthanized, but it is a tragedy when a happy, healthy dog or cat is killed because someone didn't care enough. The shelters that continue to spew propaganda, and blame the public for the shelter's choice to kill, and refuse to change are the shelters with the highest level of burnout.

Of course the cruelties that some animal control pounds get up to can't just be blamed on burnout. It is the responsibility of management to create and enforce a good, healthy working environment. Directors that require clean, sanitary facilities and pay attention to what is going on with the kennel staff have good healthy environments to work in. Poor management equals more death, higher burnout, and higher strain in relationships with outside groups (if there are any relationships at all).

I got a little off topic. ;)

Of course, as far as adoption policies are concerned, I feel that open policies are better than closed policies. I would trust the public over the average animal control facility. If you have a high adoption rate with a low animal death rate, then fine, be as strict as you want to be. If you are killing 9 out of 10 animals or even 4 out of 10 animals, an open policy should be adopted. You'll get bounceback and maybe some abuse, but less bounceback and abuse than the 9 or 4 out of 10.

Also, feral cats should be trapped, neutered, vaccinated, and returned to their colonies. They typically do just fine by themselves, aren't too much a nuisance, and deserve better than to die terrified at the end of a catch pole with a needle in their heart.

Ok. Maybe I'll scoot the soapbox over to someone else to use it. I obviously can't be trusted with it. :P

[Shasta]

Also, feral cats should be trapped, neutered, vaccinated, and returned to their colonies. They typically do just fine by themselves, aren't too much a nuisance, and deserve better than to die terrified at the end of a catch pole with a needle in their heart.

Ok. Maybe I'll scoot the soapbox over to someone else to use it. I obviously can't be trusted with it. :P

I used to work with an organization that did this but they ran out of money and closed. :down:

You're doing just fine on your soapbox. (Though that it no way means I agree with all you're saying! :biggrin2:)

[atomicinchworm]

The research done by the company Draftcb (which is a marketing firm). It was projected for the year 2011 that 17-22 (low to high estimation) or so million people would be bringing a new pet into their household. This specifically is an article http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/The_Shelter_Pet_Project_By_the_Numbers.html via the Maddie's Fund website. Even if that number is off by 5 or 6 million people, that is still a large number of people considering all sources for pets. Obviously some people will go through a breeder or other sources, but with good advertising, a lot can be convinced to go to a shelter.

If you want a little bit more force in your reading, http://www.nathanwinograd.com/ or http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/. Winograd, especially, is pretty unbending in his beliefs and the way he goes about it; No Kill Advocacy Center is his organization. I don't necessarily take his stuff as gospel, but most of his claims are pretty well backed up by research and numbers. He also has experience with reforming high kill shelters into shelters that kill 90% of their animals or less.

Knowing all sides, is definitely the best way to see the truth. It really gets easy to forget that most people are essential ok. Not amazing, but definitely not evil.

[Todash]

I used to work with an organization that did this but they ran out of money and closed. :down:

You're doing just fine on your soapbox. (Though that it no way means I agree with all you're saying! :biggrin2:)I personally know or have known a few people who on their own trap feral cats, have them desexed and ear-clipped, and release them back to their colonies. Mind you, these are just random people I know. I didn't meet them through any kind of animal-related contact. I think it would be pretty easy to get that going in various neighborhoods if vets and shelters would agree to free/very low-cost neuters. We also have a local BBQ place that hosts a feral colony, but I don't think that's intentional. :biggrin2:

[atomicinchworm]

shelters that kill 90% of their animals or less.


errr. save 90% or more.

*cough*

[GNTLGNT]

Atomicinchworm is my niece,

...MB nepotism...cool!:laugh:...one favor though Ms. Inch, if I may be so forward as to call you that-could ya do my old ocular gadgets a help, and make your font size bigger?...like yer posts, just tired of havin' nose snudge marks on me monitor tryin' to read em...

[Todash]

...MB nepotism...cool!:laugh:...one favor though Ms. Inch, if I may be so forward as to call you that-could ya do my old ocular gadgets a help, and make your font size bigger?...like yer posts, just tired of havin' nose snudge marks on me monitor tryin' to read em...

The thoughtless callousness of the young, amirite?

[atomicinchworm]

Err. Sorry. I didn't even think about changing the font. This should be bigger. Hopefully. If I did it right.

[GNTLGNT]

Err. Sorry. I didn't even think about changing the font. This should be bigger. Hopefully. If I did it right.

...oh, if only it was that easy to get all things bigger...the wishes of the older amirite?:biggrin2:....