# Giant Squid Photographed



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

Not herp related but interesting. 

but..................... How many great animals have to be slaughted by a certain country for research, wasn't it enough to just get the shots and leave it alone


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=227580


----------



## slim6y (Feb 16, 2007)

The video footage wasn't wonderful.. but as per usual... the squid died because it was caught...

Japanese scientist... Looks good, ahhhh look goood... Does something interesting... ahhhh does somfing intlesting... But does it taste good? That's the real science!

Don't really care much for Japanese conservation methods... A seven metre female squid... That could have produced 1000s of babies... But nah...

Sorry to deaden what could have been a very interesting vid and fact link... But I am horrifically dissapointed


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Sorry to deaden what could have been a very interesting vid and fact link... But I am horrifically dissapointed



Don't be sorry I totally agree. I saw the story on Nine MSN and then felt sick to my stomach after reading it. It's almost like "Hey isn't that animal amazing..... quick take a video and lets catch it!" ..............."Oh well, it died during research , LET EAT IT"
"mmmmmmm, I think we need to study this specis to extinction"


----------



## kwaka_80 (Feb 16, 2007)

well you cant blame them they wreck everything and they need to capture things like that because they cant see it under the water like peoples of other nations can (not saying why)

|D "ahh goo sun you caugh goo foo"


----------



## bylo (Feb 16, 2007)

Japanese I love sushi scientist doing taste research


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

"The female squid, which measured about seven metres long, died while it was subsequently being caught." Died while being caught?! What were they doing??? I don't even wanna know.. I am surprised that this information made it to the media. There should be a law about the size of giant squid allowed to be caught, just like there is for fish. A young female squid shouldn't have been touched... I mean yeah it's "for science" but the point of catching one is to study it _alive_ so they should put a bit more effort into reasearching safer trapping methods, before trying to research the animal IMO

Good video, thanks for sharing Hsut77.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

Racism seemingly abounds here. Simple point that these deep sea animals come to the surface apparently to die. Not a single one has survived. Just because they did catch it, it is stupid to say that it dies purely because of that.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Racism seemingly abounds here.



Yeah it's pretty distasteful here sometimes.

IsK


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

OMG take a tea spoon of concrete and harden up! So what a squid died, how else are they gonna find out what it will feed on etc. There is only so much you can learn from watching video footage and studying peices of dead animals.


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

I wonder if they have somewhere to put the squid when they do catch it? and how the heck would they get it from the deepest depths of the ocean to this massive tank they have hidden somewhere?
Maybe they were thinking they'd just net it and (hopefully slowly) drag it to the surface and then figure out what to do with it later...
I would imagine that even a young giant squid would need a much larger livingspace than any dolphin or whale.. the sheer size of the animal, let alone it's speed would require a tank of insane proportions. Not to mention they would want to at least keep it darkened (if not pressurised as well) so that the giant squid would feel less vulnerable, more like in its natural environment and not stress out, which is probably half the reason why they die in the first place.

-Penny


----------



## Tatelina (Feb 16, 2007)

STUPID STUPID PEOPLE @(TWUY)(@$U% IJ ARGH! 
How pathetic! Why on EARTH did they NEED to capture it? For goodness sake... they killed it..and then went..uh oh...so probably just untangled their nets or line or whatever and just let it float away and went out searching for another one.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> OMG take a tea spoon of concrete and harden up! So what a squid died, how else are they gonna find out what it will feed on etc. There is only so much you can learn from watching video footage and studying peices of dead animals.



Ahhh Look at the stomachs of the one that have been found washed up, or cut out of the stomach of the whales they murder......maybe........

What is disturbing is that this is the 1st giant squid ever filmed, and now it is dead, I wonder if it will be like the Tasmainian Tiger footage we see all the time.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Ur probably right Penny, they would have spent thousands of dollars on an exploration to find a giant squid and once they caught it thought "Ummm.... Now what do we do with it?" 

As far as i am aware they have the worlds largest aquarium that is actually so big they keep whale sharks. So i don't think they would have had any big issues of housing it. Speaking of housings needing to be exactly like the natural habitat... how are your snakes housed? Do they have an entire bushland to raom around? Do you leave them alone during the day considering they are nocturnal?

C'mon people, don't be so pedantic. Would you say the same things if it were and Aussie expedition?


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> Ahhh Look at the stomachs of the one that have been found washed up, or cut out of the stomach of the whales they murder......maybe........
> 
> What is disturbing is that this is the 1st giant squid ever filmed, and now it is dead, I wonder if it will be like the Tasmainian Tiger footage we see all the time.



You know what, you have just changed my mind. I'm gonna start a green group to promote the protection of the giant squid. I will call it THESPA! The Squid Protection Agency!


----------



## gillsy (Feb 16, 2007)

I Giant squid would not survive in a aquarium unless it was pressurized, its the same reason those sharks died the other day, they're bodies aren't designed for lower pressure at the surface.

Also if giant squid are like every other member of the squid family, the females die after laying eggs, they have several hearts that just fail after breeding.

I don't agree with killing animals for research however it goes on everyday, even with reptile studies in australia. Its part of science.

Good thing about the giant squid is they are no way indangered. They live at too far a depths and in to many different oceans to be in threat from man, YET. 

Anyway my two bobbs worth.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

Every one of you racist fools would be cheering steve irwin on for chasing down and catching a strange and unusual animal. hypocrites.

penny, studying somehting in a captive environment will really not show much about the things that needs to be known. And if they dont know enough about it, then the chances of making good husbandry decisions will probably mean that it would die anyway.

I am so sick of greenies.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> C'mon people, don't be so pedantic. Would you say the same things if it were and Aussie expedition?



If it was an Aussie expedition I would be twice as appalled. 

Hey since it's just a squid, chop it up have a look at it and throw it away. We may just learn that it eats fish WOW shock horror.

Also I hear bushmeat is pretty nice, fancy a plate of Gorilla or Chimp. No lead in the pencil, how bout some Tiger scrotum? No, well you might just want to settle for a nice Sun Bear rug to keep you warm in your ignorance. No? why not? ahhhhhh They are Furry, cute as babies, not a huge slimy prehistoric creature. We know they exist so why do we need to catch them? Conservation is not just being concerned about the cute ,fluffy nice animals.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Every one of you racist fools would be cheering steve irwin on for chasing down and catching a strange and unusual animal. hypocrites.


Steve Irwin wasnt known for killing the animals he caught

The fact of the matter is, our oceans are in a pretty bad state and the pointless hunting of endangered animals is definatly not helping.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

I completly agree Hsut

There is almost no reason watsoever to catch these animals.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

but there is no data that the squid was intentionally killed either, so your point is moot. The japanese and pro whaling groups want a return to the hunting of specific species of whale. Not all whales are endangered, and so therefore the green idiots from green peace and sea shepherd are actually making the situation. It should be interesting to note that very few japanese people actually eat whale meat. The whaling issue is not discussed in japan at all and there is no media coverage. This is the companies, not the japanese people who are causing the problem.

Arrogant, very arrogant to call this a hunting of endangered animals grimbeny, a single animal captured for research may eventually help to save the squid from extinction if the exact ecological niche that it fulfils can be discovered.

I HATE PETA.


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

thousands and thousands hsut, more than we could imagine i'm sure, and lets just hope they don't develop a taste for it eh?
no racism intended, i love sea food to, but with that many people to feed, food is food right.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

pythoness said:


> thousands and thousands hsut, more than we could imagine i'm sure, and lets just hope the Japaneese don't develop a taste for it eh?



RACIST


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

I do quite like a bit of bushmeat, although it can be a bit tough if the animals are much over a month old but i do draw the line at tiger scrotum. I can't stand the texture. Sun bear fur is actually a bit co**** and i don't like the feel on my soft supple skin. Pffft atleast give me a better argument than that!

The difference is that giant squid are not on the verge of extinction (that we know if anyway, hey perhaps this research will tell us). There is nothing wrong with a sustainableharvest of any kind of animal for food.

Now stop right there Hsut77! Put that woolworths salad down! Don't you know that has baby rocket and beetroot leaves in it that are unashamedly plucked from the living plant! Go eat a peice of veal you eco-terroroist supporting greeny! 

Hey i just swatted a fly! Does that make me a murderer LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

can't be raceist hunny, i'm such a mix myself, many races in one.....just practically looking at food requirements for one of the most dense populations in the world.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

I realise this is the companies which are causing the problem. Currently there is more whale meat in japan than can be sold to its "apropriate market" and now there is a fast food chain trying to get rid of the stuff. my view is entirely not racist, and i dont bame the japanese people. If australia was doing it, i would be even more disgusted.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Hey i just swatted a fly! Does that make me a murderer



http://www.google.com/search?num=50...e:murder&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Probably not.

IsK


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

personally, calamari is my fav sea food, mmmmmm giant calamari steak (insert homer simpson drool here)


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Now stop right there Hsut77! Put that woolworths salad down! Don't you know that has baby rocket and beetroot leaves in it that are unashamedly plucked from the living plant! Go eat a peice of veal you eco-terroroist supporting greeny!



You seem to have me wrapped up in a nice little box there Waruikazi. Have I offended you personally? Greenie, I think not. Concerned about the state of the Planet and everything in it, certainly. I make not that my original post was not racist it just stated that a giant squid was filmed for the first time and was killed while it was being caught. I apologize if any of this has hurt your feelings, but reducing a commentary about ecology & conservation into a name slinging match seems a bit juvenile don't you think?


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

pythoness said:


> personally, calamari is my fav sea food, mmmmmm giant calamari steak (insert homer simpson drool here)



Hmm. So that would be.. http://isk67.com/Buttons/20.swf ?

IsK


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> The difference is that giant squid are not on the verge of extinction (that we know if anyway, hey perhaps this research will tell us).



Perhaps this research will tell us, "Oh bummer.......... I mean good this species is now longer Endangere!!!!!!, it was the last one....... so it is now extant"


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Feb 16, 2007)

my god,can you imagine the size of the chips you would have to serve with that.!!
and the tartare sauce....1 bucket or two..so are giant squid rare or rarely seen.?.i know bay squid (calimari and arrow head) that i catch are very fragile and die quickly when out of the water,not like their cousins the octopus,which will live for a while and do everything it can to escape..
these animals are beautiful and when seen through swimming goggles can be truely awe inspiring i reckon.
if i ever catch an occi i let it go,apart from the fact i dont know how to cook them properly ,it disturbs me the way they look...it 's like they have intellegence far beyond that of their scaley friends(fish)


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Ur probably right Penny, they would have spent thousands of dollars on an exploration to find a giant squid and once they caught it thought "Ummm.... Now what do we do with it?"
> 
> As far as i am aware they have the worlds largest aquarium that is actually so big they keep whale sharks. So i don't think they would have had any big issues of housing it. Speaking of housings needing to be exactly like the natural habitat... how are your snakes housed? Do they have an entire bushland to raom around? Do you leave them alone during the day considering they are nocturnal?
> 
> C'mon people, don't be so pedantic. Would you say the same things if it were and Aussie expedition?



They are obviously having some issues if they cant get the squid out of the water let alone into their tank. Yes I would say the same thing if it was an aussie expedition. I'm not racist or anything like that, the point is what is happening to the animal, not which country is doing it.

No, my snakes don't live in an entire bushland to roam around in. They are also not endangered or dying in their enclosure and they do have everything they need in there to survive, except of course a food source which I provide for them. They are also a pet, not a scientific experiment with thousands if not millions of dollars backing my snake enclosure. believe me, if I had that kinda money given to me for my snakes, they would get their bushland.




junglist* said:


> penny, studying somehting in a captive environment will really not show much about the things that needs to be known. And if they dont know enough about it, then the chances of making good husbandry decisions will probably mean that it would die anyway.
> 
> I am so sick of greenies.



I didn't say I was all for them studying it in a captive environment, but if they were going to, they might as well do it right. I would rather see one caught alive and studied instead of one killed in the attempt of catching it, although i would much rather it if they were left alone, but my thoughts aren't going to stop teuthologists from doing what they do for science.




waruikazi said:


> Now stop right there Hsut77! Put that woolworths salad down! Don't you know that has baby rocket and beetroot leaves in it that are unashamedly plucked from the living plant! Go eat a peice of veal you eco-terroroist supporting greeny!



I'm pretty sure that those baby rockets and beetroot leaves you speak of were farmed for the specific purpose of being consumed in woolworths salads. 

I don't think it is necessary for scientists to probe every single life form for any and all information they can get. No, Giant Squids may not be endangered, and sure knocking off a couple here and there isn't a big deal, but it doesn't make it ok to do it. 




ssssnakeman said:


> .i know bay squid (calimari and arrow head) that i catch are very fragile and die quickly when out of the water...



That was the point I was trying to make earlier.. once they caught it what were they going to do with it? They would have to have some sort of underwater pressurised tank that could fit onto the boat and then the truck that would transport the squid to the enormous aquarium waruikazi described.. 

-Penny


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> You seem to have me wrapped up in a nice little box there Waruikazi. Have I offended you personally? Greenie, I think not. Concerned about the state of the Planet and everything in it, certainly. I make not that my original post was not racist it just stated that a giant squid was filmed for the first time and was killed while it was being caught. I apologize if any of this has hurt your feelings, but reducing a commentary about ecology & conservation into a name slinging match seems a bit juvenile don't you think?




No mate i don't take offence beleive me i have thicker skin than that 

"the whales they murder" This comment led me to beleive you wewre a bit of a greeny and it was a joke i thought the ample  lolololol would have spelled that out. And i think it was isk that showed us that is can't be murder

"oh well, it died during research , LET EAT IT" i take this comment as racist, you may try and explain it as a typo, but i wouldn't beleive you. And i also do not beleive you would have said this if it were another country that had "caught" this animal.

The giant squid was not killed it died. Which could have been for any number of reasons and happens to many animals that are caught for research purposes. Don't get so worked up and upset over such petty little things you greenies!


----------



## Gordon (Feb 16, 2007)

they need to stop killing animals for research an food like whales its pathetic i hate them wish the whales knocked there whaling ships over an they all drowned. ill wear a hot green tshirt an annoy ppl about it. lol


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

i know bay squid (calimari and arrow head) that i catch are very fragile and die quickly when out of the water,

That's because they have a rather fast metabolism and use alot of oxygen. If you airate the water they last ages, and i've had them survive for hours on a hook being used as live bait after being in a bucket for maybe an hour or two. Don't ask why i didn't catch anything after an hour, i am a great fisherman.... it's there were no fish around... really


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> Hmm. So that would be.. http://isk67.com/Buttons/20.swf ?
> 
> IsK


lol isk rofl... yep thats the one


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> RACIST


 



This could be taken as a personal attack upon me,,,,,as i'm sure it is.
i'm sure there's a thigy in the whatsits about that and mods might consider it one too hmmm.
How on earth a gypsy, jewish russian, irish aboriginal english scott could be a racist is beyond me


----------



## Hetty (Feb 16, 2007)

People scream "Racist" at the drop of a hat these days.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> The giant squid was not killed it died. Which could have been for any number of reasons and happens to many animals that are caught for research purposes. Don't get so worked up and upset over such petty little things you greenies!



O.K, Sorry, I must admit that the Let's Eat It remark was aimed at the whale hunting. They are killed for research and they are eaten, unless these facts are incorrect?? 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/whale-burger-high-on-this-food-chain/2005/06/23/1119321851527.html

Or was the burning, sinking whaling boat fishing tuna instead? Now you can belive what you like, but I would have posted the link if any nation had filmed and caused the death of the animal. As the article states "died while it was subsequently being caught". So if it was not killed did it suffer a heart attack at the exact same time it was being hauled from the water?

Lets agree to disagree, I think that everything in the world doesn't deserve to die just so we can know every little thing about it and you do. I'm not saying you are wrong, but i'm sure people in 50 years will.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

racism has absolutely nothing to do with what ethnic group you come from. It is the intolerance of other specifically because of where they originate from. 

Your post i found offensive,a s many of my good friends are japanese. I did not make a personal attack, merely an observation based soley upon the post you made and which i quoted.

The fact that you dont see the bigotry that you less than eloquently paraded as racist is a key indicator that you probably are.

its like someone saying that jsut because there are many violently alcoholic aboriginal people in australia ( many violent alcoholics from all walks of life though) that every single aboriginal is a violent alcoholic.


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Your post i found offensive,a s many of my good friends are japanese. I did not make a personal attack, merely an observation based soley upon the post you made and which i quoted.
> 
> The fact that you dont see the bigotry that you less than eloquently paraded as racist is a key indicator that you probably are.
> 
> .


 


Oh no he didn't :O:O
you did not just call me a biggot, did you wow.
and screaming RACIST at me isn't a personal attack, hmmmm 
my comment, 'lets hope they don't develop a taste for it" is in direct reference to the FACT that the japanese HAVE been hunting endangered whales for 'scientific' purposes and they are infact eating them. that is a FACT and i commented on that fact, and for that you scream racist at me.
How dare you, you don't know me,,,,, ann my eloquence has nothing to do with it. 
there's a line, we both know you crossed it!!!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Once the research has been done why not eat them? Atleast it is not being wasted that way And i thoght the minke whales were a species tageted for food? Oh well gotta beleive ervything you read on the net 

If you want to see really cruel and inhumane ways that whales are killed have a look at the way (i could be wrong on the country) either greenland or Finland do it. They round them up into a bay, then drive a 20 inch hook through their backs and lift them out of the water while they are still kicking and screaming blue murder. 

But anyway that's a bit of a tangent. 

Hsut i do have a curiousness about the world and i like to know how things work both living things and non living things. I think most people will say i am right in having this curiosity. 

I will say this to all the people on the other side of the argument to mine, nature is much much crueler than the way this cephalapod died. I mean think about how pythons kill their prey...


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

pythoness said:


> Oh no he didn't :O:O
> you did not just call me a biggot, did you wow.
> and screaming RACIST at me isn't a personal attack, hmmmm
> my comment, 'lets hope they don't develop a taste for it" is in direct reference to the FACT that the japanese HAVE been hunting endangered whales for 'scientific' purposes and they are infact eating them. that is a FACT and i commented on that fact, and for that you scream racist at me.
> ...



Actually whale is not a prized meat in japan. Yes it is eaten, but in ridiculously small amounts. I spent a month there and my girlfriend spent a year there teaching english all across the country. NOT ONCE did either of us see whale meat for sale and we both went looking for it.

They have not been hunting endangered whales, but for the most part according to their quota ones which are not endangered, so your argument falls down again.

I did not call you a bigot, but explained to you that you post was bigoted, and racist. The fact that you cannot see your own prejudices because you claim to be a descendant of so many different ethnic groups i find very funny. I used to have a boss who is greek. He is one of the most racist people i have ever met, and yet when someone called him a wog he got violently angry because of the racism of the comment.

Are you defensive because you realise what you have done??


----------



## tree (Feb 16, 2007)

the bloody japs have no consideration for the earth and the beautiful creatures we share this planet with.

junglist
The japanese and pro whaling groups want a return to the hunting of specific species of whale. Not all whales are endangered, and so therefore the green idiots from green peace and sea shepherd are actually making the situation.

the sea shephards are absolute legends mate the japanese whalers will slauter any type of whale that comes within range of there harpoons they dont care weather or not its endangered or not what right do we have to ****her one of the most magnificant animals on the planet how would you like to be shot in the ass with a massive harpoon and then to be draged along side a whaling boat until you bleed to death. are you aware of this technic used by the japanesse to catch dolphins what they do is scare entire dolphin podes into a small bay or cove at high tide trap them in with a net and wait for the tide to go out the dophins eventually after a couple of hours run out of water and die on the sand. 

and by th way steve irwin would not go out hunting wales and giant squid because it is cruel and wrong, people like you think animals are below us and it realy doent matter because they are just animals and then you play the race card JUNGLIST you might call me a RACIST but when your talking about hunting whales sharks giant squid and dolphins i find that crule and discusting.


----------



## RevDaniel (Feb 16, 2007)

Not very nice to hear such things


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Are you defensive because you realise what you have done??


 

Certainly not, i have nothing to be ashamed of at all, i'm not racist, and i'm not the one screaming attacking comments.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

tree said:


> the bloody japs have no consideration for the earth and the beautiful creatures we share this planet with.
> 
> junglist
> The japanese and pro whaling groups want a return to the hunting of specific species of whale. Not all whales are endangered, and so therefore the green idiots from green peace and sea shepherd are actually making the situation.
> ...



CRUEL, DISGUSTING.

Technique.

whether (correct use, its not the clouds you're talkinga bout).
Slaughter

dragged

Ok, as we can see that you didnt finish high school and are probably not fully informed about the situation i'll cut you some slack on the spelling.

People like you make me ashamed to be australian. Steve irwin wouldn't have chased giant squid and whales?? He violated the whale sanctuary and the keep your distance laws 2 years ago all for the sake of a shot of him swimming in the water with whales. You are UNINFORMED.

How on earth can you speak with such broad generalisations with no actual information about the circumstances.

Groups like green peace are renowned for using propaganda techniques using small amounts of information which disregard the major evidence in most cases to promote an emotional crusade by people who are sucked in by the propaganda.

How do you know that all whales will be hunted if commercial whaling is allowed on a restricted basis?? And why are whales such an emotional issue?? I cant work it out, we will allow land based species to run into extinction, and yet whale species which are not endangered seem to come under some broad umbrella of species not allowed to be harvested sustainably???


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

LOL! I go back to my original comment. Take a teaspoon of concrete and goddam harden up you salad eating, tree hugging, PETA loving, eco-terrorists greenies! Maybe you need to increase the ammount of meat in ur diets so your not all so grumpy all the time! BAhHAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Once the research has been done why not eat them? Atleast it is not being wasted that way



What I would love to know, what excatly is the research they are doing?? Does it taste better with tomato sauce or soy sauce?? (no, this is not a racist remark I could have easily said bbq sauce....... just to keep on the right side of the PC bleeding hearts)


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

I think everyone has gone a bit off topic :lol: 

I don't understand the fighting and namecalling, I thought this was a discussion board where people _discuss_ things.

I wonder what whaling has to do with video footage of a giant squid? :?


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

The whaling was brought up by the eco-terrorist trying to show a racist beleif that the japanese kill everything in the ocean they possibly can under the guise of scientific research so they can eat it.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

croc_hunter_penny said:


> I wonder what whaling has to do with video footage of a giant squid? :?



Maybe the whales were trying out their new camcorder?


IsK


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> What I would love to know, what excatly is the research they are doing?? Does it taste better with tomato sauce or soy sauce?? (no, this is not a racist remark I could have easily said bbq sauce....... just to keep on the right side of the PC bleeding hearts)



Perhaps that is something you could research, i've heard the internet is pretty good for that lol


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

Penny when one cannot make a strong argument they usually degrade themselves and the topic by using name calling and lots of simile faces.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> The whaling was brought up by the eco-terrorist trying to show a racist beleif that the japanese kill everything in the ocean they possibly can under the guise of scientific research so they can eat it.



Racist beleif.....no. Everthing in the ocean, well, fancy a swim? Eco terrorist??? - watch the personal attack.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

No a similie is saying something is like somthing else that it actually isn't ie. That dog looks like a bear. We all know a dog is not a bear but by saying it is like a bear allows us to picture it better in our minds. 

Smilies are usually used to show that people are making a joke, some people don't appear to understand this and get offended.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> Racist beleif.....no. Everthing in the ocean, well, fancy a swim? Eco terrorist??? - watch the personal attack.




OH MY GOD NOOOOO, not an accusation of personally attacking someone. That could construed as slander  

Disclaimer:
THAT WAS A JOKE!!!!


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

*interesting*

I found this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00030326-0783-133B-878383414B7F0000
an interesting little read about some older "footage" of giant squids (progressive photos rather than video)

this link is some earlier photo evidence that Tsunemi Kubodera had recorded, i guess they decided to go back and get some video footage.


also an interesting read : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040524fa_fact1?040524fa_fact1

A fair while ago I remember reading about Steve O’Shea, a marine biologist from New Zealand, who has a different approach to researching the giant squid. He is not trying to find a mature giant squid; rather, he is scouring the ocean for a baby, called a paralarva, which he can grow in captivity. A paralarva is often the size of a cricket.

I wasn't too fond of his research, because they all died. I actually do like some of his findings, but I wished that his captive specimens managed to survive, and I hope he improves his tank system to ensure their survival.


----------



## FAY (Feb 16, 2007)

As far as the animal world is concerned....humans have a lot to answer for!!!!
I will never get over how they let the Tasmanian Tiger become extinct!!!!!


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

Well I will definetly agree to disagree on this topic. So I will say Red Necks 1 - Earth 0 :lol: 

p.s was that the correct use of a smilie??


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

i just find the funniest part of the situation that european australians have eradicated so amny species inside australia and yet there are so many people who just point the finger at someone else and say that extinction is all their fault.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> Well I will definetly agree to disagree on this topic. So I will say Red Necks 1 - Earth 0 :lol:
> 
> p.s was that the correct use of a smilie??




Yes Hsut that was very well done


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

Well ar least we can agree on something.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> Well ar least we can agree on something.



Well i did put a smily in my comment...


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

AHHH Sarchasim the lowest form of ...........um :shock:


----------



## Sdaji (Feb 16, 2007)

My local fish monger has a whole pile of dead squid, proudly on display! :shock: Grab yer pitch forks, let's form a mob!

Everyone grab your Coggers (possibly the most sought after book on Australian reptiles) and read the section about lethal capture techniques, including the use of firearms and catapults (pages 38 and 39). If you manage to catch one alive, you can turn to the killing section (page 40) (No, I'm not having a go at Cogger, I have as much respect for the man as anyone else here).

Your ethnic background doesn't for a moment preclude you from being racist, no matter what it is.

If the Japanese are going to develop a taste for something, it's probably a good thing if it's a non-endangered species... having said that, Giant Squid taste like really horrible squid which has been soaked in bleach for a week (they're full of ammonia and probably at least mildly toxic... I don't think anyone has managed to eat enough to feel sick). Don't worry, the Giant Squid are in no great danger of being used to feed the starving masses.

There are plenty of horrific things you can try to stop if you want to be a bleeding heart. Many of them are literally millions of times worse than someone killing a squid, even if you ignore any scientific benefit. Worrying about an individual of a common species here or there doesn't make much sense when there are entire ecosystems being destroyed. Bulldoze an area of rainforest and you wipe out a zillion individuals from countless species, etc etc. This happens right here in Australia. I catch and eat squid, perhaps you'd like me to be shot or sent to Japan.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

SDAJ, you'd love it over there, i had one of the best times of my life.


----------



## Veredus (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Not all whales are endangered, and so therefore the green idiots from green peace and sea shepherd are actually making the situation. It should be interesting to note that very few japanese people actually eat whale meat. The whaling issue is not discussed in japan at all and there is no media coverage. This is the companies, not the japanese people who are causing the problem.



The fact that a species of whale (or any animal for that matter) is not endangered is no reason to hunt it until it becomes endangered. "Oh look, thats a pretty animal, is it endangered? No, well lets kill them all then." Absolutely ridiculous. The ecological balance can be disturbed by even a slight drop in the numbers of a species.

You are right however about the frequency of Japanese that eat whale, a very small percentage. Many Japanese people oppose whaling it is those in control that have a taste for the meat however and so it stays out of the Japanese media. It would be a lie to say that the issue is not at all discussed in Japan however, I know of a good many Japanese people who openly opposed whaling while living in Japan. Simply because the bigshots keep it out of the news doesn't mean it isn't discussed at all.

Im sure you will label me a racist as seems to be your most prominent argument but I do not beleive the Japanese are the problem but rather certain government and corporate entities (not only and certainly not most prominently those in Japan) that cannot get over the God complex many human beings seem to have. We may be the dominant species but that doesn't give us the right of dictation of how all other species will exist, in fact it leaves us only with a heavy responsibility to protect everything else on the planet from untimely demise.


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

Veredus said:


> We may be the dominant species but that doesn't give us the right of dictation of how all other species will exist, in fact it leaves us only with a heavy responsibility to protect everything else on the planet from untimely demise.



*agrees*


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Feb 16, 2007)

Just a thought.. maybe the normal species of squid we have are just juveniles of the giant squid? after all, the giant squid's babies/larva are the size of a cricket...

(although I'm sure science will tell me i'm wrong, but who knows eh?)


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

I think we all need to take a lesson from the lives of the bonobo.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

Veredus said:


> The fact that a species of whale (or any animal for that matter) is not endangered is no reason to hunt it until it becomes endangered. "Oh look, thats a pretty animal, is it endangered? No, well lets kill them all then." Absolutely ridiculous. The ecological balance can be disturbed by even a slight drop in the numbers of a species.
> 
> You are right however about the frequency of Japanese that eat whale, a very small percentage. Many Japanese people oppose whaling it is those in control that have a taste for the meat however and so it stays out of the Japanese media. It would be a lie to say that the issue is not at all discussed in Japan however, I know of a good many Japanese people who openly opposed whaling while living in Japan. Simply because the bigshots keep it out of the news doesn't mean it isn't discussed at all.
> 
> Im sure you will label me a racist as seems to be your most prominent argument but I do not beleive the Japanese are the problem but rather certain government and corporate entities (not only and certainly not most prominently those in Japan) that cannot get over the God complex many human beings seem to have. We may be the dominant species but that doesn't give us the right of dictation of how all other species will exist, in fact it leaves us only with a heavy responsibility to protect everything else on the planet from untimely demise.



Very well said.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm bored of this one now.


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Feb 16, 2007)

> I think we all need to take a lesson from the lives of the bonobo.


i tried shagging in a tree once..dont try this at home kids..it hurts


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> There are plenty of horrific things you can try to stop if you want to be a bleeding heart.


 

I am a bleeding heart, as i'm sure your well aware of, but someone needs to be. Can i imagine a benevolent world for my grandchildrens grandchildren? not with the attitudes many hold for the care of the environment. 
Eco-terrorist, greenpeace, wildlife warrior, wildcare australia wildlife carer, tree hugging dirt worshipper and damn proud of it. :shock:


----------



## FAY (Feb 16, 2007)

ssssnakeman said:


> i tried shagging in a tree once..dont try this at home kids..it hurts



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

ssssnakeman said:


> i tried shagging in a tree once..dont try this at home kids..it hurts



Point noted. I'll try it in someone else's tree instead.

IsK


----------



## cris (Feb 16, 2007)

I was thinking the same thing about Cogger, he must be evil like the japanese if he shoots herps and tells ppl how to. :lol: (comment not to be taken seriously)

Its a shame they didnt manage to get it into their tank alive, im sure they will get another one sometime.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 16, 2007)

I;m wondering if people here are missing one of the pictures of this thread... 1. It's about giant squid... 2. The giant squid died while being caught

It was done by Japanese researchers who are not well known for their conservation methods.

There was little racism in this thread... Although in the advent of PC perhaps any description of what a race does as a generalisation may be classed as racism.

I also, personally, would like to see Norway stop whaling and French perfume and cosmetic companies stop using whale in their products.

I don't think that squid is an environmental catch, however, I also choose to eat it in some hypocrocy maybe. 

But to see this thread move to examples of Australian establishment, Tassie tigers etc... I just think it's going in opposite directions to what was important here. 

The study of this squid is almost inconsequential. There's not that many of them around and the ones that are around have enough problems in their life than having to worry about Japanese scientists.

I would have been equally appaled if it were Australian, American, Kiwi, or any race of people on earth... 

If I had to take a pinch of concrete to harden up then I wouldn't be making these comments against what seems to be the flow of this thread. I'm not afraid to speak my mind. 

I once said in a conference, in NZ, we should kill the Kaimanoa (sp?) horses that are destroying native tussock land... Everyone laughed at me... But over 30 species of native tussoc were nearly extinct... it's not all about furry animals... It's about specific diversity in ecosystems. And those squid play a very important role in that balance. Endangering them endangers a fine line of a delicate eco-system.

if by chance the killing of this squid has helped conserve them in a required manner, I will say that's ok... One died to save the millions. It sux to be that one... Many of us couldn't do it. I don't even know about myself. But our intervention, at present, doesn't seem to be helping this species at all!


----------



## Australis (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Ok, as we can see that you didnt finish high school and are probably not fully informed about the situation i'll cut you some slack on the spelling.






junglist* said:


> i just find the funniest part of the situation that european australians have eradicated so amny species inside australia and yet there are so many people who just point the finger at someone else and say that extinction is all their fault.



Perhaps you shouldnt comment on spelling Junglist*
Australia*
Australians*
Many*
European*

Why are you trying to single out "european australians" as having "eradicated so amny species inside australia".... sounding a little racist yourself Junglist*

Perhaps you didn't finish school, so "i'll" cut you some slack then...

Humans have been causing animal species to become extinct in Australia for thousands of years before "european australians" arrived.

Funny how your quick to claim others are "UNINFORMED", when you dont have a clue.


----------



## Hetty (Feb 16, 2007)

pythoness said:


> Eco-terrorist, greenpeace, wildlife warrior, wildcare australia wildlife carer, tree hugging dirt worshipper and damn proud of it. :shock:



You don't seriously worship dirt?


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

Whats wrong with dirt?


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

thenothing said:


> You don't seriously worship dirt?





grimbeny said:


> Whats wrong with dirt?



Yeah what's wrong with dirt? You're not a [SIZE=-1]Molysomophobic are you?

IsK
[/SIZE]


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

Australis said:


> Perhaps you shouldnt comment on spelling Junglist*
> Australia*
> Australians*
> Many*
> ...



Not quite sure how the reference to the eradication of many native australian species by European settlers could possibly be racist. It is, 1) a documented fact and 2) hardly racist as i am myself, an Australian of European extraction.

Ok, so the one spelling error you found was a typo, the others were more grammatical errors with respect to the lack of capitalisation of proper nouns. Really quite a small issue.

When you've got a PhD, then you can talk to me about having education levels similar to mine.

Can you name any species which became extinct as a direct result of human interaction before European settlement within the continent of Australia? You said it was a fact, how about some empirical data to go with it????

European settlers in Australia have been directly responsible for species extinction, not only due to direct action ie hunting. But also as a direct result of the introduction of pest and exotic species into ecosystems which cannot maintain the ecosystems present when animals having no native predators multiply to the extent they have here, eg, rabbits, foxes, cats, dogs, horses, cattle, sheep the list goes on and on. New Zealand has had an even harder time with these sorts of species, especially when much of their native fauna is bird life.

But, irrespective of this point, to prevent people/peoples from maintaining a cultural link to their past and their historical diets, are we not claiming that our culture is more meaningful than theirs?? After the indiscretions we or our country has committed can we truly hold the moral high ground with relation to species conservation/extinction??

It is commonly said that if you get onto a high moral horse you had better hold on for dear life, because it is a long fall down into the quagmire which you have been preaching against.

Oh and australis, your use of "your" in the previous post was incorrect, it should have been "you're" as the wordw as used as a contraction of you and are.


----------



## Hetty (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> Yeah what's wrong with dirt? You're not a [SIZE=-1]Molysomophobic are you?
> 
> IsK
> [/SIZE]



It's not that I don't like it, it's prefectly useful in its own way, but worshipping it? Come on.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

I dont think the point of the anti whaling campaigne is to stay on our "moral high horse" (as you would call it) but rather to stop the impacts on an already fragile ecosystem. All of us realise that we are all to blame for the pointless destruction of many habitats within the world. But i think when we see an oportunity to stop somthing which holds little benefit to anyone (its not even that economically viable) we should take it. I feel in a similar way hurt by the destruction of old growth forrests in tasmania for the production of paper.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

thenothing said:


> It's not that I don't like it, it's prefectly useful in its own way, but worshipping it? Come on.



Maybe it's not so much worshipping dirt as worshipping the ground one walks on. Like I do with my wife. 

IsK


----------



## da_donkey (Feb 16, 2007)

ssssnakeman said:


> i tried shagging in a tree once..dont try this at home kids..it hurts


 
Damn Hippy:lol: 

Donk


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> I dont think the point of the anti whaling campaigne is to stay on our "moral high horse" (as you would call it) but rather to stop the impacts on an already fragile ecosystem. All of us realise that we are all to blame for the pointless destruction of many habitats within the world. But i think when we see an oportunity to stop somthing which holds little benefit to anyone (its not even that economically viable) we should take it. I feel in a similar way hurt by the destruction of old growth forrests in tasmania for the production of paper.



MYTH.

old growth is a laughable definition, it can be used by both sides of the argument (the technical definition is by the way a forest which has not been touched by logging in the past 100 years.)

Greenies use it to provoke an emotive response to logging, which i must add is not a bad thing. If only they would just tell the truth about the situations instead of "oh look they are chopping a tree down, i want to marry that tree, i have to save my lover"

Selective logging is actually beneficial to forest environments because it allows and promotes regenerative growth.

The small plot clear felling in the tarkine forest is actually the safest way to proceed with the operations. And if you look at the actual area cleared in these types of operations, as a percentage of the entire forest, it is infinitesimal.

Again, timber is one of those resources which can continue to be harvested for may years to come as long as it is managed as a resource, and not stripped. whales too can be used ina similar fashion.


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Feb 16, 2007)

> Can you name any species which became extinct as a direct result of human interaction before European settlement within the continent of Australia? You said it was a fact, how about some empirical data to go with it????


there were animals being made extinct in australia before europeans came here..quite a few species were eradicated by aboriginal people (not only here but on other continents as well)..
i will find the link i was looking at a while ago and post it for you


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> It is commonly said that if you get onto a high moral horse you had better hold on for dear life, because it is a long fall down into the quagmire which you have been preaching against



Well then I’m a changed man, off the horse, in the quagmire. Let's Kill and eat everything. It's too hard to stop it, let the killing wheel churn and see what sort of world we have in 20 to 50 years.

Yes mistakes have been made by every race on earth with respect to over harvesting of our environment, but when will it be o.k. for people to ask it to stop. With your rational no one can ever say a word because their own 'race' or 'people' have been responsible for wiping out something either directly or indirectly. If there is 1 valid reason for harvesting whales I would love to hear it. 

With respect to animals that have been wiped out by Humans other than Europeans, I'm sure that when the dingo was introduced by Australia's traditional owners it must have had some effect of co**** there is no proof of that. Flame suit on

p.s As I am in finace i'm better with numbers so feel free to go nuts on the grammer and spelling.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> The small plot clear felling in the tarkine forest is actually the safest way to proceed with the operations.


 
Why do we need to do anything there at all, before white people got here it hadnt been touched by humans for millions of years, is it to much to ask that we leave some of these pristine environments and look at them from a far, and maybe let our children do the same.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

ssssnakeman said:


> there were animals being made extinct in australia before europeans came here..quite a few species were eradicated by aboriginal people (not only here but on other continents as well)..
> i will find the link i was looking at a while ago and post it for you



not disputing the fact that there may have been some, but the way of life of the nomadic indigenous tribes placed far fewer stresses on the environment than that caused by european invasion. They needed the resources available to them for their return the next cycle.

The extent of the extinctions are the things which need to be looked at and the time frame they happened in. 

I am not advocating the hunting of whales to extinction, but the simple fact remains that we need to keep Japan, Norway and other pro whaling nations at the table and talking, because unless we give them some concessions, they will not stop whaling, and may just violate the agreement anyway by collecting all species, not just those they are licensed to collect.

It is not that we should not speak out about things, but we must retain our credibility, and quite frankly, our human rights and our conservation records are pretty flimsy.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> If there is 1 valid reason for harvesting whales I would love to hear it.



Makes my woman smell and look good - she needs makeup 

Tastes good in stew and is a great substitute for chicken (whale, the chicken of the sea)

There's too many of them anyway, slective culling just helps their populations along...

All these reasons are pretty much the reasons they're killed now (except the last one which is an unrealistic expectation of culling whales) with limited conservation effort by Norway and Japan and some other countries (but I can't recall who).

There is no nice way to kill a whale. Here we are in this forum commenting on freezing rats and reptiles as cruelty. This is almost nothing compared to the way the whale is slaughtered. It's a nightmare in comparisson. 

Also, the young (pups) are often left as shark fodder. This is a double whammy on the existence of many species of whale. 

I am by no means a greenie. I enjoy my meats. Most meat is slaughtered in a reasonable fashioned way - stunned and slit. There is no suffering and my gut is filled with delight knowing such.

Many of you will probably come back at me and suggest I am wrong and have I seen it... The answer is yes, i have seen it, and yes it was done that way. I don't say all meat is killed this way, but it is certainly not chased down with harpoons sticking out of its back while its calf is left to die in the cool waters...

So please don't tell me there is a nesscesity to kill whales! Or giant squid, or endangered tussock plants!


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Makes my woman smell and look good - she needs makeup



She "needs" make up? I think you may need it after she reads that. 

IsK


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Norway and Japan and some others (but I can't recall who).


 
Iceland


----------



## junglist* (Feb 16, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> Why do we need to do anything there at all, before white people got here it hadnt been touched by humans for millions of years, is it to much to ask that we leave some of these pristine environments and look at them from a far, and maybe let our children do the same.



Why?? Because they are valuable resources. You do mean except for the indigenous peoples who had been living in the areas for over 40,000 years??? Dont you??? But from your comment i take it that you dont feel our indigenous brothers and sisters are real people.

management of the ecosystems will allow successive generations to view and experience these environments too.

You take a far too simplistic view of the scenarios to imagine that forests are static ecosystems. Australia's fire vulnerability should be evidence enough of this.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> She "needs" make up? I think you may need it after she reads that.
> 
> IsK



Thanks IsK... I have been keeping this site a secret from her for many moons now... Just my luck she'll stumble across it and read that one line now you've drawn attention to it... thanks so much 

I love you hunny, it's all a big misunderstanding... no no... just put the suitcase down... hunny... suitcase... down....


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist, i agree with what you say and also what slim6y says.
i thought id mention the empirical data on pre european arrival extinctions is well documented in answer to the question.


----------



## FAY (Feb 16, 2007)

There are too many people....how about we cull a few of them.......


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

GARTHNFAY said:


> There are too many people....how about we cull a few of them.......



Can we start with Queenslanders? 

IsK


----------



## slim6y (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> Can we start with Queenslanders?
> 
> IsK



Nah, lets start with mexicans... anyone south of the border is gone!!!


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> Can we start with Queenslanders?
> 
> IsK



Only for reasarch of course!!!! But after that they are $35 a kilo.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 16, 2007)

Hsut77 said:


> Only for reasarch of course!!!! But after that they are $35 a kilo.



That'll cost a mint!! Have you seen the size of some of them banana benders??

IsK


----------



## Veredus (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Again, timber is one of those resources which can continue to be harvested for may years to come as long as it is managed as a resource, and not stripped. whales too can be used ina similar fashion.



Junglist, would you agree with me if I claimed it ethical to cull certain groups of humans for the purpose of feeding the masses and for medical research? I mean there are certainly plenty of people to go around and as long as we manage the situation as a resource then our species should not become extinct. We could skim off of the poorer nations, using the flesh to feed the hungry and using the organs to help the sick.

The logical answer you should be formulating in your mind at the moment is of course "No that is rediculous." I ask you in that case, why should we use whales as a resource like that, or for that matter anything on the planet. The natural order of a predator is to kill what it needs to survive, and before you mention that animals do not eat everything they kill I will note that survival is based on more than just consumption. We as a species have no need to whales, or giants squid, we do it because of our foolish God complex. The same reason the mob will go hunting for a croc that ate some stupid tourist splashing about in its territory. We have this idea that we are the boss. But if anything we owe our entire lives of devoted work to protecting this planet and the species that live here, not to harvesting them as we see fit.


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 16, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> That'll cost a mint!! Have you seen the size of some of them banana benders??
> 
> IsK



Yeah but the bits that stick out (usually is made up of XXXX) is only 5 bucks a kilo.


----------



## mr burrito = god (Feb 16, 2007)

veredus i agree with you 100000000000%


----------



## Australis (Feb 16, 2007)

junglist* said:


> Not quite sure how the reference to the eradication of many native australian species by European settlers could possibly be racist. It is, 1) a documented fact and 2) hardly racist as i am myself, an Australian of European extraction.



Just because your of European extraction, doesnt rmean you cant be racist towards Europeans. You targeted Europeans as causing extinctions in Australia, so maybe you are just ignorant?



junglist* said:


> Ok, so the one spelling error you found was a typo, the others were more grammatical errors with respect to the lack of capitalisation of proper nouns. Really quite a small issue.



It wasnt a small issue when you had a go at someone for spelling suggesting they hadnt completed high school, was just funny.



junglist* said:


> When you've got a PhD, then you can talk to me about having education levels similar to mine



What does a PhD have to do with anything? I didnt even mention my level of education.



junglist* said:


> Can you name any species which became extinct as a direct result of human interaction before European settlement within the continent of Australia? You said it was a fact, how about some empirical data to go with it????.



I dont need to provide data, find your own.. i dont see you providing data for comments?

Yes i could name plenty of species, but why dont you look into it your self and educate yourself on it? you seem to think your level of education is above everyone else here...

Yet you often post uninformed rubbish, if you didnt know animals were becoming extinct (because of Humans) before Europeans settled Australia, you really dont know jack about species extinction in Australia.


----------



## pythoness (Feb 16, 2007)

thenothing said:


> You don't seriously worship dirt?


in a way  earth would be a better discription


----------



## Hetty (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree, earth covers more really.


----------



## bobchic (Feb 16, 2007)

I have no idea if this has been said yet..

The so called scientist seem more like fisherman in my eyes... they baited a hook with a diffrent speices of squid and enticed the squid with lights... when the squid took the bait they tried to haul it in... while hauling it they lost it for a second and there was some sort of struggle where the squid lost two tenticles.. by the time they sorted it out the squid was dead...

Did anyone else read this?


----------



## bylo (Feb 16, 2007)

why is Japan involved in all this killing for science do other countries kill large animals for science.
I cannot see what science can do for animals that have been on this planet for yonks


----------



## Adzo (Feb 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Makes my woman smell and look good - she needs makeup
> 
> Tastes good in stew and is a great substitute for chicken (whale, the chicken of the sea)
> 
> There's too many of them anyway, slective culling just helps their populations along...


You for got "The're coming right for us!"


----------



## bobchic (Feb 16, 2007)

could i also say that the footage looks fake.. 

thinking about it i really dont think its real..


----------



## ZION (Feb 16, 2007)

bylo said:


> I cannot see what science can do for animals that have been on this planet for yonks
> [/SIZE]



Usually, most of the research is done to benefit human beings, not the animals themselves. This might seem arrogant to some people, but it's the way science is at the moment. In my research I'm required to kill test subjects, and the information it can give me might allow humans to enjoy _complete _recovery from massive stroke, myocardial infaction, and any condition in which the human brain or other organ is deprived of oxygen for more than four minutes.

Is it worth it? 
I don't know. I would hope it is.


----------



## Oskorei (Feb 16, 2007)

bunch of racist comments on here and its disgusting, this squid died was not killed so get of your high horse, build a bridge and get over it.

as for the Nippon people eating it or whales? so what of it, they want to be able to famr the whales so that the population of whales is still there and they get some food.

if you have problems with this then stop eating meat because it is all kileld just so you can ingest it. and in fact stop eating salads and stuff to, yo uare taking away food from other animals.. so basically go kill yourself as so you may be comitted to the earth and leave this imperfect world and join your own little fantasy land!

bloody hippies!


----------



## slim6y (Feb 17, 2007)

I am a school teacher here in Cairns - and my year 9 science class was very interested to hear my opinions (which I force on them god bless their little hearts) on 'good science' vs 'unneserscary science'.

I explained about the article and the squid and how it was inadvertantly killed while trying to be captured all in the aid of study.

But yet, I explained to the class, I think that is bad science because as far as I am aware it didn't help the species or better humans in any way significantly.

I then reflected on what we're about to do with 40 toads - we're about to disect them. I asked how was that good science comparing to the squid... Most said 'the toads are pests sir" "They kill our native wildlife sir" "There's hundreds of millions of them sir" "If we study them we have a better chance of eradicating them" etc etc etc...

You know, I was pleased that without much prompting these boys could already see the difference between good science and bad science... 

I am creating them in my own image... Now they've all gone home and killed a toad I'm sure! But I have made sure they kill them quickly and painlessly if they choose to do so (as they're boys, it's very hard to control the natural want to kill instinct, but easy to control the level of torture they put these animals through). 

I may not have explained 'exactly' how or what was said in the class room and that may make this part of the thread a little hard to understand, but the jist is there. 

There is hope for us yet...


----------



## slim6y (Feb 17, 2007)

Oskorei said:


> bunch of racist comments on here and its disgusting, this squid died was not killed so get of your high horse, build a bridge and get over it.
> 
> as for the Nippon people eating it or whales? so what of it, they want to be able to famr the whales so that the population of whales is still there and they get some food.
> 
> ...



Just remember how the whale is killed and how your cattle or lamb is killed... Two very different methods. One way i would even do, the other... I would suggest is only for the blood thirsty who like to watch people or animals in pain.

I don't believe anyone is on their high horse here, I would suggest most people here have very informed opinions and have not made racist comments - some comments were borderline admitidley... 

Farmin whales is both impractical and impossible - they're not studying the 3000 (exact number unknown) whales they kill to farm them - it's pure harvest. And that is all there is to that. Th eneed to study these animlas dead is very much a 'bad science' see above... The need to conserve these animals in their niche environment is eqaully important as conserving our fish stocks for the next centuries to come. 

Again, I don't believe many people in here are anti meat eaters, they're anti the way the several countries that choose to whale (including norway and iceland) go about it. The nescessity is needless.

The reason most fishing companies stopped drift netting was because of the outcry due to many mamal fatalities in the nets... Now peopel 'choose' to buy dolphin free tuna - maybe it is a label, maybe it's tokenism, but above all, people chose to do this - and that's what we're aiming for!


----------



## slim6y (Feb 17, 2007)

bobchic said:


> I have no idea if this has been said yet..
> 
> The so called scientist seem more like fisherman in my eyes... they baited a hook with a diffrent speices of squid and enticed the squid with lights... when the squid took the bait they tried to haul it in... while hauling it they lost it for a second and there was some sort of struggle where the squid lost two tenticles.. by the time they sorted it out the squid was dead...
> 
> Did anyone else read this?



Reprinting this for you Oskorei - did he fall or was he pushed?


----------



## Sdaji (Feb 17, 2007)

Why do people freak out when one squid is killed? If the death of one individual of a very widespread and common species is so tragic, why is it not unbearably painful to know that there are countless butchers and fish mongers in the country? Why is it not horrific to know that every day there are zillions of animals dying in land clearing projects? (This actually does upset me greatly). When a zillion animals are wiped out to build a shopping centre/housing development/cane field/etc etc, it is absurd to spend time mourning the death of one common animal. If you actually care, don't sook and tell people that you're in love with dirt, get up and do the world a bit of good.


----------



## gaara (Feb 17, 2007)

wow, get over the squid already


----------



## Veredus (Feb 17, 2007)

I do not think so much that it is the squid but the fact that the needless slaughter of animals and destruction of habitat still seem to be acceptable practice in today's supposedly educated society. I do agree strongly with Sdaji, arguing the point of the solitary squid on aps is not enough, people have to stand up where they will be heard so they can do something about the problem.

For my part I will feel that a very small part of my responsibility as a human being has been fulfilled if just a few people take with them for consideration some of the things I have mentioned in this thread.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 17, 2007)

Sdaji - is it the one death of a squid that is upsetting people or the reason behind it? We do need to band together to prevent this from occuring.

I actually find this article http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060508175123 to be quite relevant - it does not seem biased or talking about save the squid but it does mention that deep sea fishing is removing large populations of fish which endangers all animals (squid inclusive).

And as you mentioned Sdaji, it's not just the water, it terrestrial aswell! We should do something, but suprisingly enough there's still a world of opposition to doing something as it's in the 'too hard' basket


----------



## Lucas (Feb 17, 2007)

japanese scientific research = what does it taste like


----------



## Hsut77 (Feb 18, 2007)

gaara said:


> wow, get over the squid already



No worries Garra, if you sleep better at night just "getting over" the world problems that's up to you.

I think some people on the thread have taken a far too simplistic view on the purpose of this thread. Comparing farmed animals and salad to the meaningless destruction of one of the worlds most magnificent and secretive creatures is uninformed at best and dangerously arrogant at worst. Do the same attitudes exist about the volunteers who are striving to save the black footed ferret in the states or any other animal around the world; weather it is endangered or not? Tiger and Brown snakes are no way near in danger but as soon as an article appears about some young kids killing one the outcry from this site is deafening. 

I by am no means throwing stones in a glass house. As a younger man I have been involved in duck shooting and various hunting so I do not hold a low opinion of anyone who has criticised this thread (on conservation grounds). But, as the importance of conservation issues have brought to the surface over the last few years my attitude has radically changed. I pose a question, what if this article was about a scientist who had found a rare and spectacular species of python? The scientist lures the snake takes a video of it, tries to catch and it ends up dead. Would you be upset because you like snakes or would you be upset because a creature was needlessly killed. The vast majority, imo would only get mad because they have affinity for snakes.

Squid or Python, Panda or Tiger which one is it ok to kill? The slimy one? :shock:


----------



## RevDaniel (Feb 18, 2007)

kind of depressing hearing about it actually


----------



## ZION (Feb 18, 2007)

I don't offer opinions, I'm just discussing.

It's been characteristic of human behaviour for centuries, Hsut77, that we hold some species in esteem, others we disdain, and others still we slaughter _en masse _for food. Why did the egyptians worship cats and not the asp? Why are we frantically trying to save the panda and not the gremlin-like Aye-Aye from Madagascar, which exists in small numbers? And why did we choose the harmless pig for food over the domestic dog? 
Who knows. There are always reasons. Physical appeal, compatability with humans, accessability, etc. It might not be a perfect answer, but it's true to some extent. 


_*The Madagascar Fauna Group is the only conservation team interested in saving the Aye-Aye._


----------



## bredli84 (Feb 18, 2007)

is the aye-aye that weird looking lemur thing with different shaped fingers?


----------



## ZION (Feb 18, 2007)

Yeah and those creepy, hypnotic yellow eyes. They're so cool.


----------



## Sdaji (Feb 18, 2007)

Do bleeding hearts go this bezerk when people buy meat, forget to eat it until it goes rotten, then throw it away?

Many of our most respected professional herpetologists (well, all of the ones with any formal biological education) have killed animals (or at the very least, had other people kill animals for them) in the name of science. I've killed hundreds of animals as a science student and while working as a scientist, both in the laboratory and in the field. May lightning strike me down! :lol: For the record, my research has been primarily ecological, focussing more on "helping the world" than "helping people" (I have basically not been involved in medicine, etc etc). I can't speak for the Giant Squid researchers as I have no knowledge of the people involved or their work, but apart from a small percenatage of the people testing on rats, mice, rabbits, etc, people who use animals as part of their research typically adore them. I had an employer who had me kill a couple hundred animals in one day, it was thoroughly depressing for me, both me and my boss absolutely loved the species, but we both knew that those species were benefitting massively from our research, as well as the people who would be able to use the information. From the outside, it is easy for naive people to shudder at what appears horrible and unnecessary, it's a great shame that they don't understand as despite being well intentioned, they are hurting the species they wish to help. Apart from the direct benefits the species get from the research, giving information about those species to the wider community helps to raise awareness. If the wider community doesn't know about a species, they won't be interested in protecting it (if researchers weren't out there playing with Giant Squid, people wouldn't think about them, which would give them one less reason to get upset about damage to the murky depths of our oceans, which most people couldn't give a hoot about). Giant Squid are very common and have a massive distribution, they are a major prey (yes, prey) species, countless individuals are killed every day to be eaten. If one extra individual is taken for science, it does no effective direct damage to the species (in this and most cases) but raises public awareness of and knowledge about it, which is of at least some help. There are two Giant Squid on display in Melbourne at the moment, countless people have visited them and stared in awe (yes, I'm included in that group). If that makes the wider community care just that little bit about protecting the planet, we're going to save a heck of a lot more than one or two individual squid because of it. Those individuals taken for science help their species much more than those countless individuals which get chomped up by whales every day. Even if you ignore the benefits to the species in question, gaining information which Children can read about in books and adults can be fascinated by is a wonderful thing... if you care about people (I know a lot of you don't seem to, but I count myself as part of the group which actually does care about people being happy!).

Melbourne's current heat wave must be caused by the rest of the country aiming their flame-throwers in my direction! :lol:

Enjoy your lamb chops


----------



## Oskorei (Feb 18, 2007)

zion dog dont taste no good at all... pig is much better!


----------



## slim6y (Feb 18, 2007)

Sdaji, very well written and informative.

I do have a 'but' however. 

1) How do you know that the giant squid has 'massive' populations. I tried researching populations via the net, but I couldn't find anything that conclusively said they were in large or massive populations or they were endangered. I am guessing seeing as the latter wasn't discussed that they're not endangered. But I don't see many statistics (whether true or made up) to back your theory.

2) I know we kill many animals to 'help' us and their species in general. In some cases neserscary and in others just down right greed takes over. I can't find what information the Japanese scientists were researching with the squid. But because of their depths etc, they are hard to study. Because of what I have read i am lead to believe there are isolated occurences of the squid and therefore they possibley have a diverse species range (kind of like our carpet python perhaps).

I personally think what you say carries a lot of value, but it doesn't cover the fact that the difference between 'filming' a creature and 'killing' a creature for some 'scientific research' is in fact a large gap. 

I don't think they wanted to kill the squid, but it happened.

It does remind me of little kids who always try to catch animals as part of our human experience. Some of these animals die, others loose their wings or body parts in the name of this discovery. 

All I am saying in general, is these scientists had choice, and I personally believe, on current facts, they have chosen a bad science over a good one.

My opinion is always open to persuasion if the facts presented meet the guidelines 

No flaming required


----------



## cris (Feb 18, 2007)

Sdaji im getting sick of your rational approach, this thread is suposed to be about calamari and the emotional loss of an individual squid. 
Im sick of all those >insert random race here< ppl killing our innocent wildlife.

How many squid would get eaten by whales? that would be a very slow death caused by whales, all those poor squids


----------



## Reptile City (Feb 19, 2007)

I was just wanting to see a pic of the squid jag?
It must have been huge!
It was a yazuri jag wasnt it?

Ja


----------



## Sdaji (Feb 19, 2007)

slim6y: do a bit more research, there is more information out there than you've found. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Giant Squid has a massive range and that they're common. Because they live in a fairly homogenous environment (cold, open water in the ocean's depths), it's unlikely that they'd have a similar population structure to Carpet Pythons (which live in radically different enviroments and climates, and are obstructed by or restricted to physical barriers and favourable habitats - moutain ranges, rivers, deserts, etc etc etc).

I dare say I know a lot more about this situation than you do, but I don't claim to know anywhere near enough to know whether this particular case was "bad science" or "good science" and without knowing, it's really not a good idea to throw stones. I know from experience that people who are practicing critially needed "good science" face a huge amount of opposition from people, and often it is enough to stop the research from going ahead, with animals often being the big losers (medical research typically gets passed much more easily and is done more quietly, partly because bleeding hearts get upset by it and probably even more because sometimes the companies carrying it out aren't so open about their findings because they want to keep sole posession of their commercially valuable findings) ecological researchers are trying to help the world, they publish their work publicly, they are open to public scrutiny (if the public actually care to investigate before throwing stones). If you really do feel the need to protest, do some research and make sure that what you're throwing doubt around is actually not a good thing, or if there is too little information available, ask for it - people in research are usually only too happy to provide you with a huge amount of information about their research if you ask them directly and politely - this has certainly been the case with everyone I have worked with in science - we've all put our methods on to paper, we've all done public seminars and taken questions from the public, I've never seen anyone in ecolological research refuse to answer such a question out of secrecy. There are plenty of horrendous things taking place in this world and it's a great shame when well meaning people stand in the way of good things, while bad things are allowed to continue unhindered.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 19, 2007)

Australis said:


> Just because your of European extraction, doesnt rmean you cant be racist towards Europeans. You targeted Europeans as causing extinctions in Australia, so maybe you are just ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Australis, you sir are a fool of the highest order. I didnt say that my level of education was above everyone else, but you have conveniently proved its higher than your own. I didnt say that species weren't becoming extinct before European Australians came, but if you look at the numbers, species extinction has grown exponentially since the arrival of European Australians. The conclusions which can be drawn from this evidence indicate a high responsibility for species extinction which lies upon the shoulders of European Australian immigrants.

Posting uninformed nonsense?? Ridiculous, i have posted things which disagree with your own opinions at times yes, on topics which have debatable outcomes. On topics that have many grey areas due to lack of definition from a legislative body. I am not an expert in many areas, but those in which i do have some expertise, i will continue to post, and those in which i need more knowledge, i will continue to post and seek assistance and knowledge.

Climb back into the hole you came from, because vitriol without substance seems to be all you are capable of.


----------



## pythoness (Feb 19, 2007)

Sdaji, your above average inteligence allows you to twist everything around in many strange and convolouted ways. can't wait to do coffee when you move here, lol.


----------



## Sdaji (Feb 19, 2007)

pythoness said:


> Sdaji, your above average inteligence allows you to twist everything around in many strange and convolouted ways. can't wait to do coffee when you move here, lol.



It's not difficult to put forward a rational case which makes sense when you have logic and ration on your side. Strange and convoluted? Heh. You only need to twist things if you are attempting to prove something which is incorrect, you'd posess much more experience in this area than I do. I'd much rather admit to being wrong than do that. I'm quite happy to admit to something being fact if it clearly is, even if I am not at all happy about it, and quite often I simply have to do that. I prefer to work towards making the world a better place than give in to irrational emotional responses which hurt the world, despite superficially appearing to be "nice". It's impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person, so quite frankly, I'd rather drink oil with an ugly monkey.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 19, 2007)

Would you not prefer to argue for the unarguable... All I have to do is prove you wrong, or at least discredit your theory to have already won  

At present I am working on that strategy...

But so far is - If the public aren't made aware of the research they're doing (on the squid) then surely it isn't something the public will agree on. If the public don't agree on it, then generally, whether informed or not, the public are usually correct - to a certain extent. 

If the scientist were so happy to see the squid and were making a better life for it... or the whales that do consume it, then I would like to see this research or at least the abstract that they're trying to achieve.

Somehow, i have huge doubts that these scientist intend on preserving the giant squid, regardless of current populations. Which i am still not convinced are in 'large proportions'.


----------



## Australis (Feb 19, 2007)

junglist*

There you go again with your usual claim of higher education, yet when it comes down to it you know stuff all every time.


"Climb back into the hole you came from"

Wow, highly educated...... it shows...lol


----------



## slim6y (Feb 19, 2007)

Maybe you would like to read this educational blurb about the reproduction of the giant squid... and then re-iterate how there can be so many if it is 'by chance' that they mate as indicated in this article....

http://www.tonmo.com/science/public/architeuthisreproduction.php

Yet the Japanese scientist belive there to be 200 000 sperm whales, which require around 2000 pounds (maybe 1000kg or thereabouts) of food per day. Therefore, squid must be plentiful??? I guess the whales must eat something else too? 

They do not JUST eat giant squid, and it would be foolish to think that's all they consume!

And even if this were true, and then you take into consideration the first article. I would be inclined to think the populations were dwindling... 

Still think it's ok to have killed the squid for unknown research?


----------



## pythoness (Feb 20, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> , so quite frankly, I'd rather drink oil with an ugly monkey.


:shock: i'm sure you'll be in familiar company then.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 20, 2007)

I have a sugestion... yes a reasonably constructive one. Why don't we create a forum on this site that is specifically for the discussion of ecological and environmental issues etc?


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 20, 2007)

Oh yeah and i forgot to add my abuse of the greenies. "You god damn tree huggers, go snuggle with some poison ivy!"


----------



## slim6y (Feb 20, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> I have a sugestion... yes a reasonably constructive one. Why don't we create a forum on this site that is specifically for the discussion of ecological and environmental issues etc?



It would still fit under chit chat, but i like the way you're thinking. 
 
I am always very suprised to hear people's comments on ecology and environment from this site - mainly because we all keep reptiles or other animals or both... We share that in common, but our views of this world are very different!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 20, 2007)

That's what i was thinking, still have it under the chit chat section but give it its own section. Perhaps call it Eco Chat? or Greenie's Gripes? lol but seriously if there is enough people who think it would be a good idea i'll ask the mods if it can be done.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 20, 2007)

Australis said:


> junglist*
> 
> There you go again with your usual claim of higher education, yet when it comes down to it you know stuff all every time.
> 
> ...



And your point is?? Sdaj has just said it ever so well, "You only need to twist things if you are attempting to prove something which is incorrect, you'd posess much more experience in this area than I do. I'd much rather admit to being wrong than do that. I'm quite happy to admit to something being fact if it clearly is, even if I am not at all happy about it, and quite often I simply have to do that. I prefer to work towards making the world a better place than give in to irrational emotional responses which hurt the world, despite superficially appearing to be "nice". It's impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person,"

As you australis fit the definition or an irrational person, this conversation is over. You have no logical, well reasoned arguments to add to the debate, and can simply say, "ohh you think you're more educated than me, you must be stupid"

When you have constructed a rational argument, complete with evidence and lacking totally in your usual "This is wrong because i think it is so, but i cant back it up with any evidence, so i'll just shout loudly and make myself look like a half wit" arguments, Then you are permitted to talk to me. Until then, take your illogical arguments and half baked dont kill the animals nonsense somewhere else, they might give you the time of day.


----------



## Australis (Feb 20, 2007)

junglist*

What are you basing your above rant on? i didnt say "dont kill the animals"

Perhaps you should read all my posts in this thread, i didnt say anything to the tune of saving the Giant Squid....or any other animal for that matter.

I only pointed out that humans had caused animal extinction in Australia well before Europeans settled Australia. I dont have to provide evidence for everything i say..... you sure dont!!!




junglist* said:


> When you have constructed a rational argument, complete with evidence and lacking totally in your usual "This is wrong because i think it is so, but i cant back it up with any evidence, so i'll just shout loudly and make myself look like a half wit" arguments, Then you are permitted to talk to me. Until then, take your illogical arguments and half baked dont kill the animals nonsense somewhere else, they might give you the time of day.



The above has nothing to do with anything i posted, i didnt mention saving the Squid or any other animals, i wasnt trying to debate that at all, just simply pointing out that not all species extinction in Australia can be blamed on European settlers.



"You only need to twist things if you are attempting to prove something which is incorrect, you'd posess much more experience in this area than I do"

Are you serious? ...lol

What am i trying to twist? 

I think you got offended that i mentioned something you had no idea about.


----------



## slim6y (Feb 20, 2007)

Personally, I think Junglist and Australis (both of whom I think are wonderful contributors) should have their very own chat forum to bash out their views...  I like reading both of your arguments, although some seem a little harsh. 

Anyhow, (trying to be funny now) it might be better if you two didn't share your love for each other in public...

I look forward to the next retort and I am merely an innocent bystander


----------



## Rennie (Feb 20, 2007)

Mods, please delete, I decided not to get into this debate.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 20, 2007)

I think most of the rabbits, foxes mice and rats were brought in by europeans, which last time i checked included the irish and french.


----------



## IsK67 (Feb 20, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> I think most of the rabbits, foxes mice and rats were brought in by europeans, which last time i checked included the irish and french.



Only most of them? Were the rest brought by someone else?

IsK


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 20, 2007)

It was less harsh than saying they all were, regardless of the fact.
I was trying not to be rude.


----------



## junglist* (Feb 20, 2007)

Funny you should bring this up Australis. It highlights quite aptly, that you've got no hope of bringing anything to the argument. Not once did i claim that the indigenous inhabitants of the country we know of as Australia were not responsible for some species extinction. But, once again, you can't produce any documentation of the amounts of species lost, nor the method through which they were exterminated. And considering the amount of time spent on the continent, and the amount of species which remained when european settlers arrived, its a pretty safe estimate that the amount lost are statistically insignificant.

Documented history is a wholly different concept. Considering the amount of fauna (and flora) inhabiting australia when it was "discovered", the amount which has been lost - WHICH IS DUE TO EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS AND NO OTHER - is terrifying. Now considering that we have been here for a little over 200 years, and the anthropological evidence which has been found indicating there have been human inhabitants on the continent for over 40,000 years there is a single question (there are many more, but one glaring question) begs asking oh wise australis - Did any animal which became extinct during those 40,000 years become extinct purely due to the inhabitants, or was it due to environmental circumstance?

The answer is clear, that for the most part, human cause of extinction of fauna can be statistically ruled out over those 40,000 years.

A corollary also holds that european australians have been MOSTLY responsible for the extinction of the majority of australian species during their 200 year stint on the continent.

Oh wise australis please show us the error of our logic, and provide a statistically relevant amount of species, that human action wiped out over the continent over 40,000 years, and not just localised hunting which may have depleted populations of a species in certain localities.

The answer you are looking for is to take a look at the anthropological evidence of other nomadic peoples. Look at the way they use the resources they have without pushing them beyond the brink of extinction. The habits of native american peoples, african nomadic tribes, and the inhabitants of the chinese steppes region will give you a good starting point if you want to bother researching something to have a valid and reasoned opinion on something.


----------



## Australis (Feb 20, 2007)

Junglist*,

Yes,
Species became extinct due to humans in Australia before the country was settled by Europeans.


"Funny you should bring this up Australis. It highlights quite aptly, that you've got no hope of bringing anything to the argument"

What arguemet? lol for the last time mate i never had a arguement about the bloody squid...lol

All i stated was humans were causing species extinction in Australia well before the Europeans came along, which is a known fact, i dont have to provide proof. if anyone doesnt think its true, they can look into it themselves, no skin off my nose, show me to be wrong....lol

"The answer you are looking for is to take a look at the anthropological evidence of other nomadic peoples. Look at the way they use the resources they have without pushing them beyond the brink of extinction"

Firstly im not looking for any "answers", and im aware of how nomadic people lived.

Remember that the Aboriginals came to Australia a land full of animals that hadnt evolved along side a predator such as man, nomadic or not, this is going to have a huge impact on some species, including extinction in some cases.

Off the top of my head one example for Australia would be the reptile species: _megalania_

And yes, not from "environmental circumstance" besides humans entering it...lol


So whats your take on it? seriously, your saying its false?and that no humans causes extinction in Australia before the Europeans arrived?


Anyways, you dont have to take my word for it....lol


----------

