Jay Branscomb, a comedian and personality known for "stirring the pot" if you know what I mean, posted a photograph on Facebook of Steven Spielberg posing with an animatronic Triceratops from the 1993 move Jurassic Park. Along with that photo, he also posted the comment, "Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man." Jay Branscomb, was trolling.
For those of you not up on your internet lingo, "trolling" is defined by Dictionary.com as:
Digital Technology, Informal.
- to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
- to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments.
"That's why they are on the endangered list."
"Isn't that an endangered species?!? Horrible!!!"
"Steven Spielberg has absolutely no respect for animals. Posing in front of this poor dead animal like that. Barbaric." You get the point.
It's hard not to laugh at some of these replies. After all anyone who has a local library, attended any degree of public school, or has had a television in the last 50 years should know what this animal is (even if they've never seen the movie Jurassic Park), and that it doesn't look anything like a modern....well anything. It has a frill, two large spikes on it's head, and a beak. It's not a mammal, and it's not a large reptile either. It's something different. Therein lies the trouble, and the source of my unease. Even when other posters pointed out that this was director Steven Spielberg (a well known director they should have at least heard of), and that he directed a movie about dinosaurs, posters ignored those facts and kept yelling about anti-hunting, animal abuse, and prison terms.
If this doesn't scare you it should. Why? Because either the majority of people who responded to this post have perfected their trolling to near master-craft level, or... people who consider themselves a "voice for the animals" care absolutely nothing about facts, want nothing but the harshest punishment for anyone whose beliefs don't align with their own, and are only vaguely aware of what an animal is. The fact that they couldn't look at this photo and tell it's not a modern mammal means they lack, what I would consider, rudimentary knowledge of our modern world. What 3 year old can't be shown this photo, and proclaim proudly and with conviction, "DINOSAUR!"?
I grew up watching TV shows like Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, Wild, Wild World of Animals, and Disney's Real-Life Adventures (which sadly turned out not to be so "real" after all). I took Ranger Rick magazine, and had a huge collection of Zoobooks (yes they even had one on Dinosaurs). I even had a collection of cards, that came 20 at a time, each with a full color photo of an animal, and the back told about it's location, habitat, common and scientific name, and so on. It's the reason why I know what a Cus-cus is and most people don't. Okay, you got me, I'm an animal nerd! And I concede that I know way more about animals that the average American.
I love animals. I've made it my life to study them (mostly dogs and horses), and I care about their well being. I can read dogs as easily as if they could talk, because I know how they communicate. I can ball-park my chicken's vocalizations to within reason, and I've only had them about two years. I can tell when they say "don't bother me", "Ooooo what have you got there?", "INCOMING HAWK!", "or, someone's in my favorite nest box and I need to lay an egg NOW!". That last one always tickles me, because there are 5 empty next boxes, and they would rather wait in line and scream chicken-obscenities at their flock mate, then take the next box over. But then again, chickens are related to Dinosaurs, which brings us back on topic (see how I did that :) ).
You would think that someone that loved animals so much, and cared about their welfare SO MUCH, would have more than a passing knowledge about animals, both alive and reasonably the most famous of those who are dead or extinct, undoubtedly of which the Triceratops is one. You would think that they would be interested in the facts of the matter, before leaping to such condemning conclusions. You would also think, they would be open to suggestions that the image might not be quite what it seems (I saw it on the Internet, it MUST be true!). But they don't and they aren't. They can't hear what others are saying over the sound of their own self righteous screaming, and they can't see what others point out because their eyes are closed for emphasis. And while this still may be chuckle-worthy because it's a picture of an animatronic dinosaur that was used as a movie prop, it stops being funny at all when you realize that they do the same thing to real people, and real animals, that have real lives and incur real litigation, fines and punishments. Two recent examples come to mind.
First was a short cell phone video taken of two dogs howling in the snow. Now if you aren't part of the "live under a rock club" you probably know that a large portion of the U.S. this year got unexpected and sometimes abnormal amounts of snow. Both dogs in question were arctic breeds and appeared to be Husky or Malamute mixes, and had copious amounts of coat. The video was (I can only assume, purposely) taken from an angle that showed the front of their pen but not the back, and by omission made it look like the dogs had no shelter, no food, and no water. Couple that with some mournful howling (either out of boredom, or the need to communicate a la 101 Dalmations, as there are other neighborhood dogs howling along in the video) and you have something that looks like an abusive situation. There was also a flattened cardboard box near the fence outside the pen, that more than one person accused of being a dead dog that had just been "discarded". The video went viral, authorities were called, and the family got lots of threats from "animal lovers" about the blatant mistreatment of their dogs. Death threats, arson threats, and an online petition to have the dogs removed, as well as calls from MULTIPLE states to the local authorities. I can only imagine that either the neighbor who shot the video disapproved of the dogs being kept outdoors at all, or that they were tired of the noise and tried to do something sensational to have the dogs removed from the adjoining property. Either way, it was a jerk move to say the least. The dogs had ample food and water, heat lamps and straw. (Authorities found no fault with their standard of care, except they felt one dog house was a little small for one dog, and the family replaced it immediately.)
The second was this week. A small scale New York farmer was charged with I believe 12 counts of animal cruelty and had his dogs and horses removed from the farm because of a "report" authorities received. The officials showed up so early at his house that he had yet to get his morning farm chores done. In good faith, he showed them around the property, where they made pages and pages of notes. What stuck was even though the weather was well below freezing, and heaters were employed to keep the water tanks from freezing, one had frozen over. Not frozen solid, but frozen over. So his horses and dogs were removed from the property, and charges were filed. This in spite of two separate veterinarians who came and inspected all the animals, and despite the hard winter they had just endured, found none to be injured or in poor health. All of this farmers animals were free range, and his cattle were grazed in a method called "Management Intensive Grazing", whereby they spend one day in a single pasture, and are moved to another pasture the next day. It is 21 days before cows are allowed in the same pasture again, which means the grass is diversified, never over grazed, clean, fresh, parasite free and more nutritious. Why would you go to the expense to have 22 separate grazing areas (that means more work moving cows daily, and more fencing that has to be in place) if you didn't give a flying fescue if your animals had plenty of water daily? To me, it just doesn't add up.
I'll admit, some days I look over and the water bowl is empty *gasp* but I don't pack up 8 dogs and run them to the vet to have them treated for dehydration. Some nights, their dinner may be an hour late (sorry guys!) but I don't immediately run weigh them all, and add more kibble to compensate for the hour of calories they've burned. Sometimes my dogs bark or howl, but it's not because they are being tortured or having their toenails ripped out (though if you asked a couple of them they would lie and tell you that happens from time to time too!). Nobody is perfect. On hot days, I check the chicken water about 3 times a day. On days when temps are below freezing, sometimes I have to carry water out 3 or more times a day. Does that mean they may go a half hour to an hour without access to non frozen water? Yep, it sure does. Does that mean they are being mistreated, neglected, or they are going to dehydrate to death? Not likely as my chickens would rather be running around foraging than hanging out at the water cooler, discussing last nights episode of CSI: Chicken Scratch Investigation.
My point is this; that there are a lot of people in the world out there who claim to love and want to protect animals, without having a clue as to what is really good for them. They don't know about their behaviors, that thinning numbers of select animals can actually spare the majority from lingering starvation or disease, that freeing captive animals is many times a death sentence, or that when a wolf gets kicked in the face by a Caribou and it's jaw is broken, that NOBODY TAKES IT TO THE VET. Nature is not kind. Why then would some people want them all to be "free"? Because they don't know (or don't want to admit) that animals starve to death in the wild. Food and resources have to be fought over, there's no feed truck that just drives down the road and throws out laboratory crafted vegan pseudo meat to meet the nutritional needs of all the animals that eat it. Being a wild animal means you are on your own, you may suffer injury and pain, you may die of infection, or you may be eaten alive by something bigger or stronger than you, or you may have to eat others to survive. You may starve to death, or die of dehydration during rough times, you may die during birth and leave offspring to die or be eaten because they have no protection. When you reach sexual maturity, you may be run off by your pack or family and forced to live in isolation for a time, you may be injured, sometimes fatally so, as you try to stake out your territory, or defend your mates from intruders, or you may be pair bonded and one of you die, and you may leave behind a grief stricken mate. You may even be biologically driven to mate during a time when resources are so scarce that your offspring don't survive to adulthood. But those things are "natural". Indeed, but no less horrifying than what some domestic animals sometimes suffer, oftentimes more so.Few, if any "wild" animals die of old age.
We can't allow the uneducated and misinformed to make our rules and laws for us, nor dictate what is best for our animals. We can't let them hijack our lawmakers, or mandate care that is more than adequate and for some completely unnecessary. We have to realize that many of those who oppose the keeping of domestic animals are deluded by thinking "wild and free" are the same as "happy and healthy" because they aren't. And we have to know that whatever we do, we do because it is right for OUR situation, OUR animals, and OUR selves. I believe those who have studied animals, their behaviors, patterns, epidemiology of disease in their populations, resources and so on, are the experts. If adultery, divorce, domestic violence and even addiction are any indicators, "love" isn't always the best tool for decision making. Because if people will lose their mind over the perceived mistreatment of an animal they don't know has been dead for 60 million years, give or take, then how can they possibly know what is right for the animals that exist in our world today, or tomorrow?
No comments:
Post a Comment