Recently animal liberation activists released 40,000 mink from a fur fam from Minnesota earlier this week. Thousands have died and thousands are yet to be 'recovered', but it caused $750,000 in damages to the man's fur farm.
There's a 100% the mink were going to be killed on the fur farm and skinned for their fur. I'm honestly glad this happened. Even though the mink died (they would have been killed anyway), I think it's better that they died a natural death or a fighting chance then no chance at all confined in their cages.
The damages done to the fur farm are huge, and personally I hope the farmer does not recover from the damages done. What's bothering me is the farmers sympathizers pretending to care about the mink. Do they not realize the mink were doomed from the beginning?
I have also heard rumors that the farmer did it himself to claim the insurance money. He says he is a 3rd generation mink farmer; and for someone who's a mink farmer, i'm sure he's aware of how controversial his career is. You think he would have a security setup, but he did not.
I think the animal liberators did understand that the mink were doomed, regardless of their environment and were willing to risk it to cause serious damages to the farmer. What are you thoughts?
21 comments
So the minks died and are now doing unimaginable harm to the environment by being in an unnatural ecosystem in shocking numbers. Remember the 10:1 rule? Did you release 400,000 small rodents to support the new population of predators? Oh and I doubt they're apex predators in the region. Unless they undermine the larger predators, though given the area we're probably talking wolverines as the dominant weasel. Which means they're going to eat the minks and might slack on the rodents, leading to a mini population boom. And then that strips resources, leading to a die off that goes too far in the other direction so the wolverines can't get back to normal after finishing off the minks. Great job, fucksticks. Your lack of foresight has done immeasurable environmental damage, killed more animals than the fur farm and likely driven some people to homelessness. And you killed minks, you dickheads.
(Sorry. My boyfriend likes minks, and I've absorbed his care and concern, though I was always a supporter of all things weasel, from least weasels to ratels.)
Releasing domesticated animals into the wild is terrible idea. The best case scenario if they are not all recovered is that all the released animals die quickly, like cows have done frequently when they escape or are released. That's because, well, what do you think happens to the minks that survive and their offspring? Natural selection, that's what. They'll be genetically fit for local environment before the local species population learns how to deal with them (via defense, consumption, etc.). This will cause rapid population declines and possibly unhealthy booms that will decimate the plant population.
You know how when humans reached what we know today as North America, a large quantity of species (most famously the buffalo) rapidly went extinct or were put on the brink of extinction? Or how species have a tendency of rapidly dying out and leaving their environments when orcas migrate to their region? Minks can and will have a similar effect on the regions they are released in.
I think that what they did was pointless.
They caused the minks to be killed anyway and the survivors will do damage to the local ecosystem. But hey, at least thry had a natural death despite everything.
There's an ethical line - maybe it differs a little based on person or situation, but not by all that much - that can never be doubled back upon once it's crossed.
While I do think mink farming is cruel and pointless, and so I have sympathy for the vandals' goals (a stance I know is controversial and that I expect few to share), this example of 'activism' comes dangerously close to that line I mention; when good intentions are used to excuse first morally ambiguous deeds, then bad deeds, and eventually, frank evil.
Better to protest the practice of mink farming by using the power of social media, and documentary evidence, than it is to risk crossing that line. There is honestly no way back for those who do.
The ecological damage that will be caused by what these guys were hoping would be an act of good could kill not only the mink (who were likely born in captivity) but the act could kill off other animal and plant life all around the release point. In other words, their "moral act" backfired already. They should be grateful if that is the extent of the damage.
That line I talk about above is real.
This is the sort of thing we call you idiots for. You "liberate" animals into environments they can't survive in (or that can't easily survive them) because you have a warped definition of "natural", while causing tons of damage. The result is a bunch of dead animals that you were trying to save, and more damage than the initial target caused. Sounds like a pyrrhic victory at best, an utter failure at worst.
You people are as dumb as a sack of rocks.
Fuck "fur is green." Fur is unnecessary. And yes, I totally agree factory farms are cruel. They're also toxic to the surrounding environment. Fuck them both - mink farms and factory farms - sideways with a spiky metal thing.
I don't always get a choice, but when I do and the choice is between cheap meat from a factory farm or meat from a smaller outfit that offers pastures to free-range livestock, and that doesn't use bonemeal, I'll always pay more for the latter.
@2094812
I believe in aborting fetuses with extreme disabilities. And AS I SAID, even the most intelligent non-human animal can't hold a candle to someone with say Down syndrome, so that comparison is invalid and pointless. If you hold lizards and cows morally equivalent to humans you might as well do the same for jellyfish, coral and slime molds.
@randomouser. my question was that if intelligence is the only factor in determining rights, why not kill mentally handicapped people that are already born?
and I do hold anything with even the most rudimentary emotional ability as more or less morally sequel to humans. that's the point you don't seem to get, I, and most people for that matter, care about emotions, not IQ points when determining rights.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.