Conquer Club

show

October 18, 2012 Zaragoza, Coahuila ( Mexico)
The photos of a small bear mistreated by members of the local Civil Defense Secretariat caused outrage in the town of Zaragoza, Coahuila.

.

A few days ago, workers of the Coahuila government agency received a call to alert an animal that roamed the town.
.
About 12 workers moved to the area and apprehended the osezna female bear, tied her legs and photographed her while suspended in the air and holding her ears.
.
The images quickly circulated online, especially on Twitter, where he created the # OsoZaragoza to request a penalty on workers.
Secretary of Environment of Coahuila, Eglantina Channels, said just last week workers received a training workshop to capture wild animals without abusing them.
.
The evening news on Radio Zócalo an interview published on Thursday the head of those responsible, the head of Civil Protection of Zaragoza, Erick Pichardo, who said the law punishes killing animals, not other behaviors. ”Is it not the violation of respect for animals,?” asked the reporter Yesenia Ramirez.
.
“The law is very clear, nothing says ‘not to kill,’” said Pichardo, who agreed to investigate whether such conduct warrants a sanction.
.
Internet users already created a digital campaign on Change.org page called “exemplary punishment for abuse and torture in a Osezna Zaragoza, Coahuila.”https://www.change.org/es/peticiones/castigo-ejemplar-por-maltrato-y-tortura-a-una-osezna-en-zaragoza-coahuila
.
Attorney for Environmental Protection of Coahuila, Javier Rodriguez, tweeted from his account: “# OsoZaragoza Thank you for your complaint, we will act immediately. Shall not go unpunished.”
.
►►SOURCE:http://www.adnpolitico.com/2012/2012/10/18/que-oso-exhiben-maltrato-a-oso-en-un-municipio-de-coahuila

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I hate being that guy, but I find it difficult getting outraged about this while we also have this going on:




Yeah, if they tortured the thing they should face some repercussion. Am I going to lose sleep over this? No.

2dimes wrote:~somehow restrains self from horrible joke~

2dimes wrote:In north America many people seem to have more empathy toward other animals than people.

Funkyterrance wrote:

2dimes wrote:~somehow restrains self from horrible joke~

Go on, we won't judge... this time?

Funkyterrance wrote:

2dimes wrote:In north America many people seem to have more empathy toward other animals than people.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. I can't begin to tell you the number of people I've met that feel they have more in common with a dog than a fellow human. Scary shit.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I hate being that guy, but I find it difficult getting outraged about this while we also have this going on:




Yeah, if they tortured the thing they should face some repercussion. Am I going to lose sleep over this? No.

Agreed. I doubt that bear was overly traumatized and is going to be happily cruising the trashcans again in no time.

2dimes wrote:Ok but it annoys me that I personally know people that throw away enough food to easily feed those two kids not counting restaraunt waste caused by them.

2dimes wrote:Also if you have a dog as a pet it loves you unconditionally. Some where along the line some person you expected to treat you with at least minimal respect, probably has let you down or judged you.

Gillipig wrote:

2dimes wrote:Ok but it annoys me that I personally know people that throw away enough food to easily feed those two kids not counting restaraunt waste caused by them.

The problem of overpopulation wouldn't be solved even if we didn't throw away our food. With an ever increasing population there will always be a time where we are more humans than we can feed.

Funkyterrance wrote:

2dimes wrote:Also if you have a dog as a pet it loves you unconditionally. Some where along the line some person you expected to treat you with at least minimal respect, probably has let you down or judged you.

Tbh, I'm not even sure if "unconditional love" as we humans know it is part of a dog's vocabulary as it were. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if those people could actually get into a dog's head they would probably be horrified lol.

2dimes wrote:A nice dog, loves everyone unconditionally, they're just happy and excited to meet you.

Gillipig wrote:

2dimes wrote:Ok but it annoys me that I personally know people that throw away enough food to easily feed those two kids not counting restaraunt waste caused by them.

The problem of overpopulation wouldn't be solved even if we didn't throw away our food. With an ever increasing population there will always be a time where we are more humans than we can feed.

Oh I thought you were suggesting there is not enough food for everyone to eat because there is too many of us.

The problems are far more likely we're not bothering to distribute it and in many places you have too many orphans who can't figure out agriculture.

Of course the planet can't provide everyone with a mansion and a yacht. I would also agree, some regions are over populated.

We're no where near capacity for a much simpler existence, how does a city like Cairo function?

2dimes wrote:~somehow restrains self from horrible joke~

In north America many people seem to have more empathy toward other animals than people. I wonder if it is the concept that people are poor because they did not work hard enough. The bear was living a productive life when it was captured. Arguably there should have been some effort to do it in the most pleasant way possible. That is expected as part of our perceived civilized evolved social existence.

I'm with Haggis though. I believe the people know they're having a hard time. The bear is being stressed but it just does not anger me.

Gillipig wrote:Nevermind Cairo 2dimes lol. Here's a graph detailing how human population from the 19th century until now has increased, different scenarios for the future as estimated by the UN have also been added.
If we keep growing in numbers for years and years and years, there will come a time when even if every square inch of farmland is being used perfectly, and we cut down all the forrests and everyone live on minimum food possible and doesn't waste anything, some people will still starve to death. You must agree with this, you must agree with that increase in human population can not be allowed to increase in eternity. You're probably arguing that that time hasn't come yet, and that we could still support all humans if we only were better at efficently using our farmland and not throw away food. But I ask you what is the point of doing all this if we don't do anything about the underlying problem? Why just postpone starvation instead of erasing it? Controlling how many people live on the earth is the only way to deal with the problem. Everything else is just sweeping dust under the mat.

john9blue wrote:it's probably because animals aren't sadistic bastards that are killing the planet

hard to be mournful over human death when mass human death would probably be better for our species in the long run.

Gillipig wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

2dimes wrote:Also if you have a dog as a pet it loves you unconditionally. Some where along the line some person you expected to treat you with at least minimal respect, probably has let you down or judged you.

Tbh, I'm not even sure if "unconditional love" as we humans know it is part of a dog's vocabulary as it were. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if those people could actually get into a dog's head they would probably be horrified lol.

I take it you have never had a dog? Your point is quite a lot off btw. Just because a dog doesn't think of itself in a the same way as we do doesn't mean it has the better view of who it is. We're arguably better at objectively judging a dog than itself is.

2dimes wrote:A nice dog, loves everyone unconditionally, they're just happy and excited to meet you.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Nevermind Cairo 2dimes lol. Here's a graph detailing how human population from the 19th century until now has increased, different scenarios for the future as estimated by the UN have also been added.
If we keep growing in numbers for years and years and years, there will come a time when even if every square inch of farmland is being used perfectly, and we cut down all the forrests and everyone live on minimum food possible and doesn't waste anything, some people will still starve to death. You must agree with this, you must agree with that increase in human population can not be allowed to increase in eternity. You're probably arguing that that time hasn't come yet, and that we could still support all humans if we only were better at efficently using our farmland and not throw away food. But I ask you what is the point of doing all this if we don't do anything about the underlying problem? Why just postpone starvation instead of erasing it? Controlling how many people live on the earth is the only way to deal with the problem. Everything else is just sweeping dust under the mat.

Notice how 2 of those lines show the population leveling off ?
The population will not grow indefinitely. Look at birth rates among developed countries as compared to those that existed a couple hundred years ago or the ones that exist now in under-developed countries.

You are also assuming current constraints on human potential will be ever-present.
Who says 500 years from now we will still be stuck on Earth? Who says we won't have entirely new unimaginable methods of creating food and so on and so forth.