Euthanasia - What's the go?

This came up a while ago, it'll come up again and again until its legalised in Australia. Yes I think it will eventually be legalised but that's not a view based on my opinion of what's right or wrong. Well not directly anyway, I think it'll be legalised because there's a growing number of people wanting to support it. Not all things good are popular, not all popular things are good. I think it'll eventually get passed into legislation irrespective of whether its genuinely right or wrong (good & popular).

Now that out of the way, might as well jump over to some of the murky grey areas that come up regularly. If you oppose it, you may have been guilty of saying that its ok to euthanize your old, decrepit. blind dying dog so it should be ok for one self to allow end pain, suffering, indignity & halt the drain on society.

I think with a closer look the comparison with a companion animal is entirely invalid and untenable. Which is not to say that even if my argument is 100% correct some folk won't still oppose it ;-)
Lets switch to numbered dot points as to why it might not be a tenable argument

1. Animals don't decide for themselves that life is slowly draining or that they're a burden on society and they wish to have dignity in death by deciding their fate or more importantly the timing of it. They just don't. We, along with the advice of Vet Doctors, decide the animal cannot be returned to full fitness, they're in pain and suffering and its not something that can be repaired nor can they recover from. Which is not to say there isn't pain relief. We can easily keep an animal sedated or fairly pain free if we need to, but there's no dignity (nor lack thereof) involved. We cannot practically keep them alive and pain free so its the owners of the dog/cat/pet that decide to "end the suffering" and snuff out its light. Generally though, the pet is sedated under less than cheap pain relief. Its not suffering, its not in pain, it just has no future like its past. We decide to end its life. This is deftly overlooked and swept past when using the ending a pet's suffering and human euthanasia connection. Do we then decide that the patient we're related to, looking at, is by all reasonable assessments "stuffed" and its time snuff out their light? An animal being put down argument cannot be used to support euthanasia because the dog doesn't decide (nor the vet) the owner does. In the humane parallel we do not have a situation were the patient doesn't decide (nor does the doctor) but someone close by does. The argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
2. Animals and humans are different. There is distinct differences. We own animals, we are stewards of animals and with those positions there are rights and responsibilities. Companion animals, indeed all animals have different rights & responsibilities because they have a different role on this planet. The lion that kills the antelope is not charged with murder. The cat that isn't hungry isn't charged with murder for killing the mouse it doesn't eat because its full. If I have a dying pet and put it down I'm not charged with murder. Even the snake that bites me and causes my death isn't charged with murder. Humans are distinctive from humans. Animal rights are completely different from human rights. I can legally buy a rifle and legally go hunting and I am not charged with murder for killing the wild pig, wild dog, the rabbit, the fox or any other feral. I might kill ferals that kill or threaten native species and primary production animals, but its not murder. It is not unlawful. On the other hand were I to kill a human possibly best described as a "feral" who is well below my idea of a dignified life, who's refusing to work or help their fellow man, who's a drain on society...I'd quite rightly be classed as a murder and be charged accordingly. What happens to animals is not transferable to humans, so again the argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
3. Religious Interference. Apparently religion is by some thinking the main obstacle that stops euthanasia being reasonably accepted as being reasonable and lawful. I'm still looking for evidence of any society that has spent the last say 1000 years as entirely secular. Euthanasia would be legal in that mythical country by that reasoning and allowing (human) euthanasia just as putting down a pet would be legal. There have been secular countries in the world, but never last for all that long. Stalin banned religion as have other communist based countries, none have lasted and ironically the country with the fastest growing Christian numbers is actually, currently, China. Why is "RELIGION" even being mention in relation to the animal angle? Ahh because some folk have gone onto to saying the closeness of animals to humans, the close correlation is not what divides us but what we have in common. Animals its then said are sentient beings, capable of consciousness, thought, action, reaction, expression, understanding, fear, pain and the list goes on. This is then said to be held up, as opposed to plants which its said are non sentient beings. Why the link between religion and sentient under this animal angle? Ahh easy. The whole notion of sentient beings is from eastern religions. It is a large part of Buddhism. In fact Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. So if you're going to have the "Keep Religion Out Of It" rule, then the sentient being angle is just pitched out. In any case, when ever you remove the religion its replaced by another, or a cult. Its an interesting notion to say leave religion out, but if religion is out we cannot cherry pick aspects from eastern religions and mysticism and say religion is out.

 

Which leave the 3 other big topics in favour of Euthanasia.

Pain.

Suffering

Dignity.

I think both side of the debate might be furthered if they avoided the "Animal" analogy and stuck with the remaining big three. Personally I would only remove the animal thing because there's no rational connection between animal scenario and the human scenario. I'd include religion also but many anti religion folk would not want a word on it. Sometimes, even those who claim to be non religious/anti-religious have a religion but don't recognise it as such. In any case sticking with the big three Pain, Suffering, Dignity on the table we'd actually see proper rational progress.

On the topic of pain, we have to stop thinking of what we feel looking on. We need to research what pain there is in palliative care. In researching, here's one page, I'm sure there are others of a similar vein or fully opposing. Its a good place to start when looking at pain and suffering. http://www.hospicefoundation.org/painmyths

One of the worrisome things that might be an unhelpful by-product is that being old and decrepit with few moments left in life, society were to create a mind set that such people in such a state are without dignity, without reason to be kept on, have become a drain on society and thus inferred that if they have dignity within them they will crease and fold their life straight away to maintain dignity. It may not be the action of a person if they're feeling obliged by a wrongful standard of society.

Just a thought. The issue is layered and complex, I expect it to have passionate followers and opponents of all the various stripes with no clear empirical found outcome. Legalised or not

That's Karma Baby...

No, sorry I don't believe in Karma.

I heard the story of the man & woman in India who fell in love but they were from different castes. You might not have heard this story, I head it on a Ravi Zacharias podcast. They are in love and against both their families wishes, they marry. Both their families disown them, they're now on their own and I gather in another time it may have been their death sentence. But for them life goes on, til one day the wife is transferred to another city with her job. Sadly they grow apart and she falls for another man. The husband suspecting something has gone wrong travels to her only to be told by his wife that the marriage is over, she's met someone else and she plans to marry him

Despite all his best attempts she's unmoved in her decision. The story goes he asks her why, that they both lost all their family members and contact, all they had was each other. Still she is unmoved.

In acceptance of the fact she's unwilling to save the marriage he re-enters the room and tells her he will not oppose her but all he wishes for is to lay his head on her lap for half an hour and with no words or movement, just  rest there, enjoying the closeness before she moves on in her life. She agrees and he lays down his head and rests in the last closeness they will ever share.

She not knowing he's taken a strong poison and before the half hour is up, he is dead.

Time passes by but understandably the woman never really gets over the ordeal, eventually she calls on a Hindu mystic and consults him. He takes her birth date, the husbands, their marriage date and other factors looks at his charts, and relies on his spiritual knowledge. Eventually he concludes its actually not her fault at all, in fact it is the man's fault completely. The mystic explains to her that in a previous life the man was not her husband, he was someone she knew and he had raped her and that the failed marriage and his suicide was in fact "KARMA".

In the casts system, your only way of moving up the caste system to a higher social status is to be a good person to other people so when you're reincarnated you can step up a position or two based on your actions, or go down to abject poverty and disease with no future because you were not a good person in a previous life.

So you either believe in Karma because :-

1. You're a believer in re-incarnation and you're a follower of eastern mysticism. With origins in ancient India, it is a key concept in  Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Ching Hai and others.
2. You've simply cherry picked an aspect of eastern mysticism because it suits you for any number of reasons. Not sure how one is able to intellectually support the idea of construct your own religious faith by picking out aspects from a range of faiths that suit you best. Seems odd but that sort of oddness seems to rest easily amongst some eastern mystic influenced types we commonly & possibly call hippies or alternative types. 
3. Perhaps the concept of cosmic come-uppance appeals to you because someone's wronged you & you're now happily living in the knowledge they will get their just desserts some day. No forgiveness, just everyone bad or more accurately, everyone who's ever been bad to you will not go unpunished. Kind of an appealing passive revenge system.
4. Or even odder still, you're one of those folk who opposes religion, thinks religion is the root of all evil and the Karma thing is where its at...even though its from a religion. Contradiction Alert buzzer should be flashing and ringing like a banshee. And seeing banshee's don't exist something that rings and flashes a lot...a big alarm ;-)

Reincarnation falls flat on its one life face for a number of very simple reasons. There are more people living now then any other point in history. The world population today is higher than say 1000B.C. so at some point there has to have been new people born that didn't exist before in the reincarnation model. In fact if there was "a beginning" in the reincarnation model, there must have been at least as many people as the subsequent time with the highest ever world population.

 

On a different angle, why is it that many celebs used to be reincarnated famous people, indeed some decades ago some stand up comics who were ridiculing reincarnation were saying "Hurry up and claim someone famous before all the famous ones are taken". There was another glitch, no one was ever able to establish facts around the previous life that could then be verified by other sources. There is in other words, no circumstantial evidence corroborating previous lives lived.

 

There's also the awkwardness of the otherwise atheist person (who connects with Karma) commenting that the Biblical account of the creation of earth and all its creatures is false as there is no evidence to support it. This somehow doesn't apply to Karma and reincarnation. Also doesn't apply to Darwinian versions on the creation of life. No evidence how chemical soup turned into a living cell and evolved into life as we know it. No evidence, no replicating in experiments just theories. That's branching off if we're not careful, but the point is Science is wrongly pointed to supporting the Darwinian approach, but there's no science or evidence for Karma or reincarnation.

 

So...

 

Person # 1 "Yeah I believe in Karma"

 

Person # 2  "So do you believe in reincarnation"

 

Person # 1  "No that's ridiculous"

Person # 2 "I don't believe in either and can't understand how you can not falsely believe in one and reject the other, what religion are you?"

 

Person # 1 "I don't believe in religion, there is no religion that is right or wrong"

 

Person # 2  "So what you're saying is two opposing religions don't contradict, they just are...they're both neither right nor wrong. How's that work, I mean how do you believe in religion but you believe that all religions are not right or wrong? Who's that work?"

 

Person # 1  " ahhh...."

 

From this point much, much more creativity is required for the person to try & develop a solution. Open mindedness is essential, the type that says its right without any idea why its right and pushing away anything that shows its wrong or even doubtful. Accepting KARMA as being legit is a decision based on a desire to agree with it after one has removed all logic. You gotta like it to believe in it, nothing more.

 

KARMA - its there for folk who might also care to buy a bridge in New York that was once owned by Elizabeth Taylor and was built solely by George Washington with his bare hands.  Take my word for it :-)

 

 

Why Seriously Think in Regards Live Export?

Well its emotive and its easy for some folk to be led and misled.

A totally unrelated issue, but this is a good example of how people can be easily misled despite the plain simple facts of the matter.

Some people were getting revved up and loud about what the then impending "New Millennium" was going to bring.

Strangely however, the majority of folk were counting down to the big milestone date of just after midnight of January 1st 2000 as the beginning of the new millennium.

The facts are however quite different than what was popular, it started on January 1st 2001.

At the time pointing this out reactions were worth noting, some rejected it outright, regardless of what was said, some others could see the fault but even so were happy to agree but still kept on with the wrong date.

It was easy to show, we can track back and find the year 1AD and can track back earlier there we can find a year of 1BC. There was no year 0 in between. So the "first decade" of the first millennium AD went from 1AD to 10AD - That's January 1st 1AD right up to and including Dec 31st 10 AD.

The first century went from January 1st 1AD up to and including December 31st 100AD. The first day of the second century was January 1st 101AD.

The first millennium went from January 1st 1AD up to and including December 31st 1000AD.
The second millennium (AD) went from January 1st 1001 up to and including December 31st 2000AD.

This current millennium started on Jan 1st 2001AD and will conclude on December 31st 3000AD.

Its not a big deal, nothing really hinges on either answer correct or wrong, but it was a pretty big milestone date at the time, fireworks, party time yada yada yada...

And still the date was wrong, it was plain and simple and the majority of people got it wrong even though it was a very simple fact in full plain view.

So seriously think, its sadly very easy to be led or misled on not a lot of facts.

In regards to Live Export...I know of no fair and rational person who supports, condones or excuses the stabbing of eyes or slashing of tendons of any animal during the slaughter process. I think we can clearly assume no sane or fair person would be ok with that.

However in addition, no one should be assuming that's still going on. It should be tested.
The images should all be dated.

1. Is the unacceptable behaviour and accurate reflection of what was happening there in that particular slaughterhouse?
2. Is it still happening? 
3. Has it been rectified?
4. What is the current position of that particular slaughterhouse?

At some point, images must be relevant, current and fair representations of what is happening, good or bad.

Images must not be regurgitated to help shock people into maintaining the rage against actions which may or may not be still happening. It shouldn't be continually be revisited like a dog returning to its vomit.

Strongly urge people to seriously think.

Those "30 ESCAS Breaches..."

30 ESCAS Breaches.

Yes it was about time this was highlighted. Several Anti Live Export folk have made a number of comments which are false, misleading and that's either through deliberate act of deceit or innocent ignorance. I suspect these misleading statements are aimed at potential or actual Animal Rights Activists...but who knows.

What we do know is there have not yet been 30 ESCAS Breaches yet as some have and are claiming.
Let me be clear and repeat that, there have not been 30 confirmed ESCAS breaches...no matter what anyone tells you.

Be alert and watch closely how things are portrayed.

There have however been 30 reports lodged with the federal Department of Agriculture (at the time of typing this (14/05/2014).

That's REPORTS LODGED not 30 INVESTIGATIONS nor 30 BREACHES.

So how many investigations were there actually?

Well first lets understand what happens. A person or persons lodge a complaint with the Department and the complaint goes firstly through an "assessment" which we assume is to weed out any vexatious complainants or poor and sloppy reporting. If it passes the Assessment phase then an Investigation is launched.

So that being the case, how many report are there currently before the department as I type?
Well out of 30 reports there are 4 Investigations in Progress so it'd be unwise and untidy to speculate on their outcome at this point let alone prejudice. There are 3 reports that are Under Assessment so again whilst those lines of enquiry are being pursued no speculation is good advice.

That leaves 23 reports to look at. 2 more reports didn't get past assessment ( i.e. were never investigations) that leaves 21 actual investigations.

Of the 21 actual investigations one was classed as not being found "non-compliant", so we're down to 20 now.

4 of those investigations, I think the first 4 on record, were unable to make a conclusion as there was insufficient information.

That leaves us with 30 actual reports lodged and only 16 actual findings so far. Now when people claim 30 breaches, 7 reports are still pending a judgement. Why are they not ruled out let alone the other 7 where for a number of reasons including insufficient evidence no finding could be made???

Now, we're gone a bit deeper, tried to be more precise with the ACTUAL FULL FACTS.
Now AA comes out with a pie chart which is misleading to those who do not research the full facts and assess them, as a whole, in context. Their pie chart shows zero reporting from Live Exporters.
Now there real facts are, out of the 16 actual breaches so far, 4 of them were Self Reports by exporters. The AA pie chart isn't completely false, out of the 4 specifically and specially selected breaches, none were 'self reports' by live exporters. If you know all the facts its not such a big deal, its actually a pretty poor out of context stat to flog. (click on the pie charts below to enlarge)

 

So we figured well only thing to do is make a deliberately deceptive pie chart of our own, one that's not actually false or anything, but it is deliberately deceptive, the breaches are narrow and specially selected to give the opposite impression of the AA pie chart. Somehow had we done this first, hopefully no one would have found the opposing pie chart below worthwhile of any notice.

So who was fooled?

Hopefully not you, but got to say, the AA one has been hotly defended. I'm pro LE but anti cruelty. I'm also anti BS so I'd kinda hope both sides can refrain from Ad Hominem straw man fallacy arguments as well as deceptive facts.

Remember when anyone talks about 30 breaches, there have not been 30 proven breaches yet.

Only 16 confirmed breaches.

Again there are some genuine folk amongst the ARA's and some shape shifters who've shown deceit and falsehood to beguile some of their legitimate followers who haven't tested claims properly.

Look closely, be vigilant.

Japanese Whaling Decision

Well I guess I'll have to see this afternoon if its an April Fool's hoax, pretty elaborate if it is but this caught me eye. This from the latest news...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled Japan must immediately stop its whaling program in the Antarctic"

Source - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/ijc-japan-whaling-southern-ocean-scientific-research/5357416

Peter Garrett the former Labor government's Minister for Shopping Bags will no doubt be happy and indeed can take a good deal credit but he cannot win a trick. Poor fellow as lead singer of Midnight Oil joined the Labor party and in doing so caused a buzz of excitement amongst many people thinking his staunch stance on a wide range of social issues from Nuclear to mining to you just about name it would be the foundation of a vanguard of action against inequality or wrongful stalling of proper issues by the Labor party.

Instead he did the orderly conversion to full party drone and more than a few folk felt majorly let down.

At any rate the International Court of Justice has put a ruling out and Japan is expected to comply with the ruling and cease with whaling in the southern ocean. I do hope this doesn't mean whaling will now begin in other waters. The ruling should I expect confirm what most reasonable and unbiased people would have considered, the whaling was less to do with scientific research and more to do with commercial fishing with the level of whaling well outweighing any supposed scientific research.

It will, if its not an April Fool's joke to remember, and if Japan actually ceases be a great day for Sea Shepherd as well and see them refocusing their resources and efforts away from whaling onto other issues. They may well be in the southern ocean pursuing other ships over fishing the area.

I'm not a card carrying member of AA or PETA but despite that I have always opposed whaling and would not support it unless it, like other fisheries, could be adequately shown to be a sustainable fishery. Whaling is indeed a fishery, but shouldn't be opposed because they're mammals, it should be opposed because stocks are in dangerous low levels. Compounding Japan's problem is its continued line of defence that it was important research where left over catch was sold after research was carried out to help fund research...that's one line that was presented but irrespective of how accurate that is/was it wasn't research it was a commercial fishing venture that was trying to find some research to maintain the cover. I think if all whale meat and product were required to be disposed of at sea and not used for human consumption we probably would have seen whaling cease long before now.

Of course there is a cove in Japan where the secret dolphin slaughter happens, but of course its not so secret. I can understand indigenous folk maintaining tradition and hunting food sources, however I'm not sure how it can be excused either. Sea Shepherd may have some offshore anchorage time off Japan.

Now I'm just waiting for some "out to lunch" fundamentalist to link the whaling decision to the Live Export Trade of sheep and cattle from Australia. Goodness know we've seen a number of unrelated, in fact completely unconnected inhumane acts used via tenuous link to support the cessation of the Live Trade.

Intellectual Bankruptcy is still rampant and we need more Receiver/Administrator/Liquidator type folk to embark of some sort of Forensic Audit of many of the bogus truth claims.

Stop the Whaling, no argument there from me.
Live Trade...well an end to cruelty in the trade, and continue the Fair Trade of a sustainable food source.
 

More Shark Goings On...

Well yeah its still going on and I think its fairly safe bet to assume much of the momentum has been due to Social Media. Social Media is a new phenomena even if FaceBook is 10 years old. The uprising in Egypt is said to have been sparked and fuelled by Social Media and the humble phone text messaging.

Of course, the killing of a beautiful animal plugs into the receptors of many a person and there's actually nothing wrong with that.

Sadly though, Social Media provides the soapbox for idiots on both sides of every debate and a great disservice is done to pretty every side of every debate. Sad, but that's the way it is. Not everyone is going behave well and be an avid reader of Edward DeBono books, but there you have it.

I was a little surprised at there being a rally held today (as I type) against the Shark Cull here in Albany. Now reason I thought this a little odd, is there are no baited drum lines here in Albany, in fact you got to go 4 hours drive away to even get close to them. Now its not a negative thing that people are passionate about an issue, especially as there's definitely been more than a few people (of whatever age) who belong to the "Whatever" generation, generally disinterested in anything more pressing than the next meal or more serious than the weather. Its not a negative that there are people who for or against the Shark Cull but it is a little disappointing from a number of angles.

Firstly it is a cull, not a eradication programme. This is about reducing numbers of certain types and sizes of sharks in a particular area. Now how effective that aim is, well that's a very worthwhile discussion but its seems to not be closely looked at, but it isn't the wholesale slaughter of an entire species with impending ecological ramifications for the planet. Its not putting us on the brink of planet death as a few suggested. I saw another line that sharks help soak up radiation from the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster and therefore should be left alone. I don't think it matters which side of the debate you lay your hat, that sort of argument doesn't do anyone any favours. It is odd, odd and very odd.

Personal view, well if it is there territory and we should just accept the risk, then we must instruct all life savers to save people who are drowning or in distress but not intervene during a shark incident because people should know and accept the risk. Onus is on the swimmer/surfer and life savers should stick to their knitting and just prevent drownings. Whilst I draw that long illogical bow (yep I'm trying to be odd) all bushwalkers on the Bibbulmun Track must accept the risk of snake bite. They should not kill snakes, accept they can and possible might be bitten. They are not to dispatch the animal. I must not kill one if it gets into my house either. Oddly the snake should know the risk of entering my habitat and accept I may kill it as a part of nature.

I'm not sure how accurate or efficient the baited drum lines are, its probably very hard to work out if its going to save lives. But if we have (in Perth at least) aerial patrols, do we halt them because people should know and accept the risk or should we (instead of drum lines) send out a team to kill a big menacing shark that is too close to land?

The only alternative to baited drum lines I have seen mentioned so far is do nothing, let nature be.

Again I'm not a fan of Colin Barnett but I think he's pretty well hog tied on the issue now. Drum lines are in, there's precedence over on the eastern seaboard going back many years, I think despite the siege, the policy is set for now. The all new Fiona Stanley Hospital is now suffering a major cost blow out and massive delay to the opening date. I'm not sure if it will even add any extra beds to the health system in Perth. I think the fact that Treasury was only given 2 weeks to go over the financials and give a verdict is a huge worry and we may see a crack in the door which is beginning to show things reminiscent to the bad old days of WA Inc.

If ever there was an issue to poke and prod as a political distraction, this Social Media fuelled Shark Cull Debate is an absolutely God send for the Government and Cabinet. With ramping effect of Social Media, a few rallies hitting the news its a perfect smokescreen to take some of the sting out of the uncomfortable facts in other areas.

Sorry, but the Government has bigger fish to fry and the Anti-Cull Shark group are going to help keep peering eyes off some serious political hand grenades that already have the pin pulled.

I remember some years ago the interview on the radio with an adventurer who was flying a helicopter around Australia to raise money for charity. When asked what was the most incredible sight he'd seen so far he mentioned Broome. He said to be up high and see all the people on the beach swimming whilst not all that far away were literally thousands of sharks was a jaw dropping eye opener. Now why was that even possible? I think its fairly simple (yet unproven) fish numbers are there are greater than they are off Perth. The sharks food sources are in abundance up there compared to the Bunbury to Hillarys stretch. Is this a variable, are some sharks learning that meat is more plentiful closer to shore? If so, and I really don't know, I'd assume such sharks will be the bigger ones. I had heard of the shark that has a track it seemed to follow from Mandurah to Hillarys. Been a number of close calls, Kayaks bumped, outboards bitten. I imagine sharks biting outboard motors isn't new, but we do seem to hear more about it today than say in the 1970s.

I've not heard whether the sharks behaviour or food sources have changed over the decades. If it has, it changes the risk a great deal. But while we're all watching that, see if the private security firm Cerco issue, Fiona Stanley Hospital issue and rising unemployment numbers generate less rage in the community due to people's attention being diluted by big predatory fish.

Magician's illusion is afoot.

Shark Cull Protest - Live Animal Export.

I reckon some folk will have their "I call Strawman" defence ready after merely reading the title, however there is some parallels and points from both topics worth slowing down and looking at in context.

I heard some interesting comments on talk back media and online chatter and was pretty stunned about a few of the arguments against the drum lines to catch and kill sharks. One particular one popped up several times. That being that sharks were vital for healthy seas and without healthy seas we would have no oxygen and we would all die. Now that is the line of thinking distilled down to its barest bones and in that particular state we can see a good deal of invalidity. So when Great White Pointers hit low numbers decades ago and were made a protected species, we were actually looking down the barrel of climatic planet apocalypse? I don't recall that argument back then and I think immediately of the destruction of bee numbers in a number of overseas countries that has got so bad, native and domestic bee species are being exported to foreign countries to help pollination in crop production alone. Now bees and big sharks are 2 completely different issues, two completely different and unrelated  problems, but think its wrong to say that bees are less important than the shark threat to us or the threat we pose to sharks. The bee calamity is not new and if you google "threats to bees" I think you'll find enough reading material to get you through till the next Christmas period. Urban sprawl and the loss of habitat, increase in pesticide use (some illegal) and then there's a raft of diseases and parasites knocking bees off in serious numbers. Its affecting native flora and fauna in a number of overseas countries and it is already affecting the viability of agriculture.

Its serious. So too a number of other even more pressing issues.

Sharks...well the drum lines are to manage numbers, not got the latest numbers but last I heard one shark died before it could be released, one was shot and dumped further out to sea and one was released. I suspect the numbers will rise significantly in short time. It is however not the eradication of a species, its population control, its managing the numbers to decrease the risk to swimmers and lessen the hazard. Now lets not bring up strawman...ahh what the heck, bring him in. Is it a strawman to say that life on earth, due to oxygen depletion, due to the impending falling shark numbers? Well it sure is odd...

The emotion running at a Perth beach where its said 6000 people rolled up to protest the cull programme raised a number of big questions and before I draw a potential tenuous link to Live Export I think its helpful to pour the sunlight on the Shark Cull issue.

2 issues popped up on talk back radio, Perth based ABC 720AM radio featured a horrendous story on child molestation in an eastern wheatbelt town, where a serial offender ended up in a small town, whilst on bail for 10 offences and committed more offences. The local population were unaware of the threat that had arrived in town, or to highlight a worse fact, local police were not made aware. The father of a victim spoke and it was heart breaking. The inefficiencies of the system in WA helped leave small children unprotected and allowed them to be attacked.

The talkback host Geoff Hutchinson made a salient point. 6000 people rally on the coast over one of nature's apex predators that has attacked 7 people in 3 years, yet how many of those shark defenders will march over the horrible injustice of child molestation in the eastern wheatbelt?

I'm not linking child abuse to sharks but it is actually a fair question from the helicopter vantage point above.

How is it that people can rally in such big numbers on a beach, about an issue that happens on their very loved beach but they cannot rally anywhere about a heinous crime against the most vulnerable in our community, those that should be well protected so they can grow and age unhindered by sexual predators? I think it could actually be part of the 1st World Country problems we see hit by so regularly.

Depression is lower in impoverished 3rd world countries than say Australia. 3rd world countries tend to not be passionate about the frivolous nor tend to have gravity apportioned via celebrities and social media. I don't think 3rd world nations and communities, who can be closer to lower life expectancy or work harder to survive let alone hope to thrive tend to get up in arms about oxygen depletion due to a shark cull.

It seems an oddity of this 1st world country that social media is a driver of the quick group think on Social Media. Its worth mentioning that Egyptian Arab Spring type uprising was very much fuelled and orchestrated via social media. In Cuba, where things still aren't going swimmingly for the people, no such social media groundswell is possible. Smartphones don't work in Cuba, the internet connections they do have cost roughly a dollar a minute placing it well above the affordability of most of their nation. Now when I hear of the Animal Activists using the emotion soaked guilt card "we're advocates for the speechless" I think of Cuba, North Korea and a number of other countries where free speech is outlawed and all other public speech is fully controlled by the authorities. When I see the comments "We speak for those who cannot speak for themselves" I have to remind myself they're not thinking, worrying or speaking for Cubans, Koreans or anyone else...they're talking about animals raised in food production.

It is worth mentioning, the TV Programme "River Monsters" showed the host catching large and aggressive sharks in a South African River. A river with a large number of large sharks. They caught a shark or two, tagged it with a tracer tag and kept fishing whilst the authorities began collecting tracking data. Odd part was, within days it was soon showing the clever and aggressive bull sharks have adapted or learned to sit underneath boats that were fishing. Not to attack a human who might jump overboard, but to steal the catch of a large fish on a line. Fish were not depleted, or at least not down to dire low levels, however the Apex Predator has learned where the smart easy catch is. We have no way of knowing, but I do wonder if this is the case with larger sharks off the W.A. coast?

I don't think with all sides citing science, citing the other side has none can put aside the possibility that the sharp rise in attacks isn't a part of sharks coming in closer and chasing easier targets.

Colin Barnett was damned either way and I don't think he handled the media properly in regard to the course he's chosen. Had he done nothing as the 6000 had pushed for and a swimmer been taken not long after I think his political career would be compromised greatly. Politically I don't think he had any choice, he had to approve the drums lines. Its something the eastern states has had in some places up to 40 years. I think he under estimated the Social Media response which does have the ability of enraging and mobilising large numbers of people in very short time without a great deal of proper detail.

Its a shark cull but only in the areas of highly (human) populated beaches. It is not shark eradication or species extinction policy in action. Its about catching sharks and destroying certain types and sizes...however there will be unintentional kills but numbers are monitored and constantly assessed. Its a management tool, it is not setting sea mines by the millions and attaching shark attractants to them.

I just wonder about the lack of species loyalty.

I just wonder was the huge mobilisation a result of fast working social media working with less than the full facts and preying on emotion.

I just wonder had an anti-child abuse rally pencilled in on the same day, say one kilometre from the shark rally on the beach, would numbers be any different at the beach.

I just wonder whether there is a worldview hiding amongst the crowds that's helping to shift the masses a particular way in regards our role and connection with other species. A worldview that claims moral high ground, whilst being very ethically challenged at its core.

I just wonder do people of that worldview run amongst those who oppose Live Export yet have very little personal experience or knowledge about it.

I wonder, I really do wonder.