I often find my opinions at odds with some held in majority, even within sub-groups. I have heard over and over that 'meat is murder' as an inducement for me to consider a less meatful lifestyle, but the plea has always fallen on deaf ears. My mothers brother was an active hunter his whole life. Though he died when I was relatively young, he is still probably one of the main influences on my interests and activities around environmentalism. Here is just the first of many seeming contradictions in modern thought regarding these topics, in my opinion; it is often people who are interested in hunting, outdoor sports, etc., who are the strongest advocates for environmental protection, conservation and respect.
Wrong.
Vegetarians, as a movement, tend to cast heavy dispersion on the woodsman of today. From New York cafe' porches to the warm beaches of California, adorned in their own notions of fashion, they cast accusations and aggravations at the man clad in camouflage, leather and furs sitting on a board 15 feet in the air hundreds of minutes at a time. While it is true that such a man will (and intends to) shoot an animal upon sighting it, I fear the vegan more. In this instance a vegan pen is indeed much more than a sword, it is mightier than a million bullets.
Let us hypothesize upon the motives and progressive increase of the two camps of people in this example to their ultimate ends. While idealized and extreme for illustrative purposes, I will leave it to the reader to arrive at their own conclusions on potentialities. I fully respect people who make informed decisions about alternative means of sustenance , but I do so enjoy adding a little black or white to the grey areas that form up in harder contrast against one another.
The Hunter:
Primarily, the motivation is the activity and the reward. The hunting and the meat. A hunter need not be doctor, activist, scientist, opinionist, or anything else. For them to be human, have a mouth and stomach assembly, and to be awake and able bodied; are really the only factors that apply. The hunter wants to eat. Through years and many examples, it is known to them that meat has many benefits over strict grain/veg diets. Beef, chicken, pork, fish - and even weirder things like eggs (various), squids and crabs are delicious if cooked over fire - and also provide many seemingly obvious enhancements in nutrient quality and energy increase for the people who take the time (and have the skill) to hunt them and eat them.
The hunter intends to eat the meat. But more than this, many traditional hunters make every effort to utilize every aspect of the conquered delight. Bones can be used for many things. Sinews and organs also have found purposes. Additionally, for themselves there is little incentive to 'over-hunt'. Once the skins are jackets, and the bellies full, the rest of the animals are excess - or ought by right to belong to another. Of course, a keen eye must be kept to managing the supply, so it is often wise to offset consumption (and balance the diet as a result) with a mix of grains, veg and berries, etc. As well these things are often found to make wonderful accompaniment to meats through the dining experience.
Though a hunter will kill an animal, say shooting it in the heart in broad daylight; the entire experience is an event that cannot be understood well without partaking or witnessing it first hand. There is something ancient, esoteric and semi-spiritual buried deep under the neon-orange, the big beards and the big boots.
What a hunter, a true hunter and meat-eater, will not do - is kill wantonly. No hunter is ever mad at the animal they are going to consume. There is a subtle tenderness to the action that bespeaks the most kind-hearted concern. An appreciation, that all of us sojourners on the planet Earth are completely dependent on each other, on chance, on mystery and on remembering to try and do the right thing correctly.
That is not to say that the complete experience doesn't include getting completely georged-up and playing some music and talking the poop... but no hunter would be pleased in the least to hear you say something like "We're finally going to kill those deer all off and be done with it, in this country."
It would never be an achievement to a hunter to hear another hunter say he had killed and burned 73,000 ducks this season alone.
In many ways a hunter is the greatest conservationist.
The Gatherer:
A modern gatherer is primarily either unable or unwilling to participate in the hunt. They see sufficient satisfaction, both personally and nutritionally, in the consumption of items which are specificallly non-meat based. Of course, there are many degrees of this viewpoint ranging from - nothing that ever germinates or lives, to; I can still eat eggs and one piece of bacon every few weeks. But at the end of the day, this entire viewpoint isn't an enticement to a better life in and of its own self, rather; eating meat is murder! Meat is said to be bad for you in some interpretations of this ideological fixation. Rather than celebrate encountering a meat gatherer and enjoying in the rituals and pure deliciousness -or anything positive, a moral high-ground is assumed. Meat is not to be augmented with veg to prevent eradication of populations; rather meat is to be avoided all together whenever possible for 'the sake of the animals'.
[[I am being quite harsh in my bias here, but those on the other side paint with as crimsoned a brush when arguing their side, so please indulge me.]]
The Extremes:
So lets say we adopt the hunter on a global scale; they want to eat meat. They do kill animals but there is, as I said, a truly semi-spiritual aspect to the event for humans -in and of itself. Moreover they attempt to utilize all that they can from the animal for their benefit (increasing the yields of meat, leather, fur, etc.). They are acutely aware of maintaining stock levels and a good environment in order that they may continue to enjoy the benefits of the meat and associated items and rituals, etc. They are also completely open to the gatherer culture because augmentation is good in diet and for the maintenance of good lands and happy/healthy animals to later be consumed.
If we adopt the vegan to scale, their ideology dictates that they tell all meat-eaters they are bad and they need to stop. That is the primary function of "VEGETARIANISM" as an ideology to tell us all to stop eating meat. It is the very definition of the ethos to tell us we are wrong. For this example, lets say they win the day; no one is allowed to eat meat anymore. Ok, so then what ? In this example, animals will continue to breed and breed in what, the wild ? For argument sake, lets say the vegans win. Thusly all the farms are emptied of meat and the fences are finally torn down - the animals are free to wander about and eat what they may and breed away...
Soon animal population control will become an issue- so what then ? Then the entire society (vegans and all) will see the obvious requirement of, at least, transit control upon the animals. So they would be herded or penned-in regardless of our intent to use them or not....
But wait... in this example we do not eat or use or other wise "harm" or consume animals, right ?
So then what is to be done ? If we are not eating them. If we see their use as abhorrent. Suddenly, we will have indeed come to hate these fuking animals. They will represent nothing more than a problem, both in numbers and in futility of their existence. They will always be hogging up space, shitting everywhere, making noise, wrecking shit.... AND FOR WHAT ?!
Well, you know what comes next right ? Yep the fucking gas chambers. We will literally be lining them up to cut all their heads off and be done with them! To get that land back from the useless fucking animals. I mean, come on, no one is going to pay rent for a bunch of gawddam cows that no one can or wants to eat, right ?
Therefore, if you just think about it; the vegans actually advocate that we round up all the dirty rotten animals on the planet, shoot them in their ugly, flatulent faces, and then burn them just to be done with them... after-all, we can't eat, wear or decorate with them, right?
Funny thing to me is; they don't seem to know it.
"Meat is murder!!!" is casually thrown about alongside pictures of animals lined up to the block to be turned in to AAA ground, bacon, or say; rib-eyes. But the other end of the spectrum on this pro- or anti-meat agenda is also the block (or worse). Part of the culpability for murder is that intent is part of the resolution of the act. The hunter wants the meat- cares about the meat. Also by extension cares for the meat. A vegan wants to take all the cows away from you, and from themselves. No more cows. Vegans are often also against zoos, so meat would quickly fade to legend in lands so dominated by the modern SJW gatherers.
If animals exist they exist under the burden of the block. Its Biblical. Between the birth and the block- they are our burden. They literally live to serve us, having no civilized will of heir own other than to take up our space and eventually starve us out. We must be more considerate of their care than to actually try to stop people from eating them, or to stop eating them ourselves, in my opinion.
When I went to my local RIBFEST last year, there was literally a guy writing MEAT is MURDER with side-walk chalk, and he had a bunch of pictures posted of animals all cut up... I told him right on the spot that he was wrong, that animals were here to serve us, that it's our duty to take care of them including to eat them and enjoy their juicy deliciousness, so that we might respect them all the more.... He just got to a point where he finally had nothing left to say - so I said, "...and besides, what's your deal man? Come with us, we're ALL going to rib fest ! (by this time a bit of a crowd had formed up). He just shook his head and went back to writing hate on the ground - the rest of us cheered and proceeded to get stuffed on beef and beer. Now either he's a visionary or he's wrong. Either way, I thought it was important that someone finally point out that intent matters, and if the vegans ever really win this thing - we will round up all the animals and shoot them out of malice, so like -
To me; "No-meat" is the real murder. It is, in fact, a genocidal ideology against animals in instances where the individual also takes a position against Zoos as worthwhile institutions. In my opinion, that's way more revolting than a cheeseburger with onions and bbq sauce on a toasted bun served with a cool beer.
"(...)Ker-splashhhhh!!! The big fish came down with the force of a monster-truck ! The cool water came cresting up out of the pool, and while we screamed in mock terror, it was actually very refreshing in the sunny summer heat when it came crashing down all around us. We all squealed and laughed in awe at the gentle behemoth... we'd never experienced anything like this before in our lives!
When I reflect on that awesome display of discipline and power, the successful partnership between 'man and beast', and the memories of those uncontrollable screams of joy - that seem mostly restricted to our youth; it is hard for me to believe that I was just an unwitting pawn in the schemes of an evil empire. Especially, the idea that MarineLand was, and remains, devoted to creating suffering for these beautiful fruits of nature... all in pursuit of a quick buck ? I simply do not believe that."
Behold this evil for yourself. Some of the worst stuff starts at about 45 seconds in. Yes, that's sarcasm. Feel free to stop it after a minute or so and enjoy the article below.
In the city where I live, we have a
zoo. It charges no admission. It is fully accredited and is, in fact,
owned and operated publicly by the citizens via the city itself. It
is widely considered to be a unique little gem in our area. The
workers are professionals, or students, employed by the city. The park generates some modest revenues from the sale of on-site foods, as well as an "olde timey
train ride" ride that people have enjoyed for many years. The story of our local zoo is also a
story of our town's history and growth. From it's humble origins (a gifted alligator from the USA, living in a water reservoir), our zoo has
blossomed into a very well regarded educational animal sanctuary. And also, the property still houses a large portion of Peterborough's public
water-works facilities.
I have always found our little zoo to be
a very charming establishment. It still harkens back to a time, around the end of
the Victorian era, where people were fascinated by
the many things being discovered and shared between disparate
lands for the first time. Back when Sir Sandford Fleming was still quite possibly crashing on relatives couches (well before he invented standard time). To an era before you could just click-and-watch
anything, anywhere, anytime. It is also a reminder of how recently we seemed to have absolutely no idea what we were doing, and how much we have learned and grown, ourselves. As things progressed, and knowledge
expanded, Peterborough's Riverview Park & Zoo changed, from a place of simple exotic wonder, into a more
general educational facility with the highest standards of care for its various inhabitants.
It is the usual case, that most of these types of facilities have followed
in a similar vein. Those who have not manifest the effort have dwindled away. Major zoos, the world over, are now much more
devoted to healthful preservation and education than they are to strictly having people gawk at things they do not understand, or have never seen before. Interestingly, however, as this societal evolution has occurred, there has almost simultaneously been growth
in resistance to the, so called, exploitation of animals which are held in any such captivity. I
find it curious; as we have increased our standards and efforts around appropriate care, education and sanctuary – a movement has grown
which advocates the complete abandonment of the notion that there is any value left in these institutions.
Zoos everywhere have evolved. Certainly in North America, no one is advocating for exploitation anywhere. These facilities are held to many high standards for the safety and care of both, human visitors and animal occupants today. It can be argued that our knowledge and our morality have both improved somewhat, over the years.
Over this last year, MarineLand Canada
has come under heavy fire for the way it operates (or perhaps better said; for the fact that it exists). This really
captured my attention. I find it disheartening and perplexing. Much like my
local zoo, MarineLand sprouted from little more than one oddity in a tub of water, coupled with peoples remaining fascination for the bizarre and unknown. As with
our "gator in the pond" here, people wantedto pay for the chance to observe their interesting and exotic
planet-mates, at what was then Marine Wonderland and Animal Park, in Niagra Falls. They came in droves. Eager people lined up day-after-day. Some came every few days, for weeks on end. People
couldn't get enough! This is plainly evident from the massive growth these
facilities have manifested over the ensuing years. In my town, the
facility grew into a massive property, worth many millions in it's own right. In
Niagra Falls, MarineLand became a national attraction of incomparable scale
and uniqueness, available for the wide-eyed entertainment of all Canadians, of all citizens of the world, really... an even larger community gem, one might think.
Especially these days, it is important that we remember our capacity to be astounded, to revere plain beauty.
So,
why has MarineLand come under such heavy fire? And this, while my local zoo
(rightfully so, I feel I should add) is widely hailed as one of the most wholesome
experiences in the entire region where I live ? I think much of it
has to do with the perceived motivations of the stakeholders. As I
said before; here at home, the citizens own it. The city runs it. It charges
no admission. Obviously profit motive is not a major factor. Also it is
equally obvious that the very highest of standards must be
maintained due to it's completely public nature. To my knowledge there has never been a substantive allegation of any serious mistreatment at the facility. Certainly not during my years in the city.
Compare
this to MarineLand; it is privately owned by one man. Some of it's history includes past employees that have voiced extreme opposition to
it's policies and practices -pushing a narrative that profit
is the only thing that matters- even to the detriment of the
animals' well-being. Moreover, it charges admission to generate profits, as well as to fund
it's operations (which are ongoing even through the tourist off-season).
Beyond this, the OSPCA in Ontario has recently been given an
additional $5,000,000.00 in their annual budget, basically a tenfold increase, which seems to have also been accompanied by an implied mandate to really dig-into MarineLand, in
order to boost the profile of the agency itself, should the opportunity ever arise.
As a result of this, a series of OSPCA-lodged complaints from a group based outside of Canada, means that MarineLand must now also incur additional legal expenses defending itself. Costs which could potentially divert resources that may have otherwise be utilized towards providing above-and-beyond care, or expanding and upgrading the park, etc. The OSPCA will also spend a tremendous
amount on legal fees for these current matters, but taxpayers will be paying
for that, so no worries there, right ?
To me, it seems like the more public attention that is generated for the negative
elements of their allegations, the better it will serve the
agency's interest. With a mandate to root out every form of animal abuse in the
province, at their sole discretion, and completely at the expense
of taxpayers, businesses and animal owners; there is little positive assistance they actually give towards corrective measures or education -even in instances where the OSPCA is wrong to make or pursue allegations in the first place. When they get a chance to come after MarineLand, it's a plus for them, in my opinion, regardless of the outcome. At the same time, it is a terrible burden for the facility. It is a very costly PR and legal entanglement.
Certainly, it would be hard to imagine how the OSPCA would otherwise find justification for the millions of dollars in additional
funding they receive now. Busting the odd cat-lady or horse-starver here-and-there just wouldn't cut it. Not to mention the millions they are already sitting on, just gaining interest in GIC-type holdings! The agency literally has so much cash at this point, it would be hard not to mistake it for an investment-house ! To my thinking, it has largely become little more than a multi-million dollar, sentiment-fueled, make-work project for social justice warriors. MarineLand is the highest profile target they could hope for in the whole country. Even the slightest slip-up and they will likely always face the maximum of punitive actions that fall within the OSPCA's vast power to execute, going forward. And very few will step-up to defend the value of MarineLand in such a hostile social climate either.
First, a picture of the President that I received in a package from the White House when I was younger, thanking me for my efforts helping to free Keiko - the whale from Free Willy. The second image is the Fragile Oasis Prize I won in 2013 for my project on water stewardship, floating inside the ISS, during expedition 27/28.
In the earlier 2000s I worked for Greenpeace Headquarters in Toronto, as well as being the membership chair for the Green Party of Canada in my riding, for a time. Beyond these vocational activities, some years later I also won the Fragile Oasis Prize in Education, from the International Space Station, for my project “Free The Water” -an advocacy project about water stewardship. So suffice it to say, I think I understand all the reasons a person might feel that it is appropriate to have a "hate-on" for MarineLand at this time. But hate, I have observed, is very seldom found upon the path towards greater things. So let's stop and consider a few of the big issues rationally for a second.
Please understand,
I in no way advocate for one 95-year-old lady living alone with 65 cats, anymore than I would advocate that someone should not provide
adequate food and water for their horse. But, I do not support the
idea that it is appropriate for an arms-length government agency to
be given so much additional funding, so little oversight, or such a wide mandate – and then direct a good
portion of that towards starting a costly legal battle with a private
entity which already has the inbuilt obligation and incentive to provide excellent care for creatures in their custody. The animals at MarineLand definitely need
adequate food, water and consideration. That being said, since it is a private facility; if
attendance is discouraged by radical activism, if quasi-government entities are using it as a make-work project for their new funding goals, and if
people fail to see its inherent value, then we may quickly lose every precious
opportunity it affords us now -and into the future. But then, just what sorts of future opportunities am I talking
about here ?
i) If
MarineLand closes, does it really benefit the animals ? ii) If
MarineLand closes, what are the losses now, and into the future, for
the people and communities it serves ?
iii) Is
there a better way to resolve the issues and appropriate the monies currently being invested in punitive enforcement ?
I will tell you directly that the following is strictly my personal opinion and I
am not a marine biologist, nor have I ever worked in any zoo, or at MarineLand. I have not received any compensation for this writing from them or any of their associates. I just thought it was important that someone should bring up the other side of this issue, so I wanted to speak out. These are just my own feelings based on
the information I have been able to observe and collate on the topics. But, I am passionate about the environment, and the value MarineLand holds for many people. I have researched the facility and the related topics appropriately and in some depth, to the best of my abilities. As far as I know, MarineLand does not support my positions, other than the one; that they should have a natural right to remain in business, and to expand that business if they can. On that point, I think, they would tend to agree with me.
i) If
MarineLand closes, it does not benefit the animals as much as you
might think: "Nature" is an incredibly vicious place to live. Tucked safely in our
homes, inside our cities, humans have very little left to fear from the
animal kingdom today. Such is not the case for the planet's remaining
free animal populations. Basic predators are an ongoing concern for
animals in the wild, but so are man-made pollution and other harmful activities, like land development and hunting, for example. An animal
simply 'living in nature' is in no way assured more happiness,
safety, or proper care, than one living at MarineLand Canada. In many, many cases, quite the opposite is
true. In addition, animals that have been previously domesticated seemed to have a difficult time re-integrating into the more
'natural setting' from whence they came. So if you're talking about
shutting-down a facility like MarineLand, what you're really talking
about, to me, is euthanizing a groups of animals who's only crime would be; that we have enjoyed them previously, but don't anymore.
The animals
neither asked to be domesticated in this way, nor have any power to
decide their fates outside of it. They are innocents, and people today
–right now, at this very moment– are dedicated to their proper
care. Care that is very likely far more considerate than any they would receive in the wild. Many people still come, from all over, to enjoy their simple
presence. I am against culling them because of misguided moral
outrage. Nature is no longer (if it ever was) a safer, happier place for the animals than MarineLand. Period.
Dolphins like this would be harvested by man in a moment - for meat, oil and whatever else, in "nature". The opportunity for them to live at MarineLand ensures a safe life of amusing and educating children. Why is that so bad ?
ii) If
MarineLand closes, the losses may be much greater than you might think right now: Aside from the obvious concerns of a loss of tax revenue, employment,
tourism incentives for the region and "happy feelings people get while the deer steal
all their feed from the bottom corner of the bag" - the losses now and
into the future may be quite significant. Climate change, pollution and over-hunting are pushing
more and more species to the brink today. If climate change continues
to accelerate, it is quite possible that parts of the biosphere may
be very different in the not-so-distant future. It is highly unlikely that habitats will become more conducive to healthy living based on today's leading projections. As well as nature not
being inherently more considerate of the animals' well-being, we -human beings- are in fact making nature more hostile than ever.
My
local zoo was opened in about 1933 (almost 85 years ago already).
MarineLand opened about 1961, over 50 years ago. The Vienna Zoo has been in operation since 1752. So, barring
continued interference or financial collapse, it seems reasonable
that MarineLand might be around for another 50 years... how do we
expect things to be, environmentally, at that time ? Based on my own experience and
knowledge, I feel I can say quite straightforwardly that the
situation 'in nature' does not look likely to improve for the
well-being of the varieties of species who are still dependent on it.
The point that I am dancing around is this: if we don't get our
environmental house in order, places like zoos, and MarineLand might
be some of the last remaining safe-spaces for these treasures of the
natural world. In my opinion, we would be remiss to discard that potential over a hyper-emotional misunderstanding the facilities long-term value in certain situations.
If the $5 Million that was being given to the OSPCA
annually had been given to MarineLand instead, the facility could
have improved, expanded and also become completely accountable to public standards (which they largely already are anyhow, though
operated by a private entity). The losses today are also ones of moral
perception, self inflicted wounds on our collective subconscious: We imply that the people who's jobs (and passion) it is to care for
these creatures are harming them. We imply that the animals
themselves are much worse off for being in our care. We throw away a
treasure and all we get is an abandoned pile of broken dreams and self-loathing in return. I
think we can do better than this and I think we, and the animals, deserve that we should.
If MarineLand was better funded and had a stronger mandate for the work, I believe it could already have been used to help save the critically endangered Vaquitas of Central America. There are thought to be only a few handfuls of them left at present.
iii)
Yes, I think there are better ways we can resolve any issues to
everyone's satisfaction: On the part of the public: get educated!! Protesting MarineLand is fine-by-me, if they are actively abusing the
animals. Even if the care was incredibly sub-standard, I would have
more tolerance for the supposed outrage. But, people seem to think that making a dolphin jump
through hoops is abuse, when it's actually getting him some very
healthy cardio exercise (and snacks !). Are you abusing your dog when you
tell him to sit ? If you go and play fetch with him ? You do know he
could just be out in the wild, getting all the exercise he needs running away from hungry wolves in the moonlight instead, right ?
On
the part of MarineLand, I think they need to seriously consider
re-branding from just "pop by for a day of frivolous fun!" to
really focusing on expanding their education and conservation mandates. In a perfect
world, I would like to see them be given some massive funding from
the provincial and/or federal governments. Not necessarily on an
annual basis, as I wouldn't want it to become dependent on corporate welfare like that. However, for
many years they have surely provided the governments with
considerable revenues, why not a little pay-back when they could use the support or want to expand ? If a place like MarineLand is enhanced,
expanded and very-much made a place of learning and preservation -not primarily one of amusement- I believe it could even better serve its animal
inhabitants, as well as it's human visitors.
Lets make sure that this isn't the only way children can see rare marine animals in the future. #fukushima
I am no
fan of punitive measures in society, on many fronts. I prefer enhanced education as
a solution to most problems wherever possible. The current cases the OSPCA have brought
against MarineLand are largely without merit in my opinion. A fruit
sticker, an eye infection; everyone knows that this kind of thing
happens almost every day at schools across the country – to
children, no less! Would we be advocating for the closure of a school
cafeteria if a child ate a (safely edible, though not recommended)
fruit sticker one day, heaven-forbid ? If a child had a bad eye
infection, and the doctors chose to wait, to remove damaged tissue instead of killing the
child, would we be so up-in-arms ?
And lastly, I have seen several
major complaints about the bears eating sugar-puffs all day at
MarineLand too, but we all know of a certain anthropomorphized yellow bear that spent half his
life with his head, or his hand, stuck in a jar of honey... so just think about it for a second. It's not all they get, it's just a nice treat for them,
and it's also a dirt-cheap way for the park to make a little extra money. It's
not intended to be harmful or exploitative. No one I have ever read about, or interacted
with, from MarineLand seemed to be out to get
the animals. I have a hard time understanding why so many people are so wound-up about tearing the whole thing down.
Do we really have to shut-down and abandon everything we used to enjoy? Does everything have to be a horror story these days ? Is there truly no opportunity here to improve instead of remove ?
I
am of quite another opinion; we should all be working to raise these facilities up! The facilities should always be improving and expanding. The animals should be ever more revered. And, we should be planning now for making the best use
of the unique opportunities they both present, well into the next 50 years, and beyond. If we
give it all up at this time, over misplaced outrage, the costs to restore them from scratch, when we might again appreciate their value, will probably be too significant to allow
it to happen. We might lose them forever. With some certainty, we can assume that nothing will be cheaper in the future.
The
choice is really ours. All of ours. Vote with your dollars and your time. Do we want MarineLand to be a
place everyone loves again, or just another broken down relic of how
good things used to be ? Personally, I'm looking forward to reliving some happy childhood memories, and getting cooled-off by the splashing waters again this summer. I'd recommend you consider doing the same. Sentiment isn't science, after all. But if you're not that scientific anyway, why not just let love reign for a few more seasons and see where that gets us instead ? We are all capable of more than hate, though it sometimes requires that we take a step back and have some consideration -even for views or ideas we don't necessarily understand or embrace at the time.
Love is not a free pass, but it is a promise to hold the line, to not turn our backs or give-up at the first sign of trouble. To work towards mutually beneficial improvements in good faith. At least, that's part of what love is about to me. And I, for one, still love MarineLand.
Theme of evil ? I don't think so. We should allow a little more love.
Bibliographic (Information and Sources Throughout):
-All non-credited images are sourced from cc open-source retrieval, wikipedia, etc. or MarineLand online. www.twitter.com/MarinelandCan/media
-Fragile Oasis Prize image from www.fragileoasis.org
-Source for information about the OSPCA budgets and financial holdings is from their most recent public filings, retrieved online. Available through their website here: www.ontariospca.ca/ -All copy-written works are the property of holders. This electronic, blogged composition meant to comply with cc fair use for education where applicable. For any issues please contact the author for correction/removal.
I am happy to clarify or explain anything mentioned herein. Please contact me @dennizenx on twitter, here in the comments, or via email for any questions, or if you would like to see any source material for this article that is not already mentioned.
Some inspiration for this article brought to you by The Bible !
Genesis 1:26 - (...) and let them have a likeness unto the Lord, that they should be good stewards over all the fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky, over the livestock, and all the wild animals, and every creature that moves on, or in, the Earth.
This blog will be a place where I present views and data that I believe fall into a category best described as an 'outside view', or perhaps the 'other side' of various social, political, legal and other topics that I come across which strike me of some import. Of stunning coincidence, I will also endeavor to intermittently post nice views from outdoor scenes as the blogs background.
I will do my best to keep arguments impersonal and non-damaging where I am able, but the posts will employ foul language, satire, seldom considered points of view and other potentially undesirable linguistic experiences that can occur from time to time. It should be reminded, even here, that this will not always reflect my own personal view. I will seldom make large separations from my main topical points and my own personal views. But, it may still occur where I am simply trying to postulate an alternate explanation.
While I will do my best to present honest assessments and factual statements, mistakes and jokes will both occur. I hope my ability to convey my intentions, where such is the case, is apparent. All should feel welcome to present their own views or ask any questions they may have.
Sometimes I will post a topic, but not develop the post further. Please feel free to comment or ask about any of those, should you so desire, as well.
