What would a just punishment be for someone smuggling 10% of an endangered species in order to sell them as pets?
Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines
Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines
Make him eat all of them in one sitting.
My you are being polite calling him an imbecile. I would have a few other choice names.I am furious looking at those turtles... what a moron. I think a just punishment would be if he were never allowed to travel there again and I like Nick's idea of having to do sensitivity work on endangered species. I really like that. 10% and there are only 400, the guy is an imbecile.
lol Come on Sparrow you know how polite I am....not.....hehe...go for it girl... lolMy you are being polite calling him an imbecile. I would have a few other choice names.
lol...Hmmm, they're critically endangered, and their numbers are dwindling fast in the wild, the authorities believe they were going to be pets.
Pets, including domesticated wild ones, have a habit of living longer if properly taken care of. They certainly don't face the same dangers as they would in the wild.
Is the outrage really justified here?
Hmmm, they're critically endangered, and their numbers are dwindling fast in the wild, the authorities believe they were going to be pets.
Pets, including domesticated wild ones, have a habit of living longer if properly taken care of. They certainly don't face the same dangers as they would in the wild.
Is the outrage really justified here?
lol...
Some points to consider from that vantage would be:
- who appointed him steward for the world is he an expert
- were they being transported properly
- what was HIS motive
- would the money be funneled back into their preservation
- would the turtles be properly cared for
- how would they propegate
Me too, but in the end they want it bad enough, like a lot of things, people willing to pay that much for something rare, will cherish it and look after it.Very valid point, about the lifespans. But, and I don't know this for certain in this case, there's a part of me that believes that people that want endangered species as pets are, in the end, the same type that want the ivory off the elephants. People want a thing because it's rare, and in some twisted way they think that makes them somehow 'special' because they have a rare, special thing. That strikes me as inherently wrong in it's selfishness.
Me too, but in the end they want it bad enough, like a lot of things, people willing to pay that much for something rare, will cherish it and look after it.
She didn't protect anyone, they protected her. She was not an endangered species only a little girl targeted because she was a Jew.I have to wonder if Anne Frank had to meet some form of requirement when protecting people.
Me too, but in the end they want it bad enough, like a lot of things, people willing to pay that much for something rare, will cherish it and look after it.
Did you really miss the point?She didn't protect anyone, they protected her. She was not an endangered species only a little girl targeted because she was a Jew.
Maybe ??? lol probably ♦Did you really miss the point?
So?I don't believe they are comparable, because he was not smuggling the turtles in order to protect them but to profit from them.
That people seem to put more emotion into animals than humans.What was the point I missed?
It's a big planet with a lot of need. We are all different and thus called to steward the planet in different ways.So?
That people seem to put more emotion into animals than humans.
I would get all righteous about it if someone were stealing children from another country in order to sell them here for their personal profit even knowing the children would be better off here. So yes.If someone smuggles, hides or otherwise saves a person from almost certain death, do we get all righteous about their motives, the conditions?
Schindler made an excellent profit off saving Jews.We are all different and thus called to steward the planet in different ways.