BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out. Also, a similar rumor used to circulate around Minnesota about kittens and "Muskie" bait. I don't think there was much substance to that either...
BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out. Also, a similar rumor used to circulate around Minnesota about kittens and "Muskie" bait. I don't think there was much substance to that either...
George
I read the snopes article long before I posted this ...And what's your point? It does not claim it was a hoax it has multiple status which is what they do when multiple claims are made.
BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out.
The dog was 6 or 7 months old. By the way here is some other video from the vet that treated the dog which by the way was returned to the owner and is doing fine.
A veterinarian successfully treated one of the canines, a six-month-old dog with a large fishhook through its snout (see photo), at an SPA (Société Protectrice des Animaux, or Animal Protective Society) clinic in Réunion's capital, St.-Denis. .....From the national geographic article
Perhaps you missed these other snips from the National geographic article
Stephanie Roche of the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, another animal-welfare group in Paris, confirmed that live animals are used as bait on Réunion. But, she said, it is not a common practice. The Bardot organization has been fighting the practice for a decade. But this is the first time Réunion politicians have reacted strongly and swiftly to stop it, Roche said
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
(also in the snopes article as well as the letter confirming that it does happen)
AND
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Clain, a 51-year-old bread deliveryperson, was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper.
The amateur fisher said he did not use the puppy as bait. Instead, Clain said, the dog had been injured by a trap he had set to protect his hens, the paper reported.
Clain's case isn't an isolated one, said Fabienne Jouve of GRAAL (Groupement de Réflexion et d'Action pour l'Animal, or the Grouping of Reflection and Action for Animals), an animal rights organization based in Charenton-le-Pont, France.
"Lately, almost every week, one dog has been found with hooks on the island, not counting the cats found on the beaches partially eaten by the sharks," Jouve said.
So I suppose you think all these dogs just happen to hook themselves through their mouth and Gee.... the underside of not one, but both paws as well in some hen trap? Right What are the odds on that happening Mr. Suspicious...
TOO WORKED UP Yeah you bet! This happened and is still happening
My point is that - as it says in the snopes post - that the story is likely blown out of all proportion.
And the photo doesn't even LOOK very convincing, does it? It almost looks like it's been photo-shopped. But I'll even give you that the dog very well could be hooked like that. I've seen dogs do themselves serious harm, left to their own devices, and I wouldn't be too surprised that this one had done something like that.
But what would be the point of some evil, knuckle-dragging ne'er do well putting a hook like that into a dog (and just how would he go about doing it?)? It certainly seems HIGHLY unlikely that a dog that size could be trolled by a hook like that without immediately tearing out.
Now am I certain that live dogs have NEVER been used for shark bait? No. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if some cretin was found to have done it. It just doesn't seem too definitive in the reports. And I'd wouldn't doubt at all that some guys use DEAD dogs for bait, maybe even commonly. The workability of using a dead critter would seem much more probable.
But make the story really dramatic, and couple it with an picture of a cute doggy being horribly misused by some evil, bad, bad man (no matter how improbable), probably sells a lot more newspapers. So am I CERTAIN that Bowser isn't being trolled behind a fishing boat (with one of those horrible FOREIGNERS at the helm) with a meathook in his nose? No, but I find it not at all likely simply due to the implausiblity of it being an effective method. But, gosh, there's no telling what those uncouth non-Anglos might do...
And after viewing the dramatic video again, another thought just struck me.
How in the hell is that hook supposed to hook the eventual prey (the SHARK, remember, they're shark fishing), especially the ones supposed placed in the dogs paw? Maybe the evil, bad bad foreigners are just trying to hurt the dog as much as possible before he gets eaten? You know how those bad guys are. Especially those FOREIGN bad guys.
And just how is it that the dog got back out of the water and made his way to the veterinarian's place? I mean, the evil bad man looks like he had the dog pretty much under control. How'd the dog get away? Maybe the line broke (sometime before the dog drowned) and the doggie swam back to shore?
I'm sorry Mr. Dove. The story is fishy and I don't mean sharks...
And you'll also note, there's no barbs on those hooks. Why would that be? The evil badman wants to be more sporting?
Hey, here's a thought, there was some kind of meat on that hook and the unsuspecting doggie come upon what he thought was an easy meal and wolfed down the morsel, and the hooks did the rest.
Now what's more believeable? The nasty, conscienceless foreign fishermen routinely subject poor cute doggies to unbelieveable agony in a ridiculously convoluted and ineffective fishing technique - OR -
Rumors abound about nefarious practices committed on the high seas, and some organization milks it for all it's worth in order to bolster donations to their cause?
But I'd've thought it would be easier to use an animal as bait by tying a collar round its neck and dragging it along. Hooks wouldn't need to be affixed; once the sharks arrived, they'd snap at anything.
Why have a hook through the animal's snout? A shark would surely bite first at easier to access parts, like a leg or a tail. It wouldn't bite a dog's nose and skewer itself on a hook there. And if the hook through the snout is simply to fix the dog on the fishing line - a rope round the neck would be considerably easier and entail less risk of being bitten oneself.
Waysider: One of the guys in my twig (a fisherman) got a fishhook stuck in his finger. Why he came to me, I don't know. We took him to the hospital. He was squeamish and white with the shock of seeing this thing in his finger (and perhaps with the pain of it).
I can imagine your cat hissing at and attacking anyone who came near. It wouldn't be loking placid about it.
My point is that - as it says in the snopes post - that the story is likely blown out of all proportion.
So you felt the need to make a point I made in my original post. OK ????
This is an older story but it has resurfaced in the news as of late. Although it is not a common practice it still continues in Réunion.
As I mentioned I read the snopes story I also spent considerable time reading blogs, forums and stories on the matter.
By the way not one had a shred of evidence to disprove the story. I understand the problem this is a small island that according to the story is overrun with as many as 150,000 dogs. The are like vermin to the people there A dogs life has little value. That still does not make it excusable.
And the photo doesn't even LOOK very convincing, does it? It almost looks like it's been photo-shopped. But I'll even give you that the dog very well could be hooked like that. I've seen dogs do themselves serious harm, left to their own devices, and I wouldn't be too surprised that this one had done something like that.
Had you read the article you would see that the photo was a still frame from the vet video.
I have no doubts that animals can and do get themselves in predicaments at times. But as I said the chances of a dog hooking it's mouth and then hooking it's feet neatly at about the same place on each paw by itself pretty much is immeasurable odds. Next to impossible
But what would be the point of some evil, knuckle-dragging ne'er do well putting a hook like that into a dog (and just how would he go about doing it?)? It certainly seems HIGHLY unlikely that a dog that size could be trolled by a hook like that without immediately tearing out.
Now am I certain that live dogs have NEVER been used for shark bait? No. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if some cretin was found to have done it. It just doesn't seem too definitive in the reports. And I'd wouldn't doubt at all that some guys use DEAD dogs for bait, maybe even commonly. The workability of using a dead critter would seem much more probable.
Apparently you failed to read the letter from the government that part where it says
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Looks pretty definitive to me , very isolated cases means that there was a case ,it happened, they admitted that it did. So what's not definitive about that?
But make the story really dramatic, and couple it with an picture of a cute doggy being horribly misused by some evil, bad, bad man (no matter how improbable), probably sells a lot more newspapers. So am I CERTAIN that Bowser isn't being trolled behind a fishing boat (with one of those horrible FOREIGNERS at the helm) with a meat hook in his nose? No, but I find it not at all likely simply due to the implausibility of it being an effective method. But, gosh, there's no telling what those uncouth non-Anglos might do...
I agree animal groups play up the story, they often as in the case of the video lace the footage with sad music and drama, But if there was no case to work with I suppose they wouldn't be able to do that now would they? Drama does not make the story untrue, facts do ,and I've seen none. By the way sometimes it takes such graphic drama to wake people up to the facts of real life.
And after viewing the dramatic video again, another thought just struck me.
How in the hell is that hook supposed to hook the eventual prey (the SHARK, remember, they're shark fishing), especially the ones supposed placed in the dogs paw? Maybe the evil, bad bad foreigners are just trying to hurt the dog as much as possible before he gets eaten? You know how those bad guys are. Especially those FOREIGN bad guys.
And just how is it that the dog got back out of the water and made his way to the veterinarian's place? I mean, the evil bad man looks like he had the dog pretty much under control. How'd the dog get away? Maybe the line broke (sometime before the dog drowned) and the doggie swam back to shore?
I'm sorry Mr. Dove. The story is fishy and I don't mean sharks...
Given that this is a small puppy I assume that when the bait is eaten the hook would catch the shark if there is no more bait that leaves a hook YES?
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Also the operative word here is armature fisherman I read a blog where fisherman on the island said that they do not support or engage in such methods. But acknowledged that it does go on.
And you'll also note, there's no barbs on those hooks. Why would that be? The evil badman wants to be more sporting?
Hey, here's a thought, there was some kind of meat on that hook and the unsuspecting doggie come upon what he thought was an easy meal and wolfed down the morsel, and the hooks did the rest.
Now what's more believeable? The nasty, conscienceless foreign fishermen routinely subject poor cute doggies to unbelieveable agony in a ridiculously convoluted and ineffective fishing technique - OR -
Rumors abound about nefarious practices committed on the high seas, and some organization milks it for all it's worth in order to bolster donations to their cause?
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
But lets look at the real facts- (not theories on how you would fish)
1. The French Embassy had this to say
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Exactly what would they be monitoring if there were no cases?
2. The animal was treated by a vet ,video taped and returned to it's owner when healed, as it was not a stray. The vets name is supplied.
3. Several animal groups on the ground in Reunion have said that they have found dogs and cats hooked.
4. National Geographic a well known magazine who I have serious doubts that they would print a story without first checking out the validly, did in fact do so.
5. This story now some 3 plus years old to date has not been disproven as a hoax. Why do you suppose that is?
6. And the best for last:
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Clain, a 51-year-old bread delivery person, was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper.
Those are the facts! apparently the judge does not share your theories on how fishy the story is , and rumors abounding on the high sea. I guess that real evidence just got in the way.
So much for the old adage It's a dogs life..... Apparently not on Reunion.........
Oh! by the way you may have noticed that I left out in my response your straw man attempt to distract from the facts of this story,( namely the Evil Foreigners) I didn't miss it. It just had zero to do with the facts. That said I have plenty to say about those evil foreigners especially those towel headed airplane flying Muslim ones.
Is it likely to be a widespread practice?---I doubt it.
As callous as this may seem, why is it really any of our business what people outside of our country are doing to supply the food chain? In South Korea, dogs are raised as livestock and butchered for food. It's technically illegal but, for the most part, unenforced. It doesn't represent the diet of the majority of the population. Probably only about 10% (3 million) include it in their diets which are primarily vegetarian based. Is it our place to stop them? In France, foie gras is a popular food item. For those who are unfamiliar, foie gras is produced by forcing food down a goose's throat using a metal pipe. This is done to enlarge the goose's liver. Again, do we have a right to stop them?
While I agree that such a practice is cruel, maybe we should focus some of our empathy toward helping the people in Mississippi and Louisiana who have yet to recover from Katrina.
Is it likely to be a widespread practice?---I doubt it.
As callous as this may seem, why is it really any of our business what people outside of our country are doing to supply the food chain? In South Korea, dogs are raised as livestock and butchered for food. It's technically illegal but, for the most part, unenforced. It doesn't represent the diet of the majority of the population. Probably only about 10% (3 million) include it in their diets which are primarily vegetarian based. Is it our place to stop them? In France, foie gras is a popular food item. For those who are unfamiliar, foie gras is produced by forcing food down a goose's throat using a metal pipe. This is done to enlarge the goose's liver. Again, do we have a right to stop them?
While I agree that such a practice is cruel, maybe we should focus some of our empathy toward helping the people in Mississippi and Louisiana who have yet to recover from Katrina.
Just my opinion
It's our business because animals should be humanely treated, It's our responsibility because they can't do it for themselves they are at our mercy. Unfortunately some of us humans don't deserve the privilege to care for them. and being unenforced is the problem , pay a small fine here and there fish hook a few of the perpetrators and drag them for shark bait when they are caught and that sh** would come to a halt quickly.
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
But lets look at the real facts- (not theories on how you would fish)
1. The French Embassy had this to say
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Exactly what would they be monitoring if there were no cases?
2. The animal was treated by a vet ,video taped and returned to it's owner when healed, as it was not a stray. The vets name is supplied.
3. Several animal groups on the ground in Reunion have said that they have found dogs and cats hooked.
4. National Geographic a well known magazine who I have serious doubts that they would print a story without first checking out the validly, did in fact do so.
5. This story now some 3 plus years old to date has not been disproven as a hoax. Why do you suppose that is?
6. And the best for last:
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Clain, a 51-year-old bread delivery person, was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper.
Those are the facts! apparently the judge does not share your theories on how fishy the story is , and rumors abounding on the high sea. I guess that real evidence just got in the way.
So much for the old adage It's a dogs life..... Apparently not on Reunion.........
Oh! by the way you may have noticed that I left out in my response your straw man attempt to distract from the facts of this story,( namely the Evil Foreigners) I didn't miss it. It just had zero to do with the facts. That said I have plenty to say about those evil foreigners especially those towel headed airplane flying Muslim ones.
It's our business because animals should be humanely treated, It's our responsibility because they can't do it for themselves they are at our mercy. Unfortunately some of us humans don't deserve the privilege to care for them. and being unenforced is the problem , pay a small fine here and there fish hook a few of the perpetrators and drag them for shark bait when they are caught and that sh** would come to a halt quickly.
I never said that animals should not be humanely treated.
What I said is that it's none of our business to tell people in other parts of the world what they should and shouldn't eat nor is it our responsibility to control their production methods.
I never said that animals should not be humanely treated.
What I said is that it's none of our business to tell people in other parts of the world what they should and shouldn't eat nor is it our responsibility to control their production methods.
We are not the world's "police force".
And I never claimed that you did ,did I
You asked the question why is it our business and I responded with an answer It's our business because animals should be humanely treated, It's our responsibility because they can't do it for themselves they are at our mercy. I made no charge that you supported animals being inhumanely treated. It also is our business because it s illegal a crime and we all have a moral responsibility to uphold such. Another strawman argument No one is discusssing what people eat in other countries that is not the issue.
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
[
Umm, may if you imagine that the story claimed DR. WIERWILLE did it, you could manage to bring the requisite amount of skepticism to bear?
Lookit, the story just doesn't make any sense. NOBODY would fish for sharks (even a rank amateur) with hooks placed in the dog the way they are. You simply wouldn't catch any sharks. Look at what REAL shark bait looks like. The bait is generally TIED to some sort of shaft and the hooks protrude FROM the bait all over it (usually trailing well behind the bait as well. And again, why use a BARBLESS hook?
And, given the fact that a dog, trolled behind a boat, would drown within a very few minutes, (the ocean not being their natural habitat) why would a fisherman risk getting bitten a gazzillion times trying to put a freaking MEATHOOK in a LIVE dog's nose? And are dogs some sort of candy-like temptation for sharks? I've always seen chum lines used to draw sharks in and then raw chunks of MEAT used as the actual bait. I've got a hunch that maybe even a stupid amateur fisherman could figure that much out as well.
My limited exposure to humans has generally taught me that - unless acting on some sort of religiously-inspired compulsion - people usually act in fairly moderate, humane ways. It would be really remarkable to find a heinous practice such as described in the story being indulged in by people who were not mentally unbalanced.
Do weird, whacked out loonies perform really gruesome acts at times? Sure, happens all to often. But this story is just too suspect to put any faith in - for all the reasons I've outlined.
Fisherman MAY use dead dogs for bait ( most likely cut up into nice, shark-appetizing chunks), that wouldn't be at all surpising (or particularly upsetting) to me. But the photo/video that is THE real hook (pun intended) is FAR more likely (I would say "most probably") the result of some poor pup getting tangled up in some fisherman's gear after gulping down a chunk of bait meat - with the hook still inside. It's far and away the most easily understandable reason the the "shark bait" didn't meet his ultimate fate. But then, that doesn't make a very dramatic story, does it?
Umm, may if you imagine that the story claimed DR. WIERWILLE did it, you could manage to bring the requisite amount of skepticism to bear?
Lookit, the story just doesn't make any sense. NOBODY would fish for sharks (even a rank amateur) with hooks placed in the dog the way they are. You simply wouldn't catch any sharks. Look at what REAL shark bait looks like. The bait is generally TIED to some sort of shaft and the hooks protrude FROM the bait all over it (usually trailing well behind the bait as well. And again, why use a BARBLESS hook?
And, given the fact that a dog, trolled behind a boat, would drown within a very few minutes, (the ocean not being their natural habitat) why would a fisherman risk getting bitten a gazzillion times trying to put a freaking MEATHOOK in a LIVE dog's nose? And are dogs some sort of candy-like temptation for sharks? I've always seen chum lines used to draw sharks in and then raw chunks of MEAT used as the actual bait. I've got a hunch that maybe even a stupid amateur fisherman could figure that much out as well.
My limited exposure to humans has generally taught me that - unless acting on some sort of religiously-inspired compulsion - people usually act in fairly moderate, humane ways. It would be really remarkable to find a heinous practice such as described in the story being indulged in by people who were not mentally unbalanced.
Do weird, whacked out loonies perform really gruesome acts at times? Sure, happens all to often. But this story is just too suspect to put any faith in - for all the reasons I've outlined.
Fisherman MAY use dead dogs for bait ( most likely cut up into nice, shark-appetizing chunks), that wouldn't be at all surpising (or particularly upsetting) to me. But the photo/video that is THE real hook (pun intended) is FAR more likely (I would say "most probably") the result of some poor pup getting tangled up in some fisherman's gear after gulping down a chunk of bait meat - with the hook still inside. It's far and away the most easily understandable reason the the "shark bait" didn't meet his ultimate fate. But then, that doesn't make a very dramatic story, does it?
Again you are certainly entitled to entertain any theories you wish. But the facts of the case still are the facts. You seem intent on ignoring what the government said ,what the vet said, what the judge said and the fact that the man was found guilty. I guess ignoring all the real facts makes your theories sound better to you, that's your choice. But the facts say it happened, and those on the ground there not you or I say it happens. I might not think that NASA is flying their rockets the right way I may have my theories on how it should be done, but the facts are they have sent more than a few up and back in space. My theories don't much disprove that they have just as yours don't this story. Get back to me when you have some proof and I'll be happy to retract my story.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
23
7
8
Popular Days
Jan 16
32
Jan 18
15
Jan 17
13
Jan 15
2
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 10 posts
WhiteDove 23 posts
waysider 7 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Jan 16 2009
32 posts
Jan 18 2009
15 posts
Jan 17 2009
13 posts
Jan 15 2009
2 posts
cheranne
That is just sick!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
That pi$$e$ me off to no end!!! WTF is WRONG with people to do that???
I have watched plenty of shows about sharks, and if you put bloody fish in the water, the shark will come.
GAWD!!! This really riles me up!!!
Edited by NottawayferLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Kinda makes you wonder why God would even bother with humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K., before we all get TOO worked up:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp
BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out. Also, a similar rumor used to circulate around Minnesota about kittens and "Muskie" bait. I don't think there was much substance to that either...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
George
I read the snopes article long before I posted this ...And what's your point? It does not claim it was a hoax it has multiple status which is what they do when multiple claims are made.
BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out.
The dog was 6 or 7 months old. By the way here is some other video from the vet that treated the dog which by the way was returned to the owner and is doing fine.
NOTE the hooks in the paws as well also ......
HERE
Perhaps you missed these other snips from the National geographic article
Stephanie Roche of the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, another animal-welfare group in Paris, confirmed that live animals are used as bait on Réunion. But, she said, it is not a common practice. The Bardot organization has been fighting the practice for a decade. But this is the first time Réunion politicians have reacted strongly and swiftly to stop it, Roche said
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
(also in the snopes article as well as the letter confirming that it does happen)
AND
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Clain, a 51-year-old bread deliveryperson, was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper.
The amateur fisher said he did not use the puppy as bait. Instead, Clain said, the dog had been injured by a trap he had set to protect his hens, the paper reported.
Clain's case isn't an isolated one, said Fabienne Jouve of GRAAL (Groupement de Réflexion et d'Action pour l'Animal, or the Grouping of Reflection and Action for Animals), an animal rights organization based in Charenton-le-Pont, France.
"Lately, almost every week, one dog has been found with hooks on the island, not counting the cats found on the beaches partially eaten by the sharks," Jouve said.
So I suppose you think all these dogs just happen to hook themselves through their mouth and Gee.... the underside of not one, but both paws as well in some hen trap? Right
What are the odds on that happening Mr. Suspicious...
TOO WORKED UP Yeah you bet! This happened and is still happening
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
My point is that - as it says in the snopes post - that the story is likely blown out of all proportion.
And the photo doesn't even LOOK very convincing, does it? It almost looks like it's been photo-shopped. But I'll even give you that the dog very well could be hooked like that. I've seen dogs do themselves serious harm, left to their own devices, and I wouldn't be too surprised that this one had done something like that.
But what would be the point of some evil, knuckle-dragging ne'er do well putting a hook like that into a dog (and just how would he go about doing it?)? It certainly seems HIGHLY unlikely that a dog that size could be trolled by a hook like that without immediately tearing out.
Now am I certain that live dogs have NEVER been used for shark bait? No. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if some cretin was found to have done it. It just doesn't seem too definitive in the reports. And I'd wouldn't doubt at all that some guys use DEAD dogs for bait, maybe even commonly. The workability of using a dead critter would seem much more probable.
But make the story really dramatic, and couple it with an picture of a cute doggy being horribly misused by some evil, bad, bad man (no matter how improbable), probably sells a lot more newspapers. So am I CERTAIN that Bowser isn't being trolled behind a fishing boat (with one of those horrible FOREIGNERS at the helm) with a meathook in his nose? No, but I find it not at all likely simply due to the implausiblity of it being an effective method. But, gosh, there's no telling what those uncouth non-Anglos might do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And after viewing the dramatic video again, another thought just struck me.
How in the hell is that hook supposed to hook the eventual prey (the SHARK, remember, they're shark fishing), especially the ones supposed placed in the dogs paw? Maybe the evil, bad bad foreigners are just trying to hurt the dog as much as possible before he gets eaten? You know how those bad guys are. Especially those FOREIGN bad guys.
And just how is it that the dog got back out of the water and made his way to the veterinarian's place? I mean, the evil bad man looks like he had the dog pretty much under control. How'd the dog get away? Maybe the line broke (sometime before the dog drowned) and the doggie swam back to shore?
I'm sorry Mr. Dove. The story is fishy and I don't mean sharks...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And you'll also note, there's no barbs on those hooks. Why would that be? The evil badman wants to be more sporting?
Hey, here's a thought, there was some kind of meat on that hook and the unsuspecting doggie come upon what he thought was an easy meal and wolfed down the morsel, and the hooks did the rest.
Now what's more believeable? The nasty, conscienceless foreign fishermen routinely subject poor cute doggies to unbelieveable agony in a ridiculously convoluted and ineffective fishing technique - OR -
Rumors abound about nefarious practices committed on the high seas, and some organization milks it for all it's worth in order to bolster donations to their cause?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I had a cat once that decided to investigate my fishing gear on a Christmas Eve.
They are curious creatures, after all.
Oh what fun it is to ride----to Vet Hospital with a screaming cat!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mabe it's true, maybe not.
But I'd've thought it would be easier to use an animal as bait by tying a collar round its neck and dragging it along. Hooks wouldn't need to be affixed; once the sharks arrived, they'd snap at anything.
Why have a hook through the animal's snout? A shark would surely bite first at easier to access parts, like a leg or a tail. It wouldn't bite a dog's nose and skewer itself on a hook there. And if the hook through the snout is simply to fix the dog on the fishing line - a rope round the neck would be considerably easier and entail less risk of being bitten oneself.
Waysider: One of the guys in my twig (a fisherman) got a fishhook stuck in his finger. Why he came to me, I don't know. We took him to the hospital. He was squeamish and white with the shock of seeing this thing in his finger (and perhaps with the pain of it).
I can imagine your cat hissing at and attacking anyone who came near. It wouldn't be loking placid about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Given that this is a small puppy I assume that when the bait is eaten the hook would catch the shark if there is no more bait that leaves a hook YES?
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Also the operative word here is armature fisherman I read a blog where fisherman on the island said that they do not support or engage in such methods. But acknowledged that it does go on.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
But lets look at the real facts- (not theories on how you would fish)
1. The French Embassy had this to say
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Exactly what would they be monitoring if there were no cases?
2. The animal was treated by a vet ,video taped and returned to it's owner when healed, as it was not a stray. The vets name is supplied.
3. Several animal groups on the ground in Reunion have said that they have found dogs and cats hooked.
4. National Geographic a well known magazine who I have serious doubts that they would print a story without first checking out the validly, did in fact do so.
5. This story now some 3 plus years old to date has not been disproven as a hoax. Why do you suppose that is?
6. And the best for last:
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout.
Clain, a 51-year-old bread delivery person, was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper.
Those are the facts! apparently the judge does not share your theories on how fishy the story is , and rumors abounding on the high sea. I guess that real evidence just got in the way.
So much for the old adage It's a dogs life..... Apparently not on Reunion.........
Oh! by the way you may have noticed that I left out in my response your straw man attempt to distract from the facts of this story,( namely the Evil Foreigners) I didn't miss it. It just had zero to do with the facts. That said I have plenty to say about those evil foreigners especially those towel headed airplane flying Muslim ones.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Has anything like this ever happened?---Probably.
Is it likely to be a widespread practice?---I doubt it.
As callous as this may seem, why is it really any of our business what people outside of our country are doing to supply the food chain? In South Korea, dogs are raised as livestock and butchered for food. It's technically illegal but, for the most part, unenforced. It doesn't represent the diet of the majority of the population. Probably only about 10% (3 million) include it in their diets which are primarily vegetarian based. Is it our place to stop them? In France, foie gras is a popular food item. For those who are unfamiliar, foie gras is produced by forcing food down a goose's throat using a metal pipe. This is done to enlarge the goose's liver. Again, do we have a right to stop them?
While I agree that such a practice is cruel, maybe we should focus some of our empathy toward helping the people in Mississippi and Louisiana who have yet to recover from Katrina.
Just my opinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It's our business because animals should be humanely treated, It's our responsibility because they can't do it for themselves they are at our mercy. Unfortunately some of us humans don't deserve the privilege to care for them. and being unenforced is the problem , pay a small fine here and there fish hook a few of the perpetrators and drag them for shark bait when they are caught and that sh** would come to a halt quickly.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never said that animals should not be humanely treated.
What I said is that it's none of our business to tell people in other parts of the world what they should and shouldn't eat nor is it our responsibility to control their production methods.
We are not the world's "police force".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And I never claimed that you did ,did I
You asked the question why is it our business and I responded with an answer It's our business because animals should be humanely treated, It's our responsibility because they can't do it for themselves they are at our mercy. I made no charge that you supported animals being inhumanely treated. It also is our business because it s illegal a crime and we all have a moral responsibility to uphold such. Another strawman argument No one is discusssing what people eat in other countries that is not the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I went fishing with my dog ,a little black lab named pepper he got into the fishing pole on the drive to the lake
and got a hook in his mouth. Poor baby he was screaming and I had to pull over and take care of it right
their!
He was so loud people were coming out of there homes to see what happened and my son who was 10 yrs old
was freaking out too.
I grabbed my dog and held him still and carefully took the hook out of his mouth(my nursing skills paid off
and what a relief!!
It was a gash and we put hydrogen peroxide on it and treated it to he healed and always put fishing gear out
of the reach of the dogs.
I have 4 Labs and just love them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Umm, may if you imagine that the story claimed DR. WIERWILLE did it, you could manage to bring the requisite amount of skepticism to bear?
Lookit, the story just doesn't make any sense. NOBODY would fish for sharks (even a rank amateur) with hooks placed in the dog the way they are. You simply wouldn't catch any sharks. Look at what REAL shark bait looks like. The bait is generally TIED to some sort of shaft and the hooks protrude FROM the bait all over it (usually trailing well behind the bait as well. And again, why use a BARBLESS hook?
And, given the fact that a dog, trolled behind a boat, would drown within a very few minutes, (the ocean not being their natural habitat) why would a fisherman risk getting bitten a gazzillion times trying to put a freaking MEATHOOK in a LIVE dog's nose? And are dogs some sort of candy-like temptation for sharks? I've always seen chum lines used to draw sharks in and then raw chunks of MEAT used as the actual bait. I've got a hunch that maybe even a stupid amateur fisherman could figure that much out as well.
My limited exposure to humans has generally taught me that - unless acting on some sort of religiously-inspired compulsion - people usually act in fairly moderate, humane ways. It would be really remarkable to find a heinous practice such as described in the story being indulged in by people who were not mentally unbalanced.
Do weird, whacked out loonies perform really gruesome acts at times? Sure, happens all to often. But this story is just too suspect to put any faith in - for all the reasons I've outlined.
Fisherman MAY use dead dogs for bait ( most likely cut up into nice, shark-appetizing chunks), that wouldn't be at all surpising (or particularly upsetting) to me. But the photo/video that is THE real hook (pun intended) is FAR more likely (I would say "most probably") the result of some poor pup getting tangled up in some fisherman's gear after gulping down a chunk of bait meat - with the hook still inside. It's far and away the most easily understandable reason the the "shark bait" didn't meet his ultimate fate. But then, that doesn't make a very dramatic story, does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I remember at Carolina Beach NC ,a guy was fishing off the pier and got a little shark with just
regular bait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Again you are certainly entitled to entertain any theories you wish. But the facts of the case still are the facts. You seem intent on ignoring what the government said ,what the vet said, what the judge said and the fact that the man was found guilty. I guess ignoring all the real facts makes your theories sound better to you, that's your choice. But the facts say it happened, and those on the ground there not you or I say it happens. I might not think that NASA is flying their rockets the right way I may have my theories on how it should be done, but the facts are they have sent more than a few up and back in space. My theories don't much disprove that they have just as yours don't this story. Get back to me when you have some proof and I'll be happy to retract my story.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's a crime?
I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.