Dogs being used as Shark Bait

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-dogs...d-as-shark-bait

I was asked to join this petition .. and I can't believe that this can be real .. has anyone heard of this as being an actual real thing that happens ?

I am astounded that this could happen .. that anyone would even think of doing it .. surely using a fish would work soo much better !

Just really curious as to the validity of something like this .. and if it is maybe a hoax for a joke that may take away from real petitions.

Giles

edit: I just found some news articles .. it looks like this has really happened !!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ogs_sharks.html

although apart from that Nat Geo link the others i saw were The Sun UK (not exactly my best credible news source) and the rest was all rumour mill forums.

Giles,

Sadly this is very real and is happening today.

Here the National Geophraphic article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ogs_sharks.html

and...

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_050818_1.html

In fact, many mammals are being brutalized and used as bait to catch sharks. On the list:

- Dolphins: world wide they are hunted, slaughtered and used to catch sharks. In fact, i watched a full documentary on how an indigenous village in Indonesia will lure dolphins to the boat, spear one, and keep it alive in the water shaking in agony. The other dolphins come to its aid and they spear them. These are then chopped into cubes, used to bait sharks which are then finned and thrown back in the water.

Here is an brief account from an old fisherman in Galapagos (Floreana):

"Before, there used to be a lot of sharks here... So many that we pulled up 50-60 of them in three hours... We used to fish with dolphin-blood as bait... We caught the dolphins with harpoons when they approached our boats... Some places, like Marchena [one of the northern islands], there were so many sharks that you couldn't swim or even put your legs in the water... "

Cost of a set of fins = 1 dolphin and 1 shark

-Dogs & Cats: Stray dogs and cats (and pets sometimes) are collected. Hooks are driven through their paws and snounts the day before so they bleed sufficiently. They are then attached alive to floats at night to bait sharks. This pratice has been documented in detail in the French-controlled island of Réunion.

-Sea Lions: Seals are slaughtered, choped up and used to bait sharks. Fishermen raid seal colonies collecting the babies and juveniles. This practice has been documented on a number of occasions in Galapagos.

-Turtles: Turtle nesting beaches are raided at night, turtles are collected and slaughtered. Their organs are pulled out and set on hooks for shark bait. This practice has been documented in detail in Indonesia.

We often talk about the by-catch issues with shark finning. Sea birds and turtles die by the hundreds of thousands annually because of long-lining. What most people don't realize is the intentional destruction levied on on the marine mammal populations by commerical fishermen for the sole purpose of shark bait.

Its a free for all out on the seas. By the time the worlds wakes up, the sun will have already set on most marine mammal species.

I was asked to join this petition .. and I can't believe that this can be real .. has anyone heard of this as being an actual real thing that happens ?

I am astounded that this could happen .. that anyone would even think of doing it .. surely using a fish would work soo much better !

 

edit: I just found some news articles .. it looks like this has really happened !!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ogs_sharks.html

although apart from that Nat Geo link the others i saw were The Sun UK (not exactly my best credible news source) and the rest was all rumour mill forums.

I remember seeing this when it first came out, disgusting.

FWIW there is some info on whether how prevalent the practice is:

Snopes

But to try to quantify how prevalent or not it actually is is more academic in my mind than anything else. Certain practices (such as listed by Shawn) just should not happen.

To further confirm: The image posted in "Dogs being used as shark bait" is quite real; it's a frame taken out of video footage taken by France's Fondation 30 Millions d'Amis (Thirty Million Friends Foundation). This Paris-based organization actually gathered 800,000 names to petition with.

Please note the set of stills that the Sea Shepherd Consevation Society provided:

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_050818_1.html

"Sea Shepherd - Saving Sea Dogs and Sharks in Paradise, under the section titled "Dogs Used As Bait."

The set of 6 images shows the same dog that Giles posted (upper left, among other hapless victims from Reunion Island). Look closely...it's a different frame showing the vet's forefinger extended outside the dog's chin, not placed under as in the frame Giles had presented. A series of fakes of the same hooked dog with such a subtle and irrelevant difference would be senseless.

The French Embassy played it down as an isolated incident, of course, but you can see the retriever isn't alone. Furthermore, the Bardot Foundation had been documenting and protesting this activity for over a decade.

Although this story first gained global attention in October, 2005, I'm sure the practice subsided for awhile and then resumed...probably with a bit more stealth. Reunion still has a large population of over 100,000 strays and these fishers, like most of mankind, haven't gone through some instant evolutionary mutation residing in kindness. Particularly with the surging demand and price for shark fins.

Aside from confirming that this really happens, I'd like to make an essential point here:

I think this illustrates the anthropomorphism that reacts with repulsion and anger for the canines and the anthropocentrism that disregards the sharks. The cited petition (still gaining traction with nearly 37,000 signatories) and the articles referenced are all about the sole horror of the plight of the dogs. Emotions run high regarding man's best friend (at least in most of the Western world...in parts of Asia they can be seen as food or fur).

Where is the consideration for the real intended prey; the sharks? In nearly every depiction of this story, the species threatened with mutilation and death by finning, as well as extinction leading to devastating ecological damage, is always overlooked. The answer goes beyond those obliging some manmade law that extends to enforce fines or imprisonment for dog killers, yet abandons the protection of sharks (and most other marine species). A deeper morality, based in the wisdom of naturalism, is not yet cultivated to see the horror extending under the waves.

With that in mind, I present this as a proposed action: Perhaps another petition should start using these same images, but then extending the protest with photographs of the finless torsos of still living sharks being tossed overboard. With the hooked and maimed dogs as a strong emotional link to the ultimate victims, the public may find an additional reason to despise these fishermen, with a new compassion towards protecting the sharks.

Any feedback is welcome on such a revised petition.

Nosrod

Did you guys look at those photos on Sea Shepherd? Here's what I see:

1. The same dog that Giles posted, which seems to be the primary source of the Réunion story.

2. A lifeless looking dog with no signs of having been used as bait.

3. A suspiciously clean dog on a vet's table with two small (not great for shark fishing) hooks fully embedded in its legs (also not very good if you want to hook a shark). Monofilament leader.

4. Another healthy looking dog that certainly doesn't look like an island mutt. Small hook with the point and barb fully embedded in the paw. Useless for fishing. Not at all believable that this dog was used for bait.

5. A malnourished black dog with some sort of wound on its hip.

6. Yet another mangy-but-unhooked dog. This could be a dog from Chicago for all we know.

So, we have precisely one dog that looks like it could have been deliberately hooked to serve as shark bait. And it's the very same dog from the NG story. The rest are of sick-looking dogs or suspiciously well-kept dogs with small fish hooks in their paws, all of which could have been taken from that vet show on Animal Planet. (I saw an episode where a dog had swallowed a treble hook. Should I have called Paul Watson and let him know that a Bay Area housewife was obviously planning to go fishing for leopard sharks?) And looking at that petition site, it appears that it too is relying solely on that one photo of the retriever with the trolling rig through its snout.

I'm even skeptical about the retriever in the Réunion image. First of all, it's a breed dog and it's got a pretty nice collar on its neck. Not really your typical stray, is it? And not to get all gory or anything, but the best way to make use of the blood and flesh of a dog to attract sharks is not to hook the dogs a day ahead of time so that they "bleed sufficiently" but to kill the dog on the boat, cut it up, let a blood slick drift out for a while, and use pieces of the meat and organs as bait. The idea of trolling a retriever to catch a shark is just stupid. Maybe it happened, but it's way too stupid to be a widespread fishing practice.

This is not to say that humans don't use dogs as bait, or that dogs in much of the world are not treated rather poorly. I've personally seen dogs that were treated like rats, and others roasted on a spit. I just find it extremely suspicious that for such an allegedly big problem we've got so little evidence.

danielandrewclem......

I just say, wow, what a stance to take in this thread.

While some of your observations may have ground, e.g. small hooks are nominal for shark fishing, in regards to the reliability of where these photos originated. I would like to think that a source as trustworthy as NG would not post/print an article if it where not true ~minus the cover of them moving the pyramids.

I have to ask; did you read any of the articles? Maybe you have become so conditioned by today's media, where everything is given to you without effort or your own personal analytical thinking, that if it requires the tedious chore of actually reading then you must pass over it and search for only that which is visual. This argument is due to that at no time through your period of mundane ramblings do you refer to any of the articles’ statements.

Just in case, I have included an excerpt from the NG article for you to review and let you ponder why the canine may have had a collar on, since this is your premise for dismissing the validity of these claims.

“Unlike most of the hooked animals, the dog was someone's pet, according to Saliha Hadj-Djilani, a reporter for the Thirty Million Friends Foundation's TV program. The dog had apparently escaped its captors and was taken to the SPA by a concerned citizen. Fully recovered, the animal is now home with its owners.â€

Hmm, lets see. Pet had owners, was found by concerned citizen, and returned to said owners. At some point during this canine’s plight I am convinced of the two probable circumstances: (1) Since the canine had owners maybe it had the collar on the entire time, but that doesn’t seem right, or (2) the concerned citizen found the canine and collared it prior to the Vet visit.

Wow, that almost burned me out thinking that up!

You must also take into account that these articles are from 2005, thought the petition did not start on the link site until 2007, and since then legislation has been put in place to ensure the prevention of future instances, thereby, leading to the lessening reports of such events. Funny how when a there is a statute in place to prevent an action that is deemed inappropriate there is a decrease in such an event; is it not? However, if you had read and not merely looked at the photos you could have gathered this information yourself ~but I guess you like to think of yourself as a guy who buys Playboy to read the articles, right?

Then again, you may be onto something – if I were committing heinous acts towards something I too would want proof of these actions readily available for people to find so that that I could be condemned for it. Perfect!

Enjoy.

danielandrewclem-

Unfortunately, I've got to take issue and do damage control with the content of your post #5. Nothing in your post offered an opening of the subject; rather it was the all too familiar closer. You see, I had this idea in my previous post (#4) about turning the "dogs as bait" story into a pro-shark petition that I didn't want to see evaporate with someone's aimless counterpointing about the validity of the Reunion "dogs as bait" situation.

As stated by shawnh; many domesticated and/or highly sentient beings are indeed used as bait all over the world's seas. That's an immutable fact that can be proven with one's own research on a laptop. As for this particular case, read the previous posts and the provided links throughly (as e=me suggests) before you pound those keys and needlessly kill a thread that may generate some good for one of the ocean's most endangered species.

Without such thoroughness, your conclusions are mostly erroneous and capricious regarding the dogs. Echoing e=me; the collared pure-bred retriever was someone's pet - the National Geographic article said as much. The French Government admitted to the use of dogs as bait on Reunion and denounced it in writing. The claims on strays vs pets or the frequency of the practice were tailored to calm the sensibilities of twitched-out European pet owners. And, frankly, your judgments on how one would really use a dog to catch a shark indicate a complete abstinence from thought. If you or anyone else somehow need more "proof" on the terrestrial animal abuse aspect of all this, here's some veterinarian and courtroom coverage in video as well (in French):

http://www.30millionsdamis.fr/acces-specia...la-reunion.html

http://www.massacreanimal.org/en/chiens_appats.htm

So, if you want to be a fly in the ointment - first learn to fly well and then dive into the appropriate goop. I'll make an appeal: With the stakes so high regarding the oceans, please do the experiencing, reading, listening, and pondering required to establish a genuine knowledge base and a theoretical stance that can then join with others to make a difference, and not merely a noise. I would ask that you or anyone seriously getting involved in the protection of aquatic species and their habitats at least know the tenants of ecology and develop some capacity for thinking holistically and for the common good.

nosrod

E=me and nosrod,

Your replies to my post were impressively sarcastic and condescending. Nice work.

“Unfortunately, I've got to take issue and do damage control with the content of your post #5. Nothing in your post offered an opening of the subject; rather it was the all too familiar closer. You see, I had

this idea in my previous post (#4) about turning the "dogs as bait" story into a pro-shark petition that I didn't want to see evaporate with someone's aimless counterpointing about the validity of the Reunion "dogs as bait" situation.â€

I must have missed the memo in which this thread was handed over to you. I didn’t “close†this thread; I simply offered up a skeptical analysis in which I pointed out that the evidence that the dogs-as-shark-bait is a widespread problem is scant and suspicious. The very purpose of this thread was to open a discussion about the validity of this story. Some of us may be interested in looking into this Réunion story––the subject of the thread, after all––instead of assuming that it is a sign of a worldwide problem of terrestrial mammals being turned into shark bait. If you want to start a “pro-shark†petition, why use this story as a spark? And why not start your petition elsewhere, or start your own thread to do so?

Incidentally, you could enact laws banning the use of all mammals as bait, but that would do nothing to curb shark fishing. Most sharks are caught on hooks baited with cephalopods or fish. If you want to spend your time campaigning to end the use of dogs as bait, fine. But you might help the sharks more by taking an approach that would actually make a dent in shark fishing effort.

“As for this particular case, read the previous posts and the provided links throughly (as e=me suggests) before you pound those keys and needlessly kill a thread that may generate some good for one of the

ocean's most endangered species.â€

I did read them thoroughly, hence my skepticism. (By the way, sharks are not a species. It is hyperbolic and inaccurate to make the blanket statement that they are “one of the ocean’s most endangered speciesâ€. Some shark populations are doing badly; others aren’t.) As I’ve already pointed out, those websites provide:

1) photos from a single series of video images taken from a French news story (which I already watched, thank you)

2) an admission by a Réunion official that there was a local problem and that it was being dealt with

3) an Urban Myth site's description of the local problem and the subsequent global outrage that may or may not have been justified

4) a series of vague images on Sea Shepherd of mistreated or malnourished dogs, with only a few of them bearing small hooks embedded in their paws (where? when? how?)

5) a French news segment about the Réunion case––not a regional or global issue

All of this is akin to finding footage of a dog being butchered in a Chinese restaurant, then linking to a Flickr page displaying photos of all the three-legged dogs in the world, and then claiming that all those three-legged dogs were maimed by crazed Chinese chefs who need to be stopped. This is absurd, albeit too common these days of rapid response and instantaneous dissemination of info (real and bogus) on the internet. If you want to do some good for sharks, start by compiling scientific facts and hard evidence and culling out the sensational, inadequately-supported stuff about how dogs are part of the equation. The more you rely on easily-refuted, inadequately-sourced or unsubstantiated facts to support your cause, the more likely it is that John Q. Public will never pay attention to you again after your fuzzy math or unsupported claims have been analyzed and torn apart. It's all about credibility, and once you lose it it's really hard to get it back.

“And, frankly, your judgments on how one would really use a dog to catch a shark indicate a complete abstinence from thought.â€

Actually, I thought about this a great deal, instead of simply looking at images of hooked dogs (and non-hooked dogs) on the Web and leaping to the conclusion that they all were deliberately hooked to serve as shark bait. Like I said, you can turn on the TV and watch shows in which domestic dogs are taken to the vet because they have stumbled into fishing gear or swallowed hooks. Should we assume that their owners had actually hooked them on purpose? I don’t think so.

“So, if you want to be a fly in the ointment - first learn to fly well and then dive into the appropriate goop. I'll make an appeal: With the stakes so high regarding the oceans, please do the experiencing, reading, listening, and pondering required to establish a genuine knowledge base and a theoretical stance that can then join with others to make a difference, and not merely a noise. I would ask that you or anyone seriously getting involved in the protection of aquatic species and their habitats at least know the tenants of ecology and develop some capacity for thinking holistically and for the common good.â€

(I assume you meant "tenets" of ecology.) I’ve got to hand it to you, that’s right up there with one of the most pompous, condescending, and undeserved attacks I’ve ever experienced––even on the WWW, where people easily lose their sense of decorum and assume that those who disagree with them must be illiterate, lazy morons. I assure you, my education and experience in marine biology, particularly elasmobranch biology, has included plenty of “experiencing, reading, listening, and pondering required to establish a genuine knowledge base and a theoretical stance"––certainly enough so that I have the right to post my reaction to Giles’ post. As a biologist, I handled thousands of sharks and experienced hundreds of days and nights on fishing boats and research vessels in the North Pacific, South Pacific, North Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico, all for the purpose of learning about the realities of humanity’s relationship with marine organisms and the biology of those species, sharks in particular. I also spent two years living on a remote island where dogs were not treated as family members, so I had the chance to think about anthropomorphism and the legitimacy of other ways of regarding and treating sentient beings. And now I work full-time as a writer and editor, with my sole purpose being the dissemination of facts and the encouragement of the scientific method and reasoned skepticism in this increasingly bullshit-stained work. All of this experience went into my analysis of the “evidence†in this story, hence my skepticism that dogs-as-bait is a problem worthy of our time, energy, and conservation-minded efforts. If you are looking for a dope who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and doesn’t read or ponder before “pounding the keys,†you’ll have to look elsewhere.

I hope you do write a pro-shark petition. If it makes any sense, I'll probably sign it. (I actually once helped with a successful effort to ban shark finning in Hawaii, which at the time was the hub of shark-fin traffic in the Pacific.) I hope you'll in turn pay me the courtesy of not assuming that just because I question the veracity or scale of this particular story that I don't know how to read or think, or that I don't know far far more about this stuff than you do.

I think all points of view skeptical or not are very valid in these circumstances. I was unsure of it until i found the Nat Geo article, and then to have Shawn back it up with his information I have no doubt.

Skepticism is great info for anyone being pro conservation etc etc to hear as it helps to realise the ways in which skeptics think and hence find a way to get to them so they realise the real damage.

There is no need to turn this thread into a pissing contest between a few strong believers ... and people willing to take the opposite side of the fence. Someone has to .. or else there would be no problems for anyone right !!

What is useful and interesting in these forums however in my mind is to see opinions and reasoning fired off against each other in both sides of the story. There is no need to take someones opinions that happen to be opposite to yours and take it personally and veer the topic away from itself.

Just to echo what Giles said - here at Wetpixel we encourage our users to challenge each-others ideas, but NOT to attack the person posting the ideas/comments.

A good example of what not to do would be to say that

1) someone was not thinking when they made their post,

2) that someone has no idea what they are talking about (when how is it possible to say since you don't know the person)

3) that someone doesn't care or is callous, for taking an opposing point of view

4) etc

With that said, if you intend to play devil's advocate, it's always a good idea to say so at the outset. Even then, people will still get mad - if you don't believe me, have a look at the Flying Spagetti Monster website :-)

Cheers

James

Skepticism is great info for anyone being pro conservation etc etc to hear as it helps to realise the ways in which skeptics think and hence find a way to get to them so they realise the real damage.

Well said. It is often more valuable to speak with people who do not agree with my positions as oppossed to those that do.

Sorry if I've caused a stir. I didn't set out to play devil's advocate or be a contrarian just for the hell of it.

I'd like to add that one can be a skeptic of just about anything––it's not just a synonym for someone who denies environmental problems, denies the existence of gods, or routinely takes the less-popular position. (One definition of skepticism is " a methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.") So while I am skeptical about this dogs-as-bait story, or at least of the broad scale or alarming tone that some people would apply to it, I am not particularly skeptical about other environmental problems––including anthropogenic climate change and the overfishing of sharks. I think we'd all agree that many sharks are overfished. But personally, I just don't find it particularly helpful or necessary to drag in tangential issues about dogs or other organisms in order to instigate or springboard a "pro-shark" campaign. And oftentimes doing so is terrible for the overall effort or the original goal, because when a tangential or tenuously-related issues gets hitched to a larger one and that tangential issue crashes and burns due to fact-checking, it ends up bringing down the whole thing. People think, "Oh, they were lying or wrong about this, so they must be lying or wrong about that. They can't be trusted. They'll say anything to accomplish their goals." A smart conservation movement recognizes that while they can grab the attention of a new audience by bringing in a sensational and photogenic tangential issue (such as how shark fishing sometimes involves the use of puppies as bait), they'd better be damn sure of their facts and their sources because if they end up being wrong then they're likely to lose the support of the larger audience, such as the scientific community. We can see this in U.S. politics, too. A party or candidate can suck up to a specific base by appealing to them on a hot-button issue, but in doing so they can easily alienate another audience that may be much larger than the one they are courting. Anyhow...

Great to see folks have worked out there differences and we are all good again

Let it not be lost the point of this thread. The barbaric ends fishermen will go to catch and fin sharks is appalling. It may be isolated to a particular location (say dogs) or a world wild issue (dolphins). The bottom line is these types of fishing practices further evidence how incredibly destructive, wasteful and inhumane shark finning is. In some regions *how* they are fishing sharks has become more damaging to the environment than the fact that they are doing it. I have personally reseached and witnessed this on more than one occasion.

Perhaps the destruction of a species and an ecosystem may appeal to the more scientific folks, the cruelty aspect to the animal lovers and the exploitation of dolphins to the mammal lovers. Each of these groups can play in important role in working to drive change. All of these practices are well documented so there is not issue of facts here.

But, make no mistake about it. The wasteful, cruel and destructive shark fishing methods referred to above are a global issue. Furthermore, as the fish stocks tumble and the price of shark fins continues to soar, fisherman are finding it harder to find "traditional" bait. In their race to cash in on the gold [fin] rush, they are litterly raping eco-systems of any available biomass to use as bait. Sadly the mammals make for available, easily targeted and effective bait options.

So...let's turn from debating the nuances and focus on driving change?

-shawn

What I don't understand is that if getting bait is such a problem, why don't these fisherman use the sharks they catch as bait instead of throwing them away?

I'm not in any way condoning the practice of shark finning, but it just seems logical to me that if you already have the shark, it would make good bait. Sharks do eat other sharks.

Danielandrewclem.

Skepticism is a wonderful tool for engaging argumentative conversations, though I felt that you where too against the grain on this topic –resulting in my response. Though given the sources of this story I felt that your stance on its validity was misguided. There are a number of institutions that knowingly propagate false information to achieve their agendas, albeit on false pretenses and this could have very well been one of them, but the way in which I took your opinion was that none of the information provided was genuine.

I am in agreement with you that this should not be the keynote of any pro-shark petition, as its use is limited and has no bearing on the facts of or repercussions of shark fishing. This is merely an avenue used by some to capture them, thereby, making it a subsidiary of the action though in no way the resource of perpetuating it.

Personally I feel that this petition is irrelevant, not to mention inadequate, in that the author would have more results contacting the Humane Society or Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the issues of this topic considering the US has federal laws preventing this. If in fact it is the French Embassy of Washington DC they plan to contact having such a driven voice, and creditable, voice would help this cause.

What I don't understand is that if getting bait is such a problem, why don't these fisherman use the sharks they catch as bait instead of throwing them away?

That's a good question. I think part of the reason crews are more likely to dump a finned, dying shark back into the water instead of harvesting parts of it for bait is time. Longlining is all about getting the most baited hooks out into the water and hauling them all back in very quickly so that they can be rebaited and reset for the next day (or night). It's grueling work. Whatever can be done to keep the boat moving (so the mainline can be hauled) and keep the whole operation running at high speed means a more efficient, profitable trip. It's easy to gaff a shark onto the deck, slice of its fins, and nudge it back overboard. To use parts of it for bait would require dragging the shark out of the way, butchering, stashing the kept pieces somewhere, and then hauling the messy carcass back over to the rail.

On the other hand, they'd only need to butcher a small number of sharks to have enough bait for the next set, in theory. So I think they're simply opting to use mackerel, scad, squid, etc.––the usual bait––because it's proven to work. Also, a lot of the finning is happening on boats targeting tuna and swordfish, so the bait actually needs to be most appropriate for them and not for sharks.

Hundreds of thousands of fishermen do use parts of the fish they catch to catch more fish. A popular and cheap trolling rig for tunas and other pelagics is to catch one fish and then cut off the belly flap and carve it into triangles. You then put a hook through the triangle and use it as an aromati, shiny trolling bait. Other fishers will use all kinds of stuff as lures: Niueans will chew up and spit coconut into the water to chum for tuna, and Tongans and other SP islanders make a rat-shaped lure out of cowrie shells, twine, and leaves to lure octopus. People also use the plastic handles of screwdrivers as the cylindrical heads of squid-like trolling lures. They tie a skirt made of whatever––plastic, old strips of inner tube, etc.–– around the end of it to conceal the hook.

But I think in longlining the quality of the bait is incredibly important, and it may be that shark flesh or organs just doesn't work very well.

I don't have anything philosophical to add to what's already been said except that seeing/reading the articles about dogs being used live as bait made me feel physically sick.

Dogs are some of the most wonderful creatures on earth, and I can think of ways/places I'd like to use the same hooks ON the "fishermen" involved in treating them that way...

If its true then it just amazes me everytime how low our race can stoop...

The poor dog looks petrified..But then again wouldn't you...

I'm dumbstruck...

Dive safe

DeanB

This is old news but still important. In some countries dogs aren't pets. Indonesia is one such example. Have you seen how they kill a dog? They pick tem up by the hind legs and swirl them throught the air then bash their skulls against the asphalt. Then they casually sell them as my pics show Simply not a lot you can do without changing culture. Don't get me wrong I am apalled. The question is how it be stopped?

Joe et al

The point is it is their culture. Why should they stop? They see some of our practices as barbaric too... a woman walking around in a bikini top?

This whole thing goes back to cuddly creatures like dolphins or dogs vs many other animals which are in dire need of real protection from extinction.