Roy I think you are turning the wrong path. One of the most profitable businesses in Bali is tourism. A lot coming from Europe. Now is it mainly Europe where the people are most likely to be upset with mis-use of animals. The risk of them staying away is a risk Bali can't afford. As long as the money from the European tourist is one of the main streams of income it would be better to make the attractions the way they like it. So, Orang Utans in a sanctuary will be visited, even if it means paying a considerable entrance fee, but the same apes in cages, mostly wild-caught, will drive tourists away.
Using endangered species for tourist entertainment.
- Thread starter rien.gluvers
- Start date
Rien, I didn’t mean to come down hard on you personally. At the same time, I am tired of westerners that come to Bali with pre-disposed ideas of the way things should be here, or in other parts of Indonesia. Of course, this is totally natural, especially when coming from an EU country where the unemployed drug addict can make more in a month than a hard working and duly employed Balinese makes in a year, or even more.
In my collection of odd and old things pertaining to Indonesia I have a 1929 KPM (Dutch) travel brochure promoting big game hunting excursions to Sumatra and Java to hunt white rhinos, tigers and orangutans to name just a few species where it was then, always “open season.”
Sure, that was quite a while ago, and sure, things have greatly changed since then...BUT, who are we to impose our “more enlightened” views on those whose country this is?
In Bali, I sense more of an ambivalence rather than abject abuse of animals. I’ve noted that all life is accepted here, as all life is considered an incarnation of previous life. I’ve seen more dogs overtly abused in my years of living in the US than I have ever witnessed here in Bali. On the other hand, this ambivalence often results in neglect as a westerner could easily view it.
Anyway, to back up what I wrote about Dutch sponsored big game hunting in Indonesia...back then, I offer this page from this booklet below. Ironically, this was to support tourism in its day.
In my collection of odd and old things pertaining to Indonesia I have a 1929 KPM (Dutch) travel brochure promoting big game hunting excursions to Sumatra and Java to hunt white rhinos, tigers and orangutans to name just a few species where it was then, always “open season.”
Sure, that was quite a while ago, and sure, things have greatly changed since then...BUT, who are we to impose our “more enlightened” views on those whose country this is?
In Bali, I sense more of an ambivalence rather than abject abuse of animals. I’ve noted that all life is accepted here, as all life is considered an incarnation of previous life. I’ve seen more dogs overtly abused in my years of living in the US than I have ever witnessed here in Bali. On the other hand, this ambivalence often results in neglect as a westerner could easily view it.
Anyway, to back up what I wrote about Dutch sponsored big game hunting in Indonesia...back then, I offer this page from this booklet below. Ironically, this was to support tourism in its day.
Ah the Dutch....
I remember going to the circus with my parents, oh boy, what an excitement!
Now, some cities in the Netherlands say that a circus is welcome, but without animals only... ofcourse leading to protests from circus owners...
Maybe there will be a zoo boycot somewhere in the future too...
How we humans look upon "using" animals for certain purposes, depends on culture and the place on the timeline...
In Bali there is a daily killing of pigs with knifes in village compounds and this is watched with great interest by children and others. Its unthinkable in "the west". How do you feel about that as a foreigner?
We have been, and will be using animals for our own purposes, food, work or entertainment, and that helped to become what we are.
If Melka is as bad as people seem to think, I don't know, I will talk with the owner next week, and try to give him a voice. I already spoke briefly with him, and heard something about a school for handicapped children where dolphins will be used.
I don't think Melka is "bad for tourism", I think the opposite.
I ask everyone to look at the facts, and not the gossip about what is happening in Melka, and consider that there are people, both in North and South Bali, who are afraid that they will loose business to Melka.
I have noticed that there are "voices" trying to make Melka look bad, simply because they are afraid that Melka takes away their business, and that those "voices" are activly approaching people with a "smear campaign", referring to the nationality of the owner of Melka (German, like if that says something...the war is over, remember) and suggesting corruption etc.
Personally I have admiration for the owner of Melka and his original initiative(s). Creative minds and the money that backs up ideas is what (North) Bali needs.
I remember going to the circus with my parents, oh boy, what an excitement!
Now, some cities in the Netherlands say that a circus is welcome, but without animals only... ofcourse leading to protests from circus owners...
Maybe there will be a zoo boycot somewhere in the future too...
How we humans look upon "using" animals for certain purposes, depends on culture and the place on the timeline...
In Bali there is a daily killing of pigs with knifes in village compounds and this is watched with great interest by children and others. Its unthinkable in "the west". How do you feel about that as a foreigner?
We have been, and will be using animals for our own purposes, food, work or entertainment, and that helped to become what we are.
If Melka is as bad as people seem to think, I don't know, I will talk with the owner next week, and try to give him a voice. I already spoke briefly with him, and heard something about a school for handicapped children where dolphins will be used.
I don't think Melka is "bad for tourism", I think the opposite.
I ask everyone to look at the facts, and not the gossip about what is happening in Melka, and consider that there are people, both in North and South Bali, who are afraid that they will loose business to Melka.
I have noticed that there are "voices" trying to make Melka look bad, simply because they are afraid that Melka takes away their business, and that those "voices" are activly approaching people with a "smear campaign", referring to the nationality of the owner of Melka (German, like if that says something...the war is over, remember) and suggesting corruption etc.
Personally I have admiration for the owner of Melka and his original initiative(s). Creative minds and the money that backs up ideas is what (North) Bali needs.
Re: RE: Using endangered species for tourist entertainment.
Seriously though, if you believe in evolution then Roy is 100% correct and "that's it" as Bert would say...
Tongue in cheek or not, it's the truth (As a believer in intelligent design, I'm just having a bit of fun with the idea of evolution).
However, it really does not matter whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, we both know that preserving nature is the right thing to do. I have not been to this place in Lovina but I have been to a few zoo's; some I thought treated the animals exceptionally well, where others were a total disgrace! If these animals are better off in the wild, then so be it. If they are happy where they are, then so be it too as well.
In our heart we should know which is right.
Hahaha, I love this line.Roy said:
Seriously though, if you believe in evolution then Roy is 100% correct and "that's it" as Bert would say...
Tongue in cheek or not, it's the truth (As a believer in intelligent design, I'm just having a bit of fun with the idea of evolution).
However, it really does not matter whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, we both know that preserving nature is the right thing to do. I have not been to this place in Lovina but I have been to a few zoo's; some I thought treated the animals exceptionally well, where others were a total disgrace! If these animals are better off in the wild, then so be it. If they are happy where they are, then so be it too as well.
In our heart we should know which is right.
Well, you’ve heard from Bert, a man of normally very few words, paint his picture in a lot more words than we are used to. In my opinion, Bert has eloquently expressed the sentiments of most Bali based expats.
For posters like Sergio, I would respectfully suggest that you “put your money where your mouth is” by making a donation to the Bali street dog project which I have already posted.
I have very little tolerance, in fact, none....for bleeding hearts that come on to this forum without something meaningful that transcends their plaintiff pleas, moaning and groaning. It’s especially aggravating to me when this crap comes from folks that have never lived on Bali...but insist, aside from this truth, that they are right.
For posters like Sergio, I would respectfully suggest that you “put your money where your mouth is” by making a donation to the Bali street dog project which I have already posted.
I have very little tolerance, in fact, none....for bleeding hearts that come on to this forum without something meaningful that transcends their plaintiff pleas, moaning and groaning. It’s especially aggravating to me when this crap comes from folks that have never lived on Bali...but insist, aside from this truth, that they are right.
I am a dog lover.. no no.. not in that way Roy 
In fact I have just returned from walking my next door neighbour's beautiful golden Labrador, we drove up to a local arboretum here in Herefordshire and had a fantastic two hours walking through the woods Sandy (the dog) sniffing around and having fun running through the autumn leaves.
There is an "Autumn Wood" there planted with a huge variety of Acers that will look spectacular in a week or so when the leaves really start turning.
So this is a UK perspective, animals, by and large, are kept as pets by responsible owners. We have anti cruelty laws for animals and an organisation The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals that rescues animals and regularly investigates and prosecutes animal cruelty offenders.
A quick look at the RSPCA accounts reveals that in 2005 the amount they spent "resources for charitable application” was £86 million ($154m) a jaw dropping, staggering sum for a nation of 60 million people.
We in the West appear obsessed with animals and raising money for animal charities seems as easy as pie.
I just looked up the accounts of a smaller animal charity here The Cats Protection League expenditure last year was £32 million ($57m) Jesus! For cats!!
Ok so now I’m intrigued and I started looking up accounts for some non animal charities so I looked at The NSPCC, The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children a very large charity founded in 1883 and is incidentally modelled on the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children by a Liverpool banker.
So their expenditure in 2005? £106 million only £20m more than the RSPCA!!
To be honest as someone who has campaigned and fund raised for health based NGO s working in SE Asia for a number of years I find this bizarre western fixation for animal welfare depressing.
It seems wholly disproportionate to focus so much on animal charities when there is so much need in sectors such as children’s health and welfare.
And when you apply such skewed logic, such a bizarre perception of social responsibility, such a frankly obtuse ideology to a developing country like Indonesia it’s not so much depressing as obscene and immoral.
Bali street dogs are a nuisance but I feel there are bigger fish to fry.
I for one won’t be raising a hand to help them.. unless it is of course to club them to death.
In fact I have just returned from walking my next door neighbour's beautiful golden Labrador, we drove up to a local arboretum here in Herefordshire and had a fantastic two hours walking through the woods Sandy (the dog) sniffing around and having fun running through the autumn leaves.
There is an "Autumn Wood" there planted with a huge variety of Acers that will look spectacular in a week or so when the leaves really start turning.
So this is a UK perspective, animals, by and large, are kept as pets by responsible owners. We have anti cruelty laws for animals and an organisation The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals that rescues animals and regularly investigates and prosecutes animal cruelty offenders.
A quick look at the RSPCA accounts reveals that in 2005 the amount they spent "resources for charitable application” was £86 million ($154m) a jaw dropping, staggering sum for a nation of 60 million people.
We in the West appear obsessed with animals and raising money for animal charities seems as easy as pie.
I just looked up the accounts of a smaller animal charity here The Cats Protection League expenditure last year was £32 million ($57m) Jesus! For cats!!
Ok so now I’m intrigued and I started looking up accounts for some non animal charities so I looked at The NSPCC, The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children a very large charity founded in 1883 and is incidentally modelled on the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children by a Liverpool banker.
So their expenditure in 2005? £106 million only £20m more than the RSPCA!!
To be honest as someone who has campaigned and fund raised for health based NGO s working in SE Asia for a number of years I find this bizarre western fixation for animal welfare depressing.
It seems wholly disproportionate to focus so much on animal charities when there is so much need in sectors such as children’s health and welfare.
And when you apply such skewed logic, such a bizarre perception of social responsibility, such a frankly obtuse ideology to a developing country like Indonesia it’s not so much depressing as obscene and immoral.
Bali street dogs are a nuisance but I feel there are bigger fish to fry.
I for one won’t be raising a hand to help them.. unless it is of course to club them to death.
Re: RE: Using endangered species for tourist entertainment.
Have you been eating those rusty nails again Roy?
I have read thro this thread twice and to be honest I do not see where Roy's outburst came from.
Before I go on I should "declare an interest" - I am a conservationist and hope to be doing some voluntary work in this area quite soon. But I, and almost everybody I know, am Orang Orang first and Orang Utan second.
I know enough from my visits to Indonesia to recognise the extent of human suffering caused by poverty and I agree that this is clearly the top priority facing the government of RI and others. Regretably no government can allocate all its resources to a single issue; however much it may wish too. Whilst the Government of RI does allocate funds to conservation and whilst there are numerous Indonesian (including Balinese) NGOs running the work, the bulk of finance seems to come from overseas.
I would feel safe in assuming that most of the overseas aid coming to Indonesia would be applied to humans and community development, rather than to conservation. And of course conservation work in itself creates a demand for labour, which serves the communities interests.
That being so then I am sure you would not choose to see a creature like the Orang-utan become extinct because of human (politely now) "interference" - particularly when there may well be alternatives that are better for the Orang Orangs and our Utan cousins. The possible extinction of Orang-utans has nothing to do with evolution or the cycle of life or natural selection, its all to do with what people are doing to them, and they may not need to.
Roy I can walk and chew gum at the same time; it's not a case of one thing or the other. Many conservation projects, like what's going on in Borneo, puts the people first and by helping the people they go on to help the environment and the endangered wildlife.
I thought that bit was well out of order. People are entitled to opinions - even when they are silly enough to disagree with me I would argue for their right to do so.
So once the Bali Starlings are gone and the apes are gone and the rhino are gone and the tigers are gone what next? It may not matter since the the planet will be so hot or the lowlying lands be so deep in water the we cannot survive - goddamnit if only we'd saved those trees!
Perhaps you should calm down, have a hot chocolate and go to bed. You might dream of a plastic world inhabited only by Orang Orangs. But thats not a dream - it's a nightmare :cry:.
Have you been eating those rusty nails again Roy?
I have read thro this thread twice and to be honest I do not see where Roy's outburst came from.
Before I go on I should "declare an interest" - I am a conservationist and hope to be doing some voluntary work in this area quite soon. But I, and almost everybody I know, am Orang Orang first and Orang Utan second.
Roy said:
I know enough from my visits to Indonesia to recognise the extent of human suffering caused by poverty and I agree that this is clearly the top priority facing the government of RI and others. Regretably no government can allocate all its resources to a single issue; however much it may wish too. Whilst the Government of RI does allocate funds to conservation and whilst there are numerous Indonesian (including Balinese) NGOs running the work, the bulk of finance seems to come from overseas.
I would feel safe in assuming that most of the overseas aid coming to Indonesia would be applied to humans and community development, rather than to conservation. And of course conservation work in itself creates a demand for labour, which serves the communities interests.
Roy said:
That being so then I am sure you would not choose to see a creature like the Orang-utan become extinct because of human (politely now) "interference" - particularly when there may well be alternatives that are better for the Orang Orangs and our Utan cousins. The possible extinction of Orang-utans has nothing to do with evolution or the cycle of life or natural selection, its all to do with what people are doing to them, and they may not need to.
Roy said:
Roy I can walk and chew gum at the same time; it's not a case of one thing or the other. Many conservation projects, like what's going on in Borneo, puts the people first and by helping the people they go on to help the environment and the endangered wildlife.
Roy said:
I thought that bit was well out of order. People are entitled to opinions - even when they are silly enough to disagree with me I would argue for their right to do so.
So once the Bali Starlings are gone and the apes are gone and the rhino are gone and the tigers are gone what next? It may not matter since the the planet will be so hot or the lowlying lands be so deep in water the we cannot survive - goddamnit if only we'd saved those trees!
Perhaps you should calm down, have a hot chocolate and go to bed. You might dream of a plastic world inhabited only by Orang Orangs. But thats not a dream - it's a nightmare :cry:.
Quick comment to "Leap of Faith"
Don't forget that the figures you quote are in addition to expenditure by various governments. If you add charitable plus government expenditure together then the picture will look a bit different since most government do not give such a high priority to conservation and wildlife protection.
Having said that I do share your consternation/frustration or whatever at the targetted priorities of some of the charitable dollars. But if someone wants to give their money to "The Toby Jug Restoration Society" or something - well it might be their right to do so, I feel a bit sorry for them.
Don't forget that the figures you quote are in addition to expenditure by various governments. If you add charitable plus government expenditure together then the picture will look a bit different since most government do not give such a high priority to conservation and wildlife protection.
Having said that I do share your consternation/frustration or whatever at the targetted priorities of some of the charitable dollars. But if someone wants to give their money to "The Toby Jug Restoration Society" or something - well it might be their right to do so, I feel a bit sorry for them.
Re: RE: Using endangered species for tourist entertainment.
I think the work being done by the Bali Street Dogs Foundation is fantastic and it should be supported by all dog lovers. Perhaps you should check out what they do.
a leap of faith said:
I think the work being done by the Bali Street Dogs Foundation is fantastic and it should be supported by all dog lovers. Perhaps you should check out what they do.
Norm wrote, relating to me
Norm. I wrote my last post here at eight PM Bali time. Don’t patronize me, and even worse, don’t underestimate me. This kind of shit really pisses me off. You’re lucky, as I am off to pura for the full moon.
Norm. I wrote my last post here at eight PM Bali time. Don’t patronize me, and even worse, don’t underestimate me. This kind of shit really pisses me off. You’re lucky, as I am off to pura for the full moon.
Well Norm you appear to be missing the point.
I am sure that is not a unique situation for you.
I'll spell it out in simple plain language so that you can understand.
The health and welfare of people must take precedence over dogs in a country where real poverty remains.
How anyone can fail to see this as common sense is being myopic in the extreme.
You are evidently on some kind of crusade to save Indonesia from itself.
I'm sure you will be basking in the glow of a self congratulatory aura having dipped into a society you know precious little about fiddled about a bit as an unqualified volunteer and then skedaddled back to your comfortable middle class life.
You can regale your exploits in far flung places over dinner to your Birkenstock wearing, brown rice and lentil eating friends. Maybe write an article for some obscure environmentalist journal and no doubt keep us all informed in edge of the seat gripping detail of your mission in a ubiquitous blog or podcast.
I am sure that is not a unique situation for you.
I'll spell it out in simple plain language so that you can understand.
The health and welfare of people must take precedence over dogs in a country where real poverty remains.
How anyone can fail to see this as common sense is being myopic in the extreme.
You are evidently on some kind of crusade to save Indonesia from itself.
I'm sure you will be basking in the glow of a self congratulatory aura having dipped into a society you know precious little about fiddled about a bit as an unqualified volunteer and then skedaddled back to your comfortable middle class life.
You can regale your exploits in far flung places over dinner to your Birkenstock wearing, brown rice and lentil eating friends. Maybe write an article for some obscure environmentalist journal and no doubt keep us all informed in edge of the seat gripping detail of your mission in a ubiquitous blog or podcast.
Dear "Leap",
I'm sure Norm agrees that, "The health and welfare of people must take precedence over dogs in a country where real poverty remains."
I have edited your post to remove the offensive name-calling, as it was totally unnecessary. Please keep your responses impersonal.
This applies to all members on this forum. I understand this issue is emotionally charged, but everyone is entitled to an opinion and should not be attacked personally just because you don't agree with their opinion.
I'm sure Norm agrees that, "The health and welfare of people must take precedence over dogs in a country where real poverty remains."
I have edited your post to remove the offensive name-calling, as it was totally unnecessary. Please keep your responses impersonal.
This applies to all members on this forum. I understand this issue is emotionally charged, but everyone is entitled to an opinion and should not be attacked personally just because you don't agree with their opinion.
Well, I hope I am not verbally attacked for adding my two cents worth, but I do have a comment:
leap of faith writes:
Here are just a few examples to illustrate what I mean, all true stories from people I know in Bali:
A young girl is removed from school by her family because they need her to gather food and water for the family cow during the day instead: the trees with leaves the cow can eat are fewer, meaning longer walks away, the spring with potable water is also a long walk outside of the village, and the family needs this cow, being their only economic commodity...so the cow's immediate welfare takes precedence over the child's need for an education. Of course, the family regrets having to make this decision. If they lived where the trees were abundant, the water was clean and accessible, the resoures to sustain the cow would not be a decision-breaker that ultimately affects the rest of the child's life.
My friend Wayan is the first born son. Well, actually no, he wasn't: the first 3 children born to his parents before him all died in infancy from dysentery - a preventable condition caused by bacteria or parasite in the water. Had the family had access to clean, drinkable water, these children probably would have lived. Wayan himself was exceptionally strong as a child, and so was able to survive dysentery and malaria and still be alive, where his siblings were not so lucky.
With increased tourism and access to a different economy, a family sells their rice field to buy a car. The car is transport for tourists and the main source of family income. Now the tourist economy has waned, there is no use for the car, and the family no longer has a rice field. The car sits empty of costly petrol and dormant in their village, where does the family get the money to buy rice now? (answer: anyway/anywhere they can)
I could go on with endless examples of how people's welfare are absolutely intertwined with ecological and animal welfare. The reasons why people poach, cut down rainforest, smuggle rare species, etc. is economic. The sad thing is these solutions are short-term, and ultimately will no longer sustain the family, but would have already done permanent ecological damage. So, yes, an alternative to a black/white, right/wrong debate in this string is, I think, a conversation about how to combine two subjects - the welfare of people AND the welfare of nature/land/animals/ecology. There are, indeed, alternate solutions that can sustain and be good for the welfare of all.
This is precisely the reason why successful conservation efforts, like those run by FNPF in Borneo and Bali, consider the community, village, and people first. They do not make a separate distinction between all living things.
Sadly, it is a fact that open hearts are sometimes more open (i.e. charitable) to animals and not equally as charitable to people. FNPF approached me for this precise reason: "I can get money for the animals," the director tells me, "But nobody wants to give us money to help the people or the children...what to do?" I said, "Ok, I will work on raising money only for the children. You stick to what you know, and I'll stick to what I know, and together we can have a wholistic approach."
And, I may add, this is not because I want my birkenstock-wearing, wild-rice and lentil eating friends to adore me but rather, because it is the right thing to do, for everyone.
leap of faith writes:
Yes, I agree with this, if we are talking only about dogs and not about nature/animals/ecology as a whole. Because, ultimately, I believe the health and welfare of people is interrelated with the land, nature and animals and cannot be separated. ESPECIALLY in a country "where real poverty remains" and people are very much sustaining their lives and families on farming, fishing, and natural resources as in much of Indonesia. The fact is, when those resources are depleted, the people and their families suffer a great deal...there is hunger, malnutrition, preventable illness and death, the basic needs for survival are depleted and so is the chance for quality and sustained life.
Here are just a few examples to illustrate what I mean, all true stories from people I know in Bali:
A young girl is removed from school by her family because they need her to gather food and water for the family cow during the day instead: the trees with leaves the cow can eat are fewer, meaning longer walks away, the spring with potable water is also a long walk outside of the village, and the family needs this cow, being their only economic commodity...so the cow's immediate welfare takes precedence over the child's need for an education. Of course, the family regrets having to make this decision. If they lived where the trees were abundant, the water was clean and accessible, the resoures to sustain the cow would not be a decision-breaker that ultimately affects the rest of the child's life.
My friend Wayan is the first born son. Well, actually no, he wasn't: the first 3 children born to his parents before him all died in infancy from dysentery - a preventable condition caused by bacteria or parasite in the water. Had the family had access to clean, drinkable water, these children probably would have lived. Wayan himself was exceptionally strong as a child, and so was able to survive dysentery and malaria and still be alive, where his siblings were not so lucky.
With increased tourism and access to a different economy, a family sells their rice field to buy a car. The car is transport for tourists and the main source of family income. Now the tourist economy has waned, there is no use for the car, and the family no longer has a rice field. The car sits empty of costly petrol and dormant in their village, where does the family get the money to buy rice now? (answer: anyway/anywhere they can)
I could go on with endless examples of how people's welfare are absolutely intertwined with ecological and animal welfare. The reasons why people poach, cut down rainforest, smuggle rare species, etc. is economic. The sad thing is these solutions are short-term, and ultimately will no longer sustain the family, but would have already done permanent ecological damage. So, yes, an alternative to a black/white, right/wrong debate in this string is, I think, a conversation about how to combine two subjects - the welfare of people AND the welfare of nature/land/animals/ecology. There are, indeed, alternate solutions that can sustain and be good for the welfare of all.
This is precisely the reason why successful conservation efforts, like those run by FNPF in Borneo and Bali, consider the community, village, and people first. They do not make a separate distinction between all living things.
Sadly, it is a fact that open hearts are sometimes more open (i.e. charitable) to animals and not equally as charitable to people. FNPF approached me for this precise reason: "I can get money for the animals," the director tells me, "But nobody wants to give us money to help the people or the children...what to do?" I said, "Ok, I will work on raising money only for the children. You stick to what you know, and I'll stick to what I know, and together we can have a wholistic approach."
And, I may add, this is not because I want my birkenstock-wearing, wild-rice and lentil eating friends to adore me
but rather, because it is the right thing to do, for everyone.Well yes we were talking about dogs.
I fully understand the interdependent relationship between people their animals and the environment.
This topic started by a post by Sergio about the Melka Hotel and some animals that may or may not be living in ideal conditions.
My point was that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of concern for street dogs and dolphins in pools etc over the plight of millions of poor people living in Indonesia.
Mary I’m very glad that you have found an organisation that you want to support they sound like a good NGO. Fundraising in the west for local NGOs is invaluable work.
I fully understand the interdependent relationship between people their animals and the environment.
This topic started by a post by Sergio about the Melka Hotel and some animals that may or may not be living in ideal conditions.
My point was that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of concern for street dogs and dolphins in pools etc over the plight of millions of poor people living in Indonesia.
Mary I’m very glad that you have found an organisation that you want to support they sound like a good NGO. Fundraising in the west for local NGOs is invaluable work.
In my opinion, this has been a great string and an excellent contribution to this forum. By and large, heated emotions have been avoided. Re-reading this entire string, I can summarize my thoughts.
Rien is obviously correct. In the ideal “real” world, none of us would argue that the conservation and preservation of Indonesia’s wild life should have a very high priority. The same could, and should be said for Indonesia’s ecology....reefs, rain forests, etc.
The reality is, and as already pointed out...the funds and commitment just aren’t there at this time. Moreover, the cultural gap as it applies to this topic is seemingly impossible to navigate.
Rien’s initial post, which started this string, touches on a much more broad and highly important issue than the animals being kept at Melka’s zoo. As I view this issue, it boils down to “what kind of Bali do I want to see left for my kids?” That vision does not include animals being kept in cages because the natural environment of those animals is now totally developed by man.
At the very moment we are discussing the fate and future of our wild life, the greatest human tragedy since WWII is unfolding in Sudan. While I can understand the appeal of cute and cuddly fur balls, I can’t understand how our resources are directed to them, and not the plight of human beings first and foremost. That’s my take on this issue, and it’s nothing more than just my opinion. I say "thanks" to Rien for starting this string in the first place.
Rien is obviously correct. In the ideal “real” world, none of us would argue that the conservation and preservation of Indonesia’s wild life should have a very high priority. The same could, and should be said for Indonesia’s ecology....reefs, rain forests, etc.
The reality is, and as already pointed out...the funds and commitment just aren’t there at this time. Moreover, the cultural gap as it applies to this topic is seemingly impossible to navigate.
Rien’s initial post, which started this string, touches on a much more broad and highly important issue than the animals being kept at Melka’s zoo. As I view this issue, it boils down to “what kind of Bali do I want to see left for my kids?” That vision does not include animals being kept in cages because the natural environment of those animals is now totally developed by man.
At the very moment we are discussing the fate and future of our wild life, the greatest human tragedy since WWII is unfolding in Sudan. While I can understand the appeal of cute and cuddly fur balls, I can’t understand how our resources are directed to them, and not the plight of human beings first and foremost. That’s my take on this issue, and it’s nothing more than just my opinion. I say "thanks" to Rien for starting this string in the first place.
I also have read the whole string again and after thinking it over I have the following remarks:
1. If you are not there (bali/indonesia) or not very active in worldwide nature preservation, than it's indeed much more important to put your money/labour where your mouth is (mea culpa)
2. I dont see the neccesity to choose humans ALWAYS over animals/nature. If we all do this all the time, nature dies and all the animals in it (including homo sapiens).
3. Although my hart feels a lot good feelings for the bali street dog project and dont feel their project will result in better world for our children.
4. I have given some moderate opinions about the private zoo in melka. I shoudnt have done that. Have never been there.
5. I think that the most expats (also orang belanda) have their harts in the right place. If you comapre it to the eu, i see a lot more willingness to do something for the good. I think this is great and it is ofcourse only good that some people work hard to raise money to cure cancer, some work hard for poor and sick children, some for dogs and some for more general nature. I like all this.
Like Roy I really like this string also.
1. If you are not there (bali/indonesia) or not very active in worldwide nature preservation, than it's indeed much more important to put your money/labour where your mouth is (mea culpa)
2. I dont see the neccesity to choose humans ALWAYS over animals/nature. If we all do this all the time, nature dies and all the animals in it (including homo sapiens).
3. Although my hart feels a lot good feelings for the bali street dog project and dont feel their project will result in better world for our children.
4. I have given some moderate opinions about the private zoo in melka. I shoudnt have done that. Have never been there.
5. I think that the most expats (also orang belanda) have their harts in the right place. If you comapre it to the eu, i see a lot more willingness to do something for the good. I think this is great and it is ofcourse only good that some people work hard to raise money to cure cancer, some work hard for poor and sick children, some for dogs and some for more general nature. I like all this.
Like Roy I really like this string also.
I am surprised at the couple of responses my earlier posts attracted.
To Roy; I am sorry you found the comment at the end of my post to be "Patronizing". It was my intention to have a light-hearted opening and closing to what seemed a fairly heavy post. If the humour offended you I apologize.
To Leap of Faith, I think you should read my posts again. I have never said and I do not believe that any animal should take precedence over people. In fact in one of my posts I support some comments that you made. Also your personalised comments about me were actually quite amusing, at least my wife thought so. I am sorry to say but you don't know me at all.
I think it is a great pity that these sort of debates become personalised, aggressive and abusive. Should I feel disappointed, or would I be personalising the issue?.
To Roy; I am sorry you found the comment at the end of my post to be "Patronizing". It was my intention to have a light-hearted opening and closing to what seemed a fairly heavy post. If the humour offended you I apologize.
To Leap of Faith, I think you should read my posts again. I have never said and I do not believe that any animal should take precedence over people. In fact in one of my posts I support some comments that you made. Also your personalised comments about me were actually quite amusing, at least my wife thought so. I am sorry to say but you don't know me at all.
I think it is a great pity that these sort of debates become personalised, aggressive and abusive. Should I feel disappointed, or would I be personalising the issue?.
Great string. Read everybodies posts and their was some good stuff in their.
But I have to agree with Norm when he said 'it is a great pity that these sorts of debates become personalised, agressive and abusive'.
It is difficult to 'talk over the internet', you cannot see the smile on someone's face or the frown. I know there are those funny little emoctions but not everybody uses them.
People please think before you post. This forum was really unfriendly a year ago but it has improved greatly I would hate to see it regress.
But I have to agree with Norm when he said 'it is a great pity that these sorts of debates become personalised, agressive and abusive'.
It is difficult to 'talk over the internet', you cannot see the smile on someone's face or the frown. I know there are those funny little emoctions but not everybody uses them.
People please think before you post. This forum was really unfriendly a year ago but it has improved greatly I would hate to see it regress.
Well then just call me Gomer Pyle as I yell out, “surprise, surprise, surprise.” I say that because I don’t read the animosity that some are calling to attention. If one wants to read REALLY heated discussions (Sorry Bert and Mats) just check out the archives.
There were some back then which were so hot, the glass on the reader’s CRT
would begin to melt.
I don’t read that here. A topic of potentially emotional energy as Rien raised was in my view, very nicely handled. Now, if I can get back to work slaughtering these anjing kampung bodoh, as Galungan is coming soon, and I need their tails to top off my panjors! Sorry Helen, but that little Gremlin within is very awake today!
There were some back then which were so hot, the glass on the reader’s CRT
would begin to melt.
I don’t read that here. A topic of potentially emotional energy as Rien raised was in my view, very nicely handled. Now, if I can get back to work slaughtering these anjing kampung bodoh, as Galungan is coming soon, and I need their tails to top off my panjors! Sorry Helen, but that little Gremlin within is very awake today!
I like you, Roy! I read this thread with great interest and at times felt the urge to post with a "hear, hear", but the thread continued to move on without me. I have been reading the forum and familiarizing myself with its member and their opinions for about 2 weeks now, and I must say, I like the fact that I have become a member of a group of intelligent people with the guts to voice their opinions and the heart to not hold other people's opinions against them. While I am all for speaking your mind, and I like nothing better than a good debate, I find that name-calling and verbal abuse merely negate anything intelligent that may have come from you in the first place.
Roy, I have have great respect for a man who is not offended by overzealous opinions, bad attitudes, (or bad days, for that matter!).
The people of this forum have amused me and made me think. I love it that I feel very free to post my opinion here without fear of abuse! Of course, I'm still new. You may not know what my opinion is, yet! BTW, how do you work those smiley things? How can I be clever and sarcastic without them?!!!!
In the meantime....
Roy, I have have great respect for a man who is not offended by overzealous opinions, bad attitudes, (or bad days, for that matter!).
The people of this forum have amused me and made me think. I love it that I feel very free to post my opinion here without fear of abuse! Of course, I'm still new. You may not know what my opinion is, yet! BTW, how do you work those smiley things? How can I be clever and sarcastic without them?!!!!
In the meantime....