U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2014, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
4,957 posts, read 1,962,780 times
Reputation: 1816

Advertisements

The more likely reason Africans are told not to eat bushmeat. The Western world largely believes Africans are out hunting every last animal to extinction, and eating great apes and gorillas. To a point they are partly correct. However, most hunters know, if they shoot too many animals today, that they will starve tomorrow.

The African plains are big and provide an abundant resource to enjoy properly. Destroying animal natural habitat is not in Africa's long term best interests.
Switching to domesticated live stock is a poor idea. Confined livestocks overgraze areas instead of naturally migrating. Further fencing and defending domestic livestock prevents wild animals from movement. The result is an ever smaller area for wild animals that overgraze.

In the long run all lands in Africa will be destroyed.

When a Westerner thumbs his nose at perfectly healthy lean bushmeat, gentlely turn his ignorant head to look at Brazil. There, all the rainforest are being chopped away so he can enjoy his cheap beef burgers.

After felling all the trees and destroying all the wildlife, that land supports cattle grazing just a few years. Then, the land is ruined.

Now about this Ebola thing. Yes it is scary and deadly. Westerners are running around claiming it is from bushmeat.

However, do you know they are not telling you one big fact. Dogs. Yes dogs. 156 dogs tested positive for Ebola antigens. That means at one point these dogs had active Ebola viruses swimming in their bodies. 31.8% of dogs near an outbreak were positive.

We all know dogs are running around eating every bit of rotting raw meat and then licking the faces of children.

People are a kazillion bazillion times more likely to get Ebola from a dog than a fully cooked lean piece of bushmeat.

Okay what to do.

1. Talk.
2. Look.
3. Question.
4. Meet.
5. Ask what best preserves healthy animals for Africa's future?
6. Broadcast conclusions.
7. Act.
8. If it has a hand kind of like yours, it is not bushmeat.

Now over to you Jackie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2014, 01:58 AM
 
Location: Macao
15,951 posts, read 36,196,266 times
Reputation: 9489
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmaise View Post
However, most hunters know, if they shoot too many animals today, that they will starve tomorrow.

The African plains are big and provide an abundant resource to enjoy properly. Destroying animal natural habitat is not in Africa's long term best interests.
You have so many contradictory statements in your thesis, I am unsure what you believe. But, I think this is what you are basically saying?

The difference between individual hunters from 200 years ago, and today, is that there is an enormous amount of capital to be gained from corporations, illegal activities, on and on.

Meaning person in Village X might realize exactly what you are saying. But, Bo-Yang from China, might really want that elephant tusk and pay top dollar. There is an international demand for exploitation that goes well beyond a group of villages with their own space to hunt.

Just re-read your post again. You are really all over the map, it's really hard to know what is your main point. Regarding domesticated animals, they can't graze in jungles. African wild animals can't be turned domestic either. Read "Germs, Guns, and Steel" or some other similar books that explain how Africa developed way different from Europe, in regards to domesticated animals, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 03:00 PM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,865 posts, read 21,158,402 times
Reputation: 9425
Most people in Europe and North America are ashamed of the rural, hunter/ farmer roots of their ancestors. People who still hunt and live off the land are derided as rednecks and hillbillies. When the crap hits the fan again (and it will at some point) knowing how to provide your own food will be a vital survival skill.

Yes we need to protect endangered species but some of the West's policies are over the top. As mentioned (Guns, Germs, and Steal) Africa has a different set of geographic circumstances. Forcing them to live like Europeans is arrogant and not smart
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Fayetteville
1,205 posts, read 2,323,380 times
Reputation: 2595
I don't see anything wrong with bushmeat if its done safely and responsibly.
I saw a Vice News piece about the ebola outbreak and apparently its just the way the meat is handled by some people that's dangerous. As long as you are careful when you handle it and, like you said, cook it thoroughly, it should be fine.


Monkey Meat and the Ebola Outbreak in Liberia - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,448 posts, read 28,313,690 times
Reputation: 29049
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmaise View Post

Now about this Ebola thing. Yes it is scary and deadly. Westerners are running around claiming it is from bushmeat.

However, do you know they are not telling you one big fact. Dogs. Yes dogs. 156 dogs tested positive for Ebola antigens. That means at one point these dogs had active Ebola viruses swimming in their bodies. 31.8% of dogs near an outbreak were positive.

We all know dogs are running around eating every bit of rotting raw meat and then licking the faces of children.

People are a kazillion bazillion times more likely to get Ebola from a dog than a fully cooked lean piece of bushmeat.
I will address only the dog connection.

Dogs do indeed show immune evidence of exposure to ebola: ebola antibodies. However, ebola does not cause illness in dogs, and no viral antigens or DNA were recovered from them.

From the link below:

"Neither Ebola virus antigens nor nucleotide sequences were detected in any of the positive or negative dog blood samples. We also failed to isolate the virus from 3 positive and 3 negative samples on VeroE6 cells." In other words, no live virus.

What that means is that the dogs' immune systems zap the virus very quickly and that dogs are highly unlikely to transmit the virus.

Other animals, especially non-human primates and fruit bats, do get sick from ebola. The carcass of such an animal is infectious before it is cooked, and I doubt that the people who cook bushmeat wear protective gear while they do it. In fact, those who hunt or who cook bushmeat are at higher risk to get ebola. Wild animals weakened by disease are easier to kill or capture, increasing the chance of exposure. The danger is not the fully cooked piece of meat; it's the hunting and preparation for cooking.

Sorry, your thesis fails. People are not a "kazillion bazillion times more likely to get Ebola from a dog."

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/pdfs/04-0981.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2014, 02:31 AM
 
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
4,957 posts, read 1,962,780 times
Reputation: 1816
Here is the paragraph I read.

During the 2001–2002 outbreak in Gabon, we observed that several dogs were highly exposed to Ebola virus by eating infected dead animals. To examine whether these animals became infected with Ebola virus, we sampled 439 dogs and screened them by Ebola virus–specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G assay, antigen detection, and viral polymerase chain reaction amplification. Seven (8.9%) of 79 samples from the 2 main towns, 15 (15.2%) of 14 the 99 samples from Mekambo, and 40 (25.2%) of 159 samples from villages in the Ebola virus–epidemic area had detectable Ebola virus–IgG, compared to only 2 (2%) of 102 samples from France. Among dogs from villages with both infected animal carcasses and human cases, seroprevalence was 31.8%. A significant positive direct association existed between seroprevalence and the distances to the Ebola virus–epidemic area. This study suggests that dogs can be infected by Ebola virus and that the putative infection is asymptomatic.

That study further specifically states based upon above a dog licking you can pass an active virus.

Philip
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2014, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,448 posts, read 28,313,690 times
Reputation: 29049
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmaise View Post
Here is the paragraph I read.

During the 2001–2002 outbreak in Gabon, we observed that several dogs were highly exposed to Ebola virus by eating infected dead animals. To examine whether these animals became infected with Ebola virus, we sampled 439 dogs and screened them by Ebola virus–specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G assay, antigen detection, and viral polymerase chain reaction amplification. Seven (8.9%) of 79 samples from the 2 main towns, 15 (15.2%) of 14 the 99 samples from Mekambo, and 40 (25.2%) of 159 samples from villages in the Ebola virus–epidemic area had detectable Ebola virus–IgG, compared to only 2 (2%) of 102 samples from France. Among dogs from villages with both infected animal carcasses and human cases, seroprevalence was 31.8%. A significant positive direct association existed between seroprevalence and the distances to the Ebola virus–epidemic area. This study suggests that dogs can be infected by Ebola virus and that the putative infection is asymptomatic.

That study further specifically states based upon above a dog licking you can pass an active virus.

Philip
Nope.

From the article:

"Neither Ebola virus antigens nor nucleotide sequences were detected in any of the positive or negative dog blood samples. We also failed to isolate the virus from 3 positive and 3 negative samples on VeroE6 cells."

and

"No circulating Ebola antigens or viral DNA sequences (tested by PCR) were detected in either positive or negative serum specimens, and attempts to isolate virus from these samples failed."

The dogs were indeed infected. That is confirmed by the presence of Ebola virus IgG, which is the antibody the animal makes against the virus. However, the researchers did not find actual virus in the dogs. They could not culture virus from the dogs, and the infection did not cause the dogs to develop symptoms of ebola. Remember that even humans with ebola do not transmit it to others until after they become ill.

What the study tells us is that dogs handle ebola differently from the way humans do. Their immune systems apparently knock out the virus quickly. If there is no live virus in the dog, you will not catch ebola from it. Dogs do not appear to be a source for human ebola.

This is similar to what happens with the Reston ebola virus, which does not cause symptoms in humans infected with it but which causes fatal illness in non-human primates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2014, 05:26 PM
 
Location: West of Louisiana, East of New Mexico
2,536 posts, read 2,031,464 times
Reputation: 5830
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
Yes we need to protect endangered species but some of the West's policies are over the top. As mentioned (Guns, Germs, and Steal) Africa has a different set of geographic circumstances. Forcing them to live like Europeans is arrogant and not smart
Genius!

The best hope for continued economical and social improvement across Africa is to adopt policies that work best for the local populations.

Some African nations get into trouble when they attempt to emulate Western European/Australian/North American ways of governing. The various linguistic, ethnic and religious groups in each nation prevent the sort of "clannish cohesion" that can be accomplished in many parts of the West. Geographically and culturally, Africa as a whole lacks another continent (or set of countries) that it can identify with and exchange a flow of ideas....unlike what occurred between Europe, the Middle East and Far East as was addressed in Guns, Germs and Steel. Each nation on the continent will have to develop it's own solution, which would likely differ considerably from a nearby neighbor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2014, 10:12 PM
 
2,288 posts, read 2,621,784 times
Reputation: 7023
Watch Escape To Chimp Eden, to see why its wrong. They literally rip the baby chimps from their moms, and kill the parents. They either leave the helpless babies alone, or sell them as "pets". Some of these emotional damaged baby chimps have been chained up for over 20 years. They are starved, shaved, beaten and teased. Eugene, the man from this show, rescues these poor creatures.

I've never seen such animal cruelty as shown on E.T.C.E. Some of them have never set foot on dirt or grass, climbed a tree or seen another chimp. Nothing sadder than to see a chimp scared to death of grass. Chimps are way too smart and emotional to be treated this way. The horrors they suffer stay with them for a lifetime. This, imo, is way different than killing an animal that was raised for food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2014, 02:40 AM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,208,887 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeinmo. View Post
Watch Escape To Chimp Eden, to see why its wrong. They literally rip the baby chimps from their moms, and kill the parents. They either leave the helpless babies alone, or sell them as "pets". Some of these emotional damaged baby chimps have been chained up for over 20 years. They are starved, shaved, beaten and teased. Eugene, the man from this show, rescues these poor creatures.

I've never seen such animal cruelty as shown on E.T.C.E. Some of them have never set foot on dirt or grass, climbed a tree or seen another chimp. Nothing sadder than to see a chimp scared to death of grass. Chimps are way too smart and emotional to be treated this way. The horrors they suffer stay with them for a lifetime. This, imo, is way different than killing an animal that was raised for food.
Yeah it's totally disgusting what they do to chimps. It is also totally disgusting what most of the world does to pigs, cattle and other livestock. In fact what happens here in the US is probably less ethical. Sorry to burst your bubble but it isn't really different from killing an animal that was raised for food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top