Post Race!

[Witis]

What about birds of prey, birds that prey on other birds, would you eat eagles. falcons, osprey, and other large raptors?

I would try them, but like here in Louisiana, shooting eagles are illegal. However, vultures... you can forget about.

Regarding birds of prey, unlike most birds, the female is usually larger than the male:"Sexual dimorphism in birds can be manifested in size or plumage differences between the sexes. Sexual size dimorphism varies among taxa with males typically being larger, though this is not always the case i.e. birds of prey and some species of flightless birds." - wiki. Moreover many species of birds including raptors mate for life. Of key significance is that the lower raptors have diets focusing on small mammals, reptiles, and fish where as the top raptors predominantly target other birds.

Kites, harriers, buzzards, and owls:
"Fish make up 99% of the osprey's diet." - wiki
Kites seem to focus on insects, small mammals and reptiles, and rarely eat other birds, although they have been known to steal food from other birds (cleptoparasitism).
Most harriers seem to focus on deit of small mammals.
Common Buzzards target small mammals.
"Owls hunt mostly small mammals, insects, and other birds, although a few species specialize in hunting fish." - wiki
Vultures feed mainly on carrion.
Condors are often included as vultures, although I don't view them as raptors.

By contrast many of the eagles, hawks, and falcons specialise in avian prey.
Eagles:
The golden eagle is a "diurnal predator of medium-sized birds and mammals" - wiki
"Wahlberg's Eagle hunts reptiles, small mammals and birds" -wiki
Although "The bald eagle is an opportunistic feeder which subsists mainly on fish" - wiki

Hawks:
"The Eurasian sparrowhawk is a major predator of smaller woodland birds" - wiki
"Like all accipiters (a group of birds of prey in the family Accipitridae, many of which are named as goshawks and sparrowhawks), the tiny hawk feeds primarily on birds."
Although 'Hawking is a feeding strategy in birds involving catching flying insects in the air. The term “hawking” comes from the similarity of this behavior to the way hawks take prey in flight, although, whereas raptors may catch prey with their feet, hawking is the behavior of catching insects in the bill.' - wiki

Falcons:
Merlins (pigeon hawk in the U.S.) "actually capture most prey in the air, and will "tail-chase" startled birds. Throughout its native range, the Merlin is one of the most able aerial predators of small to mid-sized birds" - wiki
Many species of Hobbys typically have an avian diet.
"The Sooty Falcon eats mainly birds" - wiki
Peregrine falcon (duck hawk in the U.S.) - The fastest member of the animal kingdom "The peregrine falcon feeds almost exclusively on medium-sized birds such as pigeons and doves, waterfowl, songbirds, and waders" - wiki
Finally the relatively unknown Gyrfalcon is known to hunt the smaller Peregrine falcon and its "avian prey can range in size from redpolls to geese and can include gulls, corvids, smaller passerines, waders, and other raptors" - wiki

As land predators usually have no need to target each other due to the widespread availability of herbivorous prey, birds that specialise in avian prey represent somewhat of an anomaly that is reminiscent of komodo dragons, fish, and orcas. A feeding regime that centres on targeting weaker avian species verges on cannibalism and might be quite offensive as humans do not usually consume each other or other primates.

Would you eat all birds, or only the raptors to free the birds? Also which vultures would you avoid eating, all vultures or just the condors?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You can't just dismiss the flawed design and criminal behaviours of the piscine pests as mere competition as there are plenty of animals that compete over resources and do not commit fratricide, do not engage in cannibalism, and will not grow until they take over the universe. Mammals are classic examples as they do not typically murder each other merely to fill their bellies, and cannot grow indefinitely and take over the universe. Birds that are not raptors are another good example, they often mate for life and cannot grow indefinitely, although there are some exceptions like the boobies that do behave badly by letting one chick kill all of the others until there is only one left in each season - hence the expression booby prize. Cuckoos are another bad exception:

Actually, almost every bird species appears to be a bad exception to the rules you appear to have stated. The whole bit about mating for life has been shown to be largely fiction by using genetics. Cheating is endemic, as is forcible sex (the latter didn't come from genetics, just watch geese mating and you'd see what I mean). Nothing grows indefinitely, so I'm not quite sure what you are on about with that.

As for mammals murdering each other to fill their bellies...what is that about? Every predator does exactly that, and I just described a squirrel eating a bird, an observation that you supported with some documentation. Out here, there is a form of ground squirrel that is fairly notorious for its behavior: If you hit one with a car, another will come out to eat the corpse...thereby adding to the corpse pile. I seem to remember recently reading about fraticide among prairie dog families, especially infanticide, so there's that, as well.

As for elk and deer killing each other, you are right that it is rare. Few fights even happen, as one usually backs down pretty quickly. If neither one backs down, the fight is on. Even those generally end with one side retreating. However, there was a video making the rounds where I work about a pair of elk that fought for a VERY long time (perhaps hours) in Yellowstone. One finally slipped, and the other one repeatedly gored the one that fell, until it got up and ran off, but it didn't make it far and died of its injuries. Those injuries weren't incurred during the fight, as that's not how they typically fight (except for some accidental eye-gouging), it was the repeated spearing that occured while he was down.

I'd eat a cuckoo clock.

I'd pay to see that!

Although I'd be interested to read about precisely how viscous pigs can be.

That one shouldn't be too hard to find. Every pig farmer can probably tell you some pretty nasty stories. I've never met anybody who raised pigs that didn't have some kind of story. Pigs are pretty smart, but they can be terribly mean.

One of my aims is to dine on some mako shark if I can get hold of some, and a good chef.

Sharks are hypertonic, which means that they retain body fluids by having blood saltier than the sea. The solute is urea, though, which makes the meat pretty foul unless it is properly preparted. Shark populations are being hammered around the world, which is causing other populations to go haywire. I don't agree with killing sharks.

[Shaggy Hiker]

A feeding regime that centres on targeting weaker avian species verges on cannibalism and might be quite offensive as humans do not usually consume each other or other primates.

You think so? Look up "bush meat". Humans are consuming other primates at a rate sufficient to drive many species to the brink of extinction.

As for land predators usually having no need to target each other, that may be true, but they do anyways, though when it comes to large mammalian predators, there are few examples that I can think of (other than among primates). In North America, wolves kill off coyotes, and coyotes may kill off foxes (I'm not sure about that one). I recently heard that brown bears will kill black bears, but I'm not sure that I believe it, as they appear to overlap pretty thoroughly. There are videos of wolves carefully surrounding a coyote before moving in for the kill. Wolves also kill domestic dogs, and have attacked them in towns. This doesn't appear to be about filling their bellies, though, whereas when mountain lions attack dogs, it does appear to be about predation.

More significant are the predators that starve out other predators. So, indirect competition seems to be more common than direct fighting.

[Witis]

Actually, almost every bird species appears to be a bad exception to the rules you appear to have stated.

Don't agree at all, once you remove birds of prey birds, they actually become extremely likable.

The whole bit about mating for life has been shown to be largely fiction by using genetics.

You can't just spout statements like that without backing it up with at least one source.

Further I have to disgree, for example, the albatross:
"Albatrosses reach sexual maturity slowly, after about five years, but even once they have reached maturity, they will not begin to breed for another couple of years (even up to 10 years for some species). Young non-breeders will attend a colony prior to beginning to breed, spending many years practising the elaborate breeding rituals and "dances" that the family is famous for.[31] Birds arriving back at the colony for the first time already have the stereotyped behaviours that compose albatross language, but can neither "read" that behaviour as exhibited by other birds nor respond appropriately. After a period of trial and error learning, the young birds learn the syntax and perfect the dances. This language is mastered more rapidly if the younger birds are around older birds.

The repertoire of behaviour involves synchronised performances of various actions such as preening, pointing, calling, bill clacking, staring, and combinations of such behaviours (like the sky-call). When a bird first returns to the colony it will dance with many partners, but after a number of years the number of birds an individual will interact with drops, until one partner is chosen and a pair is formed. They then continue to perfect an individual language that will eventually be unique to that one pair. Having established a pair bond that will last for life, however, most of that dance will never be used again." -wiki

Cheating is endemic, as is forcible sex (the latter didn't come from genetics, just watch geese mating and you'd see what I mean).

Endemic to some species perhaps, although to discount all birds like that you are going to have to come up with some really strong evidence which I do not imagine you have. I looked at a few videos of geese mating and couldn't see anything particularly offensive.

Nothing grows indefinitely, so I'm not quite sure what you are on about with that.

Fish will keep on growing until they die particularly if there is no pressure on their food supply. So will many other species including crayfish and shellfish. It is called Indeterminate growth - "In zoology, indeterminate growth refers to the condition where animals grow rapidly when young, and continue to grow after reaching adulthood although at a slower pace. It is common in reptiles, most fish, and many mollusks." - wiki

As for mammals murdering each other to fill their bellies...what is that about? Every predator does exactly that, and I just described a squirrel eating a bird, an observation that you supported with some documentation. Out here, there is a form of ground squirrel that is fairly notorious for its behavior: If you hit one with a car, another will come out to eat the corpse...thereby adding to the corpse pile. I seem to remember recently reading about fraticide among prairie dog families, especially infanticide, so there's that, as well.

Nah mammalian predators don't usually murder each other just to fill their bellies, they usually feed on other species, typically herbivores unless it's a territorial dispute. If a particular mammal does regularly take members of its own species or closely related species, like komodo dragons and orcas do, then it would represent an exceptional case. There may be documentation of a squirrel eating a dead squirrel but I very much doubt that you could find any evidence of a squirrel killing another squirrel, however, in both cases, any of those behaviours would be considered exceptional rather than typical.

It is not fratricide you are thinking of in the case of mammals, it is infanticide, in quite a few species of mammals males that take over a family group will kill the offspring of the previous male. For example it can happen in the case of lions and also prairie dogs (although the lionesses often step in and prevent the killing where possible). It is a very unlikeable trait and if combined with other negative aspects it can certainly assist building a case against a particular species.

As for elk and deer killing each other, you are right that it is rare. Few fights even happen, as one usually backs down pretty quickly. If neither one backs down, the fight is on. Even those generally end with one side retreating. However, there was a video making the rounds where I work about a pair of elk that fought for a VERY long time (perhaps hours) in Yellowstone. One finally slipped, and the other one repeatedly gored the one that fell, until it got up and ran off, but it didn't make it far and died of its injuries. Those injuries weren't incurred during the fight, as that's not how they typically fight (except for some accidental eye-gouging), it was the repeated spearing that occured while he was down.

Yep, the goal isn't to kill their rivals in the case of sheep, goats, deer, etc. the fights occur to establish firmness for breeding purposes, although the challenges can get extremely violent at times as you described. The females don't want to carry the young of those less likely to survive, so the sparring keeps the herd in top form.

I'd eat a cuckoo clock.

I'd pay to see that!

Yep they are mouthwateringly delectable. :licking lips:

That one shouldn't be too hard to find. Every pig farmer can probably tell you some pretty nasty stories. I've never met anybody who raised pigs that didn't have some kind of story. Pigs are pretty smart, but they can be terribly mean.

I am also referring to wild boars including warthogs, I wonder how they behave on a regular basis?

Sharks are hypertonic, which means that they retain body fluids by having blood saltier than the sea. The solute is urea, though, which makes the meat pretty foul unless it is properly preparted. Shark populations are being hammered around the world, which is causing other populations to go haywire. I don't agree with killing sharks.

Don't agree as the urea problem applies to many fish, and it is a rare fish that doesn't taste good to me. =D
"The Mako has a sweet taste with a dense, pinkish-white flesh and meaty firm texture similar to swordfish. Low in fat it has a firm in texture and moderately-strong in flavor, some steaks and fillets contain darker sections of reddish meat that have a more pronounced flavor [...] Like all sharks the Mako has no urinary tract which means they carry the urea in their blood expelling it through their skin. This means the fish must be bled immediately and iced to prevent the urea in the tissues from turning to ammonia.

Steaks and fillets are excellent grilled, broiled, baked, poached, or pan-blackened. Chunks can be marinated and made into kebabs, or added to soups and stews."
Source: http://www.fooduniversity.com/foodu/.../sharkmako.htm

I luve to eat fish!

[Witis]

You think so? Look up "bush meat". Humans are consuming other primates at a rate sufficient to drive many species to the brink of extinction.

I did qualify it with the adverb usually. The "bush meat" problem you mention is a problem which only occurs in Africa and some parts of Asia rather than anywhere else in the world; it is quite sad and at least "International efforts to stop it have been launched, especially in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada." - wiki

As for land predators usually having no need to target each other, that may be true, but they do anyways, though when it comes to large mammalian predators, there are few examples that I can think of (other than among primates). In North America, wolves kill off coyotes, and coyotes may kill off foxes (I'm not sure about that one). I recently heard that brown bears will kill black bears, but I'm not sure that I believe it, as they appear to overlap pretty thoroughly. There are videos of wolves carefully surrounding a coyote before moving in for the kill. Wolves also kill domestic dogs, and have attacked them in towns. This doesn't appear to be about filling their bellies, though, whereas when mountain lions attack dogs, it does appear to be about predation.

When a mammalian predator kills another it is usually due to a territorial dispute as there are very few mammals that have specialisations specifically to enable them to eat other closely related species, unlike birds of prey where the top raptors have developed specifically to kill and eat other birds, for instance there is no species of dog that has evolved specifically to target other dogs. Orcas are perhaps an exception in that they seem to have specifically developed to prey on other whales being unable to eat the tough skinned sharks as a diet high in sharks causes their teeth to wear down prematurely resulting in an early death.

More significant are the predators that starve out other predators. So, indirect competition seems to be more common than direct fighting.

Nonetheless I don't imagine there is any reason to place mammalian predators in the same category as birds of prey.

[Witis]

Leave the beef, lamb, and chickens behind,
eat fish, crayfish, and shellfish instead
and the universe will be just feline. \(^.^)/

[Witis]

Also there are quite a number of delectable river monsters that can be found lurking in various bodies of water around the world: click here to see some of them

[Witis]

I don't agree with killing sharks.

I hope you have good reasons to back up your pro shark stance especially in light of all of the evidence that I have presented which explicates exactly why sharks are a threat to the safety of the universe. Additionally although you don't eat shark do you still eat beef, lamb, and chicken?

Also until you confessed your pro shark stance I thought the pot of fish that you use for your avatar was because you ate a lot of fish, now I have to ask whether you use it because it accurately represents you, and can I call you sharky as a knickname?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't agree at all, once you remove birds of prey birds, they actually become extremely likable.

I'm not saying that birds are not likeable.

You can't just spout statements like that without backing it up with at least one source.

Here you go:

https://www.google.com/

I tried "birds mating for life" and the first link called that statement an urban legend then went on to explain why it wasn't true. There were plenty of other sites on the first page. Frankly, I didn't bother citing anything because I have heard so many stories about this over the last two decades (including humorous skits about it) that I didn't realize it was a secret.

Further I have to disgree, for example, the albatross:

So you found one unusual bird that may or may not cheat. Here's another take on it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...907109/?no-ist

Another item from Wiki:

Extra-pair copulation/fertilization/paternity[edit]
Birds are one of the only major taxa where monogamy is the dominant mating system.[4] Prior to the advent of genetic techniques, it was assumed that the majority of monogamous birds remained faithful to their partners.[46][46] However, it is now known that extra-pair copulations (EPCs), extra-pair fertilizations (EPFs), and extra-pair paternity (the raising of another’s offspring, EPP) are actually quite common in a variety of avian orders and families.[47] Roughly 70% of birds that used to be considered genetically monogamous actually engage in EPCs and raise extra-pair young (reviewed by:[48]).

Though you will be happy to hear that there are some seabirds in which no EPF or EPC has been identified.

I looked at a few videos of geese mating and couldn't see anything particularly offensive.

I never even considerd seeing whether there was goose porn on line, but I'm not surprised. Apparently, domestic geese are not as violent. Wild geese certainly are, and I have seen it first hand.

Fish will keep on growing until they die particularly if there is no pressure on their food supply. So will many other species including crayfish and shellfish. It is called Indeterminate growth - "In zoology, indeterminate growth refers to the condition where animals grow rapidly when young, and continue to grow after reaching adulthood although at a slower pace. It is common in reptiles, most fish, and many mollusks." - wiki

Ok, that's technically true, but they don't grow forever, they just grow for their lifespan, which isn't all that long in most cases. Lobster can grow to fantastic sizes, though, but even then the rate of growth slows as they age and there appears to be some asymptotic upper limit as there is with fish.

There may be documentation of a squirrel eating a dead squirrel but I very much doubt that you could find any evidence of a squirrel killing another squirrel, however, in both cases, any of those behaviours would be considered exceptional rather than typical.

Why?

It is not fratricide you are thinking of in the case of mammals, it is infanticide, in quite a few species of mammals males that take over a family group will kill the offspring of the previous male. For example it can happen in the case of lions and also prairie dogs (although the lionesses often step in and prevent the killing where possible). It is a very unlikeable trait and if combined with other negative aspects it can certainly assist building a case against a particular species.

Yes, the infanticide you describe is quite common, and extends to other species than just those you list. However, fraticide also occurs. I was just reading about a wolf pack attacking another wolf pack in Yellowstone...can't remember where, at the moment, but it was within the last month or two. That was direct, lethal, competition for resources.

Yep, the goal isn't to kill their rivals in the case of sheep, goats, deer, etc. the fights occur to establish firmness for breeding purposes, although the challenges can get extremely violent at times as you described. The females don't want to carry the young of those less likely to survive, so the sparring keeps the herd in top form.

Ya, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was just saying that it happens. The goal is to produce as many offspring as possible, the fighting is only a means to an end, and not even a particularly good one. After all, some salmon males mature in fresh water rather than migrating to the ocean. These precocial males then sneak in and fertilize eggs. They can fertilize around 30% of the eggs in a redd, while the male is fighting off other males and ignoring those insignificant precocials.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is about maximizing genetic representation in the next generation. ALL the conflicts can be seen that way. Any behavior that advances that will be reinforced, while any behavior that undermines that will fade out. The whole bit about right and wrong of a behavior is just a human construct.

I am also referring to wild boars including warthogs, I wonder how they behave on a regular basis?

Well, they are ugly as sin, so they tend to have inferiority complexes.

Don't agree as the urea problem applies to many fish, and it is a rare fish that doesn't taste good to me.

That urea strategy is exceedingly rare. As far as I know, it is only found in sharks. Other ocean fish are hypotonic, so they have to use other strategies to maintain their solute balance.

I luve to eat fish!

So do I, but with me you could largely make the same statement while dropping the word "fish".

[Shaggy Hiker]

I hope you have good reasons to back up your pro shark stance especially in light of all of the evidence that I have presented which explicates exactly why sharks are a threat to the safety of the universe. Additionally although you don't eat shark do you still eat beef, lamb, and chicken?

Also until you confessed your pro shark stance I thought the pot of fish that you use for your avatar was because you ate a lot of fish, now I have to ask whether you use it because it accurately represents you, and can I call you sharky as a knickname?

The reasons I stated are reason enough. Sharks can certainly taste good, but they are important to the food chain and are being horribly overfished.

I eat lots of chicken, occasionally beef, and very rarely mutton of any sort. I also eat a fair amount of fish, though I'm far enough inland that good fish isn't cheap and cheap fish isn't good, so as a percentage of my total diet it isn't all that high.

[Witis]

I'm not saying that birds are not likeable.

I was happy to read that Shaggy.

So you found one unusual bird that may or may not cheat. Here's another take on it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...907109/?no-ist

That article says that "Albatross relationships seem especially relatable to humans. These long-lived and highly-endangered birds will court each other through ritual dances for years. Albatrosses are slow to reach sexual maturity, and some species even delay breeding for several years to learn specific mating rituals and to pick the perfect partner. The courtship behavior slows down once the pair bonds (an all too familiar aspect of human relationships). Once a pair is comfortable and breeding commences, they will return to each other and the same spot each year; for most albatross species, the bond lasts their entire life.

So is it love? The biological reality is that albatrosses only lay a single egg a year. With both parents fully invested in chick survival, their genetic heritage is most likely to survive. It may seem like love, but with those low reproduction rates no parents can afford to be deadbeats."

Now I could be wrong but that article seems to back up my case rather than cast any doubt on it, essentially confirming that albatross relationships are a perfect example of monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom. There is no need for the birds to maintain their pair bonding for life, they could grab a new partner each year or every couple of years as they only have to stay together for the duration of one breeding season to raise a chick, but they usually choose to stay with one mate for life, which means they must be in luve.

Another item from Wiki:
"Extra-pair copulation/fertilization/paternity[edit]
Birds are one of the only major taxa where monogamy is the dominant mating system.[4] Prior to the advent of genetic techniques, it was assumed that the majority of monogamous birds remained faithful to their partners.[46][46] However, it is now known that extra-pair copulations (EPCs), extra-pair fertilizations (EPFs), and extra-pair paternity (the raising of another’s offspring, EPP) are actually quite common in a variety of avian orders and families.[47] Roughly 70% of birds that used to be considered genetically monogamous actually engage in EPCs and raise extra-pair young (reviewed by:[48])."

Though you will be happy to hear that there are some seabirds in which no EPF or EPC has been identified.

That was actually quite an informative post Shaggy, very impressive, and the full article can be found there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird_breeding_behavior. However, I am not sure that it casts that much doubt on the luve life of birds. It still describes birds as "one of the only major taxa where monogamy is the dominant mating system" while providing some evidence of extra pair copulations, extra pair fertilizations, and extra-pair paternity (raising of another's offspring). That just about exactly describes western human reproductive behaviour, which is predominantly monogamous with some extra pair fertilizations and raising of another pair's offspring, although due to the high rates of divorce these days the birds seem to luve each other slightly more than humans. The highest rates of extra pair behaviour cited in any one bird species was 25% meaning that any such behaviours do not seem to be very common.

Also the same wiki page reveals that "There is also a remarkably high incidence of homosexual behavior in seabirds. Here, homosexual behavior refers to same-sex pair-formation and chick-rearing, not to same-sex copulation, for which there are very few documented examples. Almost all the examples of same-sex pairing in seabirds are of female-female pairs. Furthermore, this phenomenon doesn’t seem to be phylogenetically constrained to any specific order or family of seabirds" [...] "Penguins represent the only known examples of male-male pairings in seabirds."

I never even considerd seeing whether there was goose porn on line, but I'm not surprised. Apparently, domestic geese are not as violent. Wild geese certainly are, and I have seen it first hand.

I am not saying that it doesn't occur, the problem is determining the prevalance of any such behaviours.

Fish will keep on growing until they die particularly if there is no pressure on their food supply. So will many other species including crayfish and shellfish. It is called Indeterminate growth - "In zoology, indeterminate growth refers to the condition where animals grow rapidly when young, and continue to grow after reaching adulthood although at a slower pace. It is common in reptiles, most fish, and many mollusks." - wiki

Ok, that's technically true, but they don't grow forever, they just grow for their lifespan, which isn't all that long in most cases. Lobster can grow to fantastic sizes, though, but even then the rate of growth slows as they age and there appears to be some asymptotic upper limit as there is with fish.

Ah, but the point is that some animals continue to eat and grow until they die, meaning that if you constructed a robotic fish, crayfish, shellfish, amphibian, or lizard then they would keep on growing indefinitely until they take over the entire universe or until they are arrested or killed for food.

There may be documentation of a squirrel eating a dead squirrel but I very much doubt that you could find any evidence of a squirrel killing another squirrel, however, in both cases, any of those behaviours would be considered exceptional rather than typical.

Why?

The problem is accurately determining the prevalence of any of those behaviours, one may well be able to find examples of said behaviours, but unless you have evidence that makes those behaviours common for the species then they can only be viewed as exceptional rather than typical.

Yes, the infanticide you describe is quite common, and extends to other species than just those you list. However, fraticide also occurs. I was just reading about a wolf pack attacking another wolf pack in Yellowstone...can't remember where, at the moment, but it was within the last month or two. That was direct, lethal, competition for resources.

Yes, I can imagine that competition over scare resources would trigger atypical behaviours like that.

Yep, the goal isn't to kill their rivals in the case of sheep, goats, deer, etc. the fights occur to establish firmness for breeding purposes, although the challenges can get extremely violent at times as you described. The females don't want to carry the young of those less likely to survive, so the sparring keeps the herd in top form.

Ya, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was just saying that it happens. The goal is to produce as many offspring as possible, the fighting is only a means to an end, and not even a particularly good one. After all, some salmon males mature in fresh water rather than migrating to the ocean. These precocial males then sneak in and fertilize eggs. They can fertilize around 30% of the eggs in a redd, while the male is fighting off other males and ignoring those insignificant precocials.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is about maximizing genetic representation in the next generation. ALL the conflicts can be seen that way. Any behavior that advances that will be reinforced, while any behavior that undermines that will fade out. The whole bit about right and wrong of a behavior is just a human construct.

I am not convinced Shaggy, in my view some animal designs and behaviours are inherently criminal in nature and represent a threat to society, and I would only eat those animals. Therefore I avoid consuming sheep, goats, deer, etc. and happily consume salmon on a daily basis.

Well, they are ugly as sin, so they tend to have inferiority complexes.

And they roll around in mud and filth so I was expecting some equally bad behaviours from wild and domestic pigs. However, I haven't managed to identify any particularly offensive behaviours, at worst they cause a lot of property damage due to rooting around in the ground for food, but that hardly justifies killing them.

That urea strategy is exceedingly rare. As far as I know, it is only found in sharks. Other ocean fish are hypotonic, so they have to use other strategies to maintain their solute balance.

It's not that rare, for example, human sweat also "contains minerals, lactate, and urea" - wiki.

"For saltwater fish, since its body is less salty than salt water, its body tends to lose water to the surroundings through Osmosis. The fish's kidney has to work hard to return as much water to the body as possible.

On the other hand, freshwater fish's body is more salty than the surroundings and it tends to absorb too much water. Its kidney has to pump out as much water as possible. " - source

"Fish urinate either through their gills or through a "urinary pore." The latter eliminates urine that has been filtered via the kidneys. Saltwater varieties excrete most urine through the gills, while freshwater fish do so through the urinary pore. Saltwater fish take in a great deal of salt and must excrete it. Freshwater fish have to get rid of all the water they take in." - source

Although other species urinate through their skin like skate, dogfish, and stingrays.

I luve to eat fish!

So do I, but with me you could largely make the same statement while dropping the word "fish".

Except for sharks that is, eh Sharky?

[dday9]

So many very long post.

[Witis]

The reasons I stated are reason enough. Sharks can certainly taste good, but they are important to the food chain and are being horribly overfished.

You make it seem like a bad thing, I for one would be happy to see the end of sharks, at least in the open oceans anyways. Orcas are another potential menu item as removing sharks and orcas from the food chain would free up many of the other mammalian species from predation including seals and sea beavers/otters.

I eat lots of chicken, occasionally beef, and very rarely mutton of any sort. I also eat a fair amount of fish, though I'm far enough inland that good fish isn't cheap and cheap fish isn't good, so as a percentage of my total diet it isn't all that high.

°o°! That reads like a confession.

[Witis]

So many very long post.

Hey one of those was for you see post #56043.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't know what to make of anything you have written. If you hadn't said it all before, I'd assume you were pulling my leg, but since you did say it all before, I assume you really mean it.

There's just nothing more to say on the subject.

[Witis]

I guess it is a good enough intro - for now anyways.

[Witis]

[Witis]

[dclamp]

GoPro at work

[FunkyDexter]

Cows always look at me funny. You can't trust 'em.

[dday9]

It almost looks as if you took one picture, copied one half, pasted it to the other side, and inverted that copy. So overkill!

[dclamp]

except its not symmetrical ...

also... YOU ARE A GLOBAL MODERATOR. CONGRATS

[dday9]

Wow, I didn't even notice.

[dday9]

My first action as a global moderator is to speed up post race postings!

[dday9]

Full speed ahead.

[dday9]

Do I not have a 30 second wait any more?

[dday9]

Awesome!

[dday9]

Sucks for y'all :P

[dday9]

That is really cool

[dday9]

I wonder if they upgraded me just for the post race.

[dday9]

I'm sure that they did.

[dday9]

That's the only logical explination.

[dday9]

dday9

[dday9]

dclamp

[dday9]

Witis

[dday9]

Shaggy Hiker

[dday9]

Niya

[dday9]

Oops, probably shouldn't have said that last name :/

[dday9]

emoticons

[dday9]

emo