Activists boiling mad over cruel lobster tale

Lobster defenders are seeing red after two local men were nabbed for allegedly snapping the tails off live crustaceans and tossing the traumatized creatures back into the sea.

Anthony T. Gozzo, 52, of Billerica and his partner, Mark E. Turcotte, 20, of Lowell were arraigned in East Boston District Court yesterday on 202 counts of possessing mutilated lobster.

“I certainly hope these fishermen are punished to the fullest extent of the law for this sick crime,” said Matt Prescott of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - which isn’t crazy about lobster boiling, either.

Environmental police spotted the pair near the Quartermaster Marina in East Boston and arrested them after finding lobster tails and egg-bearing female lobsters in unmarked crates that police say were being loaded into the trunk of the suspects’ car.

The penalty for mutilating lobster is between $100 and $500 per lobster for the first offense and between $500 and $,1000 per lobster with possible jail time for subsequent offenses, under a law intended prevent the taking of undersized lobsters and keep stocks healthy.

“It is believed that this is not Mr. Gazzo’s first offense in this regard,” said Jake Wark of the District Attorney’s Office.

"58 What if I made use of an animal that was already dead?

It is not the eating of meat that is wrong but the killing of animals unnecessarily. As meat eating is unnecessary and generally requires the killing of an animal, it usually follows that meat eating is wrong. If, however, you managed to obtain some meat without killing an animal (or by paying someone else to kill it for you) -- for example, by stumbling across an animal that was already dead -- then I can see no moral objection to your eating it. Of course this also applies to human meat.

Recent archeological evidence suggests that early humans were much more inclined toward scavenging than hunting.

59 What about honey?

Bees are astoundingly complex creatures, they have memory and an ability to apply it to novel situations. They have an intricate social structure and are able to communicate detailed information to each other.

Millions upon millions of bees are killed every year in commercial honey production both intentionally and unintentionally.

It is difficult to say to what degree a creature so vastly different to us is capable of suffering but we don't need honey -- so surely it would be better to spare the lives of these miraculous creatures?"

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/Manual%20of%20Animal%20Rights.htm

" It is not the eating of meat that is wrong but the killing of animals unnecessarily."

I am at the top of the food chain and have dealt with it.

"Recent archeological evidence suggests that early humans were much more inclined toward scavenging than hunting. "

We live in the 21st century. We figured out how to eat fresh and not scavenged protein.

"59 What about honey? "

I like honey too.

God gave us dominion over the animals - I don't think he has a problem with us eating them.

"Wagner is Schopenhauerian when he preaches mercy in our relations with animals. As we know, Schopenhauer's predecessor at this point was Voltaire who may already have mastered the art that we encounter among his successors--to dress up his hatred against certain things and people as mercy for animals. At least Wagner’s hatred of science, which finds expression in his preachment, is certainly not inspired by any spirit of kindheartedness and benignity—nor indeed, as is obvious, by anything meriting the name of spirit."

Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

"No man is more sensible than I am of the service to science and letters, Humanity, Fraternity and Liberty, that would have been rendered by the Encyclopedists and Economists, by Voltaire, D'Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau, LaLande, Frederick and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense. But they were all totally destitute of it. They all seemed to think that all Christendom was convinced as they were, that all religion was "visions Judaiques," and that their effulgent lights had illuminated all the world. They seemed to believe, that whole nations and continents had been changed in their principles, opinions, habits, and feeling, by the sovereign grace of their almighty philosophy, almost as suddenly as Catholics and Calvinists believe in instantaneous conversion. They had not considered the force of early education on the millions of minds who had never heard of their philosophy. And what was their philosophy? Atheism; pure, unadulterated Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, Frederick, De La Lande and Grimm, were indubitable Atheists. The universe was matter only, and eternal; sprit was a word without meaning; liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion, and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality were all nothing but fate.
... We all curse Robespierre and Bonaparte, but were they not both such restless, vain, extravagant animals as Diderot and Voltaire? Voltaire was the greatest literary character, and Bonaparte the greatest military character of the eighteenth century. There is all the difference between them. Both equally heroes and equally cowards."

John Adams (Jefferson's Philosophical Beliefs)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.