Did he drive a 'vette?

Are stingrays protected by Australian fish & game laws,, either absolutely or by minumim size and maximum creel limits? That is the only relevant question here.

In my state, we are experiencing the introduction of invasive species, namely the Northern Snakehead and the Flathead catfish. Because these fish are judged to be harmful to the desired ecology, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission counsels anglers to destroy, i.e. kill and/or mutilate Snakeheads and Flatheads rather than releasing them alive to prey upon species considered more valuable.

Is there a distinction between killing an unprotected animal to eliminate it as an unwanted competitive predator, or because we deem it a dangerous nuisance?

What ever the answers to Lou's questions might be, the "revenge" killings of stingrays, if true, indicates a level of stupidity so deep that one wonders if the perpetrators qualify as human.

Are there really this many retarded homo sapiens among the rest of us?

Remember how the far Right took out 9-11 on the Dubai port deal?

What the stingrays need to ask is, why do we hate them?

We seem to be missing something here.

Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that the stingray is totally unprotected by law, and is considered a "trash fish," which may destroyed for any reason.

When an animal, such as a coyote or a groundhog, is unprotected, the state has made a prudential decision that its destruction is desirable.

I would strongly agree that taking "revenge" on a dumb animal is unworthry of humanity. However, unprotected species may by taken for any reason, including mere reduction of their numbers.

Coyotes feed on fawns and other wanted game animals; goundhogs dig large holes dangerous to farm equipment and animals. Stingrays can harm a diver, as we have seen, if touched inadvertently, or a fisherman on removal from a net or hook. Any of these things justify the state's decision to allow the animal in question to be destroyed.

The motive of the individual executing this judgement may be of moment to that individual. If the animal be dispatched with unnecesswry cruelty, we would suspect that the actor is entertaining unhealthy urges, and the offense is against his own dignity. However, if the actor has merely decided that there are just too many of the things, his attention having been focused by a celebrated case, and his decision is in accordance with applicable conservation law, there would be no problem.

BTW, has anyone ever gone deep-sea or party-boat fishing?

Timothy - that was very funny

My dad and I went on an afternoon tour whose highlight was being able to swim with, and even pet, stingrays (we were warned to stay away from the tails). They were every bit as friendly and gentle as the media stories have made them out to be. (Of course, they were used to getting lots of free food from the tour guides.)

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that this is just Darwinian Evolution being driven by Semi-Intellegent Design.

Raoul:

That's redundant.