Re: A letter (of many) to my MP


<bch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131309245.871870.24640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Typical obnoxious reply I am afraid Sir. There never would be a time in
> your mind where it would be right to come on side so to speak on the
> issues I raise. I cannot be bothered going over it again and perhaps I
> did not word it too well to get across my points.

I am sorry I never meant to be abnoxious.

> I have really tried over many years to rationalise things and consider
> the issues. But I ask, why do 'you' not try and think of other ways to
> do things - invent something - think beyond the boundaries. Come on you
> are of the intelligent species. Be excellent, try better yourself.

we are following the normal rules of nature and I see none of
the so called humane methods of control as causing less suffering.

how much distress do we cause by catching and injecting an animal
with a contraceptive ? and then that parent cannot conceive - try
telling a human who can not conceive that it is a humane method of
population control.

how much distress to we cause to the parent of an oiled egg - look at
what the birth of a still-born child does to a parent.


> Some of the points you raise about farming and the way animals are
> transported etc I agree with. Always have thought that way myself. So
> here we agree and that's at least something.

I am glad to hear it.

> However, I feel you talk to me like I am some uneducated fool and to be
> honest your arguments are really not worth a considered response
> because they are, well perhaps like you feel about mine. I have the
> solutions but it wouldnt matter how good/viable they were, those that
> like the kind of acts I mention will never, ever change it seems to me.

I am sorry if I came across that way, I did not mean to be condescending.

how would you propose a humane method of control ?

or do you propose none and the starvation and possible extinction of
other natural species ?

> I accept that we are part of a program of life that means we have to
> eat. To do so means we have to kill and destroy life [sadly]. I do have
> respect for some of these actions we have to take. We do not have to do
> it for fun though and thats the point. We do not have to make a social
> afternoon gathering to chase foxes, hunt stags, bait bears, put cocks
> to fight, bull fight, cut fins of sharks and throw them back alive,
> kill elephants and rhinos for tusk/horn etc etc. Which of them is ok to
> you then - all of them and for what reason.

pest control (in my view) is a necessity, and to perform those duties
whilst making a social event is not immoral in my view. It is a way
for landowners and farmers to meet up and enjoy a good ride in the
countryside. You probably only need one person to control the pack
- the master - but others like the excilleration of watching the chase.

Fox hunting removes the old and diseased animals that can't outrun
and outfox the hounds - the same animals that can not effectively hunt
and therefore feed on the chickens lambs and calfs on the farms.

Stag hunting also removes the old and diseased animals that can't outrun
and outfox the hounds. The hounds chase the herd and the stragglers which
are ill wounded or old and picked off with a rifle - often those that are
killed
and those injured by poachers or frustrated farmers with shotguns.

bait baiting, *** fighting, bull fighting and all 'sports' for pleasure
and their sole aim is to give suffering to animals for fun - and that is
totally in my view - immoral.

cutting the fin from a shark and throwing it back alive is causes undue
suffering to the shark and is in my view a waste of a good resource -
shark is a very good meaty fish.

elephants and rhino should not be killed purely for tusk. If they are
a pest - which they can be in countries where they reside then they
may need to be controlled, and any available resource from the
animal - meat and tusk should be used to full advantage - and not
wasted. - but to kill purely for tusk does seem immoral to me,
but then I do not use elephant tusk in my medicine to aid suffering,
and if I did then I may have a different opinion on this.


> Fine then, I'll come down to 'your' level and ask you this - as humans,
> we seem to impact on or destroy the world in some form or another. Well
> if I fancy hunting 'you' because of that - should that be against the
> law then. Why. Is that a totally stupid argument compared to yours (
> and those like you). Oh sorry - 'we' are more important. We are humans.
> Wow.

humans are no more important in the natural world than any creature.
all creatures have a right to be here and healthy populations maintained
so that we can all live in harmony. I agree that there are far too many
humans, especially so on this very small island on which we live, but
probably less so in other countries. I suspect that a higher power will
provide a pest control excercise on the human race, either by war, disease
(AIDS or bird flu), famine - as we use all the resources or a natural
'catastrophe' like global warning. We burn all the fossil fuels and have
to deal with the consequences, and may in futured use nore nuclear power
which also will have consequences.





.

Loading