Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:44:04 +0100
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:25:05 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <cpkj63hhj3jbko0stjbfbl03t91int0nku@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:27:27 +0100, Robert SeagoWhich is about as ridiculous a statement as it is possible to make.
<rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <2pgj639mcu5tmaohat9ang0co3jumikkso@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As I have told you many times, I am not a conservationist or an
environmentalist. But I oppose the dishonesty of those who say they
are but indulge in and encourage environmental damage
But you say you oppose the production of veal.
Of course I am.
But you are prepared to
eat dairy products
Milk production is not a product of the veal industry. And milk would
still be produced if veal was not.
Nonsense. You were taken to court for, among other things, misusing the
word "slaughter".
<snip > But they're not really "reserves" they traps toThat is certainly not an accurate picture Angus.
lure birds to for shooting.
Of course it is.
You've snipped the bit I referred to which was from MO:
"Perfectly legal shooting of accepted quarry species which have
strictly regulated seasons. And a great many wildfowling clubs run
reserves".
I believe this is a cynical manipulation of luring wildlife for the
kill. The wildfowlers know that there will be plenty of birds to shoot
if they run reserves.
Just as landowners let out shooting next to RSPB reserves.
What is the point of having reserves if they are cynically used to
shoot birds?
Not at all. In a response to a Scotsman letter some time ago a reader
said at times at the Loch Leven reserve she couldn't hear the sound of
the birds for the guns.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.
- References:
- Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: Robert Seago
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Next by Date: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|