On 04/09/07, Gonz, discombobulated, unleashed: > >Surely you jest. ;) You eat dont you? Unless its mineral, you are >eating something that was alive at some point, no? So then you must >not have interest in *that* part of nature. How convenient I say. >:)
I am an omnivore. I eat meat. I like the taste. >Alright old chap, so that chicken you had for dinner yesterday died >how? I'll bet it had its head chopped off after it led a life of >being cooped up in some cage somewhere. It probably had its head chopped off but not after living in a small cage. Corn fed and free range. >And those shoes you wear, >dont get me started on shoes... I'm no vegetarian, but I just had to >point out the obvious hippopotamussy here. ;) I'm not a hypocrite Gonz. My original assertion is that I abhor suffering in nature - particularly in animals. Decapitating a chicken involves no suffering on the part of the chicken. Aiming at, and running over feral cats can produce nothing but suffering. There is a difference. >Yes, but hunger has a way of changing your perspective just a wee bit. > That cat all of a sudden seems like to look like a chicken, and >probably tastes like one too. :) > >So shoot it! I agree. If you are going to control animal numbers and a cull is necessary, shooting - as long as it is with a rifle and not a shotgun (unless at point blank range) - is fine. As long as death is instant. Traps are a no-no. Anything that produces prolonged and sustained suffering is bad. Like aiming a car and running over a feral cat. We must discuss pigs with Dave sometime. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
