On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:19:05 +0100, "BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>"Ice" <icebaby [at] foobaa.com> wrote in message
>news:o12ra257f57tkcv8om81cvhup29j9u8cnc [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:41:03 +0100, Malcolm Kane
>> <malcolm [at] jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <3jtqa2tcvmcb6t86g3t4ds1pko9e973a51 [at] 4ax.com>,
>> >amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I see you've not addressed the issue about raptors.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>So would you have raptors killed for animal welfare reasons?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If not, why not?
>> >>>>
>> >>>I addressed it elsewhere when I said only the predators which have been
>> >>>released into places where they didn't occur before by AR activists.
>> >>
>> >>Not all mink were released by AR activists.
>> >>
>> >>So it's not about animal welfare; it's about origins:-((
>> >>
>> >When I mention animal welfare in this case I am talking about the voles.
>> >I doubt anyone considers being killed and eaten by a mink good for the
>> >voles welfare.
>>
>> Strange. Yet you consider the mink being trapped, poisoned, shot or
>> ripped to pieces by dogs ok? What strange ideas you have on animal
>> welfare.
>>
>>
>
>Even more strange is it's apparently a welfare issue if a vole gets killed
>by a mink, but not by other predators. The thing about mink predation,
>surely, is that it's particularly efficient predation, hence the concern
>that viable populations of voles might not be feasible in locations with a
>breeding mink population.
>
Load of cobblers if you ask me. It's yet another opportunity to
scapegoat an alien and divert attention from a real solution that will
cost money instead of raking it in. These CONservation hooligan
charities are very adept at coining it in, but not so when it comes to
parting with it again.
"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!"
Woody Guthrie
