Thankfully, our kangaroo's anatomical formation is too awkward for the live export trade - or is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk

nicky as usual you haven't answered my questions. I have re posted two below.

1) Okay nicky have I determined correctly that you grudgingly agree that control methods for the control of rabbits, foxes and feral cats should be used. If you are not agreeable to steel-jawed traps, 1080, strychnine and the like being used as a control method, what control method do you suggest should be used?

2) My definition of welfare is the well being of something, so in this case for sake of argument - the well-being of animals.
My definition of liberation is to set something free. Does this mean that you want to set all animals free? If so what exactly do you mean by “all animals having freedom?”

The 1080 question is a very good one, one that I have posed to those who oppose the use of 1080.

As yet, I've not heard a convincing answer as to whether they are:

a) proposing another practical control method.

or b) are therefore willing to see wild dog numbers increase dramatically, at the expense of native animals as well as livestock and the livelihoods of farmers.

Until I see an answer to this proposition, I do not believe they are capable of making difficult decisions, and place a higher emphasis on looking moral and talking the talk, instead of making the tough call and walking the walk.

I agree TurnRightThenLeft.

Three of the biggest problems facing Australia in the terms of decimation of the natural wildlife is the ever encroaching takeover by the cane toad and the wanton killing done by foxes and feral cats. To me this is far more important than whether farmers use an anesthetic on the sheep before they mules them.
nicky-dicky and the "carry on" crew have insinuated that they know of better and more reliable methods of control than 1080, trapping, shooting etc, but as yet I am waiting to hear what they are. I won't hold my breath waiting, although I am sure they would like to see me do that. LOL.

Nicky “You can criticize PETA, Ingrid Newkirk and Peter Singer all you like, but I would rather be upholding their kind of morality than yours.”

That is the “morality” which pursues the destruction of other peoples legal livelihoods because PETA has a view that they should not be allowed to pursue those legal livelihoods?

The first rule of morality is tolerance.

Morality without tolerance for those who dissent with your view is the first step on the path to totalitarianism.

In this respect, PETA is no different to every other despotic association which demands to impose its view over the free will of others, who do not share its extremist views.

If my view were "all members of PETA are fair game and should be culled during PETA open season", you would have right to complain.

But PETA is a more strident an advocate of manic opinions than I would bother (I am more for the live and let live).

Somewhere along the way, whilst supposedly supporting “animal rights” PETA has forgotten “human rights” and most of all forgotten the right of other cognitive beings to dissent from the PETA view.

“What's the problem with eating the local cats and dogs (or rats, mice, guinea pigs and hamsters?)”

It reminds me of the part in the series a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where a variety of cattle had been bred who actually wanted to be eaten and the critter presented itself and suggested which cuts of itself were the tastiest to the customers in a restaurant.

Unfortunately here on earth, the reasoning skills of cattle, pigs, chooks, kangaroos and sheep are hardly up to conversational French, let alone conversational English.

As for dogs and cats, maybe I am more liberated than most but I see no problem in munching on pussy.

Hi all

Myopinion, I said I was not going to debate matters further with you. Read the "Five Freedoms", it's not rocket science. If you do not know cruelty and suffering when you see it, you are beyond educating.

Col Rouge, I don't see that kind of totalitarianism on PETA's various websites. PETA, like most of the animal advocacy organizations, (note the terminology, myopinion) recognizes that people are going to continue to eat meat for at least the foreseeable future. They campaign against cruelty, and I see no problem with that. They encourage people not to eat meat and wear leather and wool, and people have a choice about that. I choose not to, but PETA, like all animal advocacy organizations, would have a majority membership who agree with their positions on cruelty in its various forms but still choose to eat meat, and wear wool and leather, etc. But you people will see that position as threatening because you are, or have been, part of the cruelty.

Nicky