WHEN THE COUNCIL WORKERS CUT THE GRASS THEY USE STRIMMERS AND I DONT THINK THEY ARE BOTHERED ABOUT WILDLIFE, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING COUNCILS WHAT THERE POLICY IS?
I am afraid I don't consider Chris Packham "truly inspiring" at all. I am NO fan of Chris Packham as he actively encourages shooting deers, elephants and even pet/companion animal cats!! As far as I am concerned, making him out to be a legend and "animal lover" is no different than making out that the "royal" family "adores animals" (whilst actively encouraging and enjoying shooting them down in cold blood)!! In Chris Packham's own words: "We have to play a proactive role and that means killing things. People come to shoot near where I live and they ask me where the deer are and I tell them 'the deer are over there, go and blast!'" Unless there is a more recent article showing that he has apologised for saying this and passionately denounced what he said then, which I don't believe he has, then that makes what he said then still and just as valid now. The link is here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-packham-gets-controversial-again-273482 Here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157938/BBC-Springwatch-star-Chris-Packham-warns-pet-cats-ruining-environment.html And here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/02/rspb-and-the-fear-of-the-feline-whip He is a conservationist, NOT an "animal lover"! You can be both, but he certainly is NOT!
You can't rely on either the Mail or the Mirror to be objective or truthful. Sometimes Conservation measures need to be tough love. You can't pull things back from the brink unless you are prepared to be ruthless and non sentimental about other things sometimes. Packham may say controversial things, but he is truthful and knows what he is talking about.
"The vast majority of hunters use terms like conservation and overpopulation control in order to justify whatever reason they want to kill animals. To feel powerful, to get a surge of adrenaline taking an animal’s life, “it’s natural”, whatever.
Put it another way, are humans (who are the MOST overpopulated, invasive and destructive species on Earth) ever "culled" or 'blasted' with guns simply because it is easier to control their population by murdering them? No, so why is it so different for animals then? That is speciesm! If you agree with what Chris Packham says, then you should also agree that the best conservation measure to control human overpopulation then is to pay a gunmen to go and shoot millions of people with bullets because killing them is the simplest, cheapest, easiest and most effective way to successfully lower our overpopulation to a better number immediately. Any other method such as sterilisation isn't working or is too expensive or time consuming to implement. Do you agree?
Do you agree with "blasting" deers and shooting animals such as people's cats, elephants or badgers (such as how the current badger cull is being done) then? Whatever your views are, there is always another way! Killing is often what is done simply because it is easier and cheaper than other, just as affective and far more compassionate, alternatives. As the saying goes "the easiest way, is rarely the best way"! These 4 links here show that killing by humans is never "necessary" to "control" animal population numbers (and, in many circumstances, facts show that killing by humans can actually hinder the animals population numbers from going down, even in the slightest amount, in the long run)! There is always another, better and more compassionate way!: 1. https://www.four-paws.org.uk/campaigns-topics/topics/help-for-horses/help-for-wild-horses
Hi Cara - love your passion ... but ... I would really love you to read my latest book (borrow, go to library ... this is not an attempt to get sales!) - Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation - I struggled all the way through researching it - my head and my heart in a fight ... I wish it could be simpler but it is not ... In many instances not intervening - that is - killing an invasive species - results in MORE death than the killing - and we humans have caused the problem ... should we leave it up to Mother Nature to clear up our mess? Do we not have a responsibility ??? Now there are some really interesting discussions to be had as to whether species SHOULD be saved ... are they important??? If you think they are, there are instances where killing another animals is inevitable (at the moment).
Hello and thank you Hugh. I am thinking of either buying or borrowing your book to read as it does sound like it balances both sides of the argument well and I am curious to see what it says. I do agree that there are instances/times when we have to act as doing nothing can sadly easily result in even more deaths (I have recently learned about American Minks in England regarding kingfishers and water voles) but I don't believe that killing is ever the answer, regardless of species. I believe every species is important. If there isn't any other successful course of action currently available besides killing, then, in my opinion, someone should figure one out (a successful and workable alternative to killing). Such as, I don't believe there is currently any known way of sterilising hedgehogs (the case in New Zealand) or snakes (the case in Florida, USA) but someone should find out how as we have brains for a reason. There are however also instances where killing can often be counterproductive such as, you may have already heard of this Hugh but if you haven't, there is a fascinating article here about animals from other areas replacing the killed ones, also called the vacuum effect: https://www.alleycat.org/resources/the-truth-about-the-vacuum-effect/
I do understand that not everyone has the same views and opinions as me, and that's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion at the end of the day, but I don't believe, whatever your beliefs, that anyone should actively encourage killing, like what Chris Packham sadly encourages with his words on deers especially, before trying or even attempting anything else first. Ultimately, my biggest fight against culling though is because humans aren't "culled" (when we are the most destructive species on Earth and have (and so often sadly continue to) caused so many of these problems for animals and the environment ourselves) and killing other animals for being "overpopulated" and for "ruining the environment" but not killing our own kind for the same reasons (when we are doing the exact same and in many cases, in even worse ways than animals) is unfair and biased (and to be honest, that is literally what speciesm is). I hope you can understand Hugh. I do intend to read your book soon and I am looking forward to it but I don't honestly think my opinion on "culling" will ever change so long as humans aren't being "culled" for the same reasons and that I believe we can always do things successfully another way without killing. I do understand there are always exceptions but I like to live by the saying, "where there is a will, there is a way! I do apologize for the length of my response to you!!
KAREN THE COUNCIL DO NOT SUPERVISE THEIR WORKERS AND IN THE PAST I HAVE SEEN DEAD HEDGEHOGS AFTER COUNCIL WORKERS HAVE STRIMMED GRASS. ALSO THE COUNCIL CANNOT STOP PEOPLE PARKING ON GRASS VERGES AND WILL ONLY GIVE SOMEONE A PARKING TICKET IF THEY HAVE PARKED OVER YELLOW LINES
The Mower
BY PHILIP LARKIN
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,
Killed. It had been in the long grass.
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind
While there is still time.
Philip Larkin, "The Mower" from Collected Poems. Copyright © Estate of Philip Larkin. Reprinted by permission of Faber and Faber, Ltd.
Source: Collected Poems (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 200
yes - a well reference poem - one the final, 'we should be careful of each other, we should be kind While there is still time.'
WHEN THE COUNCIL WORKERS CUT THE GRASS THEY USE STRIMMERS AND I DONT THINK THEY ARE BOTHERED ABOUT WILDLIFE, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING COUNCILS WHAT THERE POLICY IS?
the BHPS has a programme reaching out to the mowing teams - link in the article.
I am afraid I don't consider Chris Packham "truly inspiring" at all. I am NO fan of Chris Packham as he actively encourages shooting deers, elephants and even pet/companion animal cats!! As far as I am concerned, making him out to be a legend and "animal lover" is no different than making out that the "royal" family "adores animals" (whilst actively encouraging and enjoying shooting them down in cold blood)!! In Chris Packham's own words: "We have to play a proactive role and that means killing things. People come to shoot near where I live and they ask me where the deer are and I tell them 'the deer are over there, go and blast!'" Unless there is a more recent article showing that he has apologised for saying this and passionately denounced what he said then, which I don't believe he has, then that makes what he said then still and just as valid now. The link is here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-packham-gets-controversial-again-273482 Here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157938/BBC-Springwatch-star-Chris-Packham-warns-pet-cats-ruining-environment.html And here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/02/rspb-and-the-fear-of-the-feline-whip He is a conservationist, NOT an "animal lover"! You can be both, but he certainly is NOT!
You can't rely on either the Mail or the Mirror to be objective or truthful. Sometimes Conservation measures need to be tough love. You can't pull things back from the brink unless you are prepared to be ruthless and non sentimental about other things sometimes. Packham may say controversial things, but he is truthful and knows what he is talking about.
"The vast majority of hunters use terms like conservation and overpopulation control in order to justify whatever reason they want to kill animals. To feel powerful, to get a surge of adrenaline taking an animal’s life, “it’s natural”, whatever.
End of the day, they want to go kill an animal."
https://vegfaqs.com/how-do-vegans-feel-about-hunting-for-meat/
Put it another way, are humans (who are the MOST overpopulated, invasive and destructive species on Earth) ever "culled" or 'blasted' with guns simply because it is easier to control their population by murdering them? No, so why is it so different for animals then? That is speciesm! If you agree with what Chris Packham says, then you should also agree that the best conservation measure to control human overpopulation then is to pay a gunmen to go and shoot millions of people with bullets because killing them is the simplest, cheapest, easiest and most effective way to successfully lower our overpopulation to a better number immediately. Any other method such as sterilisation isn't working or is too expensive or time consuming to implement. Do you agree?
Do you agree with "blasting" deers and shooting animals such as people's cats, elephants or badgers (such as how the current badger cull is being done) then? Whatever your views are, there is always another way! Killing is often what is done simply because it is easier and cheaper than other, just as affective and far more compassionate, alternatives. As the saying goes "the easiest way, is rarely the best way"! These 4 links here show that killing by humans is never "necessary" to "control" animal population numbers (and, in many circumstances, facts show that killing by humans can actually hinder the animals population numbers from going down, even in the slightest amount, in the long run)! There is always another, better and more compassionate way!: 1. https://www.four-paws.org.uk/campaigns-topics/topics/help-for-horses/help-for-wild-horses
2. https://www.alleycat.org/resources/the-truth-about-the-vacuum-effect/
3. https://vegfaqs.com/how-do-vegans-feel-about-hunting-for-meat/
4. https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/do-foxes-need-culling/
Hi Cara - love your passion ... but ... I would really love you to read my latest book (borrow, go to library ... this is not an attempt to get sales!) - Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation - I struggled all the way through researching it - my head and my heart in a fight ... I wish it could be simpler but it is not ... In many instances not intervening - that is - killing an invasive species - results in MORE death than the killing - and we humans have caused the problem ... should we leave it up to Mother Nature to clear up our mess? Do we not have a responsibility ??? Now there are some really interesting discussions to be had as to whether species SHOULD be saved ... are they important??? If you think they are, there are instances where killing another animals is inevitable (at the moment).
Hello and thank you Hugh. I am thinking of either buying or borrowing your book to read as it does sound like it balances both sides of the argument well and I am curious to see what it says. I do agree that there are instances/times when we have to act as doing nothing can sadly easily result in even more deaths (I have recently learned about American Minks in England regarding kingfishers and water voles) but I don't believe that killing is ever the answer, regardless of species. I believe every species is important. If there isn't any other successful course of action currently available besides killing, then, in my opinion, someone should figure one out (a successful and workable alternative to killing). Such as, I don't believe there is currently any known way of sterilising hedgehogs (the case in New Zealand) or snakes (the case in Florida, USA) but someone should find out how as we have brains for a reason. There are however also instances where killing can often be counterproductive such as, you may have already heard of this Hugh but if you haven't, there is a fascinating article here about animals from other areas replacing the killed ones, also called the vacuum effect: https://www.alleycat.org/resources/the-truth-about-the-vacuum-effect/
And here about breeding countering the killing: https://news.ufl.edu/archive/2000/11/uf-research-does-make-up-for-losses-of-hunted-bucks.html
I do understand that not everyone has the same views and opinions as me, and that's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion at the end of the day, but I don't believe, whatever your beliefs, that anyone should actively encourage killing, like what Chris Packham sadly encourages with his words on deers especially, before trying or even attempting anything else first. Ultimately, my biggest fight against culling though is because humans aren't "culled" (when we are the most destructive species on Earth and have (and so often sadly continue to) caused so many of these problems for animals and the environment ourselves) and killing other animals for being "overpopulated" and for "ruining the environment" but not killing our own kind for the same reasons (when we are doing the exact same and in many cases, in even worse ways than animals) is unfair and biased (and to be honest, that is literally what speciesm is). I hope you can understand Hugh. I do intend to read your book soon and I am looking forward to it but I don't honestly think my opinion on "culling" will ever change so long as humans aren't being "culled" for the same reasons and that I believe we can always do things successfully another way without killing. I do understand there are always exceptions but I like to live by the saying, "where there is a will, there is a way! I do apologize for the length of my response to you!!
KAREN THE COUNCIL DO NOT SUPERVISE THEIR WORKERS AND IN THE PAST I HAVE SEEN DEAD HEDGEHOGS AFTER COUNCIL WORKERS HAVE STRIMMED GRASS. ALSO THE COUNCIL CANNOT STOP PEOPLE PARKING ON GRASS VERGES AND WILL ONLY GIVE SOMEONE A PARKING TICKET IF THEY HAVE PARKED OVER YELLOW LINES