An interesting article from the Guardian: Why it is ethical to kill deer but let the badgers live | Patrick Barkham | Comment is free | The Guardian
willie_gunn
willie_gunn
"To philosophers of animal rights, "conservation culling" is an Orwellian atrocity – "speciesism" in action. And conservationists – and I include myself in this group – sometimes flounder in the face of such clear and principled thinking."
Has anyone tried to eat a badger ?
Someone I know made badger ham a while ago from a fresh roadkill near his shoot and apparently it was very good!!
I spotted that a couple of weeks ago but didn't post it here because I didn't think anyone here would like it much, and also mainly because I had other things on. Anyway, the point is that it's an external perspective to our own, actually quite a balanced one, and we have to live with other users of the natural world, and even people who just like to know that it exists without really ever having much to do with it directly. We all share the same space, and once you remove the ethical and emotional arguments, what we're talking about here is how we choose to explot and develop competing renewable natural resources. We're used to the competing needs of forestry ("no deer!"), sporting interests ("Better deer!"), animal rights types ("More deer!"), highland agriculture ("More sheep!"), etc. Well on top of that, it's legitimate for some to want to swap some deer for some capercaillie, some badgers for some cows, some "deer forests" for some actual forests, and even some green belt for some houses. There's only so much space and there are competing demands for it. It comes down to balance, compromise, openness and collaboration. We may have to compromise. So will everyone else. Mountain bikers and ramblers too. It's either that, or the strongest party wins, and that's probably not us in the long run.
It reads like a rushed undergraduate essay that lazily borrows common concepts and rhetorical tropes without bothering to fully understand things or develop a robust argument.
I refuse to read that anti hunting rag.
It has a number of posts by well known ant activists.
One notable article made by the head of PETA. You just try and comment to correct the lies and your comment just gets removed.
Obviously questioning their "journalists" with all their "knowledge and research" is not the done thing.
If Brock causes that much damage [allegedly] why are they protected...
There were some articles and recipes in one of the October Wild und Hund magazines - if I still have it I'll dig it out. As I recall, the taste test received mixed reactions!Has anyone tried to eat a badger ?