Joined in a debate on the cruelty, or not, of culling badgers by shooting and whether supermarkets should label milk from farms involved in culling here:
BCFCfinker - @Melindola
Quote from RSPCA link provided below http://tinyurl.com/8wwklgk from pdant:
"In order to free-shoot a badger in a quick, humane way, there are two 'lethal' points which would need to be successfully hit."
Seems pretty clear to me. The RSPCA appear to acknowledge that shooting can be humane (or if you want to split hairs, not cruel).
Surely the crucial part of this RSPCA quote is the phrase 'successfully hit' ? Even with people shooting well they are highly unlikely to be 100% 'successful'. Where they are not 'successful' then the chance of inccurately shot badgers being in pain and suffering increases. This means that shooting cannot be free of cruelty.
The RSPCA briefing says there are 'severe welfare concerns'. It refers to 'untested culling methods' (shooting) and the 'untested delivery method' (farmers). It describes the: 'high risk' of wounding; the 'small margin of error' and the anatomical and behavioural features of badgers that make cruelty free shooting highly unlikely.
What would be wrong by having a system where customers can know fully what they are buying by labelling milk as from a farm involving badger culling or not involving badger culling?
Sunday, 14 October 2012
Labels: animal rights, animals, badger culling, choice, cruelty, farming, humane, labelling, milk, pain, RSPCA, shooting, shopping, suffering, supermarkets, Tesco, welfare
Open University Tutor, Environmental Science and Management; Former Secondary School Science Teacher; Former Research & Development Technologist/Chemist (Polymer Industry); Campaigner for a sustainable society for several decades; Parliamentary candidate in 1987, 2001, 2010