John and others, on the H&M disease issue: see my comments interspersed
below. You don't seem to be responsive to my concern about the healthy cows
and sheep.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: John Foster[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PETA steps in it again.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chiaviello, Anthony <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: PETA steps in it again.
>
>
> > What's so bad about H&M disease anyway?
>
> My take on this issue is that 'good fences' make good neighbours. The
> issue
> is an ethical one because each property owner has a duty to use his or her
> property to the fullest extent so long as this use does not infringe on
> the
> rights of other property owners to enjoy the benefits of their property.
>
Is that a duty or an option to use one's "property to the fullest
extent..."? Is it unethical to allow one's property to remain fallow, or to
simply allow it to be there? See Forster's "My Wood."
> This ethical rule is based on 'prudence' <phronesis>. Therefore if a
> livestock owner has diseased animals that may impact other property
> owners,
> then it is a duty to treat the livestock to prevent the spread of the
> disease to other persons healthy livestock. This is the basis for property
> laws.
>
Right. So then why kill the healthy animals?
> Thus the issue of hoof and mouth disease is quite simple. The livestock
> owner is under a duty and has an obligation to prevent the spread of a
> disease that originates in his or her cattle. The simpliest treatment is
> to
> put down the animal of dispose of the remains to prevent the spread of the
> disease.
>
Right again, so why kill the healthy ones? Am I missing something?
> The position of PETA therefore is aligned with good animal husbandry and
> stewardship of the areas where livestock are tended. They maintain that
> the
> livestock owners must be more vigilant in protecting their herds from
> disease. They argue effectively that there are two common sense (prudent
> means) to accoplish this task:
>
> (a) reduce meat dependency;
>
> (b) create more sanitary conditions (human treatment of livestock, etc.,
> better environmental engineering, greater vigiliance in disease
> inspections
> and so on) that prevent or reduce the risk of the disease being spread;
> and
>
> (c) if possible avoid eating meat.....
>
>
> Adopting the prudent or precautionary stance, as PETA is advocating, would
> reduce the risk of increased suffering in animals and in humans.
>
> addios
>
> john foster
>
>
> From what I have read it causes
> > blisters and sensitivity to cows udders and hooves (unfortunate but
> hardly
> > crucial), reduced production of milk (still, must be more than a dead
> cow
> > gives), some weakening and shorter life span (but must be longer than
> sudden
> > death in a pit or on a pyre), and sometimes an animal could lose a foot
> (so
> > you shoot him then). I have yet to hear of dreadful ultimate
> consequences,
> > except to international trade in animal products.
> >
> > I've discussed this with some colleagues and can understand why such a
> > disease should be controlled at some effort (but not by killing all the
> > surrounding cattle), why even uncontaminated livestock should be killed.
> >
> > Ethically speaking, it seems that the consequences of the disease do not
> > warrant the extreme measures taken to prevent it.
> >
> > Any discussion or enlightenment on this subject?
> > -Tc
> > Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> > Department of English
> > University of Houston-Downtown
> > One Main Street
> > Houston, TX 77002-0001
> > 713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
> > "Question Reality"
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:15 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: PETA steps in it again.
> > >
> > > It is the "forlorn look" in this quote that attracts me.
> > >
> > > Steven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:36 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: PETA steps in it again.
> > >
> > >
> > > Steven,
> > >
> > > I just do not understand how some of those "strict" ethical treatment
> of
> > > animals think. Clearly, they do not know anything about how foot &
> mouth
> > > disease actually operates, they don't seem to understand how painful
> it
> > > must
> > > be not only to domestic animals but to all related wildlife.
> > >
> > > I agree with you, Steven. But you should be a little cautious about
> what
> > > you quote from novelists like Marquez. Sometimes their imagination
> gets
> > > carried away so far from this galaxy! No mould on this vegetarian!!
> But
> > > then, I've never spent a hundred years in solitude! :-)
> > >
> > > Ray
> > > ----------
> > > > Off the wire.
> > > >
> > > > "NORFOLK, Va. - While U.S. authorities take precautions to prevent
> > > > foot-and-mouth from entering the country, the president of People
> for
> > > the
> > > > Ethical Treatment of Animals, possibly the world's most influential
> > > animal
> > > > rights organization, openly hopes the disease crosses the Atlantic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "If that hideousness came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for
> the
> > > > animals - they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it
> would
> > > wake
> > > > up consumers," said PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk.
> > > > Interviewed on Friday in the office she shares with four cats,
> Newkirk
> > > said:
> > > > "I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only
> for
> > > > those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals
> a
> > > > concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals,
> good
> > > for
> > > > human health and good for the environment."
> > > >
> > > > All things considered, the lack of basic information here is
> > > interesting.
> > > I
> > > > hope that Newkirk realizes that foot and mouth doesn't just attack
> live
> > > > stock intended for consumption, it also hits pets and such.
> > > >
> > > > Is it just me or is it strange that PETA continues to have any
> > > credibility?
> > > >
> > > > Steven
> > > >
> > > > . . .in the last days he lost his appetite
> > > > and fed only on vegetables. He soon acquired
> > > > the forlorn look that one sees in vegetarians.
> > > > His skin became covered with a thin moss,
> > > > similar to that which flourished on the
> > > > antique vest that he never took off,
> > > > and his breath exhaled the odor of a
> > > > sleeping animal.
> > > > Gabriel Garcia Marquez, 1967
> > > > One Hundred Years of Solitude
> > >
>
|
