Leaving aside the cows' unhappiness for a moment, why again is it necessary
to kill the healthy ones? It spreads like wildfire, so . . .  no one seems
to be addressing the issue of why kill hundreds of thousands of healthy
animals to stop the disease.
-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:         Ray Lanier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Thursday, April 05, 2001 7:49 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: PETA steps in it again.
>
> Hello folks,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Foster" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 5:15 PM
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > >
>
> Ray here:
>
> Speaking as one who has been in and around agriculture all my life.
>
> John, imho, you trivialize a very serious disease.
>
> Foot/hoof and mouth disease is not like a bad cold, not like mastitis in
> dairy cows.  It is a disease that spreads like wild-fire.  John, as you
> noted earlier, the spores spread on the wind... and on clothes, skin, of
> anyone, animal or human.
>
> There are great costs to the producer from loss of production, loss of
> livestock, without control.  It spreads easily throughout the hooved
> community - pigs, deer, other wildlife.  And thus, even if controlled on
> the
> farm, the diseased wild community is always a threat.
>
> And, from a humanitarian view, the disease is particularly cruel to the
> animal afflicted.  Among other things, it causes sores in the animal's
> mouth
> causing severe pain when the animal tries to eat.  So, often, death is by
> slow starvation.
>
> It is extremely difficult to control.  In the US, in the early days, at
> much
> expense by farmers and governments, the foot & mouth disease was
> controlled
> here.  It would be criminal and inhumane to countenance the spread of that
> disease here or anywhere else.
>
> I am very much in favour of more concern with the way we humans treat
> animals on the farm, in the home, in the university/commercial research
> laboratories.  But, that statement by a PETA representative is not
> humanitarian.  It is a statement from an ignorant bigot.  Imho.
>
> Ray
>