 |
 |
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 >