Dangerous wild animals like lions, bears, sharks or crocodiles have not had the cultural benefit of reading liberal propaganda from the Guardian newspaper. So, when they see a slow, docile human being, civility is normally the last thing on their minds - but, the question is, have we got the right to kill that animal?
I'd say, shoot first - and ask questions later.
Thursday, 7 December 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spitfire
- Courtney Hamilton
- London, United Kingdom
- London born, free Englishman. Free to say anything and free to go anywhere. A libertarian, arguing for a world that's fit for us humans to live in.
3 comments:
It's similar to the shoot-to-kill/shoot-to-injure debate we get everytime the police kill someone they believe to be armed.
Sadly, lethal force is sometimes required to protect the general public. But I'd say that the local authorities are amiss unless they start looking at ways of keeping wildlife and the general public out of each others way.
I agree, people first. If the animal isn't an immediate threat though, I think we should TRY to help it, if we can. Of course, there is the possibility we may cause more harm doing so. Forex, perhaps the whale pods would be better off if we didn't tow out the ones who get lost, etc.
P.S. Is this a new blog--should I switch my link?
Hi Paula,
Always a pleasure to see you and your cupcakes.
I dare say you guys in the States have more problems with wild animals than us over here.
I can't believe that the Germans spent so much time and money on trying to capture a rampaging wild bear, only to end up shooting it anyway. I think animal rights can sometimes go too far.
No need to switch links - this is my 'odds & sods' blog, for all those little tit-bits that catch my eye.
Post a Comment