I agree the article is a bit sensationalist...
Not that I think this is huge news, but you don't discuss what I think is a key point:
An animal rights group is calling for an end to New Zealand’s “barbaric” war on possums after joeys were drowned in a bucket of water at a school fundraiser.
The killings took place during a North Island school’s annual possum hunt.
Why drown them? Surely just stomping or their heads or something is more humane? I'm happy to murder or have possums murdered when they're a harmful invasive species - but having children(?) hold them underwater so they can die slowly while writhing around in great discomfort does seem unnecessarily cruel, and may well desensitize those children to the suffering of living creatures.
Why drown them? Surely just stomping or their heads or something is more humane?
Drowning is not as inhumane as it is made out to be. It is painless.
It is more humane than shooting, which is considered fine. It is far more humane than stomping. Stomping, shooting, and many other methods have a high chance of not being immediately fatal, resulting in a painful, and messy, death.
Whether drowning is a 'good' option or not is debatable. There are better ways, but usually not practical. For example, overdosing an animal with morphine would be very humane. But also generally impractical.
My preferred method is not much different than the drownings. I use a plastic bag and car exhaust. I have read that death that way is either painless, or not much more than a headache.
but having children(?) hold them underwater so they can die slowly while writhing around in great discomfort does seem unnecessarily cruel, and may well desensitize those children to the suffering of living creatures.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unnecessarily cruel'. Do you mean cruel to the animal or child? I covered animal above, and will somewhat cover child below. Also, it is not slow.
and may well desensitize those children to the suffering of living creatures.
I'm not sure if you've seen animals drowned. It is not as traumatic, or eventful as you might expect. And desensitizing the children to this type of event, may be part of the goal.
Life is not always beautiful. It can be brutal, ugly, and unforgiving. If a child is going to survive and become a competent adult, they need to learn how to deal with it. They need to learn how to do what must be done, even when they don't like it.
The children are not being taught that it is fun to kill. They are being taught that it is necessary.
And I would suggest that anyone who disagrees with that has lived a sheltered life, that was probably made possible by others doing the dirty deeds for them.
The kind of people that wrote this article would not survive well in remote, or rural areas. If the country's welfare was put solely in their hands, the country would rapidly fall apart.
Teaching children that hard choices must be made, and carried out, is an important life lesson.
I didn't want to pull the trigger the first time I killed an animal.
I was a sensitive child. Stop laughing, I wasn't always an asshole.
But if I had not learned to value my head over my heart, life would have been much harder for my family.
This is a common trend I have noticed. The people who are quickest to label others as monsters, almost always come from a privileged life. One often made possible by the people they attack.
Well, drowning being more humane than stomping still seems pretty counterintuitive to me, but the car exhaust sounds good. You and Jasmijn de Boo should get together and do some experiments or something. You're right though, I don't think I've seen anything drown.
I'm happy for children to be carefully introduced to humane, necessary deaths. I think you agree that it's not great to introduce them to inhumane methods of killing though. I personally know hunters who are admirably concerned about the suffering of their prey, but I've also heard stories that I believe about people who do torture animals.
I also think it's fair enough if some decide they want no part in the death of animals at all, as long as they're reasonably consistent in their lifestyle choices and can at least imagine other points of view.
Sounds like you've been chased out of town by angry pitchfork wielding vegans once or twice...
This article is misleading, and very ignorant.
They are an invasive species. Doing nothing will result in the destruction of many other species.
The "barbarians" are the ignorant and arrogant shit-heads opposing the culling.
Sure, we're all aware of those evil farmers, butchers and others that work with animals and sometimes kill them. They are all murderous savages. Oh, wait.. there is absolutely no evidence to support that statement, especially when you consider that people, like veterinarians, who routinely kill, do not turn into cold-blooded murderers.
No there isn't. That is false.
People who kill because they enjoy killing, are more likely to be violent. People who kill because killing is a necessary part of life, do not.
Do these morons not realize that the only reason they can prance around with their 'holier than thou' attitude is because others are out there doing the dirty work for them? They get all the benefits from the necessary killings, without having to get their hands dirty.
That is one shitty tabloid. Why is it so hard to find a news agency that will take a fair and balanced look at a situation? Why do they always twist the facts into a sensationalist article.
Most importantly, why do people continue to read, and believe them?