The animal research paradox: if other animals don’t feel as we would in those intolerable circumstances, then they’re not good models for human physiology. If they do, then subjecting them to these abhorrent practices is unethical.
Thankfully Britain doesn’t have such nonsensical double-standards with regard to wildlife.
Natural England now issues licences to kill native, protected buzzards so there can be a few more on top of the millions of non-native pheasants to be shot – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/buzzard-licensing-applications
The Scottish Government has decided that once-native, reintroduced beavers can stay (very welcome news) but further reintroductions must be licensed while non-native pheasant are released in their millions to be shot – http://news.gov.scot/news/beavers-to-remain-in-scotland
The killing industry doesn’t seem to observe national boundaries.
“It can’t have been easy being a caveman, living the life of a hunter gatherer. … However, though the gathering might have been relatively rural, the hunting was hell. Meat wasn’t easy to catch, whether it came in the form of a slavering jawed dinosaur, a leaping gazelle, or even a jet propelled small rodent or rabbit. … the very necessary function of feeding human families, who – back in those prehistoric times – had very few alternatives to meat and veg. … Many, many thousands of years ago then, snares were a means to survival. And not only for food. The hunter made sure that he visited the trap regularly so that animals did not disfigure or maim themselves in their struggles. It wasn’t an example of prehistoric animal welfare, it was a matter of keeping warm. Nobody wants a fur coat with rips and tears in it.” (http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987646/snares_a_barbaric_relic_whose_time_is_up.html)
Perhaps Bill Oddie’s ancestors were contemporary with dinosaurs. Perhaps that’s how he knows how often hunters visited their traps thousands of years ago. Or perhaps this is a result of his special food options, I suppose involving mycoprotein and synthetic vitamins, while the rest of us still have few alternatives to meat and veg. Perhaps he’s simply aiming his writing at the lowest common denominator i.e. those who set snares. However, his reasoning has more holes in it than a creature snared in barbed wire.
“The true extent of corporate control of food commodities – or milk to you and me – is huge. … It is these largely unaccountable bodies that will benefit from trade negotiations like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Anxious to weaken food regulations by ‘mutual recognition’ of different standards or ‘harmonizing’ standards to the ones they like, they are very active in the TTIP debate.
… US dairy exporters would like to see EU limits on somatic cell counts (in effect, pus) in milk removed – yet the cell count indicates mastitis, a painful infection of the breast tissue in cows.” (http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2985037/the_perfect_pinta_vs_the_ttip_trade_tanker.html)