Friday’s Canberra Times reported that the horse Sampler ‘broke down’ at Canberra racecourse on Thursday August 12 (“Hawkeye Hope runs down jockey moments before win”, Aug 13, p25). It stated that the jockey had sprained his knee – didn’t even go to hospital – but gave no information on the condition of the horse. Nor was there any news online for the next few days.
I did find the race video and it seemed clear that the poor mare had broken her near foreleg. But the replay commentary also avoided the fate of the horse, the camera following the other horses to the line and beyond and not showing her suffering – just a reference to her ‘not doing too well’.
I finally tracked down the Stewards Report to find that, “following an immediate veterinary assessment of its injuries the mare was humanely euthanased.”
So we have yet another horse going through agony before being killed in support of this glorified gambling industry.
It’s pointless to ask, “how many more?” – while there’s horse racing the horses will continue to be regarded as expendable. Expensive but expendable.
And it seems the media will continue to avoid the ugly facts.
Showing posts with label canberra times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canberra times. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Canberra Times and Dr Bryan Pratt
In January, a platypus was killed in Lake Burley Griffin after it was entangled in fishing line – either discarded or deliberately and illegally left in the water. That prompted a letter in the Canberra Times from local fish hunter, Shane Jasprizza (pub. Jan 17) describing the animal’s death as “unfortunate and regrettable” – as, of course, it was – but no worse than the death of any one of the thousands of fish he and his mates kill every year.
I wrote a reply (pub. Jan 19) asking why the death of the platypus was so much worse than the death of a fish – the desired outcome of a typical fishing trip – and pointing out that both platypus and fish feel pain and would have suffered.
This prompted local “fishing guru” Dr Bryan Pratt to devote a part of his weekly Canberra Times column (‘Gone Fishing’ Jan 22) to dismissing the idea that fish can feel pain. He said,
Unfortunate death of platypus brings out ignorant bleating of anti-anglers
Unfortunately, the publicity sur rounding the event, intending to serve as a useful reminder for anglers and others to be more careful about protection of wildlife, also brings out the crazies, bigots, Luddites and others in society who don't necessarily care about the wildlife but simply use this as another oppor tunity to publicise their hatred of angling. They paint anglers in the worst possible way and where they don't have facts to back up an argument they simply invent them. One classic example is to claim that fish feel pain and that anglers cause that pain.
Let's get this right. The full weight of scientific opinion, the result of an enormous amount of research in Australia
(Canberra Times, p30, Friday Jan 22, 2010)
As mine had been the only letter published claiming that fish feel pain, I took this as a personal insult. I sent a letter to the paper objecting to his language (“crazies, bigots, Luddites”, "childish, ignorant and unhelpful nonsense") and referring to scientific research which concluded that fish feel pain. I also pointed out that the RSPCA Policy on Angling (adopted August 2008) states, "RSPCA Australia considers that the available scientific evidence demonstrates that fish are capable of experiencing pain and suffering".
Given that research and the RSPCA policy, I argued that it was simply unsustainable to argue that, “The full weight of scientific opinion … indicates that fish do not feel pain”.
The letter was not published within a couple of days so I sent it again copying it to the CT Editor and with a note explaining the reasons I thought his crap deserved a response. Again – no joy.
However, the following Friday (Jan 29), Pratt again mentioned the issue in his column.
Science hits raw nerve
My comment last week on the science of whether or not fish feel pain drew a mixed response.
Most people were interested to hear of the scientific findings but others, amazingly, were convinced I was singling them out for special treatment and challenging their ver acity. I apologise to those poor souls and assure them that I had no such intention.
What I was presenting was that the consensus of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain because they lack the necessary neurological make-up to do so and yes I am aware of the experiment at the Roslin Institute and Edinburgh University whereby a researcher injected saline solution into fish and claimed they feel pain when they reacted badly to it.
Equally they could just have found it distasteful without actually feeling or registering pain.
I repeat that the vast body of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain. That's not just my opinion, it's that of independent scientists worldwide and I am happy to pass on that information without denigrating anybody else's opinion.
(Canberra Times, p23, Friday Jan 29, 2010)
I faxed the good doctor (I don’t have an email address for him) on the day he made that offer asking him to ‘pass on that information’. Despite a reminder a week later, I have received nothing from him.
Pratt also does a brief fishing report on local ABC radio on Thursday mornings. Prior to his appearance on Feb 4, I emailed the show and asked them to put my points to him and ask him to provide the proof for his claims. The presenter did, referring to my email. Pratt dismissed the science (he’d heard that stuff before) and as to whether he was going to provide proof (put to him as ‘a challenge’) he said that he didn’t respond to such nonsense.
The local RSPCA also sent a letter to the Canberra Times defending their policy but it was not published.
I don’t deny Dr Pratt or anyone the right to express an opinion. If he had simply said that he disagreed with the scientific research that is showing that fish probably feel pain then so be it.
But he didn’t – he claimed that the full weight of scientific opinion indicates that fish do not feel pain. That statement cannot be substantiated.
Dr Pratt is either deliberately lying or is deluding himself. I guess that’s understandable given that he profits financially by encouraging people to hunt fish and then selling them the equipment required to do so.
The Canberra Times has allowed a columnist to vehemently assert an untruth and refused to publish letters which would show that the RSPCA refutes that assertion.
At least there was some airing of the RSPCA position – two local papers (The Chronicle and City News) published my letters referring to the RSPCA policy and some recent research from Norway
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to remind Dr Pratt that I am waiting on his promised information.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Jack Waterford - Human Supremacist (and proud of it)
The Canberra Times Editor-at-Large, Jack Waterford, is a human supremacist of the first order.
He’s one of those human supremacists who will sneer at the very possibility that the term even exists.
He’s not the only one by any means – nor, I suspect, is he the worst example. But unfortunately, he is in a position to promulgate his speciesist beliefs through Canberra’s only daily newspaper – and he does so often.
On several occasions over the last few years Jack has devoted his various opinion pieces to belittling vegetarians and animal liberationists. (Some of those opinion pieces are still available on the Canberra Times site and on his blog - www.canberratimes.com.au/blogs/jack-waterford). He also often acts as Letters Editor for the paper so is in a position to suppress or edit pro-animal views – though I must admit that my letters get a reasonable success rate, even when I am criticising his writings.
In Waterford’s case, his attitude of human supremacy seems to stem from his childhood on a rural property where nonhuman animals were either;
Waterford has a thing about vegetarians and regards us with mystified disdain if not real hatred. (“I learned early that vegetarianism is a fairly nutty, though harmless idea, perfectly tolerable so long as the proponent did not frighten the horses”).
Strangely, he believes that vegetarianism adopted as a ‘food fad’ can lead to veganism which can lead to support for animal rights. It is, of course, the opposite of what generally happens; learning of the cruelty inherent in producing unnecessary food and fibre from our fellow animals leads compassionate people to stop consuming meat and other animal products. It’s the concern for animals that leads to vegetarianism.
He is often very condescending toward us animal activists – apparently believing that we only ever campaign for animals that are “thought to be especially warm, cuddly or symbolic” – leaving cane toads and other less furry critters to fend for themselves. He also seems to believe that animal activists (including myself) are being ‘misinformed’ by ‘someone’. He apparently refuses to consider the possibility that we are able to seek out information and reach conclusions on our own.
His common themes also include the accusation that groups such as PETA (http://www.peta.org/) who argue for better treatment of animals are secretly aiming to make the whole world vegan. There is no secret, Jack. That’s exactly what we want (amongst other reforms). This is from PETA’s FAQ page;
On that occasion he got a bit personal, describing me as “the hapless self-appointed publicist for a vegetarian movement which would, in the natural course of things, attract little publicity or support”. Before stepping down earlier this year, I was for a number of years the duly elected President of the ACT Vegetarian Society (http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/). I often wrote on behalf of the Society but at other times, and since stepping down, write to express a personal opinion – backed by facts where applicable. By no means a "self-appointed publicist".
As for "hapless", it’s a bit tricky to jump up and down and yell “I am not hapless” without appearing - well, bloody hapless. So I’ll just have to let people decide on that point for themselves.
He also accused me of describing him, his history and ideas as "disgusting". I have never called him names as far as I can remember (at least until now) and it would be a foolish thing to do. Many of us, myself included, shared Jack’s prejudices until we began our journey of understanding and compassion toward nonhumans. I recall, many years prior to my own vegetarianism, meeting up with a cousin who I hadn’t seen since he was a small kid only to hear he was ‘a vegetarian’. I silently scoffed – thinking that the poor bloke must be a bit soft. Sadly, he was killed in a motor accident nearly 20 years ago and I regret not being able to chat to him now and compare notes.
Jack Waterford is not just wrong in his attitude to nonhumans and those who speak up for them but seems to delight in displaying that wrongness. He also comes across as a condescending bully – in one infamous article implying that he had the urge to smash us over the head with a 12” bolt.
It’s a shame he uses his position of influence to vilify animal libbers and vegetarians - particularly at a time when moving away from a diet based on animal products would benefit us, and nonhumans, in so many ways.
He’s one of those human supremacists who will sneer at the very possibility that the term even exists.
He’s not the only one by any means – nor, I suspect, is he the worst example. But unfortunately, he is in a position to promulgate his speciesist beliefs through Canberra’s only daily newspaper – and he does so often.
On several occasions over the last few years Jack has devoted his various opinion pieces to belittling vegetarians and animal liberationists. (Some of those opinion pieces are still available on the Canberra Times site and on his blog - www.canberratimes.com.au/blogs/jack-waterford). He also often acts as Letters Editor for the paper so is in a position to suppress or edit pro-animal views – though I must admit that my letters get a reasonable success rate, even when I am criticising his writings.
In Waterford’s case, his attitude of human supremacy seems to stem from his childhood on a rural property where nonhuman animals were either;
- ‘stock’ – cattle or sheep to be grown, used and killed as required,
- more-or-less domesticated dogs and moggies – useful around the farm but, kids, don’t get too attached to them,
- pests – any other nonhuman animals that such people believe interfere in their right to make a living off the land and their introduced ‘stock’, or
- others – I gather a very small group of native animals who were paid the respect of being ignored.
Waterford has a thing about vegetarians and regards us with mystified disdain if not real hatred. (“I learned early that vegetarianism is a fairly nutty, though harmless idea, perfectly tolerable so long as the proponent did not frighten the horses”).
Strangely, he believes that vegetarianism adopted as a ‘food fad’ can lead to veganism which can lead to support for animal rights. It is, of course, the opposite of what generally happens; learning of the cruelty inherent in producing unnecessary food and fibre from our fellow animals leads compassionate people to stop consuming meat and other animal products. It’s the concern for animals that leads to vegetarianism.
He is often very condescending toward us animal activists – apparently believing that we only ever campaign for animals that are “thought to be especially warm, cuddly or symbolic” – leaving cane toads and other less furry critters to fend for themselves. He also seems to believe that animal activists (including myself) are being ‘misinformed’ by ‘someone’. He apparently refuses to consider the possibility that we are able to seek out information and reach conclusions on our own.
His common themes also include the accusation that groups such as PETA (http://www.peta.org/) who argue for better treatment of animals are secretly aiming to make the whole world vegan. There is no secret, Jack. That’s exactly what we want (amongst other reforms). This is from PETA’s FAQ page;
“People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her)”.Jack’s most recent rant was on November 6 (I’m sure the Canberra Times will include it on his blog site when they get around to it. They seem to be a bit behind – at least on the Opinion pages – at the moment).
On that occasion he got a bit personal, describing me as “the hapless self-appointed publicist for a vegetarian movement which would, in the natural course of things, attract little publicity or support”. Before stepping down earlier this year, I was for a number of years the duly elected President of the ACT Vegetarian Society (http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/). I often wrote on behalf of the Society but at other times, and since stepping down, write to express a personal opinion – backed by facts where applicable. By no means a "self-appointed publicist".
As for "hapless", it’s a bit tricky to jump up and down and yell “I am not hapless” without appearing - well, bloody hapless. So I’ll just have to let people decide on that point for themselves.
He also accused me of describing him, his history and ideas as "disgusting". I have never called him names as far as I can remember (at least until now) and it would be a foolish thing to do. Many of us, myself included, shared Jack’s prejudices until we began our journey of understanding and compassion toward nonhumans. I recall, many years prior to my own vegetarianism, meeting up with a cousin who I hadn’t seen since he was a small kid only to hear he was ‘a vegetarian’. I silently scoffed – thinking that the poor bloke must be a bit soft. Sadly, he was killed in a motor accident nearly 20 years ago and I regret not being able to chat to him now and compare notes.
Jack Waterford is not just wrong in his attitude to nonhumans and those who speak up for them but seems to delight in displaying that wrongness. He also comes across as a condescending bully – in one infamous article implying that he had the urge to smash us over the head with a 12” bolt.
It’s a shame he uses his position of influence to vilify animal libbers and vegetarians - particularly at a time when moving away from a diet based on animal products would benefit us, and nonhumans, in so many ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
