Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Dear LOE Editor, This is in reference to your broadcast yesterday evening on PBS, reference http://www.loe.org/ You are right; it seems a bit ironic to be hunting bighorn sheep south of Baja, California, in order to "save them." But if they are going to be hunted at all, then charging $59,000 for a license and using those funds for habitat restoration may be good. Also it's nice that the well-healed hunter doesn't have to eat meat wrapped in plastic all 365 days a year and can actually go out and appreciate nature. The giant flaw in this program can be exposed by asking a simple question: "Who asks the hunter to eat meat from plastic all but 3 days a year?" He has several choices; he can simplify his life and eat from the local land instead of the factory. That way he would remain connected with nature, as he seems to enjoy, all days of the year. In addition, he could renounce meat althogether. There is nothing in the human biology which recommends meat-eathing. The need to "save" the sheep has a better solution -- humans should leave sheep habitat to them by renouncing their mentatilty of exploiting all species. How ironic that, trapped in our cultural system of technology and wealth, your hunter is employing those very "tools" to get a respite from same! Regards, Richard Richard Hawley, 408-249-8749, 1155 Lenor Way, San Jose CA 95128-4113 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.