Why Is A National Nespaper Printing This Hysterical Garbage?

[andy-hughes]

WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGES IN THIS LINK -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6965469/The-savage-cruelty-law-lets-crows-torture-kill-sheep-writes-SUE-REID.html


I am as much of an animal lover as the next person, but l also understand that nature is often cruel and violent.

But we have to keep a sense of proportion, something which seems to have utterly deserted the Daily Mail in its coverage of the change in the laws governing the shooting of crows.

It's coverage is slanted in an utterly inaccurate and unreal way - no doubt to appeal to the animal lovers in its Middle England readership.

But let's be factual here shall we? Crows are not 'demons', in spite of the picture used to infer that message, neither do they 'torture' ewes and lambs like some species of flying psychopath.

Crows eat to survive, and part of their prey is the soft and easy-to-eat parts of sheep and lambs, and like any creature, they will take what the can find when they can find it.

Yes, lambs and sheep are fluffy and defenceless, and crows look menacing and unattractive, but that is not the crows' fault - they simply do what they do to live - they don't do it for sadistic fun, they do it to survive, as all animals and birds do.

After all, farmers don't want to shoot crows to protect their fluffy lambs and sheep because they love them - they want to shoot them because blind and killed animals represent financial loss, which the farmer recoups when the animals are killed anyway, albeit more humanely.

Does anyone else agree that the Mail's slant on this issue is ludicrously biased, and pandering to the anthropomorphic attitudes of its readers and it should accept that nature is nasty, regardless of how 'appealing' some species are.

[Tilly2]

I agree, Andy.
Torture is a human concept, not a bird one.

[Canary42]

Don't you mean Little England readership.

[woofgang]

Why do newspapers print such stuff? Because it sells newspapers.

[Mamyalynne]

There was a thread that touched quite heavily on this a few days ago.

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Animals-and-Nature/Twitching-and-Birdwatching/Question1655591.html

I agree, nature is cruel - should we intervene?

I'm really not sure.

[ladybirder]

Here's another interesting slant on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/britain-countryside-bullies-chris-packham

[ToraToraTora]

yes agreed AH, may as well get all hysterical about Lions Eating Zebras.

[naomi24]

Fact is sheep are not animals in the wild. They are someone's livelihood.

Can't think why farmers don't leave their chickens running free. Foxes love chicken for dinner.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//I agree, nature is cruel - should we intervene?
I'm really not sure//

Nor I. We can't change the way the world is (or, as arguers on another thread claim, the way an all-powerful and loving God meant it to be) and rather pointless to try.

We can, however, regulate our own behaviour: rescue a mouse from a cat on a personal level, perhaps; or, as a group, have laws to limi the (necessary) cruelty we inflict on animals reared as food.

I assume, by the way, that the OP knows that the word "anthropomorphy" means the attribution of human moral judgments to animals, and is not the assertion that they do not feel pain.

[vetuste_ennemi]

anthropomorphism rather.

[Mamyalynne]

I would no doubt be clearer in my decision making if I were a farmer finding animals maimed,blinded,dead etc.

[fender62]

if i were a farmer and my livelihood was threatened, id would cull as many crows as it takes, i would not think twice about it

[douglas9401]

A thread about dead sheep works best when not missing a double ewe from the headline.

[Spicerack]

Your going to get told o-off. It was obviously a tupo.

[JF85]

Some interesting facts and quotes there. Farmers don't want to record every time they kill a crow; up to 100,000 are killed each year. Even if we only have 1000 farmers (but there are far more), that would require them to make a note twice a week on average. A farmer reported that this spring they have been 'lucky' (despite the ban) but last year was 'carnage' (before the ban). Sounds like they are benefiting from the temporary ban.

Most worryingly, a sheep might be sent for slaughter as a "blind sheep is not much use to any farmer". I would dearly love to know what else the farmer planned to do with this sheep, blind or otherwise. I have never managed to train one well enough to drive a tractor, and they are not even much use at scaring off ramblers.

[johnk]

Hysterical Garbage is the Wails speciality!!

[anotheoldgit]

Just another Andy-Hughes dig at the Daily Mail.
Why shouldn't farmers protect their livestock?
Who knows if this isn't stopped in it's tracks, there could be a shortage of Lamb, and we don't want that now do we?

[237SJ]

The farmers are protecting their livelihood. People want food on the table but they don't want to think of the realities of how it gets there. I`m not a mad middle Englander - I`ve seen lambs with their eyes pecked out and it's not pretty.

[Gromit]

The Mail is printing this story in response to the TV presenter Chris Peckham (no pun intended) receiving death threats.

// TV presenter Chris Packham has said he received a "very calculated" death threat against him and his family after he campaigned for measures to protect birds from being shot.
Last week, two dead crows were hung on Packham's garden gate, and the presenter said charities and organisations he works with have also been "bombarded by bullies". //

The Mail is taking the side of the people making the death threats, hanging dead birds on his property (he is a vegan) and the bullies. Not sure why the Mail would take that line, maybe it associates vegans and gun control with lefties.

[Old_Geezer]

Can't be bothered to read the article but assume it's very emotive. Nature is cruel. Farmers need to protect their livestock business. That's as natural for human food producers as eating is for the crows. The important bit is to attain and maintain balance. We don't need to be decimating one species, nor letting it grow sufficiently to cause issues.

I think the anthropomorphism argument is well overplayed. Animals can think and make decisions regardless whether it's different or identical to other species such as ourselves. It seems to be used to imply non-human species are just automatons and so we have no reason to consider how we treat them.

As for the article itself, all sorts of styles are used. If it causes controversy then it sells.

[youngmafbog]

So farmers need to protect their livkeyhood. What's the big deal. Pea khan and co need to but outhe has broken the BBC charged for on.