CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Sir, —Your correspondent, "A.M.P.," lias missed the whole point of my last letter. My chief complaint is that the farmers and carriers are prosecuted by inspectors of the society, while sportsmen, whose doings cause more real agony to animals, get off. The cruelty of tho sportsman is absolutely unnecessary, but the chastisement of a stubborn animal by a farmer has plenty of justification. Your correspondent says: "To state it is annoying to farmers and carriers to be prevented from cruelly illtreating animals because they provide us with the food we eat is puerile." If "A.M.P." will refer back to my last letter he will find that I made no such statement. Any person who "cruelly ill, treats" any animal fully deserves any punishment that may be meted out to him. But why interfere with the farmer who gives an animal a little necessary punishment. Surely the man is the master, not the beast. Finally, may I suggest that "A.M.P." loads half a dozen wild steers into a railway truck before he answers this letter. Interested.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19350503.2.155.2
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 15
Word Count
178CRUELTY TO ANIMALS New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 15
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries and NZME.