On 2016-11-18, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Some animals are benign. Other carry disease, fleas, ticks and destroy
> food in gardens. A few will destroy property.

So, what? That gives you the moral imperative to kill them? I know
ppl that carry "disease" and will "destroy property". Should I shoot
them on sight?

> Maybe.

Poor reason to end any animal's life.

> You can also be taking them to a place where they will starve to
> death. Or they may be a predator that kills off the natural habitat.
> In some cases, the animal never should have been introduced and they
> upset the ecology of the area.

All speculation on yer part to justify yer arbitrary determinism.

> We're spoiled. We eat a limited number of animals that come in parts
> from the supermarket. In some areas of the world they eat rats. A few
> in the parts of the world will still eat squirrel, opossum

......frogs, crickets, snakes, spiders, etc.....

I recently watched a WWII documentary that claimed the Ruskies once used
dog hides to make officers boots. Wanna villianize the ppl that saved
our bacon on the Eastern front? Apparently, Trump loves 'em.

> Agree a gunshot would be swift. Not sure that waterboarding, designed
> to torture, not kill, is a good comparison.

Ahh, c'mon Ed. What's worse? Dying or thinking yer about to die?
Howzabout you come to my house, I waterboard the crap outta ya', and
you give us a first hand account?

nb