en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/686160 Comments by JillBielawski http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_21435748#IDComment431371538 Daily Camera: Thank you for using "he" once in reference to the dog in this story. May I suggest you use "he" and "him" throughout such stories, rather than "it." This sounds awful: "McMorris kicked Tater five to 10 times and stomped on *its* head two or three times." Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:34:59 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_21435748#IDComment431371538 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment131188003 The Colorado House Rabbit Society provides rabbits with tile-floored pens and large metal/steel dog crates and confirms rabbits need a constant source of hay for their health and well-being. These animals are living in wire cages without hay and are clearly not having their basic needs met. Even one of the Daily Camera editors remarked offline that this "rabbitry" reminded him of a factory farm. Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:10:00 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment131188003 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130608832 I guarantee it is misinformed - propaganda, in fact - and utterly ridiculous to say that Dana Gettel's $24-per-carcass pieces of property living in small wire cages in a tractor trailer are "living a quite similar life" as my rabbit. It might make you and others feel better to imagine that as you give thanks to devour an animal whose sole desire was to live, but that's just ridiculous, and your thanks mean nothing to the animal. The House Rabbit Society estimates it costs at least $30 - $35 per month, on average, to care for one rabbit, yet Springtree Farms Rabbitry only receives $23 for each three-month old slaughtered rabbit "produced." Would it really be economical for Dana Gettel to invest in the proper care of each animal to live well and enjoy his or her life? No, she'd lose a ton of money. Sadly, it's just not possible to treat animals really well AND make a profit. It is so sad each of these rabbits must suffer and die for a mere $24, for one or two meals. If you were truly interested in less killing and "slow food," why not choose raising a larger animal such as a cow or a pig who could feed far more people than one little 3.5-lb. baby rabbit? Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:48:52 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130608832 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130428265 Agreed: Eating local is tasty, healthy and a conscious/conscientious decision; that's why I pack my 10'x10' garden plot and store food year-round. Eating "slow food" or locally does *not* necessitate killing rabbits -- or dogs, or chickens or cats, for that matter. Why assume that I'm emaciated or that I eat soy? You're wrong on both counts, "wildflowerseed." My rabbit Clover performs wild acrobatics and zooms around in joy, snuggles in fleece blankets, makes happy noises, plays with her toys, runs to her litterbox, forages outside, nests with recycled material, receives regular veterinary care and enjoys a varied and locally grown, organic diet and hay ... all things these farmed rabbits are likely deprived of while growing and breeding in little cages in a tractor trailer until being hacked to pieces at three months to become a food trend promoted by our local newspaper. Support local cruelty, indeed. Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:25:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130428265 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130219441 While that may be true, it is still possible to be a vegetarian and eat mostly local. Further, a true animal lover does not eat them. Could you wring a bunny's neck? Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:44:38 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130219441 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130216539 What a fluffy, feel-good piece about butchering and eating our country’s third-most popular companion animal. While I realize that the Food section might not be the ideal place for opinions or investigative reporting, this article utterly neglects the ethics of this controversial practice and rather makes it all sound quite pleasant. A bunny butcher profiteer is quoted as saying, "I'm excited that someone is doing it (locally) and in a clean, humane way." Oh really? How about the Camera do a little investigative work and photography and inform its readers about the way these rabbits live and die, and we can decide for ourselves whether it is clean or humane. The Camera reports that Gettel keeps the rabbits "in good-sized cages" -- how big are these cages? Many people such as pet-stores might say that a 2' x 1' cage is a good-sized cage for a rabbit, but compassionate and informed people know otherwise. “Good-sized cages” is extremely poor reporting. It's difficult to discern the size of the cages in the photo, but rabbits suffer on wire flooring, and life in a cage in a tractor trailer seems grim at best. Clean and humane? Hm. Some other relevant questions the Camera failed to touch upon: How does the USDA-certified processor kill the rabbits? Neck breaking? How many rabbits live in this tractor trailer at a time? And even though she raised rabbits, why didn't Gettel eat them for a long time? Was it because she realized they were sentient; that she was attached to them; connected to them; loved them ... until the almighty dollar allowed her to turn away? A lifelong vegetarian and rabbit guardian, I'm saddened at the myriad ways humans torture and kill rabbits: They are cut, poisoned and tortured in the name of science; gunned down in the name of sport; skinned alive in the name of fashion; abused and neglected as pets; and now butchered here for humans to eat their flesh. While I don’t think that killing and eating a rabbit is any worse or better than killing a cow, pig, chicken, dog, or cat, it’s disturbing to see yet another sentient being promoted as just a meal. Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:24:50 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_17443340#IDComment130216539 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120986015 Well, good thing that coyote bites are few and far between. The CDOW is not known to be very compassionate toward wildlife. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:23:10 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120986015 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120985882 I agree, that does sound horrible, as well as gruesome, cruel and unethical. I was referring to killing coyotes on Boulder open space and parks because that's where the article refers to them. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:22:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120985882 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120985290 So what? That could be true about any species. I was just bitten by a rabbit today. Oh my. What shall we do about the rabbits? One toddler was killed in California in the 80s in our country's ONLY known fatal coyote attack EVER. It’s a nonissue. For some perspective, let’s contrast that with dog bites. Valerie Mitchell presents the statistics in an earlier post: “The most recent official survey, conducted more than a decade ago, determined there were 4.7 million dog bite victims annually in the United States. A more recent study showed that 1,000 Americans per day are treated in emergency rooms as a result of dog bites. In 2010 there were 34 *fatal* dog attacks in the this country. … If you're so concerned about the safety of your (our) children you should start a campaign to eliminate dogs.” Obviously we’re not in favor of starting a campaign against dogs or any other animal, except perhaps for the biggest problem animal: the gun toting human. Spouting about coyotes attacking people serves only to instigate myths and fearmongering toward a species already victimized by the likes of the gun-happy coyote haters. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:15:47 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120985290 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120930869 NP Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:42:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120930869 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120915321 No, I don't have kids, and if I did, I can guarantee my position would be the same. Killing coyotes is stupid and wrong and unnecessary, and it's not gonna happen, period. IF serious conflicts with coyotes arise, I suggest Boulder hire the likes of Paula Lewis, who ran Centennial's humane coyote management program, to do some educating of the fearful and clear up the misunderstandings. Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:57:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120915321 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120909917 Thank you. This article makes good suggestions, such as: -Removing attractants, i.e., securing trash cans at the N. Boulder park and surrounding areas, removing water sources and dog/cat food, securing compost piles, removing bird feeders (which attract small mammals, which attract coyotes) -Picking up fruit from fruit-bearing trees -Keeping dogs on leash -Keeping cats indoors -Practicing hazing techniques (yelling, throwing things in their direction, making noise, using air horns, etc.). These techniques, when used together – and understanding coyote behavior/ecology -- are effective tools to keep coyotes at bay. Boulder resident Paula Lewis, who led the City of Centennial’s humane coyote management program, noted that this discussion has not included the seasonal behavior of coyotes: “Everyone assumes that during winter months they won’t see them, but it’s not true. More coyotes are going to be seen in pairs (the male will be shadowing the female), and they will also be looking for places to create denning sites. Coyotes will return to places they have used in previous years. Pups will be born, and during these winter months, coyotes will be more aggressive if they feel their space is being encroached upon. Education is key, and people just need to be aware. Perhaps the answer is to suggest dog guardians keep their pets on a leash for a couple of months in North Boulder. They won't like it, but better than spending money on an injured pet or losing a pet. And better for the coyotes too!” To answer your other question, the reason some Foothills residents have wanted to kill prairie dogs is that the animals have been encroaching near their expensive ball field. The anti-prairie wildlife sentiment is led by a group of wealthy women calling themselves “Friends of the Foothills” – what a farce! Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:17:25 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120909917 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120834612 Like most Boulderites I know, I am pro-dog AND pro-coyote. I love to see them in the distance, love the sound of their howls and yips at night. It's sad that they’ve taken some dogs in Colorado, but that's life, and dog guardians must be vigilant in coyote areas and take responsibility if they want to live and recreate there. Cats shouldn’t be allowed outside unsupervised anywhere for their own safety (and that of small wildlife such as birds). The rights of domestic dogs do not trump the rights of their ancestors, the coyotes, and killing coyotes is wrong and would *not* solve the problem anyway. As with killing pigeons, it simply leaves a void and invites more animals to move into the newly abandoned space, creating a cyclical pattern of slaughter. And let’s be reasonable. Coyotes don’t attack people. Camera writers, would you please remind your readers of this in future articles? It seems to be a very relevant point. I don't suppose these Foothills residents clamoring against coyotes are the same ones that demanded the city kill prairie dogs too. See a trend here? Hey, why not just pour concrete over the entire N. Boulder prairie to protect the arrogant, selfish elitists -- they'll still have their pretty mountain views. Coyotes are one of the few keystone predators that remain in Colorado. If you don’t like them or harbor an irrational fear of them, don’t choose to live in their habitat. Let’s keep an eye on our dogs and respect our wildlife. Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:19:42 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17069239#IDComment120834612 http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/01/pulling-the-wool-over-our-eyes-gary-smith/#IDComment50228309 These family farms with sheep and chickens, while preferable to factory farms, still generally kill the animals for their flesh in the end. My Internet search for humane wool turned up an organization that boasted to be the first sheep farm in the United States to be "certified humane" by major "humane" organizations. However, it also offers "flavorful lamb cuts." Sadly, I suspect that like "humane meat" and "humane slaughter," "humane wool" is an oxymoron more than 99.9% of the time. And boycotting wool saves money on drycleaning :) Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:20:08 +0000 http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/01/pulling-the-wool-over-our-eyes-gary-smith/#IDComment50228309 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13686976#IDComment41388140 The animals have lost a dear friend. May Sigrid's work and message live on. Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:04:14 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13686976#IDComment41388140 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41260725 The Weekly put it well: "Ageton tried to equate environmental groups and the campaign donations they make with the donations she accepted, as if the Sierra Club is somehow the equivalent of private developers. Sorry, but that’s one analogy that simply doesn’t work. There’s a big difference between a “special interest” that stands to profit personally off decisions an elected official makes and a “special interest” that works without profit for the benefit of all. Even if you disagree with the goals of environmental groups, their members aren’t looking to line their own pockets." Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:02:21 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41260725 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41234087 ... and to create another opportunity to slam Macon Cowles by accusing HIM of impersonating Barry Siff. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:59:56 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41234087 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41233336 Seems Ageton's people were upset enough about this that when I posted a link to this article and the original Boulder Weekly story on their "Boulder Council Watch" (pro-Ageton) Facebook page, they promptly deleted my posts and excommunicated me from their right-wing Facebook group. Yeah, I'd say it does matter which candidates the Weekly endorses. Wonder if Ageton herself is behind "Boulder Council Watch" ... what a farce. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:49:11 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41233336 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41230749 I've worked on a city ordinance with City Attorney Jerry Gordon, and his ethics were questionable to say the least. His verdict on this case means little, in my opinion. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:07:11 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41230749 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41230667 Props to the Boulder Weekly for having the integrity to do the right thing! Too bad it's not our daily paper. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:05:45 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13678204#IDComment41230667