Sunday, 16 August 2009


This is the sort of story that really riles us up. Some people want to eat a dog. They kill it humanely and then SPCA say its wrong - not because its cruel but because , well thats the problem - they really dont have a good reason. We cannot and should not dictate the diets of others. We have two rules when it comes to food. It should killed humanely and it should be sustainable. Thats it.

And besides dog would be a heap more healthy than mutton flaps or pickled pork.

And if the S -PC -A needs to go all PC why dont they do something about all the silly airheads who torture small dogs, getting them to wear restrictive coats and feeding them junk food ?

SPCA needs to get real.


B.S. said...

Yep - I think this is just cultural squeamishness. THere is no difference between eating a dog and eating a lamb (even one called Condoleeza :-) )

I am not a fan of dogs or cats (apart from working dogs ) and would be happy if they were all eradicated.

They are as much vermin as rates and mice.

Anonymous said...

Does Cafe Bastille still sell horse?

alex Masterley said...

In her childhood my wife had a pet lamb.
I suppose the SPCA would now object to that being killed and served up for lunch dressed with mint sauce.

Dadster said...

Having eaten dog I must say it is not on the top of my must repeat soon list - a bit like mutton-bird it is an acquired taste.

This issue is not about the ethical or humane treatment/killing of animals - it is pure and simple attack on a cultural practice that harms no-one. The court action is simply a way of sending a message that we have ways of making it too costly for you to continue cultural practices that we "almost certainly Pakeha middle class" don't agree with.

Anonymous said...

yes, but surely you would agree it was a slightly extreme flea treatment?