Animal Land Rights?

A new proposal by academics to introduce land rights for animals has been slammed by farming associations across the country. Under the proposal, certain animals would be given legal property rights. President of the S.A Farmers Federation Peter White has attacked the proposal saying farmers will suffer. But University of Western Sydney’s Dr Hadley argues the move will protect biodiversity.

I stand for protecting animals. My partner argues: Whose protecting our farmers?

Read the full story The Australian

But first watch News satirists The Onion debating the issue of Animal Rights.


On a serious and poignant note watch David Icke debate a mooted Animal Rights Bill in the U.K

David Icke debates Animal Rights Bill in the U.K



, , ,

34 Responses to Animal Land Rights?

  1. Ruth Ostrow 22 May 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Thanks Peter good to see you commenting on so many of my blogs

  2. Peter Gerard 21 May 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    Most of the trees now seen in paddocks on freehold land, unless they are fenced off from grazing or the land is lightly grazed, will be the last you will see in these areas. In fifty or so years time many of them will be dead and not replaced due to grazing of young trees by sheep and to a lesser extent cattle. Large areas of land, denuded in this way, can be seen in most areas where uncontrolled clearing and grazing has gone on for many decades.
    In many places trees are being planted in ‘hedge row’ fashion ; although this is welcome[ any tree is better than none] our landscape will gradually become a patchwork of paddocks and tree rows on fence lines. Not very natural in appearance and not much good for wildlife habitat.
    Continuation of strict controls on clearing of trees is essential; it’s only a minority of farmers who value natural vegetation and regard such areas as essential habitat for wildlife.

  3. Peter Gerard 20 May 2011 at 11:33 am #

    In respect to animal rights and some comments from farmers we should remember that the latter are primarily in the business of farming to make a living and not to ‘ feed the world’ as they altruistically claim.
    There are some very progressive farmers but they are a small minority; the rest are, in my opinion, insensitive to environmental and animal welfare issues. As long as there is a dollar to be made, uncontrolled clearing of native vegetation and the cruelty of the live sheep trade, for example , don’t come into their calculation.

  4. Peter Gerard 20 May 2011 at 11:20 am #

    As far as animal land rights are concerned I agree with the concept. I suppose national parks nd reserves serve this purpose; we just need more of them and in a wide variety of habitats. Only 6.2% of NSW, for instance, is dedicated to national parks and reserves.

  5. John H 10 May 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Hi Beef breeder,

    Sorry, I just came across your post today. Thanks, it was very informative.

    I’m sure my proposal was not on the table when the commission was determining the effectiveness of regulation. Maybe if it was they would not have such a dim view of the status quo? In fact the Commission report, and the most recent statistics, lay bare the failures of the current system and make as good a case as any for reforming it. Which is what I’m seeking to do. But the commission is kidding itself if they think the existing property/law centred biodiversity policy system is going to change dramatically. For one thing, habitat is located on property – private property, public property or the Crown’s, and the law is needed to clarify who can do what to it.Secondly, we live in a liberal democracy and two foundational institutions of such countries are property and the common law.

    It would be nice if there were magic wands but there aren’t any.My proposal starts with two key premises: the data tells us the existing system is either not working well or it it is not working well enough; and , despite its flaws, the existing system is not going to change from a property-law based system. The best we can hope for is ome kind of reform measure.


  6. vicki 6 May 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    yes, yes, yes! I have just read your article on animals for humanely raising and hormone free…have posted on my fb page and am alerting friends to your article and action. Bless you Ruth!

  7. Isabel 6 May 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Hi Rick, If you are in or near Sydney you may be interested in attending a free public forum ” Environmental Implicatons of Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining in NSW” on Monday 16th May from 6 – 8pm. The Australian Conservation Foundation has organised it. I presume there will be farmers there since the project will affect farmland and rural towns in the areas where the CSG mining is proposed.

    I think you could contribute to the discussion from a farmers perspective.

  8. Jane 4 May 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Patrick Caruana, you said,

    “One of the things that has struck me since the 2000′s has been the increase in things like alzheimers, aspergers, autism and the significant increase in mental health issues in our population. Whilst this seems like an anecdotal link I cant help but wonder about the way we create the food we eat having impacts on our health.”

    You correctly identify this as anecdotal. Causation for human health concerns are almost impossible to identify when we’re talking about a one in a million chance or a one in 500,000 chance or even a one in 100,000 chance. This is because it’s impossible to conduct a properly controlled scientific study.

    We cannot ensure ceteris paribus (all things other than the hypothesised causal agent being equal) for large groups of humans. It’s kind of like the climate. There are so many factors that are different between two people — let alone 100,000 or more — that it’s almost impossible to isolate one factor as a cause of human health problems.

    This does not stop environmental and animal rights extremists from drawing the long bow, however, and attacking productive agriculture. This is a crying shame. If people are hungry, they are thinking of living for one more day. They are not concerned about what eating today “may” or “might” cause when they are 70.

    Other possible causes of an increase of alzheimers, aspergers, autism, or other diseases or conditions:

    — Improved life expectancy. More people are living longer, and therefore have the opportunity to develop a disease.

    — Lower childhood mortality. Children that used to die before the age of 2 now live to die of, say, a peanut allergy at the age of 16.

    — Increased numbers living in urban areas. Being exposed to dirt and dust and rust and manure on the farm increases immunity. Queensland Country Life ran a story (last year, I think) about the positive impacts of inhaling odour from animal operations.

    — Decrease in physical labour that occurs as a society becomes more urbanised and more technologically advanced.

    — Smaller family size.

    — Increased computer use.

    — The Internet itself!

    — Advertising of the Go for 2&5 campaign.

    — The removal of high slippery slides in community parks.

    — Increases in postage stamp prices.

    Of course, as discussed above, these things are almost impossible to quantify. My point is that I could make a huge media splash alleging anything. While it’s very difficult to prove a positive, it’s absolutly impossible to prove a negative. (I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist.)

    Being a cattle feedlot owner/operator, I take umbrage at being accused, without any basis, for mistreating animals or for causing human health problems. I am proud of helping to feed the world with safe, healthy, nutrient-dense meat.

  9. John 3 May 2011 at 7:53 am #

    Hi Rick,

    My proposal would apply where ever biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction is foreseeable in the short or medium term. For my puposes, ‘land holders’ is intended to refer to anyone, coporations, individuals, utilities, councils, developers. In rural or urban areas. I have not singled out farmers – some sections of the media have played up that angle. Nor have I said that habitat destruction is the only cause of biodiversity loss.My proposal addresses one cause of biodiversity loss – the leading cause.

    If, as you imply, recent legislative changes in just the last two or three years have remarkably solved the problem, then that is a cause for celebration. But, until I see a scientific consensus to that effect, I think it is reasonable to keep saying that my proposal could have a useful application.


  10. Carol Welsh 2 May 2011 at 9:38 pm #

    I have become increasingly concerned about the practices we call humane in food production in our society. My 2 year Vegetarian diet moved on to becoming a committed vegan 3 months ago after reading the accepted practices in the dairy industy where young male calfs are treated like waste and submissions were made by the meat and dairy industry to deny them food or water for the fisrt 48 hours of life. I find this a disgusting treatment of young animals of any breed or species. What has happened to our respondibilityto protect the most vulnerable ? We are not even acheiving this in or protection of our own species and we seem to be losing our connection with all the other species around us. It’s a multi level problem ie. business and economy but we surley can treat the animals we use for our benefit in a much better way. There is so much food wasted in our fast food world these days and no-one actually sees where it come from….and the suffering that could be avoided, Thank you for raising the oppotunity to comment on this …..Caro Welsh

  11. Justice Seeker 2 May 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    Dr. John Hadley in THE CONVERSATION states

    “if annual clearing rates are anything to go by, there isn’t all that much constraining going on.
    Except in a small number of cases, landholders intent on clearing high conservation value land can do so readily enough as long as they get permission first.”

    Broad, inaccurate, undated and unreferenced material from an academic is just not acceptable.
    To what annual clearing rates is he referring and how old is the information?
    The landowners at the coalface can testify to the fact that is impossible to get permission to clear high conservation land and most other sorts of land for that matter.
    There are so many pieces of legislation that landowners need to comply with (encompassing but not limited to the Vegetation Management Act, The Wild Rivers Act, Great Barrier Reef Protection Act, The Nature Conservation Act) that it is hardly safe to go outside with a shovel without seeking legal advice if one is not to break one of the layer upon layer of legislation constraining our activities. The last thing needed is more regulation or more compulsory negotiation.
    Dr. Hadley talks about “sustainable” farming practices. The only thing “unsustainable” about most livestock and farming practice is the profit line.
    If you want to see how it is done in other countries and what our food future will be if we import or all our food production is done by multi nationals just google china +milk and see how many examples of downright dangerous food come up.
    Having to defend ourselves against such broad, ill-researched and unwarranted claims is, quite frankly a waste of our time.
    Ivory Towers are not a good place to secure a good supply of clean, healthy, uncontaminated, highly regulated, sustainable food.
    Biodiversity will be a historical word if all the family farmers in Australia are put out of business.

  12. Beef breeder 2 May 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    G’day Dr John,
    By threats to native flora and flora, and especially land clearing laws, do the below not go far enough to protect them?

    “1.2d Understanding legal requirements for managing native vegetation
    Finding out about legal requirements

    Property managers are subject to a large number of policies, regulations and legislation across all of their business operations.
    These include reporting and management requirements for financial reporting,
    occupational health and safety,
    disease in livestock, and noxious weed management.

    State, Territory and the Commonwealth Governments have also introduced a range of legislation, regulations and policies to help maintain and enhance native vegetation and biodiversity. Being aware of and following these requirements is a key component of property management.

    In 2002, key pieces of biodiversity legislation at the State and Territory level numbered six for the Northern Territory;
    four for Tasmania;
    eight for Queensland;
    seven for Victoria;
    nine for NSW;
    five for South Australia and ten in Western Australia.

    This and other material on legal and other requirements is provided in the Introduction to Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture 59.

    Covering the National, State and Territory level, a significant section focuses on key biodiversity legislation.
    This is also relevant to native vegetation management.

    The principal technical resources for Environmental Law as well as websites at which they can access electronic copies of the Principal Acts and Statutory Rules in operation at a given point in time.

    Specific websites are given, where available. Codes of practice and best management practice guidelines are provided. Readers are also referred to a network of independent community environmental law centres.

    Brief summaries of native vegetation legislation around Australia are provided in proceedings of a 2002 conference, I Can See Clearly Now: Land clearing and law reform 60

    Legislation for Commonwealth and non self-governing Territories (e.g. Christmas Island) is available online 61. Commonwealth and State Acts can be accessed via the Australasian Legal Information Institute website 62. Table 2 lists websites for the principal native vegetation and biodiversity legislation at the State and Territory level where information about legislation and statutory instruments can be sourced. Note that these are links to the Acts and Regulations themselves, not to summaries or guides.”

    In closing John, please consider that there are many, many legislation ammendments that business people like myself must keep abreast of.
    However, the closing statement in this link below says it all,

    “The Commission concluded that the current heavy reliance on regulating the clearance of native vegetation on private rural land, typically without compensation, has imposed substantial costs on many landholders who have retained native vegetation on their properties.

    Nor does regulation appear to have been particularly effective in achieving environmental goals – in some situations it seems to have been counter-productive. It stated that greater exposure of the costs and benefits of conservation effort, clarification of environmental objectives, and a process for determining agreed landholder and community responsibilities for achieving those objectives, will be critical to achieving more efficient, and equitable, solutions.

    How many of the recommendations of the inquiry are adopted will be up to the agencies and organisations with responsibility for developing and implementing the regulations.”

  13. Beef breeder 2 May 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    G’day Patrick,
    “I work in social welfare andhave done for over thirty years.”
    Does this include the welfare of Primary Producers? Or don’t they rate above animals?

    Can you please provide a credible link to your statement “The issue of “chemical additions” to our food and the unnatural animal husbandry practices are to coin a phrase starting to come home to roost. ”
    Thank you

  14. Rick 2 May 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    John, that is a good link, I see that it was published after your own article. Were you aware of the content before you wrote your article published at The Conversation?
    There are points in this article that I can agree with.

    “Australia’s biodiversity’s decline has found that threatened species are impacted by multiple stressors, especially too little — or too much fire, and introduced plants and animals.”

    “Researchers from The University of Queensland found that the loss of habitat through clearing of land and urbanisation is the main threat to Australian species.”

    The recognition of multiple stressors is more like it John and I’m glad the article mentions “too little fire”, introduced plants & animals and urbanisation.
    I like you to quantify where is the land clearing occurring outside the urban fringe. I know of one circumstance, mining & gas companies clearing at will with the State governments blessing the very same land it stopped the landowners from clearing.

  15. John 2 May 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Hi Rick,

    Thanks for your interest in my proposal. I draw your attention to this piece.


  16. Patrick Caruana 1 May 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    The issue of “chemical additions” to our food and the unnatural animal husbandry practices are to coin a phrase starting to come home to roost. I work in social welfare andhave done for over thirty years.

    One of the things that has struck me since the 2000’s has been the increase in things like alzheimers, aspergers, autism and the significant increase in mental health issues in our population. Whilst this seems like an anecdotal link I cant help but wonder about the way we create the food we eat having impacts on our health.

    Animals treated like the pigs in your article will have their meat tainted by their distress and we will inherit that when we consme them.

    Thanks for your article.

  17. Rick 1 May 2011 at 8:00 am #

    Dr John Hadley, Research Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney, originally published his proposal in the on line commentary magazine from the university and research sector called The Conversation.

    The article is most definitely does not address domestic & farm animal welfare issues. Rather the focus is on Australian native animals, Dr Hadley’s concerns about biodiversity loss and part of the article mentions a solution of granting animals property rights.

    The central pillar of the Dr Hadley’s reasoning is that biodiversity is lost due to destruction or modification of habitat. Due to a reduction of forested area and even mentions that Land clearing is a significant contributor to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Harley goes on to talk about unconstrained annual land clearing rates and landholders clearing high conservation value lands.

    What rock has Dr John Hadley been hiding under? This article written April 12th 2011 comes half a decade after all landclearing has been stopped on all remnant vegetation and on high conservation value regrowth. If Hadley truly believes that landclearing continues unabated it shows how little he knows about the habitat that he wishes to preserve and a lack of research for this article. Contrary to his reasoning in Qld the area of forested area is now on the increase and in some bio-regions the problem is now arising of biodiversity loss due to vegetation thickening. I challenge any out there to dispute this fact.

    Dr Hadley also alludes to the lack of existing law in the protection of habitat. Again I would suggest that Hadley has a lack of knowledge. The amount of environmental law, regulation and force of compliance officers brought down upon farmers, pastoralists and remote aboriginal communities is immense.

  18. Rick 1 May 2011 at 6:37 am #

    Yvonne, I’m prepared to debate you on one of Ruth’s previous two blogs. As I read this blog , Animal Land rights, Dr Hadley is calling for property rights for native animals; a seperate issue to animal welfare concerns.

  19. Thumbnail 1 May 2011 at 4:37 am #

    This is why free speech is so important: we all know where Dr. Hadley stands, rather than him keep his thoughts a deep dark secret. It is one thing to be a fool, but quite another to open your mouth and prove it.

  20. Beef breeder 30 April 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Wow, what an article. I think its a great idea. All the farmers and Graziers who are either trying to bring a balance to Ruth’s blogs, or reading, well, I think we should just give it to them…if they can take what is left of my privately owned and paid for land – and everything on it.
    I dont particularly care anymore where the rest of Australians get their “food and clothing” from. They want the land, they can have it….but..
    All they have to do is get past me at the front gate with my gun! So how is that for a comment Ruth? Controversial enough? I will fight to protect my land, my business my bio-diversity and my family, government bad policy has already caused too much damage to our environment and all it encompasses for farmers to back away from this fight! Stand your ground!

  21. Yvonne Rosevear 30 April 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    Ruth, I wholeheartedly agree with your comments in your column ‘One man’s meat..’
    Several weeks ago I saw a programme on the ABC which highlighted some of the monstrosities being performed on animals purely to get the ‘meat’ out quicker to the buyers. The worst case by far was the sows that couldn’t move an inch while penned in their crates. One sow was so distraught that she continually bit on the iron bars. It was a horrible sight to see.
    I believe that animals do have rights and we must continue to work towards better conditions for them.
    Although I love pork, I have decided to take action and not eat pork again until I can be sure that this horrendous practice is ruled out.
    I now only buy eggs from chickens that live freely.
    I once bought some chickens from a ‘laying shed’ where four chickens were kept inside a very small wire pen and it was impossible for any of them to turn around. They were purely expected to ‘lay eggs’. I bought six and brought them home for a ‘new’ life where they were able to graze freely. To my amazement none of them could even stand on their legs, never mind walk. Their claws were several inches long and balance was a big problem. After clipping their claws back to a respectable length, they still took a few days to build up the strength to walk.
    We must keep on working towards better conditions for animals – and harsher penalties for those who mistreat them.

  22. TonyH 30 April 2011 at 5:29 am #

    And of course as usual it won’t be the good Dr Hadley’s city apartment or suburban back yard that will be affected by this peice of intellectual brilliance.
    Nor will it apply to the Government run National Parks and “protected” areas harbouring feral cats,foxes, pigs, hares , rabbits, cane toads, lantana, African Box Thorn etc. etc. that devestate and compete with the native animal and plant population ( read ” biodiversity”) .
    Oh No… it will affect the private individual who dares to own a rural producing property.
    Like ALL ideas from so called conservationists, it is never from their own pocket, their own possessions that is put on the line.
    Lets drag a farmer before the court for pushing out a lantana bush that may have had a nesting pair of Double Bars in it…. that should cost him a moxa, and if he tries to defend it with a bit of luck it might just break him, after the injustice system finds him guilty and there’s a fine plus legals to pay.
    What a great recipe for the destruction of the farm sector, the icing on the cake of Vegetation Management laws.

  23. Tony Y 29 April 2011 at 11:35 pm #

    Very funny Rob, as for animal land rights , I just can’t find the words to describe this BS on first look. Once again we have a headline with no details and that means media happy hour. Send us the details Dr Hadley . Obviously you are not related to Ray Hadley.

  24. Ruth Ostrow 29 April 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    LOL! I don’t know if i’m allowed to print your word wanking, but I like it too much to edited it out. My cats would definitely take me to court to get rights over my bed and white doona. They are very fond of lying all over the doona and doing that thing cats do with their claws on the linen. I then have to throw them off the bed, and they complain all night. Now they can sue me for land rights. “It’s our house too. We’ve been living with Ruth for over two years in a defacto relationship, thus we’re entitled to half of everything.”

  25. Rob Moore 29 April 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Bloody Hell,
    Protect “Biodiversity”. These nanny state numbskulls need to get a grip on reality!It is the most open ended, meaningless inane word in the dictionary.

    Does this mean that my dog “Spook” can be given a legal aid lawyer to go me for more Pal at nights or that I have to have a toolbox meeting with the mob of sheep to discuss the march to the shearing shed.

    I have witnessed what it takes to get a phd and a doctorate and believe me brains and common sense are not the criteria.
    Almost as stupid as the “Pupil Free”day that teachers have the first day back after a long vacation.

    I used to joke at the start of shearing to the men that they should ask the union for a “sheep free day”. Your friend is right Ruth- we will all close rank and put a chain on our front gate and any interferers including Banks can go to hell with their wanking ideas!

  26. Rick 29 April 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Isabel, well it is good that you support Food Connect but I’m sorry it’s naivety at best to assume that farmers can trust the environmental movement after deal breaking, deceit, emotional trauma & physical violence against farmers. The animal welfare lobby will be treated with the same mistrust as the environmentalists have earned for themselves. Indigenous peoples of Australia lost their rights & then gained something back under Marbo. Farmers lost property rights and weren’t compensated for them. Remote aboriginal communities in Cape York & the Gulf after a brief period of time of regaining some rights then lost them again under Qld’s wild rivers legislation. Get this right before talking about a crackpot idea of animal property rights.

  27. Battling Farmer 29 April 2011 at 10:09 am #

    Beef breeder in a post on “Professor Ian Lean Responds” made a heartfelt plea for the lives of our farming children and grandchildren who are committing suicide at an unprecedented rate.
    Rural male suicide rate has been the highest in the Western world for many years.
    They have lost hope. They quite reasonably believe they are producing a useful product which is not optional to the human race and it should be appreciated. They are constantly under attack from various groups who claim to have the moral high ground (your commentators) and layer upon layer of regulation and legislation, including environmental legislation, and they are struggling financially.
    The Productivity Commission and a Senate Enquiry have found that farmers are paying out of their own pockets for environmental services which are a community benefit and therefore should be paid for by the community. This impost on farmers has been considerable.
    I have found your animal liberationist , environmentalist, pacifist vegan/vegetarian commentators, with a couple of notable exceptions, cold, unresponsive and uninterested in any information presented by the farmers. They are just repeating the mantra as if they haven’t even read the posts.
    None of the vegans who have said they are healthy and have healthy children have mentioned the need to ensure a sufficient intake in early pregnancy of vitamin B12 or folate to avoid a higher than normal level of brain and spinal cord deformities.
    Perhaps when we have had Australian babies die from imported, contaminated milk powder or pork treated with unregulated growth promotants which really are dangerous as happened in China recently or vegetables contaminated with unacceptable levels of chemical some will look back wishing for the clean, healthy, uncontaminated and very inexpensive food that we Australians take for granted.
    I’m with your partner who says “who’s protecting the farmers” and meanwhile boycott Coles $1 per litre homebrand milk.

  28. Rob 29 April 2011 at 9:29 am #

    One of the problems we have in achieving real progress towards the more ethical treatment of animals is the dilution effect -caused by well meaning people with marginally different agendas. A bit like the republic debate. Change wont happen until those seeking it can agree on a goal and strategy that appeals to the majority.

    Land rights for animals may be one way of addressing habitat destruction but at present it is, at best, an unrealistic goal and, at worst, a strategic distraction from the serious struggle for animal rights.

  29. Luci 29 April 2011 at 8:33 am #

    35 vetenary scientists, pharmaceautical companies, Prof Lean may think it OK to fatten up livestock with HSG for faster production claiming looming food shortages. Aust. is becoming over populated with an epidemic of obesity, perhaps we are the ones who should consume less food and use up less space which may eventuate it is proven that HSG contributes to cancer in humans.
    Whatever the facts behind Coles promotion I hope it receives favourable results for only the consumer can make a difference, when good men do nothing cruelty to animals prevail and drug companies profit and triumph.
    Go for it Coles.

  30. Isabel 28 April 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    I think animal land rights are a good idea but we can’t even come to grips with indigenous human land rights so the land rights of another species is going to take a lot of discussion to have any chance of making sense to the rigid thinkers.

    I congratulate Dr Hadley for his proposal, if it is genuine and not just an academic exercise. Farmers and environmentalists and animal welfare activists need to communicate with each other in order to come to a fair deal for all involved.

    I wish certain people would stop presuming that those of us who care about biodiversity and oppose land degradation are against farmers. I am committed to making sure farmers aren’t exploited by subscribing to Food Connect for produce. Food Connect pays farmers 40 cents in the dollar for all produce.

  31. Ruth Ostrow 28 April 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Mary I had to laugh at your comment. Some academics are far too removed from earth in their “ivory towers”. Even I had to step back with this one.

  32. Meredith 28 April 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Sorry Stew,
    Why shouldn’t animals have rights to the land they need to survive. They were here before us. Remember? God created the heavens and the earth, then the fish in the sea, then the creatures that roamed the earth. Why shouldn’t they have equal rights as our indigenous land owners to the land they graze and live on? Give the Orang-utangs Borneo!

  33. Stew 28 April 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Jesus wept Ruth. Doesn’t anybody care about the farmers any more? Academics stuck in their ivory towers dictating to those people dedicated to feeding them. I am shocked that such a thing has even been suggested.

  34. Mary Lou 28 April 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Australian research lecturer Dr John Hadley from the University of Western Sydney (UWS) said under his proposal, particular animals would be given legal property rights, and human guardians would be appointed to represent them in court.

    Has this idiot had a few too many puffs??
    You mob are just crazy and I wouldn’t waste time reading all this.
    Things are so bad that we have crocodiles in the city centres of places because of idions like you. When kids are taken alive, of course you won’t feel guilty that you have gone just so overboard with all this crap.

    Bats mean more than human sanity.
    Youare not worth the time.

    Good night.
    Wouldn’t waste my time on it.

Leave a Reply