if that’s your real name. Your argument does not make sense. Please try to be a little less condescending, if you don’t mind. You have told me nothing that I don’t already know (apart from the fact you shot 17 dogs in one year. You were counting, eh? Was it fun? I do appreciate the confession. Do you need me to validate your dog shooting hobby?).

But back to the point in question. This was not a farm. If it is routine practice for farmers to bludgeon bobby calves over the head with hammers, then so be it. It is always amusing to hear farmers claim that they love their animals, especially the ones who have been accused of animal cruelty. But I digress, once more. Those animals working for Jackson’s movie should have been given the highest standards of care and attention. Just as a matter of principle, because it would have been the right thing to do. Do you see what I’m saying? It’s Jackson’s movie, did he not feel any personal responsibility for the animals he was going to use? At present, at least judging from his aggressive defence to any criticism, it appears the answer to that question is he did not. And what a shame that is.

David Garrett – regardless of whether or not you are a meat eater, how could you not like tofu?

You are off topic. Please restrict your comments to food groups: Chickens, Whales, Sheep, Harp Seals and other such things.

Secondly – if you have the time, I would recommend you watch the following documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4DJh-L7Ys

Just as you would expect one of your political opponents to listen to what you had to say when you were ACT’s spokesperson to understand your side of the argument, if you genuinely want to have a balanced view on animal rights, that documentary will give you a good idea of why animal rights activists consider it a significant issue.

Well if you think I’m going to share Eden Park with you as the all conquering New Zealand cricket team take on the Poms now that I know you eat fish mate, think again

A couple of weeks ago I saw something about a Californian branch of PETA which wanted to set up a roadside memorial to a bunch of fish which had died when the truck taking them to THE FISH MARKET had crashed. The reason for the memorial?

“Because fish value their lives and feel pain.” Where is the evidence for either of those propositions, particularly the first?

And although I am going to be denounced for using simple common sense, consider this. Farmers still put rings in bulls’ noses so they can lead them along by a landyard attached to the ring. The bull follows, because if he doesn’t, the farmer tugs the lead, it bloody hurts his nose!

Game fish on the other hand will fight and struggle, sometimes for hours, against a hook in their mouth. When they are finally got to the side of the boat, they are usually tagged and released these days (unless they are too yummy, such as yellowfin and mahimahi). It is then not unknown for these highly sentient fish to promptly take the same lure it has just spent a few hours fighting.

So I am taking the American humane society’s allegations very seriously – clearly we can trust them over a New Zealander called Peter Jackson.

no animals were harmed on set during filming of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” However, upon learning of injuries and deaths of animals while being housed at a working farm 186 miles from the main set and 26 miles from the soundstage, American Humane Association went beyond its jurisdiction and authority to visit, examine and make safety recommendations and improvements to the farm. These recommendations were implemented a year ago, bringing a higher level of animal welfare to all animals living on the site into the future.

If there is an issue on a farm that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FILM’s PRODUCERS, there is not really an expectation that that issue should be of any interest to said producers. However, in this case the AHA visited the farmand recommended changes to the husbandry practices used there, recommendations which the producers paid to implement.

If there’s cause for concern here, it is that the everyday monitors of farming practice were not sufficient to identify bad practice. THIS we could we concerned about.

It’s time for you to grow up. All animals, including you, must die one day.

Farmers budget for 5% annual deaths among their capital stock. Yes, that’s sheep, cattle, deer and in some cases, horses.

Town dogs regularly run out in packs and maul sheep. (I shot 17 of them one year, from horseback.) On hill country properties cows regularly fall over bluffs and die.

To date, the only horse wranglers whose treatment of animals fell below the production’s standard of care seem to be the two wranglers who have chosen to level this new accusation on the eve of the premiere of the first Hobbit film and who were dismissed by the production over a year ago.

That to me actually undermines the case as it appears that he’s tarring the whistleblowers.

I don’t trust PETA particularly, but I’m not sure Peter Jackson’s statements can be trusted to represent the whole truth either, given what is at stake for him.

Seems a nice opportunity for a spot of investigative journalism – a followup on specific instances would give a better indicator of where the truth lies than unsubstantiated allegations and defences from people who benefited financially from the making of the movie. I’m not saying they’re being untruthful, but I am saying their financial interests being aligned with the movie mean that their statements should be checked out.