You act as if they just dug a big hole in the ground and buried the pigs in a few hours. I'm sure paying all those workers for days of labor was very expensive. I'm simply going off of the figures in the article, and while they may seem inflated, unless you can bring forth numbers from a different source then I don't see why we would a.ssume they were inflated. The potential reasoning behind k!lling them rather then vaccinating them is I'm sure vaccinating them would be much more time consuming. Even so, as I've stated in this thread multiple times, if you MUST k!ll them, at least do it in a humane way. A simple bullet to the head isn't very expensive.
You a.ssume the article contradicts itself yet again. While I could understand that a.ssumption, as I said unless you have a source for the actual cost of both ventures, then your a.ssumption has no merit. You ask what my point is? You honestly can't understand what the first sentence of the part you just quoted meant? The pigs are living, breathing, understanding creatures. Some of them probably survived in that hole for several hours (Assuming they just threw a bunch of dirt on them) with other pigs kicking and moving around trying to get air. That is brutal. Some of them have the intelligence of a 3 year old child. Imagine the fear of a 3 year old child buried alive with a bunch of other children? That amount of fear should not be forced upon any living creature.
I will never value an animal over a human either. I do however look at the majority of animals as equal to humans. Obviously there are exceptions. I do see the bigger picture, South Korea isn't exactly hurting for money last I checked, a bullet to the brain of each of these pigs is not that expensive. Also, this is a.ssuming the figures in the article are incorrect. I agree with you that they may look inaccurate, I tried a google search for an explanation of why exactly burying them would be more expensive, but couldn't find anything. But until you or I can find accurate #'s, then neither of us can be sure whether your a.ssumption is correct or not.
Either way, I understand your stance, but if you are trying to argue that what was done to these pigs was inhumane then I feel sorry for you. Some people in this thread are arguing that. You seem to be more so agreeing that it is inhumane, but arguing that it is cost effective. Even though that is incredibly f**ked up, I could understand it if you had true evidence to support it, but like I said, the article disputes that claim.
Agree with most of your point.. I tried googling as well but all that comes up is this Sky News s**t..
But even if they COULD vaccinate the pigs for 68 million or whatever the figure was, they're carrying around dead product.
No one wants to buy diseased pig.
. and if they do it'll be for much less. Also take in mind, cull profits from super rich and fertilized soil and the contradiction in the article where they state "Animal Groups are criticizing South Korea for making such a inhumane economic based decision."
I don't see how it's possible for them to slaughter a bunch of pigs alive if they could of vaccinated them for twice as cheap. Figures don't add up at all..
that makes the article unreliable
to me until I can find another news source.
But yeah, I agree with you.. but to me it seemed to be a necessary inhumanity. I'm not sure if shooting a million pigs would go to well either. I mean I hope they don't handle every animal crisis like this but if they have to I can't blame them over costs and risk.
Just to clarify my point of view.. RIGHT after he said the figures the article author wrote this. "Some animal rights campaigners have criticised the government for putting economic considerations ahead of animal welfare."
<-- Contradicting itself = Article Unreliable. Bad journalism, bad reporting.
Why would animal right campaigners criticize the government for putting economic considerations ahead.. if they LOST money being inhumane? Doesn't make any sense and I probably won't need another the source to prove that the figures are invalid, inflated, or not put in the long haul with other costs and etc.