Landowner distinguishes between ethical, unethical hunting
Sir: Re: the article, “City man seeks tougher trespass law (Jun. 26 edition).
As often can happen in editing, subtle changes can change the thought behind a message.
In explaining what I feel is the difference between ethical and unethical hunting, I used the term ‘killers’ in reference to a type of hunting, compared to a hunter patiently waiting for the proper shot [known as the kill shot].
The proper shot produces the least chance of a slow, lingering death, compared to a dozen guys flushing deer out to four guys on the outside, blasting away at the scared animals running full-tilt out of the bush.
That is why I’ve seen deer missing a limb, or a broken limb, wandering around to a slow death. Yes, mistakes can happen with ethical hunting, but the percentage is much lower than pack hunters blasting away at deer running and dodging full speed for their lives.
When folks who don’t like this manner of hunting try to stop it on their land, many are them have been intimated, as has been done to me several times. I’m just outspoken about it.
It’s about unethical behavior. I’m not against anyone and am not trying to make enemies, just highlight practices that in an enlightened society should go the way of the Dodo bird.
What’s more, this practice of running block after block of bush until hunters finally have a bunch of deer scared in the last bush or a reserve area, is not proof of a multitude of deer in Southern Ontario. That is a deceptive statement used by those who like to hunt in packs.
Many medical experts opposed to fluoride in drinking water
Sir: Regarding the letter on the water fluoridation issue, M.S FitzGerald is absolutely correct and nobody should suggest there is a lethal amount of fluoride in toothpaste or drinking water.
What modern medical science does suggest is that adding EPA certified industrial toxic waste (hydrofluosilicic acid, or HFSA) to our drinking water, and receiving low doses of bio accumulative poisons, neurotoxins & carcinogens daily over long periods (decades), is causing a large variety of adverse health effects such as dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis (early stages present medically exactly the same as arthritis), hypothyroidism, ADD/ADHD and specific cancers among them.
Sarnia-Lambton’s drinking water currently contains 14 chemicals on the Environment Protection Agency’s list of chemicals with “Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity” (brain poisons).
HFSA adds or increases the amount of at least four of these chemicals (lead, arsenic, cadmium & fluoride) along with several known and suspected human carcinogens.
A recent study by Christine Till & Ashley Malin at the U of T showed elevated cases of ADD/ADHD in artificially fluoridated communities.
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix did research on fluoride at the Forsythe Dental Center that showed fluoride had adverse neurotoxic effects. Within the last month, Dr. Paul Connett (retired professor of toxicology) and William Hirzy (retired head of the Union of EPA Scientists) served the EPA with a petition that included 300 scientific reports (2,500 pages) showing fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the brain and demanding water fluoridation across the U.S. be ended under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
With the cases of ADD/ADHD exploding and no alternative theory on the cause, is it wise to simply dismiss these experts and all these studies?
In the words of Dr. Hardy Limeback (one of, if not the brightest mind in Canada in the area of preventative dentistry and fluoride’s effects) retired professor & head of preventative dentistry at U of T and former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research, after reviewing modern scientific studies, stated: “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming…fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.”
Why do we ignore these extremely qualified medical professionals?