War and oil

Thanks for Patrick Lejtenyi's interview with author Linda McQuaig ["Oil and trouble," Dec. 9]. Linda McQuaig fails, however, to view the big picture in her prognosis on the oil crisis. Yes, we're consuming oil and energy like drunken sailors, which will, many years down the road, consume us all. She starkly reminds us of this impending disaster, yet the world remains awash in oil. There are active reserves, proven reserves, strategic reserves. There are reserves of educated speculation, OPEC and non-OPEC cartels and transcontinental pipelines yet to be built.

According to Ms. McQuaig (and popular opinion in many places), the U.S. invaded Iraq primarily for its oil. This notion has become a political cliché. Rather, the U.S. invaded Iraq and has threatened other "rogue states" for a singular purpose: to maintain and enhance a military hegemony. The "Dick Cheney Task Force" that she cites addresses oil, but is only a mask to the far greater priority of weapons testing and evaluation with that awesome military-industrial complex looking on. With a bloated Saddam Hussein threat and his "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. assembled the greatest military armada in history with record speed.

Without doubt, this military hegemony was kept intact. We showed 'em who's boss while the vast military-industrial armada was kept well oiled.

Again, McQuaig's warnings are not taken lightly. Oil, SUVs and greenhouse gasses can spell our doom. But the Kyoto Protocol takes a backseat to an over-powering military, which also serves to maintain the American dollar as the world's esteemed currency. But, we're "doin' it all for peace." So the world may be awash with oil, but it's also awash with lovers of peace.

» Edward Abramic

Fur, first hand

In response to both the "Hitting below the pelt" article [Nov. 25] and the recent letters to the editor regarding the fur industry [Dec. 2 & 9], I would like to share my impressions, as I have taken an official trapping course to see what really goes on behind the scenes.

First, the days of animals eating their legs off are virtually gone since the reform in the trapping industry. Leg-hold traps (which are only used on a few species) are just what the name implies. The only legal leg-hold traps nowadays are designed to hold the animal and must allow some space between the jaws of the trap so the animal still feels its leg and thus won't eat it off to get out of the trap. Once in the trap, the animal waits unharmed until the trapper comes along and quickly dispatches the animal with a .22 bullet to the head. In addition, trappers check their trap lines on a daily basis, minimizing the amount of time the animal waits. Further minimizing the time, the widely used and highly humane conibear trap (the most commonly used trap) kills instantly; the snare is very quick, as are traps that drown.

Fur is a biodegradable, natural resource. We live in a northern climate and would freeze to death if we didn't clothe ourselves adequately. Given this fact, fur presents a more ecological answer than other popular materials. Ever think how much oil is burned to make polar fleece, which in turn contributes to ruining the environment? Consider as well that in India, cotton cultivated on five per cent cultivable land consumes 54 per cent of total pesticides used in Indian agriculture, leaving immense ecological and human hazards, as reported by the World Health Organization.

Here in Canada, 70 per cent of Quebec is strictly reserved for trapping by Native people only. It has been a way of life that is very much disappearing, thanks to our "beliefs." Trapping is highly regulated, with a consciousness towards conservation. For example, the lynx population rises and falls with the rabbit population, which rises steadily every nine years, then drops drastically due to inbreeding and subsequent disease; then is the only time when trapping of lynx is allowed, as we know that they will die of starvation anyway.

This is not to say that we must endorse all types of "trapping." I very much disagree with raising animals for their fur, because we provide them with the same inhumane conditions as we do to raise chickens, pigs and other raised-for-food beasts. We put them in tiny cages, inject them with hormones to the point that their legs cripple when they move (chickens), and they never even see the sun in their lifetime.

In the time of Jacques Cartier, there were moose on the island of Montreal. Why are there no moose today? Loss of habitat. Man has moved in and kicked wildlife out, ripped forest out to make fields, destroyed wildlife habitat to build highways so he or she can run cars and SUVs whenever and wherever he or she pleases, all the while contributing generously to air pollution. And vehicle travel in Canada is doubling every 20 years.

Why should one animal have more of a right to live than another? Whether an insect, a rodent, a bird, a seal, each is an individual entity of life.

» Derek Yaple-Schobert

Correction

The venue for the stage performance of Hedwig and the Angry Inch is the Théâtre National (1220 Ste-Catherine E., metro Bleury). The play continues Dec 17 & 18, at 8 p.m. and Dec. 19 at 3:30 p.m., 521-0025.

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.