Letters to the editor – Rheinfelden – Badische Zeitung


DEEP DEER SHOT

Couldn’t he have been anesthetized?
The shooting of a roebuck who got caught in a pasture fence near Eichsel (BZ article “Roebuck caught in pasture fence” from Friday, April 30th) caused incomprehension by a reader from Rheinfelden.

Why did the hunter have to shoot the roebuck? Couldn’t he have been anesthetized to get him out of his predicament? A pasture fence is definitely not a complicated part. The roebuck was certainly not hurt so badly that he should have been killed. Even if an animal panics, that’s still no reason to shoot it.

Rudolf Winter, Rheinfelden

Liberating the animal would have been easy
A hunter from Lrrach is convinced that there would have been another solution:
It is very possible, and even very easy, to free a roebuck from these grazing tines. All you need is a side cutter or a small ax. We did it last year and gave the goat freedom. I’m a hunter myself, but I don’t understand the statement that he couldn’t be rescued. You just wanted to shoot. And then get meat full of adrenaline, so for the bin. Too bad about the animal. Thomas Albiez, Lrrach

SUPPORT FEES
Quite an anti-social proposition
A reader writes about the article “Parents will pay more for childcare in future” (BZ on Friday, April 30):
Almost at the end of the article I learned that the new payment model had not yet been decided. I think it’s pretty cheeky how almost the entire article about this article makes it seem that this model is already in the towel. As a concerned mother, I can only hope that the local council will not follow this unsocial proposal by the administration. Because if you take a closer look at the mayor’s ideas, this “allowance” model is primarily at the expense of those who need it most: single parents, families with low incomes and large families. These are disproportionately more involved in inflation.

Instead, you could have saved yourself the last level of reduction for the higher family income. To advertise six-hour childcare as full-time is a mockery of all working parents. There is already a clear lack of educators. You get the impression that you want to cover up this deficiency by restricting the offer. By “family-friendly” I imagine something else, namely support for all families and for all family models, not just for high earners.

A family-friendly city must be a social city, and in addition to childcare, which is actually called early childhood education and should ensure educational equality from toddler age, affordable housing, leisure activities for schoolchildren and young people and a general atmosphere that makes it clear that children are welcome are. Where can the city score points here? Katrin Nuiro, Rheinfelden

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.