[Boo Radley]

The animals killed on screen argument has been done to the nth degree and the bottom line is you either want it as that is how the film was originally released, or you don't. The implication is always that if you want it in then you are a less moral, enlightened human than those who prefer these scenes removed, or censorship as it is known. This argument is always used for the less tasteful exploitation films but totally ignored when utilized in more high brow entertainment, Wake in Fright, Apocalypse Now, etc. The fact that you can see a mongoose and snake fight on the Discovery channel or horses breaking legs on Channel 4's racing and numerous other animals ripping each other to shreds on a multitude of animal documentaries on TV never disturb people who are all to ready to throw their arms up loudly proclaiming that these same scenes must be excised from cheap exploitation films. These facts also totally destroy the inane assumption and ridiculous argument that the BBFC are only following "The Law" and have to remove them. If it was "The Law" then these scenes would not be allowed in the aforementioned films and on TV. Full stop. It's either against the law or it isn't. You can cite the Animals Act all you like as proof but try telling that to the turtle from Cannibal Holocaust. The Act didn't seem to work for him.

The same double standard has raised it's ugly head lately on directors and actors as people are accused as womanizers, paedophiles or sex predators. This is the latest trend and in vogue at the moment. Again, this depends on who they are and if their artistic output is deemed important or not. Polanski...? Oh, no, I mean he was a great director so we can ignore he liked to fiddle with kiddies.
Woody Allen...? The man's a genius so it's okay if he dribbled his caffeine ridden sperm into under age girls.
Victor Salva....? Oh my GOD!!! Paedophile! Scum! Will NEVER watch one of his movies again!!
The hypocrisy is treacle thick and the deeper one delves into it, you will find is more based on class issues, as the great unwashed are deemed far too inferior to grasp such concepts than the more educated upper classes. A very British superiority complex that pervades every aspect of our society.

These attitudes and vocal outbursts are more to do with whoever posts them and not really about the things done. It's a way of saying that I am a superior being and my values and morals are higher than yours because I don't need to see things that you obviously do to enjoy something. The implication, never vocally raised but implicit once again, is that if you want to see an exploitation film in all its uncut glory then somehow you are a deviant who gets sexual gratification from it and therefore morally reprehensible. A superiority complex in its purest form.
Cannibal Ferox...? I don't want to see poor animals killed, it's terrible!
Wake in Fright....well, it's an important film and it's artistic merit somehow magically negates all animal violence into social commentary.

Bottom line is; It's a choice. Your personal preference. You might not want to see animal violence for a multitude of reasons and that is your prerogative. Someone else might want the scenes included because that is how the film was released. It matters not, especially in todays society where by the click of a mouse either will drop through your door in a matter of days. No one is right or morally superior by their decision and no one is wrong. Any argument is redundant as it is only personal opinions, not a fact. Because I remember only too clearly the Draconian censorship of the '80's, 90's and into this next century, which continues today but by more insidious methods, I will always opt for uncensored material. If anyone disagrees then that is their opinion and in the great scheme of things, means about as much as my opinion. In other words, nothing.