Why farmers must be paid for stricken bears I am writing in response to the letter from Paul Surtees ('Paying farmers might increase cruelty to bears', April 15). Your correspondent questioned whether paying mainland farmers to rescue bears from bile farms was in fact encouraging this terrible industry. It is a fair question, but I can assure Mr Surtees that this is definitely not the case. Let me explain how the agreement with Animals Asia Foundation's (AAF)government partners works. The authorities identify a farm for closure (one of the worst). AAF compensates the farmers financially, so they are not out of pocket. The authorities, which are not issuing any new bear farming licences, take away the farmers' licence forever and bring the bears to our rescue centre. Unfortunately, bile farming is not illegal on the mainland, so the farmers must consent to their farms being closed. Without financial compensation, this simply isn't going to happen. The money we provide shows the authorities and the community that our rescue project is not going to destroy livelihoods. In Vietnam, where bear farming is illegal, the agreement with our government partners is different. We will soon start the first major rescue of farmed bears in Vietnam. The authorities will simply confiscate the bears and deliver them to our sanctuary. We will not compensate the farmers. Mr Surtees also suggests AAF makes 'more strenuous efforts to get the local authorities to shut down such dreadful operations'. Again, this is a fair comment and this is exactly what we are doing. We are determined to use the appalling new evidence of abuse from our latest rescue to win more support in government. Last week we met with officials of the China Wildlife Conservation Association (CWCA) in Beijing and invited the head of the CWCA and the head of the Sichuan Forestry Department to our sanctuary. Both were so shocked by what they saw that they promised to take their concerns to a higher level. Jill Robinson, founder and chief executive, Animals Asia Foundation Expo booth disappointing I almost let out a cry of dismay when I saw the design for the Hong Kong booth at the World Expo in Shanghai ('Winning HK design chosen for Expo booth', April 15). Judging from the pictures in the South China Morning Post and other papers, not only is the proposed booth gloomy in colour and aesthetically less than appealing, its box-like and spatially restrictive concept, which would render the booth ponderous in both substance and spirit, is entirely at odds with the label to be attached to it, namely, the 'Pavilion of Infinity'. I seriously doubt if this mediocre design can represent the best that local talent has to offer. Within this context, it is doubly shocking to learn that such a temporary and uninspiring structure will require a staggering HK$145 million to build. Even if the economy remains robust, I do question if such a huge amount of money should be spent on it, in particular, as it will likely be out-classed by many other booths in the 2010 Expo. Maggie W. C. Cheng, Quarry Bay Olympics sign a waste of money I would like our Legislative Council representatives to investigate the decision by the Tourism Board to spend 'HK$7.5 million on the installation of a giant Olympics-ring signboard on the waterfront of Tsim Sha Tsui to promote Hong Kong as a co-host of the Games' ('Former NPC Standing Committee member among relay torch-bearers', April 15). While I would like to see the board given more means and management freedom to market Hong Kong, I feel this is far too much to spend on this sign. I also don't see why the board should be spending public money on this in the first place. Surely they don't think tourists will come to Hong Kong just to see a signboard? Besides, there are already more than enough Olympic ring logos in town, which have been paid for by official sponsors of the Games. And that is precisely how this publicity, if at all deemed necessary, should have been paid for, by asking Olympic sponsors to contribute towards the cost of it. Of course, these companies would have challenged the cost, being aware of the real market cost of such a campaign. We are talking about five circles, made out of a metal or PVC alloy, and wired for lighting. And that has to cost HK$7.5 million? I am concerned that the Tourism Board complains that its budget is too small, but spends money in this way. While I would like the board to be given more funding, this should only happen if it is run, full-time, by industry professionals and not bureaucrats. Robert Maes, Central World Cup is more exciting It is not often I agree with Peter Kammerer's viewpoints but his column ('Olympics endgame', April 11), really drives home the truth about the modern Olympics versus events like the soccer World Cup and makes a lot of sense. With 'games' like air gun shooting, equestrian skills, cycling and fencing, what is the separation line between sport and hobby? Who should get the medal on the podium for equestrian events - the horse or the rider? And with seemingly endless 'world championships' in track and field, swimming and gymnastics, even in an Olympic year, what purpose does the Olympics serve? The World Cup, on the other hand, is a display of athleticism, strategy and drama that people worldwide, rich and poor, can watch. It is a sport virtually anyone can play at any time, anywhere. This event along with a possible basketball world cup on a similar four-year cycle, could also bring about greater participation and interest without all the associated spending and waste the Olympics spurs in the name of: 'Look at us - we are awesome.' Charles Henning, Guangzhou Simple solution When I walk along the Avenue of Stars in Tsim Sha Tsui and look across Victoria Harbour, instead of ships and birds in the sky, I see only sooty smog. I agree with those correspondents who blame emission from vehicles for much of this air pollution. Some people have urged drivers to switch to public transport, but this is unlikely to happen, because they want the freedom that private car ownership brings them. However, what car owners can do is check if their cars have a catalytic convertor and if not, get it installed. Such a device can reduce the toxicity of the emissions and most car owners could afford to do this. We all have to confront the problem of air pollution if we want to keep the scenic splendour of Victoria Harbour and vehicle owners must also play their part. Tom Cheung Pui-hang, Western district Climber's cause It was of interest to note that whilst many newspapers reported on the climb by Alain Robert - known as 'French Spiderman' - at the Four Seasons Hotel, not every paper mentioned his reasons for doing it. He wanted to 'arouse public concern over global warming' ('Spiderman takes his hot topic to the top', April 16). The fact that some of the press reports simply concentrated on the climb, belittled his daring feat and emphasised the lack of attention we pay to environmental issues in Hong Kong. Mark Chan, Tsing Yi