Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Millionwords]

.... however being whiter than white is rather necessary, if you are calling others out for their legal activities, imo

Well that's a silly stance isn't it? If that was the case there wouldn't be child welfare laws, or any positive change of things that were previously considered legal since the dawn of man.

 

[Sandstone1]

I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable. If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country. If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.

 

[Fred66]

It seems you missed entirely thepoint of my earlier replies to YorksG.

Apologies then

 

[YorksG]

Well that's a silly stance isn't it? If that was the case there wouldn't be child welfare laws, or any positive change of things that were previously considered legal since the dawn of man.

So if someone wants to protect children, it's OK if they harm children? Surely if someone is a slave owner, they do not have the moral stance to tell others not to own slaves. Now that would be silly

 

[YorksG]

I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable. If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country. If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.

So by that reasoning, no one who eats meat should enjoy it?

 

[Fred66]

I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable. If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country. If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.

Which is absolutely fine, morals are personal and it is absolutely ok for us all to have different ones, however equally I find it wrong to try and bully or shame others into having the same as you (you generically not you personally - I am not accusing you of bullying)

 

[Millionwords]

So if someone wants to protect children, it's OK if they harm children? Surely if someone is a slave owner, they do not have the moral stance to tell others not to own slaves. Now that would be silly

I have been polite in my responses, you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not going to continue with this particular conversation as you are making it pointless, and almost personal.

 

[stangs]

Why is getting enjoyment out of something so awful?
In Australia they stopped duck shooting (I believe as a result of anti pressure). Over the next few years the duck population grew to the point they were dying of disease. People were then paid to go and cull them.
So I assume it’s ok to kill something if there’s no enjoyment?
Man has always hunted and people who think we should have evolved beyond that sort of thing well we really aren’t a different level of being.

It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe.

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical.

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical.

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)

 

[shortstuff99]

The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.

 

[Millionwords]

It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe.

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical.

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical.

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)

This in spades.

 

[stangs]

Also the issue with the argument of “man has always hunted” is that the playing fields have become increasingly unequal, as technology develops. And, unlike our fellow top predators, hunting is very low risk to us. A lioness can’t kill for fun, because every wildebeest she goes for comes with the serious risk of a kick to the head. Meantime, I can go shoot a nice stag up in Scotland without ever worrying about my safety.

And more than that, hunting for sport is all about getting the best reward. The biggest fish, the stag with the nicest antlers, etc. This means we’re going against evolution. Other predators only pick on the weakest link.

 

[HeresHoping]

Try the fox as well.

And the lion. And quite a few of the big cats, actually. And hyenas and hunting dogs.

 

[Clodagh]

Also the issue with the argument of “man has always hunted” is that the playing fields have become increasingly unequal, as technology develops. And, unlike our fellow top predators, hunting is very low risk to us. A lioness can’t kill for fun, because every wildebeest she goes for comes with the serious risk of a kick to the head. Meantime, I can go shoot a nice stag up in Scotland without ever worrying about my safety.

And more than that, hunting for sport is all about getting the best reward. The biggest fish, the stag with the nicest antlers, etc. This means we’re going against evolution. Other predators only pick on the weakest link.

They only cull the trophy stags when they are no longer adding anything to the gene pool. Not that I know an enormous amount about stalking.

 

[Clodagh]

It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe.

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical.

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical.

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)

Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.

 

[YorksG]

The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.

Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.

 

[HeresHoping]

David Tomlinson wrote an article in the Shooting Times about the problem of disposing of surplus shot game and the correspondents all agreed too many shoots producing too much excess game for game dealers to cope with. I take it then that those people don't know what they are talking about.

So, we are making concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of birds shot. Pretty much all of us. And making a point of 'you shoot it, it gets eaten.' And as I have said, numbers are reducing due to grain price and bird flu.

 

[Clodagh]

So it’s ok to eat chicken as they are loaded by the legs, electrocuted and dismembered by people paid to do it, who presumably don’t get a lot of pleasure out of it (excepting the odd Bernard Matthews employee) but it’s not ok to shoot and eat a pheasant and enjoy the challenge?

 

[Miss_Millie]

Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.

Some cultures do eat cats and dogs.

 

[shortstuff99]

Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.

Some cultures do eat cats which means it should be okay to kill a cat?

But it isn't is it? Someone has decided somewhere what animals are worth and which ones get to live and die. That's fine, but I would rather not be involved in that so I don't.

 

[stangs]

Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.

True, but that’s a byproduct of the economic benefit to the region rather than directly benefiting the species.

(Having said that, I’m woefully uneducated on how prey is selected in African trophy hunting expeditions. But I do know that f*ck all goes into conservation or choosing bloodlines in ex-situ trophy hunting ranches.)

 

[shortstuff99]

True, but that’s a byproduct of the economic benefit to the region rather than directly benefiting the species.

(Having said that, I’m woefully uneducated on how prey is selected in African trophy hunting expeditions. But I do know that f*ck all goes into conservation or choosing bloodlines in ex-situ trophy hunting ranches.)

In a lot (not all) African trophy hunting they have bred the animals specifically for hunting. These animals live in small parks to be shot. The money paid for this often (but not always) goes to funding conservation of wild populations. The conflict comes when people pay, essentially poachers, large amounts of money to shoot wild populations that they shouldn't be shooting.

 

[sakura]

Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?

Also yes.

 

[sakura]

Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.

I think the western black rhino would disagree.

 

[ycbm]

So, we are making concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of birds shot. Pretty much all of us.

Serious question, are you including commercial shoots in that? I don't understand how they would be trying to kill fewer birds when their customers are paying (eye watering amounts) to shoot?
.

 

[Fred66]

The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.

Because in this country the birds are in the food chain cats aren’t

Because the birds are either wild or farmed and not someone’s pet

 

[HeresHoping]

Serious question, are you including commercial shoots in that? I don't understand how they would be trying to kill fewer birds when their customers are paying (eye watering amounts) to shoot?
.

Yes. Absolutely. Not all of them, there are some laggers. Inevitably. But yes. Far more 200 bird days than 500 now. Covid, bird flu and the price of wheat have meant fewer birds put down. And yes, they are expensive. And, there is such pressure from within to reap what you sow, even on commercial shoots, that many of those birds will go to the Country Food Trust and similar.

Sometimes the first shoots of the season can be big bag days; but after a few weeks the birds get wise, too.... (e.g. recently, 5 drives, 11 guns, 14 brace - plenty of birds, all going in the wrong direction).

 

[Clodagh]

In a lot (not all) African trophy hunting they have bred the animals specifically for hunting. These animals live in small parks to be shot. The money paid for this often (but not always) goes to funding conservation of wild populations. The conflict comes when people pay, essentially poachers, large amounts of money to shoot wild populations that they shouldn't be shooting.

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning that sort of appalling set up. More a Cecil the Lion scenario. Tbh I know as much about African big game hunting as I do upland stalking!

 

[Clodagh]

It’s odd though, many of you on here without knowing me would consider me a despicable, immoral person as I work my dogs on shoots. I don’t actually shoot anything but love dog work.
I loved fox hunting because I loved hound work.
I accept it is entirely inexplicable and unjustifiable to anyone anti and I can’t explain why watching dogs do what they were bred to do pretty well gets me out of bed in the morning. But there you go. I’m an addict.

 

[Millionwords]

It’s odd though, many of you on here without knowing me would consider me a despicable, immoral person as I work my dogs on shoots. I don’t actually shoot anything but love dog work.
I loved fox hunting because I loved hound work.
I accept it is entirely inexplicable and unjustifiable to anyone anti and I can’t explain why watching dogs do what they were bred to do pretty well gets me out of bed in the morning. But there you go. I’m an addict.

I disagree with plenty of opinions on this forum, with people and farmers i have to work alongside, but everyone has good in them and are doing what they feel is the right thing, just because I don't agree doesn't make them any less nice to talk to.

Theres too much division in the world, and in an age of social media, its easy to ignore the human, feeling, kind part of people unless you make the effort not to do so, which we should.

I don't feel any ire or overarching judgement towards anyone here, nor at work. Its nice that we can each learn from one another, topics here have made me reflect on and investigate my own stance on more than a handful of occasions.
That can only be a good thing we should all aim to do.

 

[shortstuff99]

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning that sort of appalling set up. More a Cecil the Lion scenario. Tbh I know as much about African big game hunting as I do upland stalking!

If I remember rightly the hunter of Cecil paid a poacher to take him to kill him which is why there was such outcry and talks about prosecution.