Why are antis not really bothered about animal welfare?

[Scratchline]

But you must be aware that it is far harder to cleanly kill a herd of fleeing deer than one at point blank range.

You must realise that the probablity of suffering is far higher in the former case.

Yet in the former case under the law you support it is illegal NOT to shoot the deer.

That is downright disgusting.

Of course the law needs ammending as it has clearly thrown up problems like this that were not forseen. This one in particular you have raised often enough lol
If I cannot make a clean kill then I dont take the shot. If others acted in the same way then there wouldnt be any suffering.
That cruelty is created by man. Not the animal, the law or the gun.

 

[Scratchline]

What is worse is that the current law REQUIRES shots to be taken when they should not be.

How can you support that?

I dont. I believe the law needs ammending and have always made that clear. What does work and I support is the banning of hunting with hounds.

 

[Hebegebe]

All shooters claim that but the fact is that animals are wounded. Banning hunting has not reduced cruelty because more animals are now wounded.

How could to regulate when people take a a shot? That's a ridiculous idea. No one takes a shot when they think they won't kill the fox.

However irrespective of skill the proportion of kills to wounding is the same for skilled to unskilled shooters.

 

[Scratchline]

All shooters claim that but the fact is that animals are wounded. Banning hunting has not reduced cruelty because more animals are now wounded.

How could to regulate when people take a a shot? That's a ridiculous idea. No one takes a shot when they think they won't kill the fox.

However irrespective of skill the proportion of kills to wounding is the same for skilled to unskilled shooters.

As I have said, I would rather be shot and die slowly if necessary than be chased and killed by hounds. You then threw in the 5 out of 6 escape but of course they do not. If a farmer has a problem fox he doesnt give up just because the hunt failed in a kill, he still has the problem fox. It will be killed one way or another and most probably by shooting.

 

[Cop-Pop]

I don't often venture in here because the lack of smiley scare me. I dislike hunting imensely -the thought that people want to chase down an animal and kill it is totally beyond me, but then I'm a tree hugging veggie

What worries me about this post is the huge generalisation on both sides. I know several 'antis' as you call them - none of them would ever even consider acting in a violent way towards anyone (even members of the hunt ) Sadly it seems as though this has gone teh same was as protesting against animal testing etc and the violent masses are taking over
However - this is also the same for those who hunt. I had a run in with the hunt (accidently, I was walking my dog and they came past). My dog go overexcited and wanted to follow so I wrapped his lead around a gate post and hung on. He was jumping up but there was enough room for people to go past and to be fair the majority did. One lovely person however decided to try and squash me, shout abuse at me and smack my dog with his crop (you can shout at me but NOT my dog ). In this case I found out which hunt it was and complained to them - I never heard back but as I didn't know who the person was...

So in answer to the OP (apologies for wandering OT) I think that there are a lot of people on both sides who aren't bothered by animal welfare.

 

[suzysparkle]

At the end of the day we are all entitled to an opinion and that's that. I still don't understand how anyone or anything would choose a long painfull death due to gunshot wound over a near instant death. Yes there is a period of terror while being chased but surely an injured animal will also feel terror as it must be aware it will not be able to defend itself fully or kill for it's own food so easily. I stand by what I said in that hunting with dogs is as close to nature as you can get in terms of replicating their natural predators. Foxes are hardly humane killers themselves. Warning...this is horrible....but over the weekend a friend of mine who's husband farms found a sheep in distress. It was lambing, only the head had come out and had been promptly eaten off by a fox. Nice.

I know there is deer stalking done in these parts but it is to control the population and is tightly regulated. Again deer have no natural predators anymore following the extinction of the wolf here thus the population would get out of control. They do have some good suicidal tendancies though and like to jump in front of cars on a regular basis! I know a few people who hunt themselves (pheasants mainly) and they eat them.

Anyway, I don't even hunt myself so whatever happens doesn't affect me. I do like to hear all the arguments though so long as people accept that we are all entitled to our own opinions. Having recently come back from Alaska a lot of people would have had a hard time dealing with all the fur out there from trapping. I did not like it one little bit but it's totally acceptable to them. Again I would argue hunting with dogs is more humane than an animal sitting in pain and terror for possibly days in a trap. Maybe someone who hunts can give us an idea how long an average chase lasts?

 

[hellybelly6]

I think in the 21st centuary, there are guns available which are powerful enough to kill 1st time. The terror a chased animal must feel must be awful.

 

[Springs]

A year or so ago I was riding out and got talking to a gent next to me, It would seam he was a Vet and was totally against hunting until he came across a family of foxes that had been poisoned, he spent half a day ensuring that all of the family were PTS even ensuring thoes in the layer were dug up and had there suffering ended.

Since that day he has been fully behind hunting!

The guns may be powreful but how good is the person pulling the triger?

The debate continues.

 

[teddyt]

I think in the 21st centuary, there are guns available which are powerful enough to kill 1st time. The terror a chased animal must feel must be awful.

Yes, there are guns that can kill first time. Sadly however, they are only as good as the person pulling the trigger. Far more animals get injured than killed outright by shooting, so IMO it is not an appropriate form of pest control. If hunted the fox lives or dies, no half measures. A few minutes of stress followed by a very quick death or getting away HAS to be preferable than an injury leading to a death over days or weeks due to starvation or infection.

 

[FinnishLapphund]

Anyway, I don't even hunt myself so whatever happens doesn't affect me. I do like to hear all the arguments though so long as people accept that we are all entitled to our own opinions. Having recently come back from Alaska a lot of people would have had a hard time dealing with all the fur out there from trapping. I did not like it one little bit but it's totally acceptable to them. Again I would argue hunting with dogs is more humane than an animal sitting in pain and terror for possibly days in a trap. Maybe someone who hunts can give us an idea how long an average chase lasts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't come into this part of HHO often but wanted to say that though I don't like trapping, I think it is sensible to not waste anything when an animal is slaughtered. When it gets cold, I have both skins/fells from Sami reindeers and Swedish sheeps that I can sit on or under and there is no modern material that comes close to being as good at helping me keep warm.

 

[suzysparkle]

Totally agree with you there. In Alaska though it was skins from Wolves, Mink and Beaver to name a few. I don't think they used any other part?? I'd be interested to know. A lot of it was sold for fashion. I susoect your Reindeer and Sheep were eaten so of course it makes sense to use the skin.

 

[FinnishLapphund]

Yes, "my" skins comes from when the animals was slaughtered to become meat, about the animals you mention, I only know that mink oil can be used when polishing shoes, but if it actually contains something from a real mink or not I don't know. Other than that I only suppose that maybe some body part could be used in some natural remedy, just like some reindeer's antlers (which at least our Scandinavian reindeer loses and get replaced by nature once a year) are pulverised in to potency-powder for men.




I was going to say something about what some men are willing to do to get "it" up, but then I remembered hearing about a countess that lived somewhere in Europe, don't remember if it was during the 1600 or 1700 century, anyway she was childless and around 40 years old so she drank wolf milk to increase the odds for becoming pregnant. They kept a few wild wolves and some of her employees had to forcibly milk the female wolves every day (it was actually mentioned somewhere that it wasn't an easy task!) so that the countess could drink the milk and she did eventually get pregnant. "Fortunately" it was an heir, so maybe they could stop milking "their" wolves...