Hunter??Please read before posting!!!

Hellrazer

Ive decided to start this thread so that we can get a discussion going regarding the number of posts lately about how to deal with unwanted for want of a better word "pests"

The regulars here are complaining about the whole pro-hunting and anti-hunting way that every thread descends into as soon as someone posts "shoot-it" or "cull-it"

From what I can see everytime someone has a problem with an unwanted "pest" the pro hunt people say "kill-it" and the anti hunt people want a more humane method of dealing with the problem and then the hunters state that it is a humane method of dealing with the problem.
And the circle keeps going.

The policy here is that the Animals/Pets forum is totally against any type of animal cruelty wheter it be culling/hunting etc.


What Im suggesting is an open discussion on this issue which I dont want descending into a us and them thread.

Depending on the outcome of the thread we may or may not change the policy to reflect the fact that sometimes culling of animals is a necessary evil for everyone involved once it is discussed in a humane and non-cruel way.
Cruelty/condoning cuelty of any type will be dealt with in the appropriate manner which will be a permanent ban for the poster.

Run_to_da_hills

Hellrazer wrote: »

Ive decided to start this thread so that we can get a discussion going regarding the number of posts lately about how to deal with unwanted for want of a better word "pests"

The regulars here are complaining about the whole pro-hunting and anti-hunting way that every thread descends into as soon as someone posts "shoot-it" or "cull-it"

From what I can see everytime someone has a problem with an unwanted "pest" the pro hunt people say "kill-it" and the anti hunt people want a more humane method of dealing with the problem and then the hunters state that it is a humane method of dealing with the problem.
And the circle keeps going.

The policy here is that the Animals/Pets forum is totally against any type of animal cruelty wheter it be culling/hunting etc.


What Im suggesting is an open discussion on this issue which I dont want descending into a us and them thread.

Depending on the outcome of the thread we may or may not change the policy to reflect the fact that sometimes culling of animals is a necessary evil for everyone involved once it is discussed in a humane and non-cruel way.
Cruelty/condoning cuelty of any type will be dealt with in the appropriate manner which will be a permanent ban for the poster.

+1

KhuntChops

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

+1

+2

Nicely put!

togster

Good idea tbh. I am a hunter but i can understand people who are frequent users of this forum are anti hunting etc. Both sides need to realise that you can not force someone to believe something that they consider wrong.

However if someone asks for advice on vermin/pest problems i do think people should be allowed to suggest that you cull that pest. It is an option, albeit a hard one to stomach for many people on the forum.

There is a difference between trolling and offering constructive advice. I think a distinction needs to be made regarding this. I don't think you can prohibit people from suggesting something that does work on the basis that some users might be offended.

I think all debate regarding the pro and anti hunting debate should be stopped. i don't think this is the right forum for it and it has been exhausted.

Lets agree to disagree?

Hellrazer

Madame TogBog wrote: »

I think all debate regarding the pro and anti hunting debate should be stopped. i don't think this is the right forum for it and it has been exhausted.

I disagree--The reason I put this thread up is to debate it because what will happen next time someone asks for advice is that it will turn into a us and them thread again and thats what Im trying to stop.

If we have set rules in place regarding helping people looking for advice on ridding themselves of unwanted "pests" or " vermin" then the above wont happen,no one will get banned and no threads will be edited/deleted.

I would really like some regulars views on this.

Vegeta

Hellrazer wrote: »

Ive decided to start this thread so that we can get a discussion going regarding the number of posts lately about how to deal with unwanted for want of a better word "pests"

The regulars here are complaining about the whole pro-hunting and anti-hunting way that every thread descends into as soon as someone posts "shoot-it" or "cull-it"

From what I can see everytime someone has a problem with an unwanted "pest" the pro hunt people say "kill-it" and the anti hunt people want a more humane method of dealing with the problem and then the hunters state that it is a humane method of dealing with the problem.
And the circle keeps going.

The policy here is that the Animals/Pets forum is totally against any type of animal cruelty wheter it be culling/hunting etc.


What Im suggesting is an open discussion on this issue which I dont want descending into a us and them thread.

Depending on the outcome of the thread we may or may not change the policy to reflect the fact that sometimes culling of animals is a necessary evil for everyone involved once it is discussed in a humane and non-cruel way.
Cruelty/condoning cuelty of any type will be dealt with in the appropriate manner which will be a permanent ban for the poster.

I don't think this debate will have a good outcome

I have no problem with the current policy as long as it enforced on everyone. I have seen threads before here on dealing with mice etc and there was no talk of cruelty then

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055332863&highlight=mice

So why is culling a fox cruel and not a mouse/rats.

I am not for an instant pointing my finger at you mods as no one probably reported the thread I linked but just highlighting what (for a long time) I have thought is odd.

togster

Hellrazer wrote: »

I disagree--The reason I put this thread up is to debate it because what will happen next time someone asks for advice is that it will turn into a us and them thread again and thats what Im trying to stop.

If we have set rules in place regarding helping people looking for advice on ridding themselves of unwanted "pests" or " vermin" then the above wont happen,no one will get banned and no threads will be edited/deleted.

I would really like some regulars views on this.

What do you expect will happen? It's naive to think that all this crap will be kept in this thread.

If someone asks for advice in relation to "vermin" and one option is culling then that option should be allowed to be stated.

There is a huge difference between trolling and offering a viable alternative.
That option should be allowed to be stated regardless of whether the majority of regulars find it repulsive.

Hellrazer

Good point Vegeta--That thread in question wasnt reported but the ones regarding the foxes were and thats what I base my decisions on.
Im trying to look at this objectively and leave my owns views out of it.

It seems to me that there are different levels of "cruelty" which will be reported.Your example with the mice--people dont see it as cruel but shooting a fox is seen as cruel.
I suppose all Im trying to do here is have one set of rules for everyone that are fair wheter the poster is pro or anti hunting.

Vegeta wrote: »

I don't think this debate will have a good outcome

I have no problem with the current policy as long as it enforced on everyone. I have seen threads before here on dealing with mice etc and there was no talk of cruelty then

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055332863&highlight=mice

So why is culling a fox cruel and not a mouse/rats.

I am not for an instant pointing my finger at you mods as no one probably reported the thread I linked but just highlighting what (for a long time) I have thought is odd.

Whispered

I'm anti hunting for sport, but understand that sometimes it needs to be done for control etc. The problem is that many staunch anti hunt people do not understand that sometimes it is necessary for the good of the species and seem to be looking for an argument. I think sometimes hunters are a bit too quick to jump on the "culling bandwagon" and dont see that there are other options. They may be more hassle, and cost more, but for many people it's worth it.


If a hunter sees that culling is the only option then fair enough, but when an op says it's not an option, then that thread should not be dragged into a kill V's don't kill.

A constructive argument could be a good idea, or even a hunter explaining in clear and unemotional terms why sometimes hunting is necessary. I do think it would be wise to keep all mention of bloodsports out of this forum however.

If the charter is changed it would be very difficult to mod as people have different ideas of what is and isn't necessary and would take offence to different things. For example, I made a comment a while back that someone who can kill an animal could do the same to a human, I then added a note clarifying that I don't mean hunting or culling, or killing which is done humanely, that I was talking about abuse only. That was enough to set a poster off in an agressive way. I doubt if the charter changes it will be able to be moderated properly.

Just my 2cents. Feel free to ignore/delete as necessary

Hellrazer

Madame TogBog wrote: »

If someone asks for advice in relation to "vermin" and one option is culling then that option should be allowed to be stated.

That option should be allowed to be stated regardless of whether the majority of regulars find it repulsive.

Thats exactly what Im trying to achieve here Madame Togbag.If the regulars agree that the other option is allowed to be discussed then the rules will change to reflect that.
At the minute the blanket ban is just annoying people who believe that they are helping the poster asking for advice.

I dont think Im being naive asking the regular posters what they think at all.

Whispered

Well I was thinking it could be a good idea, but when you have a poster posting a video of a fox being shot that is a whole other ball game.

togster

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well I was thinking it could be a good idea, but when you have a poster posting a video of a fox being shot that is a whole other ball game.

Who did that?

Whispered

look at the thread fox problem, it's in there. I'd prefer not to name posters, I'm a wimp

togster

Hellrazer wrote: »

I dont think Im being naive asking the regular posters what they think at all.

I never suggested you were naive in asking the regulars. btw what constitutes a regular user? I've posted here sometimes does my opinion not count?

I actually applauded your decision to open the thread tbh.

Vegeta

Hellrazer wrote: »

It seems to me that there are different levels of "cruelty" which will be reported.Your example with the mice--people dont see it as cruel but shooting a fox is seen as cruel.

I suppose that's my point really.

I get a little annoyed when "animal lovers" give advice freely on how to kill mice/rats (these don't get reported) but will report someone saying in their opinion the best way to get rid of a fox is to cull it.

It stinks tbh and makes the community look bad imho

Again I have no problem with the current rule as long as it is enforced upon everyone.

Vegeta

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well I was thinking it could be a good idea, but when you have a poster posting a video of a fox being shot that is a whole other ball game.

Ok taking this as an extreme case as it is probably as bad as you will get, was it cruel?

Did the fox suffer for a long period of time?
Was it quick or slow?
You did see that the guy saved a chickens life taking it from the dead foxes mouth, was that not worth it?

I'm playing devil's advocate here of course

Whispered

It does need to be done on occasion, but posting a video is not necessary is it?

No the fox didn't suffer, (shame though, it looked like a healthy fox, as it would getting to feast on chickens) and it may have been necessary in this case. My problem is not with the idea of killing when there is no other option, but posting videos like that should be kept to the hunting forum. Again, this may be a flawed logic, if it's being done why not post, and nobody made me look at the video, but thats just my opinion, flawed as it may be.

stevoman

again aploagies to anyone who has been offended by the video, but i do really think that the said piece of journalism can give everyone on both sides of the fence food for thought.

peasant

Hellrazer wrote: »

It seems to me that there are different levels of "cruelty" which will be reported.Your example with the mice--people dont see it as cruel but shooting a fox is seen as cruel.
I suppose all Im trying to do here is have one set of rules for everyone that are fair wheter the poster is pro or anti hunting.

I don't think that you will manage to squeeze the issue into one set of black and white rules. There's too many grey areas out there.

Take an extreme example, deer and forestry.

To any forestry manager deer are a pest, to any animal lover they are "Bambi".

Some people will see the need to cull the deer population, others will never agree.

Some people will realise that it also is anmal cruelty to let an animal population grow out of control (health issues, behavioural issues, stress) ...others would prefer "Bambi" to be grazing on every front lawn.

But even if you come to a consensus on the cull and hand it over to the hunters, the issue isn't black and white then either. Because among hunters (like everywhere in society) there are responsible people and then there are the others.

How would you structure a forum rule around something that complex?

Hellrazer

peasant wrote: »

How would you structure a forum rule around something that complex?

I honestly dont know--Thats why I put the thread here.
I do feel like there has to be a rule change because looking at it objectively there is a case for animal culling discussion to be allowed here now.

peasant

Hellrazer wrote: »

I honestly dont know--Thats why I put the thread here.
I do feel like there has to be a rule change because looking at it objectively there is a case for animal culling discussion to be allowed here now.

Well, like it or hate it ...ever since man has interfered with wild nature some shape or form of animal management and culling has become necessary.

The forum could just close its eyes to that fact and just deal with the cuddly side of things and ban anyone who mentions anything "ghastly" ...or ....the forum could try and discuss these issues in a constructive manner to the benefit of the animals.

Personally I'd prefer it to be the latter.

togster

Yes but it's a difficult thing to enforce. Personally i think it should also be allowed.
Posts designed to inflame or provoke people should not be allowed. It is up to the mods to decide what is allowed.

It's going to be very difficult to enforce though.

whitser

personally i wont be replying to any more fox/vermin questions on this forum. if people dont like the answers they get maybe they should think twice before asking. or at the very least state clearly in the original post that killing is absolutley off the table.

Whispered

peasant wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer it to be the latter.

+1

It would be so hard to mod though, a poster thinks it is necessary to cull, another thinks it isn't. Before long it will decend into a kill V's no kill argument no matter what the charter says.

Sometimes you have to do things that are difficult for the good of the animal/to keep your own animals safe/for the local wildlife etc but a lot of people look past this and get hysterical as soon as the word kill is mentioned.

Do they get hysterical when someone posts that they are thinking of getting their cancer riddled, dog PTS because he's in so much pain? No, they say fair play for making a tough decision.

There will have to be some respect there from pro hunting people. If they want to speak about hunting for the sake of hunting then keep it in the correct forum. Posting images/videos of killed animals should not be allowed imo. I know people don't understand, but for some people it is very difficult to look at something dead, or being killed. Also if a poster says that culling is not an option, then leave it at that, some people have moral issues over killing even if it means they have to suffer themselves for it. Thats up to them.

Emotional posts about murder and mutilation do nothing for a conversation, and only serve to allow pro hunt people roll their eyes and mutter about "tree-hugging animal loving hippies" (my words, not their's ) perhaps something to stop hysterical posts might help? Posts that are clearly posted for the sake of starting a row should be dealt with too.

The only way I can see it working is on a per-thread basis really. Expect common courtsey from people and step in if it goes too far. If the OP decides to go with culling, maybe the thread can be moved to hunting?

Fair play to you for bringing this up. It will be a difficult one to look after!

Hellrazer

Whitser--Thats the exact opposite to what Im trying to achieve.The input from all posters is valued whether I or others agree or not.
And the pro-hunt people do have a valuable input here whether others agree with the post or not.

I think Peasant got it 100% and this is the exact way I would like things done if everyone could get along with it.

the forum could try and discuss these issues in a constructive manner to the benefit of the animals.

whitser wrote: »

personally i wont be replying to any more fox/vermin questions on this forum. if people dont like the answers they get maybe they should think twice before asking. or at the very least state clearly in the original post that killing is absolutley off the table.

the_syco

Vegeta wrote: »

So why is culling a fox cruel and not a mouse/rats.

Mice and rats are seen as pests to a household. You lay traps for them, to stop them from eating your food, etc.

Thinking of a fox, you're reminded of a dog: mans best friend, and suddenly you don't want to harm it.

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

I don't think that you will manage to squeeze the issue into one set of black and white rules. There's too many grey areas out there.

Take an extreme example, deer and forestry.

To any forestry manager deer are a pest, to any animal lover they are "Bambi".

Some people will see the need to cull the deer population, others will never agree.

Some people will realise that it also is anmal cruelty to let an animal population grow out of control (health issues, behavioural issues, stress) ...others would prefer "Bambi" to be grazing on every front lawn.

But even if you come to a consensus on the cull and hand it over to the hunters, the issue isn't black and white then either. Because among hunters (like everywhere in society) there are responsible people and then there are the others.

How would you structure a forum rule around something that complex?

Nicely put.

the_syco wrote: »

Mice and rats are seen as pests to a household. You lay traps for them, to stop them from eating your food, etc.

Thinking of a fox, you're reminded of a dog: mans best friend, and suddenly you don't want to harm it.

Oh I know why people justify it, I was just saying if there is a no cruelty rule in the forum it should include all animals not just the cute ones.

Justification is a very important thing here.

People can justify anything to themselves if they want to. I am guilty of it too. It helps soothe the guilt after all.

We release game birds every year to try and keep the numbers up. Predators and modern farming practices make it close to impossible for the game birds to maintain their population (reared game birds are also poor breeders). We cant shoot farmers (joke, most land owners are great to my club) so we hunt the predators in the area to give the birds a better chance. A lot of predators in Ireland are only limited in number due to supply of food, this food can be other fauna that people would like to preserve.

Why do people kill mice and rats. They carry diseases, eat though cables and food, let their droppings fall where they like etc etc. That's usually the justification for it.

I don't see culling a fox (with a quick and as painless a death as possible) cruel for the same reason some folk here don't see killing mice/rats cruel, we have justified it to ourselves already. In our opinions we have valid reasons for doing it. Are they acceptable reasons, not to everyone obviously, that's where people start to disagree.

BlackCat2008

I wasn't even going to post here so rather then debate maybe I can throw in a few suggestions?

If someone wants rid of foxes for what ever reason I think it would be best asked by a Mod as to how the person in question wants it done if they want it culled then it should be removed full stop from the animal forums and posted in the hunters not left out for both sides to fight over, and visa versa.

On the fox in the garden thread I'm still trying to find someone to help a lady who doesn't want to harm them, she just doesn't want them to be in her garden and all of a sudden there's hunters every were jumping down animal lovers throats.

Once the mod finds out what that person is looking for help with, a clear warning of being banned from the thread should be given if it is not in the interest of the poster. Arguing with the other side as far as I'm concerned takes time away from help to find a solution to the problem in the first place. I will find out all I can to help this lady and will post it for anyone else looking for help but would not get involved any more.

Vegeta

BlackCat2008 wrote: »

On the fox in the garden thread I'm still trying to find someone to help a lady who doesn't want to harm them, she just doesn't want them to be in her garden and all of a sudden there's hunters every were jumping down animal lovers throats.

I love how you're an animal lover and we're hunters. Way to drive a wedge

Also considering you own "hunting cats" what does that make you as an animal lover?

How do you differ from a person who owns hunting dogs?

doctor evil

Good on you for putting this thread up, the 'unpleasant' side of things need to be acknowledged.

kerrysgold

We have no right to take another animals life, maybe in the case of self defence or helping to rescue another animal but not for food/sport/"pest" control. (maybe the animals would consider us pests if they could think that way since we have destroyed the world with our pollution and plastered concrete over everything when they make pretty much no impact on the environment! In reality we are the real pests of the world.)

It wasn't me!

My own view is that there should be no discussion of the sport aspect of hunting here; we have our own forum under shooting for that.

However, I definitely think there's a case for the discussion of humane killing as a solution to an animal-related problem.

Just as people are perfectly okay with someone having a dog with a painful and incurable cancer put to sleep, or trapping mice and rats who are causing problems, humans also deal with numerous other animals that cause problems, foxes and deer being probably the most emotive, but also rabbits, pigeons and various others. And in dealing with these problems, and for food, we kill other animals, and I say other animals, because at no stage in our evolution did we reach a point where we ceased to be animals. Foxes kill to eat; cats kill to eat; so do humans.

I find it very odd when people say that humans have no right to take an animal's life. There's no such thing as a right in that regard, only a necessity for reasons of expediency. When did we not become a part of nature and an animal just like a fox, a mink, an eagle or any other predatory animal? It is inherently strange to me when people seek to distance themselves from nature, under the guise of loving animals. We're predators, hunters. We evolved as such and if we truly want to respect and be part of nature we should remain such. Just my view, and not entirely relevant, but my point in relation to that has been made above. This is just in response to posters like kerrysgold, who I always find very odd; animal lover seeking to distance themselves from the natural order of things. I've said before that at some point I want to be entirely self-sufficient in terms of my own meat and fish, because that's my way of paying tribute to and showing my respect for nature, and I'll cultivate it in return and do what I can to ensure that there are game birds and rabbits and deer and fish for the next generation, so they can do the same.

kerrysgold

But we are more "intelligent" (supposedly) than other animals and can make conscious decisions. Yes, if I was a Lion I may have an instinctive urge to eat the first cow I saw but I can make a decision about what I eat, how I live my life etc. Other animals can't think like that but we can make the decision to avoid harming others for our own gain/convenience.

It wasn't me!

And a dolphin is more intelligent "supposedly" than a goldfish. My point is, you can't act like mankind is the only creature that doesn't belong in nature, and seek to distance the species from it. You can make those decisions, and that's fine, even if I find it odd, but what I find repugnant is the notion that mankind should exempt itself from the natural order of things. If we truly want to respect nature, we should involve ourselves most thoroughly.

BlackCat2008

Vegeta wrote: »

I love how you're an animal lover and we're hunters. Way to drive a wedge

Also considering you own "hunting cats" what does that make you as an animal lover?

How do you differ from a person who owns hunting dogs?

They differ in that I don't train them or send them out to do it it's just nature and yes if they bring one in alive I will set it free. I don't even kill flies or spiders and I don't care what other people care about that. My cat only ever went to some ones home that had mice more to leave a scent than to kill as even the best have to work out were the mice are coming from before they can catch it and a scent is usually good enough to scare them away.And if you had of checked properly you'll find I said they never really hunted in in homes they weren't familiar with.

What I was trying to say was even after it was acknowledged the lady didn't want them harmed the hunters just kept pushing the culling.

I'm not trying to drive a wedge just think there's a time and a place for each to have there say.

It wasn't me!

What I think Vegeta was getting at is that your use of the terms seems to be mutually exclusive. Most hunters love animals and nature. I say most because I haven't met them all, but all of the ones I have met have enormous respect for their natural world, their quarry and what they do, as well as a great love for their dogs, pets and animals.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm just coming to the end of a loooooooong night shift, so I hope I make sense.

I'm an ex-hunter. I loved hunting until I became a pet owner and very quickly I began to see animals as having a life I value (except rats) and now its been almost two year's since I shot anything.

Do I think hunting is cruel?.. Well it SHOULDN'T be cruel, but for the inexperienced hunter is can be very cruel and distressing on the animal.

Culling, I've never been involved in culling on any great scale, but like hunting if done properly and by professionals it shouldn't be cruel. These days I don't like to think of it. But I don't think thats a reason for me (at least) to look for an end of discussion on it -

As I've been on both sides of the fence I can see the argument in everyone's debate.

Once the discussion is level headed and calm I don't have a problem discussing hunting/culling or killing animals.

MsFifers

It will be extremely difficult to come up with a policy that would cover all the various angles and shades on this issue. What people define as hunting/pest control/sport/cruelty/"only natural" will never be agreed.

I think the current policy of not advocating the killing of nonfarmed animals should be kept as a (loose) rule here. It is an animal forum after all, and I do think that most posters here would prefer to discuss ways of helping and caring for animals, rather than more drastic actions.

I have seen people jump into discussions about for eg. stray cats - and advocate their destruction - as happened with the recent one about the foxes. Can we not take it on an assumption that when a poster has a question about dealing with an animal they consider a pest, non-lethal options should be suggested first? If a poster wants to know how to kill a "pest" then they should go to gardening or hunting/shooting forum.

(And I do take on board the point that people are less emotive about killing rats/mice/wasps etc. Which is indeed inconsistent.)

When people feel it is necessary to advocate culling/pest control, then the discussion should be taken elsewhere, so that the various methods that might be used can be discussed without upsetting people who feel differently.


(BTW- I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading - why it is only hunters that are being called to participate in this discussion?)

Vegeta

BlackCat2008 wrote: »

They differ in that I don't train them or send them out to do it it's just nature and yes if they bring one in alive I will set it free. I don't even kill flies or spiders and I don't care what other people care about that. My cat only ever went to some ones home that had mice more to leave a scent than to kill as even the best have to work out were the mice are coming from before they can catch it and a scent is usually good enough to scare them away.And if you had of checked properly you'll find I said they never really hunted in in homes they weren't familiar with.

So I see you've justified it to yourself then, because its "natural" and they only hunt in places they are familiar with.

Just for your info most dogs that hunt need no training to hunt, as you say its "natural" dogs have always hunted. Its mostly obdience and control training they get.

whitser

consumming passions on rte tonight is about a hawker, who hunts with birds of prey. which the reviewer rightly says falls under the radar of antis, she also says that if the progamme was abouy hunting with dogs there would be a whole debate on cruelty etc... why is that? a man who hunts with hawks an animal over and gets positive airtime and someone who hunts with dogs is a blood thirsty animal.
just for record, hunters were green long before there was a green party. we are animal lovers, we just dont humanise them. hunters probably know and understand more about animals then alot of so called animals lovers on here.

MsFifers

Is this thread a debate about the pros and cons of hunting/blood sports - or about the policy for the Animals & Pets forum?

Personally, I really don't see any value in rehashing the whole debate again - decrying the "other side" and proclamations about who understands animals the best. It always gets nasty and its not like anyone is going to change anyone else's mind!

Can the OP clarify the point of this thread before it all goes downhill as usual?

Vegeta

Is this not it

Depending on the outcome of the thread we may or may not change the policy to reflect the fact that sometimes culling of animals is a necessary evil for everyone involved once it is discussed in a humane and non-cruel way.

peasant

whitser wrote: »

just for record, hunters were green long before there was a green party. we are animal lovers, we just dont humanise them. hunters probably know and understand more about animals then alot of so called animals lovers on here.

If you qualified that statement with "most hunters" and "most of us", one might be more inclined to agree with you.

Because, let's face it, hunters are not a homogenous, animal friendly, green orientated conservationist group organisation...you have your own problems with inconsiderate, indiscriminate pocket-Rambos.

And even the ones that are doing things by the book have a few questions to ask themselves. Take the pheasants, for example.

Hunters drone on about how they breed and hatch pheasants, release them into the wild, so that they can shoot them for food later ...and how that's all "natural" and "conservationist" and all that.

What they fail to mention is that the pheasant is not an indigenous species for Europe, never mind Ireland. You might think so, looking at the numbers that are about, but t was imported from Asia by Victorian landlords for their shooting pleasure.

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Yet hunters keep rearing them so that they can shoot them later and condemn their natural predator to death...makes you think ...or at least it should.

togster

peasant wrote: »

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Are you really suggesting that pheasants are responsible for the reduction in indegenious birds? It's a combination of factors. Least of which i would expect are the fault of pheasants.

Most hunters are conservationists. It's hard for people to understand that, but it's the truth, whether you believe it or not.

whitser

MsFifers wrote: »

Is this thread a debate about the pros and cons of hunting/blood sports - or about the policy for the Animals & Pets forum?

Personally, I really don't see any value in rehashing the whole debate again - decrying the "other side" and proclamations about who understands animals the best. It always gets nasty and its not like anyone is going to change anyone else's mind!

Can the OP clarify the point of this thread before it all goes downhill as usual?

true. i wont change my mind and doubt i'll change others. so as far as policy goes leave it to the mods. im not getting dragged into a hunting deabte, your right it does always get nasty and slides downhill.

MsFifers

Vegeta wrote: »

Is this not it

Well then - a lot of posts then seem to be off topic as already people are talking about whether or not they are true conservationist/animal lovers etc.

I'm not telling the mods how to do their job (;)) but what are the criteria they are looking for to help with the decision?

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

If you qualified that statement with "most hunters" and "most of us", one might be more inclined to agree with you.

Because, let's face it, hunters are not a homogenous, animal friendly, green orientated conservationist group organisation...you have your own problems with inconsiderate, indiscriminate pocket-Rambos.

This I agree with, they are a pain in the hole for the honest decent majority.

And even the ones that are doing things by the book have a few questions to ask themselves. Take the pheasants, for example.

Hunters drone on about how they breed and hatch pheasants, release them into the wild, so that they can shoot them for food later ...and how that's all "natural" and "conservationist" and all that.

Well firstly many many more pheasants are released than shot, in our club we might release 100 and shoot 10-15 every year. So we (and any other club I've spoken to) should be having a net gain.
Also shooting females birds or hens is illegal and the majority of the time the number of hens released is very high.

Surely if we were only interested in shooting them then cocks only would be released.

What they fail to mention is that the pheasant is not an indigenous species for Europe, never mind Ireland. You might think so, looking at the numbers that are about, but t was imported from Asia by Victorian landlords for their shooting pleasure.

A historical event, no one alive today is at fault, should we just let their numbers dwindle to nothing then. Hunt them to oblivion. So honestly I would like you to answer this question, should we wipe them out because they are not indigenous or try and keep them here now that they are?

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Foxes don't just kill pheasants, name a ground bird and its on the menu

Would you care to list such bird species the pheasant is responsible for wiping out/negatively effecting?
Also ducks and geese are generally referred to as wildfowl not game birds (like pheasants)

Yet hunters keep rearing them so that they can shoot them later and condemn their natural predator to death...makes you think ...or at least it should.

Its still better than farming them isn't it and again with the high release rate of females (who are not shot) you can hardly claim it is a sinister act

EDIT: Clearly I have justified this to myself

bernard0368

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

whitser

rabbits arent indigenous either, they were brought by the normans, also i think the romans brought game birds to the britian and ireland long before victorians. could be wrong though.
yes think pet issues and animals issues should be seperat.

Vegeta

bernard0368 wrote: »

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

You should drop in to the hunting forum, you've never posted there and as a photographer I'd love to see some of the wildlife shots. One of the members John Griffin is into his photography too.

http://www.johngriffinphotography.ie/

whitser

bernard0368 wrote: »

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

no one suggested we cull ALL vermin. just that they need to be culled.