Hunting as a sport

daftbegger

It has probably been raised before, if so i apologise.
The English government are deciding whether or not to ban hunting in the Uk. I myself think it should be banned worldwide, I would be interested to hear other peoples opinion on this matter.

www.huntsabs.org.uk
www.huntingworld.co.uk

azezil

I doubt they're banning hunting outright, d'ya mean fox hunting i.e. when a bunch of horsey folk get together, chase around an innocent animal and set a bunch of ravenous hounds loose on it?

I'm not really against hunting in general, there is an element of people who take it too far, i.e. people who would actually allow the hounds rip the fox apart, or people who hunt them 'to ground' and dig them out. I don't agree that it should be banned out right, but definitely closely monitored and policed.

seamus

Being a veggie, my views on it are obvious, but surely it would be much more fun to train a dog to hide itself and then hunt it on horses - if that's your thing. I honestly can't see the fun in it - and it can't exactly be hard, dogs have great smell and would flush out a fox in about 20 mins.......

azezil

Actually they very rearly catch the fox... or so i'm told by a friend who participates in the sport.

Ri-ra

To quote Oscar Wilde on foxhunting: "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."

edited due to the diligence of illkillya

Illkillya

aye foxes are clever feckers, clever as a fox innit? btw, its the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable afaik

Sand

Not going to find too many on this board who support hunting methinks. I certainly dont and some people seem to think Im a right wing tory (read disagree with left:) ). The only defence the supporters of hunting would have is that its a rural way of life and so on. I dont think that weighs very heavily against the cruelty against the fox in question. Farmers might have a point when they say it reduces the incidence of fox attacks on livestock (And its not pretty) , but there are more humane ways to cull the foxes population.

Da Bounca

Let us go coursing, hurrah.

Pepe LeFrits

I don't like it.

... And that is my great contribution to the topic!

neuro-praxis

Hunting has been the past-time of man since dot. I think hunting is a natural desire and I don't have a problem with it. When I was a kid, I did, but let's face it - if you aren't a vegetarian then you don't really have the right to complain about hunters.

There is no actual need for any of us to eat meat. But we do because we enjoy it - even if it means an animal must die. Hunting is the same - needless. But it is a primal urge, and you can't just get rid of that overnight.

A guy I know has a bear licence (he's from the US) and that does, however, disturb me a little.

Celt

Originally posted by neuro-praxis

There is no actual need for any of us to eat meat.

Same goes for vegetables, except meat gives us certain minerals and vitamins we dont really get in other foods, same goes for vegetables, of course we can get tablets to compensate.

WhiteWashMan

in hunting you kill stuff and then eat it or stuff it or something.
bit like fishing isnt it?

dont see any call to ban fishing

bonkey

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Hunting has been the past-time of man since dot. I think hunting is a natural desire and I don't have a problem with it. When I was a kid, I did, but let's face it - if you aren't a vegetarian then you don't really have the right to complain about hunters.

Hunting, up until relatively recently in our history as a species, was a means of supplying food - a survival trait. I would never have any objection to "survival hunting". This is clearly no longer necessary.

I am somewhat against modern "sport hunting", even for food, as I have seen far too many animals "winged", lying in agony until the huinter comes and puts an end to it.

I am even more against sport hunting for the sake of hunting. Sports-fishing, where a fish is hooked, landed, and then thrown back. Great - we put a fish through agony for nothing more than a weight-figure on a score-card or a nice photo.

I see fox-hunting in the same vein. Yes, I know its arguably a form of pest control, but I dont feel its a very effective or humane one. Logic and I trashed out the humane issue in the posts which were deleted, and continued it offlist a bit, so I'm not going back into it again lest Castor feels we get out of hand again (apologies for that CT...I wont even play the BCT card!).

Basically, I see hunting for sport as being cruel to animals. We all wince in sympathy when we hear of the travesties some gurrier performed on his pet dog or whatever, and most western nations have a form of the ISPCA/RSPCA, which indicates to me that there is a moral and legal effort to prevent unnecessary suffering in animals. Hell - even animals being raised for food have to be humanely treated (wasnt there a big furore over live cattle exports from Ireland as it was considered to put the animals through undue distress while in transit). So, as a result, because I'd want the law to protect my pet dog (if I had one), and because I'm in favour of humane treatment of farm animals, I cannot but be against what I see as inhumane treatment of foxes in fox-hunting.

At the risk of going slightly off topic (but it is relevant), I remember the big issue about dolphin-friendly tuna. Yes - they changed the nets because too many dolphins were getting killed. What they didnt tell us at the time was that the replacement nets killed far more sharks than the originals did dolphins, as well as huge numbers of other species. Basically, the public perception seemed to be "dolphins are nice, we should not be cruel to them". However, no-one seemed to care about the sharks etc which were being slaughtered in their place.

I see fox-hunting in the same light. We should not draw lines and say that we should be nice to the species we like, but can do what we want to the rest.

I can see no compelling reason for fox-hunting other than pleasure, and IMHO it is inhumane treatment of the fox.

Hunting is the same - needless. But it is a primal urge, and you can't just get rid of that overnight.

Sure, but there are so many primal urges which we no longer consider acceptable (violence being one of them) that this is no valid excuse.

The English are looking to decide if fox hunting should remain legal. In order for the pro-hunt lobby to succeed, I believe that they should offer solid arguments as to why fox-hunting should remain legal. The anti-hunt lobby should equally provide solid arguments.

I do not believe that "its traditional" is a solid argument, nor do I believe that "the fox dies quickly" is a good argument, because it completely disregards what some consider to be undue distress the fox is placed under while being hunted. I do not believe hunting is in any way an effective means of population control either, although I'm open to seeing figures showing otherwise.

In conclusion, I have not heard of, nor can I think of a compelling reason why it should remain legal. The fact that it is coming to a vote means that such arguments should be put forward.

On a realistic note, I dont believe the law will pass - too many politicians with vested interests and with careers to think of.

jc

Meh

However, no-one seemed to care about the sharks etc which were being slaughtered in their place.

If God had wanted us to care about the sharks, he'd have made them cute and cuddly.

WhiteWashMan

to quote denis leary

what are you/
im an otter. i swim on my back doing cute little human things with my hands.
youre free to go

what are you
im a cow
youre a fúckin baseball glove. get on the truck, burger...

][cEMAN**

OK I'm a bit split here but not by choice....

I am against hunting and against harming animals and yet I fish.

I don't eat fish so those I catch I don't eat, but I make sure that I only catch them if there's going to be someone else who eats them.

I never catch and release. I think even a moments torture to any animal is inhumane. And yet in order to put the fish out of its misery fast I have to bash its head in with the handle of my knife.

I fish when I can though it's more for relaxation.

So you can see my inner turmoil I think. Fishing for instinct is not wrong - it's survival, but under what circumstances does it then become wrong?

And for those of you who speak of cows being slaughtered for food and fish being caught etc....these are large companies not the general public. Because they cause this mass slaughter we are meant to automaticaly purchase it? Is it wrong then that we as individuals decide to feed ourselves rather than buy into the coorporate market and mass produced food chain?

WhiteWashMan

you will find its easier to buy a chop, rather than grow a cow and then butcher it in the back yard....

][cEMAN**

Yeah but it's also easier to fall over and take it from the masses than stand up for what you believe in.

McGinty

Personnally I would like to see hunting banned worldwide. Animals hunt for survival. It is only some 'humans' who hunt for pleasure.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ][cEMAN**
Yeah but it's also easier to fall over and take it from the masses than stand up for what you believe in.

take what from the masses? if you want to grow cows in your back garden, then be my guest. just dont live next to me...

you asked was it wrong to take it from the corperate food chain.
i just said thats its not really fair to suggest that people not use what is out there, and have to do it all themselves.
besides, you are going onto a different topic, youre talking about the morality of corperations etc. this is about hunting and animal rights in microscopic terms.

although, i would have to say that i think if you wanted to return to some sort of less formal food gathering ritual, it would set the entire world back about 1000 years. inho.

GoneShootin

ban hunting for sport, simple as that

mayhem#

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
to quote denis leary

what are you/
im an otter. i swim on my back doing cute little human things with my hands.
youre free to go

what are you
im a cow
youre a fúckin baseball glove. get on the truck, burger...

Or better still:


" I love to eat meat, I love to eat red meat, I love to eat RAW ****ing red meat!!"

mayhem#

Originally posted by ][cEMAN**
Yeah but it's also easier to fall over and take it from the masses than stand up for what you believe in.

So that's why there are so many veggies.....

mayhem#

Originally posted by Gone Shootin
ban hunting for sport, simple as that

Ban ****wits interfering with other peoples right, period...

GoneShootin

other peoples rights

i guess the right of the animal doesnt really matter then does it ?

BlackMagic

Originally posted by Gone Shootin
ban hunting for sport, simple as that

yea i agree.

how can u have fun killing an animal

][cEMAN**

Nah WWM I was just really putting it out as a point.

Btw I didn't know you could "Grow" cows....thought they were bread. Good idea though - The cow tree hehehe.

I'm just saying that a lot of the time we have food forced at us in supermarkets that a lot of it gets put to waste as nobody buys it. When you say that it is there because there is the demand (or whatever), then you have to accept that sometimes there is slaughter long beyond the actual need.

The idea I was putting across was more for fishing though - fishing today is still hunting though as said before there are two types. There are those who eat the fish and those who catch & release. I think that those who kill to eat are still supplying for themselves and/or their family, but to say that just because there is fish available to buy down the local shop doesn't necessarily eman that you HAVE to go buy it there. Do you get what i'm trying to say? Because I know sometimes I don't really make myself too clear, and when I re-read my posts I often have to wonder myself.

I'm saying that just because there is the option to buy food from large coorporations who mass slaughter for "our needs", does that mean that it is wrong to hunt for food yourself if you so wish to, and decide not to deal in the mass produced chain. Even if only for the weekend if you're out camping etc

Fishing would be considered by most the tamest of these but there is also rabbit/hare snaring, duck huntng etc. and many more. As said before man rarely hunts to feed himself any more, but is it wrong when he does now? Is it wrong when he hunts to feed himself?

Boston

im all for english hunting, its either that or shoot the fermine when you see them. people forget the foxes are fermine to farmers and cost them a living

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
im all for english hunting, its either that or shoot the fermine when you see them. people forget the foxes are fermine to farmers and cost them a living

If you weigh the annual investment in fox-hunting, including the cost of keeping kennels and stables, I'm pretty sure that you'll find its more than the annual cost of damage done by the relatively small number of foxes actually killed in the hunting.

Ignoring the issue of whether its humane or not, if hunting was an effective method of pest control, then fox populations would be so low it would be classed as an endangered species which in and of itself would be a sufficient reason to ban the hunting.

Given that this is not the case, then the argument of "pest control" is moot. Sure, it *adds* to pest control, but is so massively inefficient that this is not a reason to continue its existence.

What it boils down to at the end of the day is whether or not it is a humane form of pest control/hunting/whatever you want to classify it as. As far as I can see, this is the major issue which will be determining its continued legality.

jc

Boston

what it all boils down to at the end of the day, is a bunch of city people, who havent got a clue about the country side, let alone the english one, feeling they have the right to preach about hunting.

GoneShootin

a bunch of city people, who havent got a clue about the country side, let alone the english one, feeling they have the right to preach about hunting.

what an ignorant piece of claptrap !! didnt think you had it in you boston.

Im from the country, farmers son and all that. And im dead set against hunting for sport. As that is fox hunting, blood sport. Pest control ?, just look at bonkeys well made post.

Boston

so you grew up in the english country side did you?

here its not traditional to hunt, while it goes on in some parts its not as traditional, and no way is it anything like england.

Id say that, of all the people set against english hunting, few of you if any have ever taken part in it, and understand the cultural importants it has in rural england. its part of who these people are, and it wouldnt be happening if the local people of those areas didnt support it. what right have you to tell them how to live there life, its easy to say your from the country in ireland or england and you are happy without it, but who gave you the right to impose your value system on someone else

GoneShootin

im not doing anything of the sort. im expressing my opinion.

no i did not grow up in england, but where i live [north cork] fox hunting is a tradition, ive grown up with the sight of horses and hounds chasing foxs thru our family's land.

here its not traditional to hunt

you obviously know your stuff then *

seamus

I think tradition and culture has no place in any argument. Tradition and culture have always stifled progress and development and kept the poor people poor and the rich people rich. Traditionally, I as a man, should have urges to sleep around, take sex from women(and animals) by force and kill other men who get in my way. Who are society to impose restrictions on my traditions?

The thing that seems to set us apart from the other animals is our intelligence.That concept is highly debateable, but lets roll with it for now. Fine, the food chain exists, but there is no real need for it anymore. Animals will kill and eat other animals because that's what they do, and they don't know the meaning of mercy or death. We know better however, and in this modern world, for most of us, there is no actual need to eat other animals. You can argue that plants may feel pain, and you might be right, but based on our current level of scientific knowledge, they can't, so why not eat them? You can get everything you need from them, and plenty of the products produced from plant protein taste just as good, if not better, than meat produce.
Just my two cents - but at the base of it, there is a sizeable percentage of humans I would happily shoot in the head before I even touched an animal

Boston

dont miss quote me, i said not as traditional, of course anything can be traditional, getting up at 8am on a saturaday can be traditional. i said its not as traditional as england. certainly a whoel culture hasnt developed around it, now has it?

i cant argue with that seamus, except to say, that without a culture what are we? dont they have just as much a right to theirs as we do ours?

seamus

Originally posted by Boston
i cant argue with that seamus, except to say, that without a culture what are we? dont they have just as much a right to theirs as we do ours?

Well, strictly imo, culture is a pointless sentiment. It seems to assist in community spirit, but too much, and makes people wary of things that may change the culture. So, strictly imo again, I don't think any country has a right to it's culture. the only culture I would promote is a global one. Sorry that's OT, but its just a part of my above opinion on the hunting thing.

Boston

i totaly disagree, i hate to have one single culture, that would drive me insane, i like the fact that im irish and there what ever, i like the fact ive a different outlook, opinion, and experience of the world then say americans or french.

culture in my opinion is not something that holds a people back but send them forward together.in a world without cultures, then everythign would be the same

mayhem#

Originally posted by Boston
im all for english hunting, its either that or shoot the fermine when you see them. people forget the foxes are fermine to farmers and cost them a living

As much as I am in favour of hunting, that is a ****e argument...

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Id say that, of all the people set against english hunting, few of you if any have ever taken part in it, and understand the cultural importants it has in rural england.

Ah - yes - its the old culture argument again. Its the same reason we should let people in Ireland outside the cities drive on teh roads no matter how pissed they are - the pub is their cultural centre and we cant take that from them?

This is the exact same situation.

Culture is not the issue. No-one is trying to ban fox-hunting because of its cultural aspects. They are trying to ban it because of the claims that it is inhumane.

For it to remain legal, there is one simple perogative - the "pro-hunting" crowd must either show that it is not inhumane, or that it serves a necessary purpose (such as pest control) where it is the most humane option available.

Option 2 there aint gonna happen. So it boils down to a simple question - is hunting humane or not? This will determine its continued legality. Anything else is simply window-dressing to try and detract from the actual central issue. Anyone who believes that the cultural importance should be taken into account is either deliberately avoiding the difficult questions, or simply doesnt understand the vote which is coming up in the Houses.

jc

Boston

well your back to the old arguemnt, it doesnt hurt anybody
so if somebody is doing somethign part of their culture, then i dont have a problem, its over the top to compare it to drink driving

GoneShootin

it doesnt hurt anybody

except the foxes.....

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
well your back to the old arguemnt, it doesnt hurt anybody

Yes - its the old argument, but the simple fact is that the vote was brought about due to allegations of inhumane treatment.

I maintain that it is unnecessarily inhumane treatment of animals - the illegality of which has legal precedent in a staggering number of areas. Enough people in England maintain the same to be able to get it brought to a vote in parliament.

Culturalism should have no relevance to either the pro- or anti- hunting lobbies in this vote, unless you believe that "its tradtional" is a good counter-argument to "its inhumane". I dont for a second believe that anyone here would take that stance, so we again boil down to the "is it humane or isnt it" question.

The only person who tackled this on the thread was basicaly saying that it was humane because the animal died quickly once caught. Even without disputing that assertion (which I would normally), it still doesnt negate the claim that the entire hunt is inhumane - that the actual chasing of the fox is unduly inhumane as it puts it in a state of prolonged terror.

My comparison to the drink-driving issue in Ireland was simply to show a comparable case where it is even more obvious that "culturalism" is not a valid argument in favour of permitting it, and yet is one of the most vocal reasons you hear for opposing sdtiffer drink-driving laws.

jc

EvilGeorge

This is great it provides us with food, trophies, clothes and gets rid of those pests occupying the world - all the benifits you could ask for

Zero

Hunting as a term gets very generalised, because people associate game shooters in the same genre as coursers and horseback hunting.

Obviously enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion/interests, but people should look at themselves before commenting on the "cruelty" of it.

First off, I think "hunting" as in "40 snobs on horseback with 100 hounds chasing a fox across 4 miles of fields before tearing it apart" is pathetic, and not what I would associate with fun or fairness or whatever. I also think coursing falls into the same class, cornering a hare in a field with a load of greyhounds. Not much difference.

Game shooting is totally different, and the reason I'm explaining it is because people dont understand the way it works. I'm a game shooter, i.e. Im a member of a gunclub, I own a shotgun and from November til the end of January I shoot pheasant, mallard, teal, woodcock, snipe etc. In the summer we shoot crows/magpies/greycrows for farmers.
I enjoy shooting, even if only for the exercise, and I love a pheasant dinner too. Before a load of lovey dovey people jump on my back with "how can you have fun killing an animal" etc etc, there are very few people who can justify saying anything about it unless you're a vegetarian, because there is no difference in a guy shooting and eating a pheasant than a person who gets a steak or pork chop handed up to them at dinner. You mightnt be the person walking into the abattoir shooting the cow behind the ear or slitting the pigs throat but if you eat meat you effectively condone it.
Furthermore, FYI, gunclubs are all part of the RGCs (regional game councils) which in turn report to the NARGC or National Association of Regional Game Councils. Every year the gunclubs spend thousands of pounds raising and releasing pheasants in pens, releasing them in game "sanctuaries" where shooting is prohibited, and it is a known fact that if it wasn't for the gunclubs, (who release way more birds than they shoot), the pheasant population in Ireland would be miniscule, if there at all.

So, before city slickers imagine a bunch of rambos running around the country gunning down animals, its a lot different to that, and like I said, if you eat meat in any form and then complain about game shooting, you are a hypocrite. Remember, you don't "need" to eat meat. I disagree with "the hunt" as much as most people, but dont get the two mixed up.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zero
like I said, if you eat meat in any form and then complain about game shooting, you are a hypocrite.

While I agree partly about your meat-eaters comment, I think it is a somewhat unfair comparison. For a start, the conventional methods of slaughtering farmed animals have usually been refined to be highly quick, efficient, and dependable. The methods of killing in the hunt are generally recognised to be less reliable - you are not guaranteed anywhere near the same levels of a quick clean kill.

AS a matter of interest, roughly what proportion of "hits" would result in kills when hunting game in this manner? Or perhaps (being more direct) what proportion of hits result in a wounded bird flying off?

jc

Jay

I spent most of my childhood following the hunt around on saturday mornings and the occasional wednesday. I was 'Blooded' when I was four.

For the city slickers among us, this means watching the hounds tear the fox apart, then the hunt master takes some blood from the fox and places a blotch on your forehead. I was also given a paw and a tail to take home with me. I remember that day clearly and I loved it, the attention, the excitement, and of course the 'acceptance' to the group of hunters.

Yes that was a cruel, inhumane death for the fox.

But as it goes, I've grown up and haven't been hunting in about 12 years. In reality, nowadays the hunt only occasionally catch a fox, perhaps once a month if even that. Also, nowadays as far as I know the huntsmaster has to carry a pistol with him to kill the fox humanely.

I think there is no need for fox hunting (on horses etc) anymore. They have tried and tested drag hunting in rural england. (and in ireland as far as I know.) This would be more than sufficient and probably just as exciting.

It also should be noted that this does mean that other methods will have to be used to kill the foxes, such as laying poison and setting snares.

Don't both of these methods fall into the 'inhumane' category? Especially when BuBu your pet dog gets snared or poisoned.

What to do.......

Zero

to be honest, you'd be talking 8-9 out of 10 birds are instant kills, those that arent are usually retrieved within 20 seconds and killed quickly. The chances of a wounded bird getting away are practically nil, it would be very hard to wound a bird and not damage a wing.

tbh I wouldnt regard slitting a pigs throat as highly efficient, but of course they bend the rules when they want the blood for pudding. I agree with you that it is not as utterly instant as "civilised slaughter", but apart from that it is no worse, in fairness, at least you are giving the poor b@stard a chance

neuro-praxis

If I have learnt anything from anthropology, it's that your culture defines you. Sorry about that.

I'm all for social reform where neceassary, but flicking your culture aside without considering is undeniably ignorant.

I do NOT understand how people who are against hunting can say that hunting is justifiable when you eat what you have caught - hence making fishing okay.

Hello?

There is no need to hunt and eat the prey in our society. No need whatsoever. People enjoy to hunt, kill and consume their prey. And I really don't see much wrong with that.

As for blood sports, whilst I don't understand them, it would only be hypocrisy to ban them. I like eating meat. That emans that I condone the killing of animals for my own pleasure. What are bloodsports? They are killing animals for human pleasure.

bonkey

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
If I have learnt anything from anthropology, it's that your culture defines you. Sorry about that.

I'm all for social reform where neceassary, but flicking your culture aside without considering is undeniably ignorant.

So what does this mean? Anything "cultural" should be left alone? The simple fact is that the argument of "its cultural" is not an excuse. It is an attempt to avoid having to give an excuse.

Look at the hunting issue. It is called into question because of questions about its humaneness. Culture does not excuse inhumaneness (inhumanity?), and the culture card is just an attempt to distract people from the real issue.

I do NOT understand how people who are against hunting can say that hunting is justifiable when you eat what you have caught - hence making fishing okay.

I dont think anyone except a hunter who eats their capture has actually put that point of view forward here.

If hunting is humane, and doesnt involve putting animals through large amounts of terror before its death (as in the fox hunt, IMHO) then it is arguably no worse than a slaughterhouse. It is a justifiable as having a fillet steak for your dinner.

The issue is the humaneness. It is not about eating meat, pest control, death or anything else. It is about how humanely the animal is treated during the process. Death itself is not inhumane - it is a question of how it is delivered.

jc

El_Presidente

I'm all for hunting!

In fact I recently launched my deer hunting sattelite. Its an orbital laser with pin point accuracy that I use to blow up deer from hundreds of miles above without leaving the comfort of my chair.

Some coffee drinking, tree hugging, lefty liberals say this is unfair to the deer but I disagree. Why even as I write this there may be deer out there developing anti-sattelite weaponry!

Zero

Andy u gay, u change ure email addy??