Is hunting wrong?

_feedback_ · 29-09-2008 04:50PM

What's the story with the gheys on the horses with the dogs?! Do they need a license for that sh1t? As far as i know, they are the ones that hunt foxes etc with the dogs "for sport" ?

I met a bunch of these.. probably about 20-30 horses with maybe 10 dogs, on a back road from Athlone to Mullingar a couple of months back. The dogs came running like mad things at the car, and one of the horses wasn't far off kicking the car. I hurled abuse at the prick on the horse closest to me... I was stuck there (on a very dangerous road) for the best part of 10 minutes while they got off the road.

Are they allowed just do this as they please?

javaboy · 29-09-2008 04:52PM

anti-venom wrote: »

Your attempt to link the hunting of wildlife for food with the meat industry is well off the mark. The two are incomparable. The amount of meat obtained through hunting is only a piss in the ocean compared to the amount of meat obtained from agriculture.

I can't figure out how you managed to extrapolate from my previous post that I would find the meat industry a more acceptable means of obtaining meat. Battery farming is a very distasteful means of treating animals but that in no way justifies hunting. I don't see how it does, quite frankly.

So are you a vegetarian? If not, what would be your preferred method of raising and killing animals and why?

thelordofcheese · 29-09-2008 04:54PM

elviscostello wrote: »

What's the story with the gheys on the horses with the dogs?! Do they need a license for that sh1t? As far as i know, they are the ones that hunt foxes etc with the dogs "for sport" ?

I met a bunch of these.. probably about 20-30 horses with maybe 10 dogs, on a back road from Athlone to Mullingar a couple of months back. The dogs came running like mad things at the car, and one of the horses wasn't far off kicking the car. I hurled abuse at the prick on the horse closest to me... I was stuck there (on a very dangerous road) for the best part of 10 minutes while they got off the road.

Are they allowed just do this as they please?

yes we are, peasant.

ScumLord · 29-09-2008 04:59PM

javaboy wrote: »

So are you a vegetarian? If not, what would be your preferred method of raising and killing animals and why?

I assume he means the natural way, ripped into tiny pieces while your still alive.

Vegeta · 29-09-2008 05:10PM

anti-venom wrote: »

Vegata..........I wonder who shows more respect for the countryside and it's wildlife; the hunter who kills and maims birds and animals or birdwatchers, hikers etc who manage to enjoy the countryside without feeling the need to slaughter something?

Big change from your previous statement. Love the emotive language by the way "maim" and "slaughter". I suppose if you cant win with logic and reasoning you'll appeal to the Bambi lover in people

I certainly don't see that hunters have more respect for the countryside than any other people

Vast difference between "any other people" and "birdwatchers, hikers". Any other people includes everyone and as always since we are speaking generalities your average hunter has more respect and knowledge about the local ecosystem than your average person (your average person is not a hillwalker/birdwatcher)

Change of terms then to suit your argument. Nice

Your attempt to link the hunting of wildlife for food with the meat industry is well off the mark. The two are incomparable. The amount of meat obtained through hunting is only a piss in the ocean compared to the amount of meat obtained from agriculture.

I know I am way off the mark, for several reasons. Farming in some cases is way worse for animal cruelty than the hunting we are discussing here. That's the most obvious anyway. Also I agree the amount of meat obtained by hunting is a drop in the ocean compared to meat obtained from agriculture. If only all meat eaters had to source their own rather than let someone else do the dirty work and then pick up your lovely plastic sealed package at the supermarket.

I can't figure out how you managed to extrapolate from my previous post that I would find the meat industry a more acceptable means of obtaining meat. Battery farming is a very distasteful means of treating animals but that in no way justifies hunting. I don't see how it does, quite frankly.

So if a person is going to eat meat which would you prefer them to do, eat a wild animal they sourced themselves or one kept in captivity all its life and provided by someone making a profit on its sale? Serious question there

Lissoy · 29-09-2008 05:11PM

I wonder what % of people that are against hunting are from the city/towns.
I'm from the country and have no problem with hunting for whatever reason.

Dinter · 29-09-2008 05:19PM

Lissoy wrote: »

I wonder what % of people that are against hunting are from the city/towns.
I'm from the country and have no problem with hunting for whatever reason.

I have no problems with the Gardai hunting criminals. Makes us all safer.

Terry · 29-09-2008 05:22PM

All you anti-hunting people are going to be ****ed when the revolution happens.
They're will be no factories to make that Linda McCartney crap.

Dinter · 29-09-2008 05:25PM

Terry wrote: »

All you anti-hunting people are going to be ****ed when the revolution happens.
They're will be no factories to make that Linda McCartney crap.

Tbh they'd probably prefer soylent green because it doesn't hurt Bambi and Daisy.

EamonnKeane · 29-09-2008 05:26PM

Foxes killed by hunters annually: 100?
Foxes killed by cars annually: Probably several thousand, many of which have to crawl into a ditch with no-one to put them out of their misery.
It's hunters, not "animal rights" activists, who protest when a forest is to be cleared.

Dudess · 29-09-2008 05:31PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Hunting really makes me sick. It's really depraved. But any people I've ever spoken to who've been involved in hunting, have justified it to themselves with all kinds of silly reasons. There's just no point in arguing with them. They know it's wrong, but they still like doing it, so it's a circular argument.

I agree - when it comes to hunting for sport. There is NO reason to chase a terrified fox until it collapses with exhaustion and then look on while it gets ripped to shreds by a pack of savage dogs - other than for sport/the "buzz".

Fine, but don't tell me there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not for food or for conservation purposes - please don't give me that claptrap. When the **** did that require a never-ending chase and an assault by hungry dogs...?

anti-venom · 29-09-2008 05:42PM

I'm not a veggie although I don't really eat much meat. Most people would regard meat as a vital foodstuff so by extension they must regard the meat industry as vital. I don't see that there is any means of producing meat that doesn't involve some degree of cruelty to the animals. It's unfortunate but wholly unavoidable, however, society demands that the suffering imposed is minimalised and, in most cases, measures are taken to maximise animal wellfare. We generally don't tolerate unnecessary suffering of animals. I'm speculating here, but I believe that if the consumers of chicken, for example, were to visit a battery farm most of them would be utterly repusled at the appalling conditions in which these birds exist and would turn to free-range instead.

I still fail to see how comparing the meat industry to hunting in any way diminishes the cruelty involved in hunting. The farming of animals is generally regarded as necessary and therefore if want to eat meat we have to accept the cruelty inherent in the business. The killing of wild game is not regarded as necessary to obtain food. It is done for sport primarily. We do not keep farm animals for sport.

javaboy · 29-09-2008 05:52PM

anti-venom wrote: »

I'm speculating here, but I believe that if the consumers of chicken, for example, were to visit a battery farm most of them would be utterly repusled at the appalling conditions in which these birds exist and would turn to free-range instead.

I still fail to see how comparing the meat industry to hunting in any way diminishes the cruelty involved in hunting. The farming of animals is generally regarded as necessary and therefore if want to eat meat we have to accept the cruelty inherent in the business. The killing of wild game is not regarded as necessary to obtain food. It is done for sport primarily. We do not keep farm animals for sport.

But aren't animals killed for food by hunting essentially free range? I'm no expert but I believe that most of the hunting that involves excessive cruelty is not about food. Deer, pheasants, rabbits are hunted for food and the idea is usually to kill them as quick and as cleanly as possible.

So it isn't really any crueller than the death they might get in a more industrial environment. Plus a bunch of enthusiasts get to have their day out too.

Btw why do we have to accept cruelty in getting meat from farming but we cannot accept any cruelty in getting meat via hunting? What's the difference if they're both cruel?

Maximilian · 29-09-2008 06:03PM

I suppose angling is going to be called wrong next. After all, they use hooks to catch the fish and bash the fish's brains out against rocks.

javaboy · 29-09-2008 06:07PM

Maximilian wrote: »

I suppose angling is going to be called wrong next. After all, they use hooks to catch the fish and bash the fish's brains out against rocks.

Hold on a minute. Now you're just being obtuse. I suppose angling is cruel to a degree but then nobody's going to cry for a fish the way they will for a cute bunny. I can see this going off on a bit of a tangent.

sorry. I can't help it.

Maximilian · 29-09-2008 06:29PM

What's the difference though really. Ok you don't eat foxes but both animals are killed for the sport of it. How about shooting game (tasty and shooting guns is fun). There's a bit of a fine line.

There doesn't seem to be any practical justification for fox hunting though. It's just for sh!ts and giggles. I know there's the culling argument or whatever but I think that's probably horsesh!t. They're just animals ultimately. We love them but we also like to eat them/hunt them down with packs of even cuter animals. The PETA-Brigade would better put their time to use fighting cruelty to humans.

Wibbs · 29-09-2008 06:32PM

I've hunted in the past and I go fishing. I enjoy it. Yep. I do. No doubt about it. I enjoy the countryside, the skill involved, the social aspect of it etc. Now I don't enjoy the killing part particularly and that is a small part of it. Though its the part that gets the whiny types all het up. I do throw most fish back and will only keep the odd one for the table.

Now as others have pointed out, non hunting/fishing types have generally little clue about the environment that they so "love". This goes double for the more vocal bobble hatted eejits in need of soap ones. I had an ex who was a real hippy and she was convinced I was the devil incarnate for going fly fishing. She thought she was so green etc. The joke is she couldn't tell whether a river was capable of sustaining a decent ecology. I showed her rivers she thought were all sparkly and clear and she thought they were lovely. She didn't think they were so lovely when she discovered that a decent trout wasn't to be found in them or that salmon runs were but a memory.

As far as I'm concerned, me catching a salmon or trout in a river and eating same is far more morally and environmentally sound than anyone who buys those fish in supermarkets. The fish I will catch will have had no clue I was there. Indeed if he does I have no chance of catching him. Plus he will not have been raised in crowded fish pens which reduce his fins to ragged stumps that mock his natural glory, fed the ground up paste of other fish(pushing the mercury load in his tissues to dodgy proportions), pumped full of dye to make him the "right" colour of salmon pink and contributed to the demise of his wild cousins by the toxins, filth, chemicals and sea lice released by those fish farms. Indeed since the introduction of fish farms the natural stocks of salmon and sea trout have been decimated. Of course you won't hear that from too many gov types as it's too much of a lucrative trade.

So the next time someone gets uppity at me and my kind spare a thought for the extinction of the natural cousin of the very fish your happily puting on your plate.

javaboy · 29-09-2008 06:36PM

Maximilian wrote: »

What's the difference though really. Ok you don't eat foxes but both animals are killed for the sport of it. They're just animals ultimately. the PETA-Brigade would better put their time to use fighting cruelty to humans.

Let's leave PETA out of this if we can and have a nice sensible discussion. Not all anti-hunting people would be pro-PETA. And why can't people fight cruelty to animals if they want? Just because there are 'bigger' evils in the world, it doesn't stop people from caring about other problems.

Zillah · 29-09-2008 06:49PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I do throw most fish back and will only keep the odd one for the table.

Yeah, most fish that get thrown back get infections in that ragged wound in their mouth and die.

BroomBurner · 29-09-2008 06:55PM

So, what we've found out is:
- hunting for subsistence is ok
- fishing for subsistence is ok
- mass slaughter of animals is ok (for those opposing hunting but still eat meat)
- killing insects is bad (unless it's part of a study to see how many insects are killed by cars!)
- hunting for fun is not ok
- fishing for fun is not ok, unless you patch up the fish's mouth afterwards
- fishing for fun is ok, because the fish stays alive
- humans are evil
- humans are fantastic

dlofnep · 29-09-2008 06:57PM

Interesting how the pro-hunting crowd try to deflect the attention elsewhere.

Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we?

Shooting animals for fun is wrong. Shooting animals for food is acceptable by most people. I have an inherent problem with people who go out and take the life of an animal as a means of having a day out. Is that all the life of an animal is worth to you?

I'm not a pro PETA tree hugger or anything close to it, but I find the idea of shooting an animal for fun disgusting. I also find it funny that alot hide behind arguments like "Oh we care about the wildlife" and "But sure, thousands of animals die on the road every year." That may be the case, but those animals are not purposely killed and it can be rarely if ever avoided.

Killing animals for fun however can be avoided. It's quite simple really.

Nehaxak · 29-09-2008 07:59PM

Depends what animal.
Being serious for a minute, I disagree with the likes of fox hunting because really it's just retarded/stupid/let's pretend we're upper class protestants from the 18th century - but killing rats for instance, or possible TB infected badgers I'd be all for.
As an ex-pigeon racer from years gone by in my early youth, I'd be all up for killing cats as they're just a pest but dunno how you'd make that a sport and get away with it these days.
Maybe in this era of recession and all that we'll see a lot more people eating their kills rather than just be a sport.
Never tasted a cat but sure, worth a try...

fits · 29-09-2008 08:11PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Depends what animal.
Being serious for a minute, I disagree with the likes of fox hunting because really it's just retarded/stupid/let's pretend we're upper class protestants ..

[gettingdraggedin]that is the most ridiculous reason to disagree with something ever... just because you dont like the look of it. :rolleyes:
but also probably the main reason why so many have issues with it.
[/gettingdraggedin]

i disagree with badger culls for tb btw. Studies have proven that it only encourages badgers to move territory and thus spread the disease more.

Nehaxak · 29-09-2008 08:17PM

fits wrote: »

[gettingdraggedin]that is the most ridiculous reason to disagree with something ever... just because you dont like the look of it. :rolleyes:
but also probably the main reason why so many have issues with it.
[/gettingdraggedin]

My reason for disliking it anyway, right or wrong it's my view on that "sport".

Too much money, too much time on their hands, too little real world activity to actually keep them down to Earth so they hunt poor foxes and all retire to a secret field and run around naked covered in the foxes blood, chanting masonic hymns after buggering each other senseless.

Ps., Lift up the back flap of your jacket and take another pic of yourself on the horse for your sig will you ? pleeeeese !!!

fits · 29-09-2008 08:35PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Too much money, too much time on their hands, too little real world activity to actually keep them down to Earth so they hunt poor foxes and all retire to a secret field and run around naked covered in the foxes blood, chanting masonic hymns after buggering each other senseless.

Ps., Lift up the back flap of your jacket and take another pic of yourself on the horse for your sig will you ? pleeeeese !!!

ehhh no

Wibbs · 29-09-2008 08:53PM

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah, most fish that get thrown back get infections in that ragged wound in their mouth and die.

I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about. That's utter crap in fact and typical of the frankly ignorant "information" often bandied about. The amount of utter bollox spouted by some of the anti's is priceless.

In any case what manner of hook are you talking about? Barbless? Barbed" Treble, single, etc? What part of the the mouth are you talking about?

In the case of live bait(which I personally don't use), where a worm or whatever is actually swallowed by the fish, then yes the damage from the hook would be in many cases fatal to the fish. A hook point in the lip would simply not be fatal.

Indeed even with the majority of live bait angling, your contention would still be wrong. Coarse anglers operate a near total catch and release policy and specimen fish such as carp are routinely caught again and again and again. These specimen fish are highly prized by the anglers and as such are treated accordingly. Your average good coarse angler is a well oiled fishing machine and in competition can catch and release a hell of a lot of fish. 100's of pounds in some cases. If "most" died after such treatment then the sport of coarse fishing would soon die out for lack of fish. It doesn't.

If people have arguments, fine, but at least make them informed ones. I noted that out of all my post, you only quoted that part. How about the effect that fish farming has on our environment and the wild stocks? Far more of an effect than the fishermen could ever have. Fishermen who actively strive to keep our waterways clean. When was the last time you helped clean a river or waterway of rubbish, or reported a case of pollution, or even walked by a waterway with informed eyes? Exactly....... Come back to me when you actually have a cogent argument.

TPD · 29-09-2008 08:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about. That's utter crap in fact and typical of the frankly ignorant "information" often bandied about. The amount of utter bollox spouted by some of the anti's is priceless.

In any case what manner of hook are you talking about? Barbless? Barbed" Treble, single, etc? What part of the the mouth are you talking about?

In the case of live bait(which I personally don't use), where a worm or whatever is actually swallowed by the fish, then yes the damage from the hook would be in many cases fatal to the fish. A hook point in the lip would simply not be fatal.

Indeed even with the majority of live bait angling, your contention would still be wrong. Coarse anglers operate a near total catch and release policy and specimen fish such as carp are routinely caught again and again and again. These specimen fish are highly prized by the anglers and as such are treated accordingly. Your average good coarse angler is a well oiled fishing machine and in competition can catch and release a hell of a lot of fish. 100's of pounds in some cases. If "most" died after such treatment then the sport of coarse fishing would soon die out for lack of fish. It doesn't.

If people have arguments, fine, but at least make them informed ones. I noted that out of all my post, you only quoted that part. How about the effect that fish farming has on our environment and the wild stocks? Far more of an effect than the fishermen could ever have. Fishermen who actively strive to keep our waterways clean. When was the last time you helped clean a river or waterway of rubbish, or reported a case of pollution, or even walked by a waterway with informed eyes? Exactly....... Come back to me when you actually have a cogent argument.

SNAP!

yank_in_eire · 29-09-2008 09:40PM

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah, most fish that get thrown back get infections in that ragged wound in their mouth and die.

Presumably you have a valid reference in a scholarly journal to support this claim?

amjon · 29-09-2008 09:43PM

Hunting is ok in my book.In any form that is currently legal in the republic.Fox and deer hunting are 2 of the things I hope to do before I die.

One of my firmest beliefs is that animals are on this planet solely for mans betterment. Whether that be hunting for pleasure, mass slaughter for subsistence or (at the risk of opening a whole other can of worms here) subjecting them to cruel and unusual experiments in the name of scientific research then so be it.

Wibbs · 30-09-2008 12:45AM

yank_in_eire wrote: »

Presumably you have a valid reference in a scholarly journal to support this claim?

Valid? References? scholarly? and god forbid, support? Don't try to hold your breath on that one....;)

Is hunting wrong?

Comments