Chris_Sleeps Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If a landowner in this country started a business whereby the general public paid to blow deers brains out, there'd be an outcry. Probably demonstrations. That happens. Deer stalking is a draw for tourism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Its not really about much of what's been posted. Its nothing to do with conservation, feeding poor people, man's use of animals as a resource, necessary culls etc. Its more to do with the molarity of someone paying to kill wild animals for sport. If a landowner in this country started a business whereby the general public paid to blow deers brains out, there'd be an outcry. Probably demonstrations. Why don't we take it a step further and let the sick of mind, like the bloke in the OP, pay to execute people. They were to suffer the death penalty anyway and the local communities would gain much needed finance. Everybody wins.. There are many, many commercial deer shoots in England and Scotland. I've not seen any demonstrations at any of the ones I've frequented. (Heads shots are frowned upon largely - heart/lungs is the accepted method of dispatch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 How do you know it's harrowing for the animal? Harrowing to see! I can't back it up with scientific evidence though i'm sure it will exist but I find it difficult to imagine that being held in a restricted area and surrounded by alien smells, sights and sound will be beneficial to an animal especially those whose migration or territory covers hundreds of square miles, can ever feel 'happy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Its not really about much of what's been posted. Its nothing to do with conservation, feeding poor people, man's use of animals as a resource, necessary culls etc. Its more to do with the molarity morality of someone paying to kill wild animals for sport.I can't see what is generally 'amoral' about killing wild animals for sport. It may be distasteful to some, or even many. But it is not 'amoral'. Wild animals have been killed for necessity and sport for centuries. Improvements in farming and food conditioning have removed the necessity. In the same time, leisure time has generally increased, so why be surprised that people (many more, since hunting has been much democratised) still want to hunt for sport? It's been asked before, but you dodged, so I'll ask again: is fishing amoral? Trouts and salmons are wild animals. Not very photogenic/cuddly ones, granted. Fishing them kills them through asphyxiation. Now what? Why don't we take it a step further and let the sick of mind, like the bloke in the OP, pay to execute people. They were to suffer the death penalty anyway and the local communities would gain much needed finance. Everybody wins..Says more about you than the bloke in the OP, tbh. Edited November 7, 2011 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 I can't see what is generally 'amoral' about killing wild animals for sport. It may be distasteful to some, or even many. But it is not 'amoral'. Wild animals have been killed for necessity and sport for centuries. Improvements in farming and food conditioning have removed the necessity. In the same time, leisure time has generally increased, so why be surprised that people (many more, since hunting has been much democratised) still want to hunt for sport? It's been asked before, but you dodged, so I'll ask again: is fishing amoral? Trouts and salmons are wild animals. Not very photogenic/cuddly ones, granted. Fishing them kills them through asphyxiation. Now what? Says more about you than the bloke in the OP, tbh. Well your moralinty is much lower than others then. You're not as evolved. That's not a criticism though we are all different. Your mind set is still very much in the past if you think because it was alright hundreds of years ago, it still is. Anyone who hunts big game for sport or supports it, is well, a bit thick. No offence. I feel I have answered the question about fishing, but I'll repeat the answer if you didn't understand. Perhaps you were stamping on a Hedgehog and were distracted. I don't particularly oppose fishing. I don't support it either, but it doesn't bother me in the same way as the person who shoots elephants..That, I'll just clarify, was what the thread is about. Its about a man who goes to Africa and shoots animals. Big game hunting I think they call it. This is what I find distasteful... Now carry on stamping I think its coming round... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 It's been asked before, but you dodged, so I'll ask again: is fishing amoral? Trouts and salmons are wild animals. Not very photogenic/cuddly ones, granted. Fishing them kills them through asphyxiation. Not unless you want the fish to die. I've caught thousands of trout and never had one die. Fish are fine out of water for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Not unless you want the fish to die. I've caught thousands of trout and never had one die. Fish are fine out of water for a while.You could survive with your head held underwater for a minute or two, after fighting to get away with a hook through your cheek for a minute or two, but that doesn't mean you'd necessarily enjoy the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You could survive with your head held underwater for a minute or two, after fighting to get away with a hook through your cheek for a minute or two, but that doesn't mean you'd necessarily enjoy the experience. What has that got to do with fish dying through asphyxiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 What has that got to do with fish dying through asphyxiation?Aside from the fact that many fish do die from asphyxiation on their way to the dinner table, the point was more that the debate over whether fish feel pain/fear/ suffering from being fished is less vociferously fought than issues relating to cute cuddly animals - not many lentil eaters want to hug a fish, but they get oh-so-excited about the death of mammals. I guess it's all down to how we condition kids from an early age to treat kittens and puppies as human babies. (I have nothing against fishing, but find it strange that people choose to draw a line of acceptability which sees fishing as fine but not, say, shooting pheasant or deer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 It's not as though people are just allowed out to blast away willy nilly - the paying hunters would be with game wardens, animals selected accordingly and the fees helping to support the game reserves. Back to your post above, in some areas poaching does threaten numbers, but in other areas culling has been authorised in recent years. I'm keeping my eyes and ears open in case I hear of any panda culls - a panda would make a cracking foot stool. Your head would make a cracking football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now