[Closed] dig out the pitchforks.....

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

I don't see how its any different from someone having their picture holding a brace of pheasants, its just certain animals are held in more affection than others.

These reserves are specifically set up for hunting and the animals on them are bred in order to charge people with more money than sense to go and shoot them. Pretty distasteful but no different to organised shoots for pheasants, grouse, deer, etc.

What I did say is that I am able to discern a difference in killing as a form of entertainment and doing so for survival.

No, you didn't mention survival - you mentioned killing for food, Humans can survive perfectly well without it - nobody living south of the 80th parallell really [b]needs[/b] to eat meat for survival, they do it for convenience and enjoyment (and in fact, the arguments for both human health and the environment for them not eating it are extraordinarily strong)

Big hitters be hitting big.

Pigface - Member

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

?????

nobody living south of the 80th parallell really needs to eat meat for survival

Absolutely.
I believe Kayak24 summed it up perfectly.

can you explain how the purpose of satisfying a persons unnecessary desire to eat meat is more important than the purpose of another persons unnecessary desire to kill big animals?

Both directly result in the death of an animal purely so someone can gain personal satisfaction from it,

Eating is generally not considered "personal satisfaction" nor an unnecessary desire but biological imperative?

Hunting for pleasure is a not a biological imperative.

What an absolutely beautiful cat 🙁

If there needs to be culling for protection etc (and it's a last measure) or killing for food then I believe it should be done efficiently and respectfully.

What if instead of a lion it was a soldier standing over the body of someone he/she had just killed holding their gun up and smiling? There should be no pleasure in taking a life, ever.

Eating is generally not considered "personal satisfaction" nor an unnecessary desire but biological imperative?

Eating meat is not a biological imperative. Not any more. Neither is hunting.

So, it would be OK to kill start killing people if I did it for a reason that fits in with your moral compass?

If they started swinging the ban-hammer for straw men...

Never mind, not long to wait one imagines.

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

I am not a vegan, nor am I supporting big game hunting, I am however pointing out the hippocracy of anyone who would be morally outraged by big game hunting, and yet is happy to eat meat. For me they are morally equivalent, an animal dies for someones pleasure.

Lions killed in South Africa can be sent to anywhere in Europe or America. In the five years to 2011, 4,062 carcases were exported from the country, [b][u]the majority of which were lions specifically bred to be killed.[/b][/u]

So, pointless killing for cowardly blood lust satisfaction. Not a path anyone wants to be going down.

Eating meat is not a biological imperative

you got to love to middle classes. Morals to fit everything.

What has class got to do with it?

I believe Kayak24 summed it up perfectly.

I am however pointing out the hippocracy

She shot a hippo as well? That's going too far.

(sorry, it's the idiot thread's fault)

No the hippos are in charge. They meet and have a vote about who gets it..

Are you sure they don't meat?!?!

Conservation is full of contradictions. In Africa and elsewhere, legitimate hunting is an important cash cow that plays an important role in animal welfare (yes, I see the contraction). But there are very grey areas especially some camps were game is reared purely for sport and the hunt is little more that a set up for lazy, rich foreigners to satisfy a blood lust with an easy, pre-arranged kill. The early cartoon with the bear hits home.

But I see little moral distinction between this case and driven pheasant shoots in the UK other than the fact that the lion "looks" more appealing than a pheasant and rouses stronger emotions.

@Kayak23 - oops, too far into a bottle of Shiraz!!

teamhurtmore - Member

Are you sure they don't meat?!?!

Conservation is full of contradictions. In Africa and elsewhere, legitimate hunting is an important cash cow that plays an important role in animal welfare (yes, I see the [b]contraction[/b]). But there are very grey areas especially some camps [b]were[/b] game is reared purely for sport and the hunt is little more that a set up for lazy, rich foreigners to satisfy a blood lust with an easy, pre-arranged kill. The early cartoon with the bear hits home.

But I see little moral distinction between this case and driven pheasant shoots in the UK other than the fact that the lion "looks" more appealing than a pheasant and [b]rouses[/b] stronger emotions.

Tsk 😀

Neither big or small game shooting sits well with me, however, at least you can eat the pheasants.

Good spot roger! Bloody autocorrect except "rouses" and I was wondering about that!!!! Too lazy to check in the end!

Yes I have no problem with rough shooting but struggle with driven, formal shoots (slaughter?) in the UK. It's stretching the use of the word "sport" IMO.

[i]Hunting for pleasure is a not a biological imperative.[/i]

Considering that we, as a species, have spent by far the longest portion of our time on this planet as hunter gatherers, there might be a case for arguing that our need to hunt is as much a biological imperative as our need to procreate.

(Not saying that either is "right", mind)

you got to love to middle classes. Morals to fit everything.

you say that as if having morals is a bad thing

What a really odd thing to say

It's good to know that Zulu Eleven (don't you get banned for ban evasion?) is wrong about just about any random topic you can come up with, not just the usual ones like global warming.

The death of the animal is one thing. You can argue that all day.

But the really distasteful thing to me, and the bit I don't understand, is that these people planned a paid trip to go out and kill animals for the pleasure of killing. No eating involved, nothing to do with self sufficiency or anything, just the pleasure of the death.

If I were to go and shoot deer (I never have although I've been invited, in places where deer numbers are far too high) then I'd be taking my place as a predator in that part of the food chain, and I'd eat the meat. If these shooters want meat there is plenty of deer out there.

Then there's the argument about all animals not being the same. Catching a fish doesn't seem that big of a deal to me, but elephants are long lived animals who show signs of close personal relationships, so you could argue that killing elephants is much more cruel than deer or fish. I don't know if that's true, but it's something to think about.

i think most agree that killing for pleasure is more distasteful than killing for food.

We are in danger of the Pulp fiction scene - essentially meat eaters get all strange on this as some animals are cute and should not be eaten [ kittens for example. Some are too dirty [ rats for example] and some you should never even question eating them - fish in your case bit probably not dolphins [ they are a mammal i know]

That is another debate though.

If somebody wants to pay big bucks to shoot big game that has been bred for hunting (in any sense) so what. I don't see the pleasure in it or the point, in this instance its not been done for conservation management. The example of the campfire conservation model has been mentioned (in Zimbabwe)which theoretically means the local population can benefit from conservation of game hunting (wide spread corruption makes a mess of the model). Conservation reserves and the income they generate in Africa dose not generally filter down to the local population who have to live with all the big fluffy animals we love watching on TV. The tourism operations are owned by foreign companies, all the profit goes straight out the country, or to the government to spend on guns, London property, luxury goods. The even distribution of he revenue wildlife generates (in any way) is the most important aspect of conservation to ensure its success. People in the west (us lot) have a very romantic view on conservation, animal rights etc. The bottom line is animals (all of them) the countryside (all of it) has to have an ecanomic value, or it wont be around for ever. Dose anybody think that the countryside we enjoy is natural? The African grass lands are natural? They are not. All of it is managed by man. If hunting brings revenue into the area and the local econnomy then its OK by me. The same can be said in the UK. I bet that lion had a better standard of living than the bacon, chicken curry you just ate. And how free range is venison or pigeon? If we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats. If people want to get on the anti hunting rant they had best get on the factory farming/animal welfare/pet industry rant first, and if your going to do that, I think the welfare of poor of the developing world, corruption of governments, financial institutions, capitalism, racism etc, are more important issues to rant about. Where would the ranting stop? So best shut up and eat your sandwich. Go for a bike ride 😉

So best shut up and eat your sandwich

Oooooh get you. 😆

Some classic 'whataboutery' up there from craig5.

'So you say rape is bad, but what about mass murder? Bit more important HMMMM?'

Am I allowed to care about more than one thing at once, or do I just have to pick the most important issue in the world and never mention anything else ever again?

🙄

If you have eaten all your lunch (including your fruit) then yes you can care about mass murder and rape but not at the same time. Is that fair? 🙂

It's taking this thread an awfully long time to get around to any gardening content.

This is interesting;

[i]And actually, Melissa is only one of roughly 700 hunters per year in South Africa who hunt captive bred lions. About 6,000 to 8,000 lions are kept in cages to supply this industry. The lion she shot will have been petted by streams of tourists as a cub, taken care of by “volunteers” recruited by overseas agencies, dragged around on “lion walks” for tourists, and eventually killed. The bones of that lion will be sent to Asian destinations to contribute to Traditional Medicine pots.

- See more at: http://www.lionaid.org/news/2013/11/lion-killer-melissa-bachman-hits-the-skids.htm#sthash.uyTQv9bD.dpuf [/i]

You can show support for her here;

[url=

Dose anybody think that the countryside we enjoy is natural?

Apparently Prince Charles does. He appeals to us to keep our monocultural deserts going for the sake of the environment 🙄

If we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats.

Er no, many species would get their habitats back!

f we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats.

Er no, many species would get their habitats back!

Three words - Large Blue Butterfly

😉

Read some of the comments on the support Facebook page there. I do love a fair and balanced argument, especially from the guy who posted "I hope someone murders your kids"....... Classy

I'm pretty sure everyone has an opinion, but it's not like she was hunting illegally as an ivory poacher. Unless she has walked into someone's garden and shot their dog, I'm finding it hard to see what there is to get so upset about. If there wasn't a market for what she's doing, then surely it wouldn't be happening.

Just seems to be another excuse for keyboard warriors to have a bloody good moan about when last week they probably wouldn't have cared.... . Oh look, there's a bandwagon, everyone on!

I've been complaining about hunting for pleasure for decades!

Molgrips, I was not referring to arable farmland. Which is often a chemical fed monoculture but pasture. Without a managed grazing regime by different types of livestock habitats for loads of invertebrates birds reptiles and small mammals would be lost to succession. Yes this would lead to new habitats for other species some would win others would be wiped out. Farming methods have a great impact on conservation and have often been dictated by the CAP which has a lot to answer for. Recent changes however in the CAP have encouraged farmers to preserve habitats by changing the way subsidies are paid. The point I was making is if we stopped farming, hunting, fishing then what do you think would happen to our countryside? Who is going to pay for its management/preservation? Who is going to provide a rural economy?

I'm finding it hard to see what there is to get so upset about.

If there wasn't a market for what she's doing, then surely it wouldn't be happening

Just seems to be another excuse for keyboard warriors to have a bloody good moan about when last week they probably wouldn't have cared.... . Oh look, there's a bandwagon, everyone on

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/aug/21/michael-holden-all-ears

This struck such a chord with me that I cut it out and kept it. Seems appropriate now.

The point I was making is if we stopped farming, hunting, fishing then what do you think would happen to our countryside?

It'd turn into a vast empty wilderness. Which would be bloody fantastic.

Well we could get rid of gates stopping us on descents, but we would be buggered for a pint or something to eat in a country pub because they would have closed because all the country folk would have moved away. Every area in the countryside is managed by man to some extent the health of our habitats is dependant on it.

We do need agriculture of course. But we need it for food, not for nature's sake. Nature would rather we **** off back to Africa I'm sure.

Have a read of Nature's Keepers; The new science of nature management, by Stephen Buudiansky. You might enjoy it.

Ob bollocks they are a stupid troll wanting a response and i just bit ....no one is this stupid are they

Charming, when people disagree with you at work, do you just shout "TROLL" the flounce off to the toilet crying?