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.

Why are you struggling? the thread is full of folk exlaaining why – perhaps you are one of those lucky types with no empathy who does not care about senseless pointless murder?

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

WTF is this as a point? There is child pron on the internet and suicidal bomb making sites as well
its not whether folk want to do it it is whether it is moral to do it – that not even an argument

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

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

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?

I don’t buy the ‘hypocrisy’ argument – the logical extension of which being that one is unable to condemn, say, the trade in powdered rhino horn simply because you had a chicken sandwich for lunch. 😕

Yes, the farming industry inflicts far more cruelty than a bunch of over-wedged sports-hunters could ever manage (which is why it is beholden upon consumers to exercise choice as regards livestock welfare). And for sure, the actual “reasons” don’t make any difference to the animal involved – & we can argue the philosophical toss about whether my enjoyment of roast lamb is equivalent to shooting a bull elephant (+ mandatory gloating photo)… although, IMO, the simple fact of actually consuming the thing (i.e. utility) is different. I enjoy roast lamb, and I accept what is involved in getting it to my plate – so that I can eat it. Because, whatever the vegetarian possibilities, we are by ancestry an omnivorous animal & many of us still behave as such.

Furthermore, the meat I eat comes from animals that are unlikely to go extinct anytime soon*. The equivalence made between elephants and pheasants is simply bizarre. Whatever the merits of controlled hunting of (localised) healthy populations, the general picture for African/Asiatic big cats, elephants etc at a species level is grim indeed. And last time I checked, that wasn’t true of pigs, cattle, sheep, chickens… or pheasants. Trophy hunters ain’t interested in bagging the commonplace – and even when, say, lions are bred for the purpose of canned hunting, it’s still the perceived rarity/exotic nature of the experience that draws the paying shooters – i.e. it goes waaay beyond simply utility. It’s nonsense to suggest that meat-eaters have no right to find such activity objectionable.

(*there is a related issue here, as per ninfan’s post, about the global sustainability of meat-consumption… but that’s another thread.)

This is contradicted

the logical extension of which being that one is unable to condemn, say, the trade in powdered rhino horn simply because you had a chicken sandwich for lunch

by your very next statement: this

Yes, the farming industry inflicts far more cruelty than a bunch of over-wedged sports-hunters could ever manage

I do not buy the so called purpose/utility argument. You say this:

(i.e. utility)

as if your desire to taste meat trumps someone else’s desire to have their picture taken with a lion they shot. Both are utterly unnecessary.

You and the other farming apologists are just making up moral justification for your own preferences.

Because their is ample cheap accessible nutrition (in the west), then eating meat is facilitating the death of animals for your own pleasure. It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.

And for sure, the actual “reasons” don’t make any difference to the animal involved

No, but it makes a difference to us.

A few hundred years ago, it was entirely normal and popular to watch bear baiting or dogfighting. Now these things are frowned upon, and illegal. This is progress, and I hope that one day we’ll have eradicated the desire to kill for fun completely. For the sake of our development as the human race.

molgrips,

eradicated the desire to kill for fun

I agree and the logical extension of which is the eradication of eating meat. Because eating meat is only (in the west) for fun, it is not a biological necessity (apart from the odd person who might have some strange illness that only allows them to eat meat)

I can’t really argue with that thm. I wish I could face vegetarianism.

However – we may have a place in killing certain species due to having previously eradicated apex predators..

This is progress

Indeed.

This is contradicted

Not necessarily – the point being that it’s possible to raise livestock in far ‘better’ fashion (better even than the market will allow, but that’s another thread again) than is often employed. The salient point being that I can happily scoff a (decently procured, of course) chicken sandwich in the knowledge that my hardwired gratification at eating it is unlikely to see off the species for some spurious end (i.e. using it as an aphrodisiac).

I simply dislike the gloating involved in trophy-hunting – you might view that as some kind of double-standard, but IMO, that’s rather like claiming that big game (& big heap status) shooting is identical to rough shooting for the pot. It simply isn’t.

It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.

I certainly won’t defend many conventional farming practices, whether modern or ancient, (and I come from a very long line of Somerset farmers). But I would suggest that the pleasure obtained from eating an animal is of somewhat different order & category from the pleasure of bragging rights. “If you have to kill it, eat it” is not the guiding ethos of industrial-scale shoots – but I know what I have the greater respect for. We will simply have to disagree on values.

I need no justification in my choice to eat meat. I can eat meat and still believe in animal welfare. There is no contradiction. If your a vegetarian where dose your moral high ground stop? Do you have a pet dog/cat, what the f***k do you feed that. Do you know that animal based stearic acid is used in the production of bike tyres as it helps them hold their shape. Animals are a resource we use them, its our responsibility to use them responsibly. Fact of life. Chickens may disagree

You and the other farming apologists are just making up moral justification for your own preferences.

Because their is ample cheap accessible nutrition (in the west), then eating meat is facilitating the death of animals for your own pleasure. It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.
Right, so what happens to all the cuddly-wuddly sheep/pigs/cows/chickens, etc, after you get your way, and everyone stops eating them?
Who’s going to feed them? House them? Pay for the vet bills? Are you well-enough off to take it on yourself? Because the farmers won’t. They’ll sell the animals to be taken abroad for slaughter in much more in humane conditions than exist in the UK.
And what about all the things that derive from food animals, like leather, and such-like? What would you suggest as alternatives. Synthetics? From where are those materials derived? The petro-chemical industry. You know, the one that consumes finite resources that pollute the environment with plastics that don’t rot.
What about wool, like the Merino that you cyclists all like to bleat (ha, see what I did there?), on about? Where would those materials come from? The animals would still go for slaughter eventually.
Surely even you can understand that farming animals, which gives a virtually infinite resource, and which gives food, clothing etc, is far, far better than using man-made materials?

Good man. Just finished my kitten sandwich. Very nice it was as well. Nighty night. Frosty ride tomorrow. Super. After a bacon butty obviously

Vanity killing. Horrible people.

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.

I’m not really an Animal rights type as I find the whole movement **** irritating when it comes to animal research.

However, would you condone the hunting of bonobo’s that have been bred for hunting? If yes, please explain why, make sure to include why bonobos are radically different from human beings.

CountZero

Countzero, I don’t agree with a lot of veggies simply because an omnivore diet (with a very small amount of meat, in certain geographical areas) is in many cases the most green diet available when you take into account of the fact that not all farming is available for arable land.

Having said this however you’re argument falls flat when you consider that there would be no more sheep bred to die if we stopped eating meat.

far better than using man-made materials?

Not really, I bet we can make synthetic clothing that’s greener than animal derived clothing and I bet once we start 3d meat printing meat at an industrial scale…..then it will be greener than organic, free range and factory farmed meat. It will hopefully mean that cattle farming in the amazon basin stops.

Count Zero, you misunderstand me entirely. I am not a vegan, or a veggie or a pescatarian.
I eat meat, lots of it, I also hunt for food, although as far as I know, I have only ever willfully killed something that I intend to eat.
I am simply arguing that because I choose to do all these things, then I have no moral superiority over someone who shot a lion for fun.

I really enjoy eating meat. I really enjoy shooting birds, bunnies and deer.

So whilst I do not have the desire to shoot bonobo, lion, giraffe or horse, and I would feel that it is “wrong” (whatever that means), but I would say, despite not believing in god* “Let he is without sin, cast the first stone”

* (as some of you will have experienced in previous religion threads I am a bit of a frothing Dawkins-ite.)

My feeling is that many of you here who condemn the big game hunters are reacting first to the emotional response. That response then drives the need to morally justify your own actions, hence the “double standard” of condoning farming/hunting for food etc, but not hunting for “sport”.

But I clearly and strongly feel, as stated before, that if we are convinced that we nutritionally do not need meat, then surely the eating of meat is only for pleasure. I am not making a value judgement as to whether it is right or wrong, it is just a fact.

Hence all you meat eaters (including me) should examine your own moral conscience before elevating your moral stance above the hunters. (I’m not defending them BTW, I just do not feel morally able to condemn them..)
Those in glass houses, should not throw stones.

I am not claiming any moral superiority over anyone I just dont understand the thought process that the woman has, she has travelled thousands of miles, then with a bloody big gun has shot a Lion and is looking all smug in the photo as if she has done something remarkable.

Killing something then eating it has a very long precedent as an intrinsic part of human behaviour and is tied up with our survival instinct. It might no longer be necessary for us in the western world but it’s still quite ingrained in our culture.

Whereas killing stuff solely because you like killing stuff is just the behaviour of a weirdo/arsehole, especially when you enjoy killing the most magnificent and rare creatures you can get (and there’s not even the skill/sport of proper stalking/hunting involved).

Good debate, this.

Does no-one have a view on the relative worth of a chicken’s life vs that of an elephant, say?

grum, I disagree, I would suggest that killing for the sake of it is as much a part of human behaviour as killing for food. We have the instinct to kill. After you kill it then the instinct to eat takes over.
The fox kills all the hens in the hen house..

It is a bit like sex for fun, it isn’t necessary but we have evolved to do it for a complex set of reasons.

Anyway I think you are mixing instinct with reason to support your argument.
We are like an onion with layers, the lowest layers are instinct, the higher layers are reason and higher thought.

Lower: Killing for food (or possibly for fun) is instinct
Higher: Deciding the morals of killing are reason.

So I do not see that you can justify killing for food, as an instinct, but berate killing for fun as a reasoning process.

I think killing for fun and food are both instinct.
I think we, in a civilized society, can reason them both away, and will do I am sure. Killing for food has not yet caught up with killing for fun on our moral compass, but it will. (I hope not in my lifetime as I love a good venison steak).

I still maintain that those of you that justify meat eating are just defending your own tastes, morally they are equivalent (mores the pity).

molgrips- Does no-one have a view on the relative worth of a chicken’s life vs that of an elephant, say?

Or an ant/fly over a lion? If the fly is pissing you off you kill it(I do enjoy a good bit of sport with a fly and get a tingle out of winning). Similarly if the Lion is pissing you off (ie eating your livestock children), would you also kill it, would you get a thrill out of winning?

I would suggest that killing for the sake of it is as much a part of human behaviour as killing for food.

Nonsense. 😕

Hunting comes out of a utilitarian need to catch animals to provide food. People found they enjoyed the sport of the hunt too.

Some bellend being provided with a tame lion in a pen to kill in cold blood purely so they can pose gloating over its dead body is a complete distortion of the purpose of hunting.

I still maintain that those of you that justify meat eating are just defending your own tastes, morally they are equivalent (mores the pity).

My wife doesn’t eat meat and feels the same contempt for this woman that I do.

well people do it, so it s apart of human behaviour, it’s just something your learned responses do not like. If you had been raised to kill things for fun for some cultural reason then you might think differently.

So is rape, bestiality and paedophilia then.

Except that getting food is a required process for survival, and throughout much of our history we’ve done that through hunting. Trying to compare that to killing for fun is just nonsense.

Yes we don’t all need to eat meat now and we should eat a lot less of it, but eating meat at least has utilitarian roots, whereas killing for fun only has roots in enjoying things being murdered.

My wife doesn’t eat meat and feels the same contempt for this woman that I do.

Well that fits my argument perfectly. If you do not eat meat then you have every reason to feel morally superior over the Lion killer.

😕

Not really – she still eats dairy products which arguably cause more death and suffering to animals than the meat industry. Especially if you buy ethically reared meat. 😉

Even being vegan has it’s own ethical issues – soy and quinoa are ethically dubious in some ways.

Anyway – it’s not about being able to feel morally superior – I’m not suggesting I’m morally superior to the woman in the OP, I just think she’s an arsehole for enjoying killing things. And I think the idea that you had to be ethically pure before you’re allowed to criticise anything is nonsense.

I don’t think eating meat is great either, but that doesn’t stop her being an arsehole.

Grum, I don’t think I ever disagreed about her arsehole status, but I just think it is important to understand the debate.
The point is, in the moral scheme, you and I are arseholes too, there is no need to eat meat other than taste pleasure, and hence no excuse to take the life of another creature just for our own pleasure.

Killing -> Eating -> Pleasure = dubious but debatable morally
Killing -> Pleasure -> Eating -> Pleasure = more dubious, but still debatable

Killing -> Pleasure and nothing else = Arsehole Look At My Awesome Penis Substitute Weapon.

DD,
I see it as this:

Killing -> Eating -> Pleasure = dubious but debatable morally arsehole
Killing -> Pleasure -> Eating -> Pleasure = more dubious, but still debatable arsehole

Killing -> Pleasure and nothing else = Arsehole Look At My Awesome Penis Substitute Weapon.

I imagine over time this argument will take precedence and peoples moral conscience over eating meat will change, such that pictures of people killing and cooking bunnies on african safari will raise similar levels of disdain..

I don’t take a moral high ground over the woman. she is a human and we as humans use animals for our own uses. I don’t take pleasure in the act of killing (except wasps, but that is a survival thing for me), I have blasted birds out the sky and little bunnys, bashed fish in the head. I have greatly enjoyed the act of hunting, but always feel a bit remorseful about taking the life. I don’t lose any sleep over it because humans are omnivores and we are apex predators. Always will be. In the future when we are 3d printing meet commercially the only difference between those who eat (real) meat and those who don’t will be wealth. the life of that lion is not worth any more than a cow, it was bred to be shot. The fact that its death served no purpose pisses me off. But if you look at the big picture, the revenue generated by this hunting supports the breeding of rare breeds which could be used to increase the gene pool in conservation areas and by providing big game hunters the opportunity to hunt big game may help prevent poaching in conservation areas where wildlife populations need to be in balance for the hole ecosystem to survive.

Would you say the life of a bonobo, elephant or dolphin is worth more than that of a cow?

We have the instinct to kill.

speak for yourself psycho internet nutter dude 😉

It is a bit like sex for fun, it isn’t necessary but we have evolved to do it for a complex set of reasons

WORST ANALOGY EVER
No really killing a lion for fun is like having sex for fun – even for the internet thats ridiculous.

interesting debate…

separate from the whole this woman being a douche thing:

whats the stance on pest control? (rats, squirrels, pigeons, bugs etc etc)

how many people averse to eating meat or actually killing their own meat play violent computer games where you get to simulate killing other humans?

Junky wrong it is an excellent analogy as an example of a pointless human endeavour that we all accept as evolved behaviour. Sex for fun does not have a direct influence on reproduction, killing for fun does not have a direct effect on sating our hunger.

You should read

These are interesting indeed I too would like the audiences opinion:

whats the stance on pest control? (rats, squirrels, pigeons, bugs etc etc)

how many people averse to eating meat or actually killing their own meat play violent computer games where you get to simulate killing other humans?