The Warrigal

Rather than disrupt AlanIde's thread - this is a response to your post.


Quote:

I have no idea who these "cross-bow hunters" that frequent this Forum are but they must be very exotic beasts.There have been threads on it.   In Australia, with the exception of South Australia and the Northern Territory, cross-bows have been subject to as stringent and in some jurisdictions even more restrictive legislation than even firearms.

I can’t remember specifically who the cross bow hunters are but there are several on this forum.  They'll come forward if they want to.

As far as legislation goes, it might be restrictive, but who's there to monitor them anyway?


Quote:

The incident involving the two injured kangaroos describes an act of mindless vandalism

Not every hunter gets a bullseye.  Surely you're not saying that they all hit their target accurately?


Quote:

Are you unable to make a distinction between hunting and criminality? OR.Are you so biased that you simply don't want to make room for ANY such distinction?

I can't see much difference. You are both shooting for pleasure - that is killing a living, warm, breeding animal for the pure thrill of killing something.  If you were serious about shooting to increase your skill - you would use inanimate objects.

You are in the minority for condoning this blood sport.


Quote:

"Unfortunately too many of our national parks are being opened up to hunting and it's open slather."End Quote.From all that I have seen of the proposed game management details only feral animals will be culled on crown land and National Parks Land.Such culling is to be restricted to hunters who hold the appropriate licenses.Hardly "open slather" Mantra.That’s where you’re wrong.

Then I'm wrong along with thousands of others.  An extract from the people against hunting from one park alone.

Because hunters can book in at any time via the Internet,a call to the Game Council or Forests NSW to check if there will be hunters is no guarantee - hunters can book anytime, eg over a weekend when these authorities are closed.A proposal to the Minister, authored by hunters and non-hunters, requested that there should be specified periods when forests would be off limits to hunters, to give all recreational users a fair go. This was refused.


Quote:

You write: Quote. "Beware if you're a visitor taking in the sights."End Quote.Now why would you say that Mantra?Are you seriously saying that people who legally hunt are in some way a danger to their fellow citizens?If so. - Then I must ask you to provide credible evidence to support that remarkable assertion.

Yes I'm saying that people who legally hunt are a danger to their fellow citizens.  

Proposals by local residents for hunters and the Game Council to inform the public about EXACTLY when hunting activites will be taking place have been rejected by the Game Council CEO.

A proposal for an opt-in buffer zone scheme for adjoining landowners was likewise rejected by the Minister. Even if the public call Forests NSW or the Game Council for this information, it becomes obsolete immediately, since hunters can login anytime to book their hunt.

The Game Council receives up to $2.3 million a year from NSW taxpayers, has taken out a substantial government loan and has so far received little in the way of revenue from licences and fines. Many NSW residents do not feel the benefits of this scheme outweigh the risks


Quote:

Quote."Duck hunting is pointless and just another blood sport."End Quote.We have plenty of non-native waterfowl in Australia. Why is duck hunting pointless?

Is the point of duck hunting to kill everything that moves. Whenever a duck shoot is photographed you see hundreds of ducks and similar birds dying slow painful deaths after the hunters have had  their fun.

You slaughter them by the thousands during breeding season. You are killing an animal for no reason.  You don’t kill thousands of ducks to eat – you kill them for pleasure.  


Quote:

The only serious conservation problem related to duck hunting that I could ever find and which was scientificaly validated was the issue of lead poisoning caused by birds eating spent shotgun pellets. This matter could easily be addressed by obligating ammunition manufacturers to make shotgun pellets from non-toxic bismouth.

Yeah sure.  As if bullet manufacturers give a damn about lead poisoning in ducks.  Solution - don't duck shoot!

Everybody who lives near, works in, enjoys or simply passes by a State Forest will be at increased risk of being shot. Recreational users are expected to share the forest with armed amateurs.

http://www.thebegavalley.org.au/keepforestssafe.html

There should be set rules for any hunting.

1/ If it is for food.  For the oven, not the freezer.

2/ If it is to save your life.

3/ If it is part of an legitimate culling program.


The laws of the Jungle book seem reasonable to me.

Quote:

........Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can; But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man! ..............

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 9:05am:

There should be set rules for any hunting. 1/ If it is for food.  For the oven, not the freezer. 2/ If it is to save your life. 3/ If it is part of an legitimate culling program. The laws of the Jungle book seem reasonable to me. Quote: ........Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can; But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man! ..............

I totally agree.  There is too much greed and waste in this world by a few.  If it's alive - kill it - for no other reason than because a hunter wants to.  The planet is so overpopulated at present and our resources are running out - there should be laws in place, particularly in a wealthy country like Australia - where slaughter of an animal is only legal for a valid reason.

The three conditions outlined by Sprintcyclist constitute hunting ethics as I have always known them.

Quote.

"If it's alive - kill it - for no other reason than because a hunter wants to. "

End Quote.

Please present your evidence for this claim.

Mantra.

If you would like a guided tour of a slauterhouse, I'm sure that I can arrange one for you.

If you would like to accompany a hunting party, I'm sure that  I can arrange that too.

Once that mission is accomplished perhaps you can venture an informed opinion as to which is the more ethical means of obtaining meat.

The Warrigal wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 10:45am:

Quote. "If it's alive - kill it - for no other reason than because a hunter wants to. " End Quote. Please present your evidence for this claim. Mantra. If you would like a guided tour of a slauterhouse, I'm sure that I can arrange one for you. If you would like to accompany a hunting party, I'm sure that  I can arrange that too. Once that mission is accomplished perhaps you can venture an informed opinion as to which is the more ethical means of obtaining meat.

The Warrigal - can't you see the difference?  Obviously a slaughterhouse is a horrific place to view - but the people who own them are doing it for a living and that applies to the workers also.  The conditions there are controlled and inspected regularly and abbatoirs have to comply with Australian standards of slaughter.  Few workers would be there just for the pleasure of it.

I doubt too many animals in Australian abbatoirs would be left to suffer for days with an arrow or bullet in them.

There is so much anger about hunting in Australia - you have to wonder why the Game Council has so much influence in our state and federal governments. Just another problem of which there are many...


Pig hunting also causes other problems including:

• lost dogs attack wildlife, bother other park users and sometimes die of hunger in the parks;

• dogs leave scents and droppings which scare away native animals;

• the risk to public safety of having people in 4WDs speeding through national parks with dogs, guns and knives;

• hunting dogs have the potential to carry diseases and parasites, which may be passed onto native animals;

• national parks and council officers spend their time capturing dogs when they could use that time much more productively on controlling pests and improving facilities for visitors.

http://mudgee.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/men-fined-for-hunting-pigs-in-national-park/1399350.aspx

So Mantra it is ok to do these things for money, or to feed your pets. Killing other animals to feed the animals that give you a cudley feeling. How nice and hypocritical.

From mantra post above

Quote:

The Game Council receives up to $2.3 million a year from NSW taxpayers, has taken out a substantial government loan and has so far received little in the way of revenue from licences and fines. Many NSW residents do not feel the benefits of this scheme outweigh the risks

So the fact they haven't recieved revenue from fines I would have thought was a good thing, don't you?. Or is it better just to become emotional and non-sensical.

Killing feral animals who destroy natives and degrade land  isn't immoral either. Dogs, cats, pigs, goats, etcmay be pets for some but pests for others.

locutius wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 1:32pm:

So Mantra it is ok to do these things for money, or to feed your pets. Killing other animals to feed the animals that give you a cudley feeling. How nice and hypocritical. From mantra post above Quote: The Game Council receives up to $2.3 million a year from NSW taxpayers, has taken out a substantial government loan and has so far received little in the way of revenue from licences and fines. Many NSW residents do not feel the benefits of this scheme outweigh the risks So the fact they haven't recieved revenue from fines I would have thought was a good thing, don't you?. Or is it better just to become emotional and non-sensical.

I think you've misread that Locutius.  It just means there is no-one around to issue fines for misdemeanours by the hunters. They are unregulated.

Of course abattoirs are cruel and inhumane places, but they are legitimate businesses and supply a product that's in demand for sustenance.  Abattoirs are a livelihood for many people and yes there is a lot that could be improved upon - but animal organisations are always working on that.

As far as pet food goes - rather a pet be fed with an animal slaughtered in a regulated business than fed on the dying body of a hunted animal.

I vaguely remember you being one of those who enjoyed cross bow hunting Locutius - although I apologise if I'm wrong. What happens when an arrow goes into the eye or the rump of an animal and it runs off in agony?  Do you chase it all over the place to ensure it's killed humanely and not left to suffer? Do hunters use the animals they've shot for food to alleviate hunger?


Quote:

Killing feral animals who destroy natives and degrade land  isn't immoral either. Dogs, cats, pigs, goats, etcmay be pets for some but pests for others

Yes Tallow but there's nothing to indicate that hunters just stick to these animals and are supervised, nor do they have the approval of the community in general for their hunting sprees. There is some arrangement with State governments that the general population weren't consulted about.

What misdemeanours are you talking about Mantra? The assumed ones? Isn't it like anything that is policed? I have no problem with people being punished for breaking the law, in fact I would say that I generally believe in harsher penalties than you do. Don't blame hunters for the lack of policing (if that is an accurate complaint)

I don't think I have ever mentioned here that I was a crossbow hunter, although I have hunted with a crossbow. Mostly I was a bowhunter and rifle hunter. I prefer hunting with the rifle because I produce far cleaner kills with a rifle. I have lost very few animals regardless od what weapon I was using because I trained myself to a high level of accuracy, ethics and the ability to get as close to the animal as possible.

I have also previously stated that on the few occasions where I have failed to take animals cleanly I have spent many hours tracking the animal at the exspense of wandering around and killing some more. The only native animal I have ever shot was kangaroos for numbers control for property owners but I find shooting kangaroos distasteful. The only birds I shoot are introduced species, and the only mammals I hunt are introduced species. Sometimes I take meat and skins but most of the time I do not. Most of the game I have shot are pigs which are full of TB and in the habit of eating carrion.

Most of my friends that are shooters behave in exactly the same way, and many do not hunt at all. I have not hunted for many years now but I do not rule out pursuing it again in the future.

You said recently that maybe you should stop posting on this board and I suggested that I did not think that was necessary, that maybe you should just educate yourself a little better.

When you start talking about hitting things in the eye you merely demonstrate that you have no knowledge of ballistics, penetration, killing power or kill zones, and that you haven't even read the abridged information I have posted on these subjects.

Many animals spend a miserable existence up to and including the point of execution. It is why I buy free range product and do anything I can to support alternative humane farming methods. So the slaughterhouses do it for money, fine. I would have thought that such a simple excuse may have been just a little to simplistically mercenary or right wing. Like I have said previously. You cast aspersions about the psychology of the hunter fulling some emotional void by hunting and killing but flash over my observations about your own emotional void of owning pets that require you to support, beyond your OWN survival, an industry that kills millions of animals JUST TO FEED PETS.

Quote:

You are both shooting for pleasure - that is killing a living, warm, breeding animal for the pure thrill of killing something.

So it's OK to kill cold but not warm blooded animals? Is it OK to kill non-breeding animals?


Quote:

If you were serious about shooting to increase your skill - you would use inanimate objects.

It depends what skills you want to improve. The skills involved in hunting and target shooting overlap far less than is immediately apparent. With hunting, most of the skill comes into play welll before you pull the trigger.


Quote:

You are in the minority for condoning this blood sport.

I think you'd have a hard time backing this claim up mantra.


Quote:

An extract from the people against hunting from one park alone.

From who?


Quote:

A proposal to the Minister, authored by hunters and non-hunters, requested that there should be specified periods when forests would be off limits to hunters, to give all recreational users a fair go. This was refused.

Sounds reasonable to me. It's not like our forests are crowded. They would be some of the least crowded forests in the world. It sounds like legislation designed to inconvenience more than anything.


Quote:

and has so far received little in the way of revenue from licences and fines

Funny that they don't bother giving the actual figures. You need to be a bit more questioning about what you read mantra. If they gloss over such an important point, it is most likely because they don;t want people to know the facts.


Quote:

Many NSW residents do not feel the benefits of this scheme outweigh the risks

Argumentum ad populum. Surely it is the actual benefits and risks that really matter, not whether some group misleads the public about the benefits and risks.


Quote:

Whenever a duck shoot is photographed you see hundreds of ducks and similar birds dying slow painful deaths after the hunters have had  their fun.

Do you really? Can you give an example of one such occasion?


Quote:

You don’t kill thousands of ducks to eat – you kill them for pleasure.

Are you suggesting that one person killed thousands of ducks?


Quote:

If it is for food.  For the oven, not the freezer.

That doesn't sound very hygenic to me sprint. What if it's 42C outside, dusty and fly ridden? Should hunters dispose of 90% of the animal because they can't eat it all straight away? Like wild dogs killing a sheep for the liver?


Quote:

The planet is so overpopulated at present and our resources are running out - there should be laws in place, particularly in a wealthy country like Australia - where slaughter of an animal is only legal for a valid reason.

There already are mantra. But it is a bit extreme to pass a law governing what people think while they do something, if that is what you are suggesting.


Quote:

The Warrigal - can't you see the difference?  Obviously a slaughterhouse is a horrific place to view - but the people who own them are doing it for a living and that applies to the workers also.

So mantra, your objection has nothing to do with the suffering of animals, the environmental impact or the ethics of meat consumption or hunting. You really just object to people enjoying themselves?


Quote:

The conditions there are controlled and inspected regularly and abbatoirs have to comply with Australian standards of slaughter.

Likewise the Nazis had strict rules about how jews were to be gassed and their bodies disposed of without wasting valuable resources. What is it about rules and regulations that makes you think they solve everything?


Quote:

Few workers would be there just for the pleasure of it.

Let me get this straight - you think slaughterhouses are better because the jobs suck and the employees are miserable, but hunting is bad because people enjoy it? Is the purpose of your proposals to spread misery?


Quote:

I doubt too many animals in Australian abbatoirs would be left to suffer for days with an arrow or bullet in them.

Most of them suffer their entire life. Not 'left' to suffer, but 'forced' to suffer.


Quote:

There is so much anger about hunting in Australia

Yes, it seems to get in the way of rational and objective consideration of the issue.


Quote:

you have to wonder why the Game Council has so much influence in our state and federal governments

So much influence? I would expect they only have influence over game issues, for which they sound like the appropriate body to represent hunters. Are you suggesting hunters should not be represented in parliament? Is this part of your strategy of spreading misery?


Quote:

Pig hunting also causes other problems including

Pigs are feral animals. Surely you are not suggesting we end one of the few effective means of controlling their population.


Quote:

dogs leave scents and droppings which scare away native animals

They should be scared. That's nature for you. It's not like The Lion King.


Quote:

the risk to public safety of having people in 4WDs speeding through national parks with dogs, guns and knives

People speed on established roads as they pass through, not while following their own dogs or looking for prey.

Quote:

hunting dogs have the potential to carry diseases and parasites, which may be passed onto native animals

In ways that dingos don't?


Quote:

national parks and council officers spend their time capturing dogs when they could use that time much more productively on controlling pests and improving facilities for visitors

Why don't we let people hunt the dogs then? You complain about NPWS officers having to hunt animals, and your solution is to stop people doing it for free?


Quote:

Of course abattoirs are cruel and inhumane places, but they are legitimate businesses

So business interests should come before recreation and sustainable food supplies? Do you own shares in an abattoir by any chance? If people made a business of hunting would it then be legitimate also? Is the misery and suffering inflicted on animals OK because some giant multinational makes a few cents out of it?


Quote:

supply a product that's in demand for sustenance

Do you think supply and demand should be the guiding principle on this issue?


Quote:

but animal organisations are always working on that

They are working on a lot of things. When was the last time they achieved anything? When abboitoirs in the US raised standards, it was because of employee rights issues and food quality issues. The animal libbers celebrated, but they played no role in it. They were the jesters on the sideline.


Quote:

As far as pet food goes - rather a pet be fed with an animal slaughtered in a regulated business than fed on the dying body of a hunted animal.

So you do prefer the animals suffer their entire lives to feed your pets in inhumane and environmentally destructive conditions?


Quote:

nor do they have the approval of the community in general for their hunting sprees

But they do mantra. If you are going to leave rational argument at the door and resort to argumentum ad populum, you could at least check that the majority is actually on your side.

What it boils down to mantra, is that you don't care about the ethics, you don't care about conservation, you don't care about the welfare of animals. You would make all of these problems worse, merely so you can prevent hunters from enjoying themselves. More misery for all involved.

Misdemeanours could be anything Locutius – shooting too close to a trail path, shooting native animals, not making a “clean kill”, taking more than your quota – who knows – I’m not a hunter.  You did mention a bow or cross bow once, although I assume a bow is a bow and arrow, which is an even greater cruelty to a live target.

Good on you for tracking down animals that you haven’t “killed cleanly” to put them out of their misery – I doubt that all hunters would be so diligent.  As far as my knowledge of ballistics goes – yes it’s limited, in the same way it is with many hunters who just love the thrill of the chase regardless of the end result.

But aside from that – your argument makes no sense.  Our population doesn’t allow us to all go out and traipse through what little natural forest we have left and randomly hunt for animals for our food and yes of course animals lead a miserable existence up to the time of slaughter. Abattoirs aren’t pleasant, but they are essential for the mass food production that is now necessary to feed this planet.  Otherwise we would have the elderly and infirm starving to death as their hunting skills would be inadequate to compete with the young and strong.  

As far as feeding our pets with other animals – what do you suggest - no pets? Removing animal production in lieu of people hunting for their food is ridiculous in the 21st century.  You can’t justify it Locutius – just admit it.

You get pleasure out of killing a moving target regardless of whether you kill it immediately or not.  There is a difference in hunting out of necessity and hunting for sport.  For feral animal control – professional shooters should be employed, instead of the state giving massive handouts to the Game Council so that they can allow their members to not only endanger our few remaining native animals, but also innocent people who want to visit our parks to enjoy what little beauty we have left on this planet.

You might believe you have some ethics, but do the majority?

Quote:

So it's OK to kill cold but not warm blooded animals? Is it OK to kill non-breeding animals?

It is wrong to kill any animal unless it’s out of necessity or creating a problem or threat.


Quote:

The skills involved in hunting and target shooting overlap far less than is immediately apparent. With hunting, most of the skill comes into play welll before you pull the trigger.

From the mouth of a hunter. What else could you say?


Quote:

I think you'd have a hard time backing this claim up mantra.

You only have to make enquiries at any of the action groups associated with towns situated close to National Parks and you would see the overwhelming majority are against hunters in our parks.  

An example.

http://www.thebegavalley.org.au/keepforestssafe.html


Quote:

Argumentum ad populum. Surely it is the actual benefits and risks that really matter, not whether some group misleads the public about the benefits and risks.

The only people who believe there are benefits are the hunters because they love the kill.


Quote:

Do you really? Can you give an example of one such occasion?

There have always been complaints FD or perhaps you live in denial?  Residents and animal groups alike think this is the most abhorrent sport and totally unnecessary.  Hundreds of redneck thugs pumping bullets into these terrified birds in nesting season.  Disgusting.


Quote:

You really just object to people enjoying themselves

I have no problem with people enjoying themselves as long as it's not at the expense of a human or animal.


Quote:

Likewise the Nazis had strict rules about how jews were to be gassed and their bodies disposed of without wasting valuable resources. What is it about rules and regulations that makes you think they solve everything?

Did I say that FD? Great comparison (not).  No – of course abattoirs are terrible places – but hunting is no longer viable to sustain our population which I've said before.


Quote:

Let me get this straight - you think slaughterhouses are better because the jobs suck and the employees are miserable, but hunting is bad because people enjoy it?

My point was that there has to be something seriously wrong with a person who enjoys killing a living, breathing animal just for the pleasure of it.


Quote:

Most of them suffer their entire life. Not 'left' to suffer, but 'forced' to suffer.

Once again – it is ridiculous to claim that we should all hunt for our food in the 21st century.


Quote:

There is so much anger about hunting in Australia Yes, it seems to get in the way of rational and objective consideration of the issue

Because it’s so totally unnecessary and there’s a certain mentality associated with hunters.  You are not killing because you have to – you are doing it because you love to kill.  You don't need to - you just want to.


Quote:

Are you suggesting hunters should not be represented in parliament? Is this part of your strategy of spreading misery?

Yes FD – I’m out to create as much misery as I possibly can to those selfish, bloodthirsty individuals – and I’m not saying all of you are gungho – but many of you are.  


Quote:

Pigs are feral animals. Surely you are not suggesting we end one of the few effective means of controlling their population.

At least use professionals without dogs. Is the feral population as bad as the Game council indicates?  A few sites I went to indicated that our National Parks are fairly well stabilised in regard to feral animals – so what sort of animal does a “hunter” turn to when he can’t find a feral pig to stalk?  Native parrots, koalas, wallabies?


Quote:

They should be scared. That's nature for you. It's not like The Lion King.

As if our native animals aren’t threatened enough with loss of habitat and domestic cats and dogs wandering loose.


Quote:

People speed on established roads as they pass through, not while following their own dogs or looking for prey.

So that makes it OK for 4WD’s to tear up the bush and sand dunes and squash anything in their path?


Quote:

Why don't we let people hunt the dogs then? You complain about NPWS officers having to hunt animals, and your solution is to stop people doing it for free?

The NPWS – who are also against hunting and should be given the funds to employ professional shooters who will only target specific feral animals and not shoot anything that moves for the sake of "pleasure".


Quote:

So business interests should come before recreation and sustainable food supplies?

As I said before – we live in the 21st century.  We’re not all in a position to take up our bows and arrows and rifles and hunt for sustenance.


Quote:

What it boils down to mantra, is that you don't care about the ethics, you don't care about conservation, you don't care about the welfare of animals. You would make all of these problems worse, merely so you can prevent hunters from enjoying themselves. More misery for all involved.

Rubbish. You are trying to justify your guilt by turning it onto me.  You hunters are well aware that you’re indulging in a cruel blood sport that pleases no-one except yourselves.  Hunters are so full of bulldust justifying this as a service. The majority don’t condone hunting, but the Game council has got some sort of deal with the States and it smells rotten.

mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

Misdemeanours could be anything Locutius – shooting too close to a trail path, shooting native animals, not making a “clean kill”, taking more than your quota – who knows – I’m not a hunter.

So there has been a lack of these reported and punishable incidents, leaving out the idiotic "not making a clean kill" comment. Is that your problem? Considering that this project is in it's infancy I assume there with be some teething problems and growing pains. If there needs to be a greater policing presence then increase the licence fees for the hunters to cover these costs. Much of the conservation funding in the US comes from hunters, who are very conservation focused because they want the sustanability of their activity. They also shoot few more native animals in the US. Most, read almost ALL recreational hunting is Australia is for ferals. No you're not a hunter, you're an emotional Anti-Hunter.


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

You did mention a bow or cross bow once, although I assume a bow is a bow and arrow, which is an even greater cruelty to a live target.

Based on what evidence or research? Or is this just opinion? Can you maybe tell me what knowledge you do have about hunting technologies and techniques and whether you are only sourcing from places of like opinion. I was told many years ago to "Not believe everything you read, And don't read only those things you believe." I usually try to find out about things I'm going to be opinionated about.


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

Good on you for tracking down animals that you haven’t “killed cleanly” to put them out of their misery – I doubt that all hunters would be so diligent. As far as my knowledge of ballistics goes – yes it’s limited, in the same way it is with many hunters who just love the thrill of the chase regardless of the end result.

I can positively guarantee that ALL shooters (I hesitate to call them hunters) are not as dilligent as that. I guarantee that all those I hunt with or associate with DO act so diligently. The kill is also not the truly exciting part of the hunt. FD sensibly described that the shooting is only a small part of the experience. Killing is often quite sobering. Yes actually the thrill of the chase is the main point except possibly for varmiting.


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

But aside from that – your argument makes no sense.  Our population doesn’t allow us to all go out and traipse through what little natural forest we have left and randomly hunt for animals for our food and yes of course animals lead a miserable existence up to the time of slaughter. Abattoirs aren’t pleasant, but they are essential for the mass food production that is now necessary to feed this planet.  Otherwise we would have the elderly and infirm starving to death as their hunting skills would be inadequate to compete with the young and strong.

All? No, I am not suggesting it is for everyone. You however are suggesting it is for no one. I happen to believe that harvesting game is far preferable in terms of animal quality of life than most farming practices. But of course I am projecting. Animals that are feral and introduced and that I would not consume I hunt becasue I think their control and iradication is essential and (again projecting) believe that instant death by bullet preferable to protracted agony by poison.


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

As far as feeding our pets with other animals – what do you suggest - no pets?

Yes, why not Mantra. Put your ethics where your mouth is. You have again flashed over it again. You're paying to have animals killed to pander to your gushy needs. $$$ 4 death + too cowardly to do it herself = Mantra + "emotional crutch" pet.


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

Removing animal production in lieu of people hunting for their food is ridiculous in the 21st century.  You can’t justify it Locutius – just admit it.

Can you quote me please? If the world's population was maybe a 20th of what it currently is and there was still an abundance of animals and natural habitat then I would say yes, for most people that would probably be quite feasible. You see how conservation and hunting can very essentially be intertwined?


mantra wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 7:45am:

You get pleasure out of killing a moving target regardless of whether you kill it immediately or not. There is a difference in hunting out of necessity and hunting for sport.

I always try, and mostly succeed in killing animals as quickly and cleanly as possible. Most animals I have taken have never moved from the spot they were standing. My hunting whether for meat or sport coinscides with a social benefit in my opinion.

Mantra said


Quote:

Is the feral population as bad as the Game council indicates?  A few sites I went to indicated that our National Parks are fairly well stabilised in regard to feral animals – so what sort of animal does a “hunter” turn to when he can’t find a feral pig to stalk?  Native parrots, koalas, wallabies?

Could you please provide some links to these sites. I'd be interested what methods they are using to control them. Traditionally it would be poison. A method by the way that acts completely without discrimination. Introduced and natives alike. I guess a silent forest could be considered green peace.

As for the comments bout turning to Koalas, etc. Well if they did and they were caught then they deserve lengthy prision sentences as well a loss of firearms access for life. I not aware of the open massacre of natives taking place but feel free to again link these episodes. I will do my best to gleen any insiders information and dobb in the grubs that did it.

Quote:

You did mention a bow or cross bow once, although I assume a bow is a bow and arrow, which is an even greater cruelty to a live target. Based on what evidence or research? Or is this just opinion? Can you maybe tell me what knowledge you do have about hunting technologies and techniques and whether you are only sourcing from places of like opinion. I was told many years ago to "Not believe everything you read, And don't read only those things you believe." I usually try to find out about things I'm going to be opinionated about

.

Locutius - I did read up a little on bows and some of the information says that a good bow will kill better than a bullet (yippee) no matter where it hits.  It sounded believable until I remembered the news item the other day about two suffering wallabies – one with an arrow in its eye and another in its rump – so obviously arrows don’t kill quickly.


Quote:

The kill is also not the truly exciting part of the hunt. FD sensibly described that the shooting is only a small part of the experience. Killing is often quite sobering. Yes actually the thrill of the chase is the main point except possibly for varmiting.

So does that mean you go out hunting drunk and when you kill something it sobers you up? Sounds like great fun.


Quote:

Yes, why not Mantra. Put your ethics where your mouth is. You have again flashed over it again. You're paying to have animals killed to pander to your gushy needs. $$$ 4 death + too cowardly to do it herself = Mantra + "emotional crutch" pet.

If the majority of Australians decided that all abattoirs and pet food factories should be closed tomorrow – I’d go along with it.  My dog loves beans and assorted vegetables and it wouldn’t be a hardship for her, although I’ve heard that dogs can get sick on a long term vegetarian diet. As far as my dog being an emotional crutch – I’m not sure I’d put it like that – it’s more the other way around as she has some serious mental issues.

Now this was interesting Locutius.  As I was chasing up some links for you – it was discovered that the feral population is more diverse now than it was prior to hunters being introduced.  As hunters run out of feral animals – they are replacing them with new populations of pigs and deers. Evidence has been found which proves that hunters are not only tearing up the environment and endangering people’s lives, but exacerbating our feral problem greatly.


A recent study published by the Feral Animal Control CRC[1] states:

“The sport and business of hunting is contributing significantly to Australia’s feral animal problems. During this study the following problems were noted:

127 new feral deer populations have been created by hunters Australia-wide (Moriarty 2004).

* The newly-created Game Council of New South Wales has been given a mandate to manage Californian Quail, Pheasant, Chukhar Partridge, Peafowl and Turkey, even though none of these species occur (yet) in the wild on mainland Australia.

* Pigs are also released into national parks and other lands to create future hunting opportunities. Such pigs can often be recognised by their torn ears, showing they have previously been held down by dogs.”

“The NSW Government should end its experiment in using recreational shooters for feral animal control. Instead it must put in place real programs to control ferals and keep our public bushlands as safe and peaceful places,” concluded Mr Cox.

Contact: Andrew Cox 9299 0000 (w); 0438 588 040 (mob)

Just some news snippets for you Locutius.

Goulburn police say they do not expect to charge a father who accidentally shot his son on a hunting trip yesterday afternoon.
The 30-year-old was shot in the legs on a property at Lake Bathurst when his father was trying to shoot a rabbit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654988.htm

Wangaratta police say they are preparing to lay charges over the accidental shooting of a boy on a hunting trip near the city last week.
The 10-year-old was forced to have surgery on his hand after being struck by a bullet from a high-powered rifle.

Police have been told the rifle accidentally discharged while the vehicle was in motion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/vic/goulburn/200602/s1579418.htm

The party's spokeswoman for firearms policy, Lee Rhiannon, says the Government has a document that raises concerns about eight possible scenarios that could arise.

She says the Government should release the report, and should ban recreational hunting in state forests.

"It identifies the dangers that people will be exposed to when recreational hunting activities are carried out on state forests," she said.

"It's a very serious report, it's in fact identified a number of scenarios where people could be killed or permanently disabled.

"Clearly there is a responsibility for the Minister to release this report and also ban recreational hunting in state forests."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1712372.htm

Quote:

Abattoirs aren’t pleasant, but they are essential for the mass food production

No they aren't. And even if they were, it doesn't make sense to get rid of a more humane alternative merely because the cruelest option is a 'necessary' part of our economy.


Quote:

Otherwise we would have the elderly and infirm starving to death

No we wouldn't. I think your imagination is getting the best of you here mantra. There are plenty of communities in India that get by just fine without eating any meat at all.


Quote:

Removing animal production in lieu of people hunting for their food is ridiculous in the 21st century.

Of course it would be rediculous to force people to take the more ethical approach, but if people actually want to do it, why stop them? Why force them onto industrialised meat instead?


Quote:

You get pleasure out of killing a moving target regardless of whether you kill it immediately or not.  There is a difference in hunting out of necessity and hunting for sport.

I think you would have trouble defining that difference mantra. People who hunt out of apparent necessity also enjoy it. People who hunt for enjoyment mostly eat what they catch. Sure, we could probably get by on weavils and corn instead, but you are setting an arbitrary and rediculous standard. Basically, you are saying because you disapprove, people should have to justify with some stupid standard that you pass for necessity, and if they don't need to, you would force them into an option that is worse for all concerned. Before you demand people show necessity, first you need to justify taking away their options.


Quote:

For feral animal control – professional shooters should be employed

But you just complained about National Parks having to employ people to do this. Why waste confservation funds on paying people for something that others would do for free?


Quote:

instead of the state giving massive handouts to the Game Council

Didn't I ask you to show how much this supposed 'handout' is? IF you make these claims, you should back them up. If you just parrot anything you hear that supports your argument unquestioningly, you become nothing more than a vessel for misinformation.


Quote:

It is wrong to kill any animal unless it’s out of necessity or creating a problem or threat.

But you think it's OK to pay others to do far worse mantra. Your standards are all over the place. the only thing consistent in them is maximising the suiffering of all concerned.


Quote:

From the mouth of a hunter. What else could you say?

Well it is true, don't you agree? Regardless of who says it, don;t you think the truth is important?


Quote:

You only have to make enquiries at any of the action groups associated with towns situated close to National Parks and you would see the overwhelming majority are against hunters in our parks.

 

But mantra, that is not the claim I asked you to back up. Obviously in a group of people who join forces because they oppose hunting the majority will oppose hunting, but you said an unqualified majority oppose hunting. Did you really mean to say a minority oppose hunting and the majority should be disenfranchised, regardless of the absence of logical or rational arguments to support their stance?


Quote:

The only people who believe there are benefits are the hunters because they love the kill.

No mantra, plenty of non-hunters do also. Even major conservation groups acknowledge the beneficial role that hunting income can play in protecting the environment.


Quote:

There have always been complaints FD

But this is again not the claim I nasked you to back up. You made very specific, and very absurd claims about photographic evidence. Where is that evidence?


Quote:

or perhaps you live in denial?

You are the one in denial. You are the one claiming to have all the evidence, only to change the subject when asked to present it.


Quote:

Residents and animal groups alike

So all residents support your position? Is this another absurd and false generalisation?


Quote:

I have no problem with people enjoying themselves as long as it's not at the expense of a human or animal.

But that is where your argument loses logic mantra. You support killing of animals. You claim to support people enjoying themselves. But you oppose the two happening concurrently. You support an action, but you oppose an emotion going along with that action. You can only accept someone doing this if they are miserable about it. It makes no sense and cannot be used as the basis for sound legislation.


Quote:

Did I say that FD?

Yes, if you swap jews for pigs and Nazis for the pork industry, you said pretty much the exact same thing, as if it justified what goes on there. Yet at the same time you rant about things that are far less inhumane. You support the mindless multinationals who profit from the abject suffering of animals, but oppose the recreational harvest of free range meat. You have been unable to explain this contradiction.

Quote:

No – of course abattoirs are terrible places – but hunting is no longer viable to sustain our population which I've said before.

But that is an absurd standard mantra. Hunting does not need to support the entire population to be viable. It only needs to support those who do it. It's as if you say that people are not allowed to have solar cells and must use electricity from cioal until the entire country can switch to solar. It is a standard you wish to impose that makes absolutely no sense.


Quote:

My point was that there has to be something seriously wrong with a person who enjoys killing a living, breathing animal just for the pleasure of it.

But there doesn't mantra. It comes naturally to us. We are hunters by nature. You cannot deny basic biology to suit your political agenda. The facts are simply not on your side.


Quote:

Once again – it is ridiculous to claim that we should all hunt for our food in the 21st century.

Once again mantra, no-one is making that claim. Why are you confused about that? You are the only one claiming we have to make an all or nothing choice on behalf of everyone. And you seem to insist everyone chooses the worst option, because the better options also provide recreational enjoyment.


Quote:

Because it’s so totally unnecessary

But so is your pork factory that you defend so well. Honestly, it is as if you own shares in a piggery. No one method is absolutely necessary to feed the people.


Quote:

You are not killing because you have to – you are doing it because you love to kill.  You don't need to - you just want to.

The same could be said about people who buy bacon from the supermarket. They don't need to, they want to. But because they don't get a thrill from buying it you approve, even though the suffering involved in far greater. Like I said, it is not animal welfare you support, but the denial of enjoyment to other people. You seem to concede that your position has nothing to do with animal welfare or the environment - you only want to stop people doing something because they enjoy it and that bothers you for some reason.


Quote:

Yes FD – I’m out to create as much misery as I possibly can to those selfish, bloodthirsty individuals – and I’m not saying all of you are gungho – but many of you are.

 

You seem to be missing the point mantra. While you try to maximise the misery for your fellow human beings, you are also maximising the suffering of animals. Why is it more important for you to make people suffer more than to actually reduce the suffering of animals?


Quote:

At least use professionals without dogs.

But weren't you complaining about the risk of a wounded animal escaping and dying a slow death. Why would you want this to happen more often? Or do you prefer poison?


Quote:

A few sites I went to indicated that our National Parks are fairly well stabilised in regard to feral animals – so what sort of animal does a “hunter” turn to when he can’t find a feral pig to stalk?

I think you misunderstood what they meant by stable. A steady cane toad population of 100 would be stable. A steady population of 100 billion would also be stable. It is meaningless gibberish designed to mislead.


Quote:

So that makes it OK for 4WD’s to tear up the bush and sand dunes and squash anything in their path?

No, it has nothing at all to do with that. Not sure why you made that leap. I was just pointing out that you claim was plain wrong.


Quote:

Rubbish. You are trying to justify your guilt by turning it onto me.

No I'm not mantra. I am trying to avoid the guilt trips and emotional arguments. I am trying to explain, as rationally as possible, that your postion makes no sense at all. It merely increases the suffering of all involved, including the animals.


Quote:

I not aware of the open massacre of natives taking place but feel free to again link these episodes.

I don't think mantra is actually aware of it either, just passing on convenient mistruths.


Quote:

So does that mean you go out hunting drunk and when you kill something it sobers you up? Sounds like great fun.

Mantra, I am sure your english is good enough to understand what was said. Are you really resoprting to deliberately misunderstanding people to avoid the real issues here? There are some major flaws in your argument that you are avoiding here, in favour of minor tangents.


Quote:

although I’ve heard that dogs can get sick on a long term vegetarian diet

Yes mantra, despite what the animal libbers say, it is bad for their health.

Killing bacteria is cruel and immoral. It is cruel because they are poisoned or been boiled or burned alive, it is immoral because they are so small and have been here before us.

Hi Mantra.

It looks like Freediver and Locutius have addressed your objections as well or better than I could so there is not much further for me to add.

I have been trying hard to determine what whithin your objections to hunting are founded on conservationist logic yet logic does not seem to feature within your argument.

Your reasoning seems to be based entirely on emotion and prejudice complete with resort to the now mandatory "redneck" slur.

And you tactics in this debate have involved nothing more than erecting classic strawmen to knock down.

Mantra. - I was lurking here for quite a while before I decided to join and you do not impress me as being an unfair person, yet on this issue you seem to be so blinkered as to be incapable of presenting a coherent counter argument or even seeing how much damage you are doing to your own credibility.

Here are few choice morsels that I will ask you explain.

You write:

Quote.

"Yeah sure.  As if bullet manufacturers give a damn about lead poisoning in ducks.  Solution - don't duck shoot!"

End Quot.

Mantra, what experience, - ( if any), - do you have of the firearms and ammunition industry?

Nobody had the slightest idea that decades old lead shot could have adverse environmental effects in our wetlands until a bit over 20 years ago.

When that problem was identified ammunition manufacturers moved rapidly to introduce non-toxic iron shot, but when results were disappointing the manufacturers turned their attention to bismouth without any arm twisting from ANYBODY.

Unfortunately all of this was happening at a time when duck hunting was under siege and largely went unnoticed, - (or perhaps simply ignored), - by the anti-hunting publicity machine.

Do take note that ammunition manufacturers are business people who cater to a market and that includes not only target shooters but also sports hunters who have a strong interest in the health and well being of our wildlife and also Government Departments involved in conservation such as the NPWS.

You also write:

Quote.

"Everybody who lives near, works in, enjoys or simply passes by a State Forest will be at increased risk of being shot. Recreational users are expected to share the forest with armed amateurs."

End Quote.

I happen to live right next door to a National Park and make frequent recreational use of it, as do most of my neighbours and none of us are walking around the bush in fear of being shot by one these mythical "armed amateurs."

Warrigal


Quote:

Everybody who lives near, works in, enjoys or simply passes by a State Forest will be at increased risk of being shot. Recreational users are expected to share the forest with armed amateurs."

The above was a quote, although I agree with it. Many would. I often use bold to highlight quotes, but will use quotes next time.  I did put the link beneath.

In regard to me not providing a credible argument because of my emotions - that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black Warrigal.  FD believes I'm trying to inflict misery on people, Locutius thinks I need my dog for an emotional crutch and you've accused me of being biased - as if you're not!

Three hunters who will defend their sport to the death being very defensive over their right to kill. If we took a national referendum on this topic - hunters would not be the winners.

As far as bullet manufacturers changing the composition of their bullets - yes I was ignorant in that respect, but surely you don't expect anyone to be elated by the fact that less toxic bullets are now being used to slaughter our wildlife.

The important part of my argument has been totally ignored - so I'll post it again. I've even supplied a name and number from someone in NPWS to verify this information.


Quote:

A recent study published by the Feral Animal Control CRC[1] states: “The sport and business of hunting is contributing significantly to Australia’s feral animal problems. During this study the following problems were noted: 127 new feral deer populations have been created by hunters Australia-wide (Moriarty 2004). * The newly-created Game Council of New South Wales has been given a mandate to manage Californian Quail, Pheasant, Chukhar Partridge, Peafowl and Turkey, even though none of these species occur (yet) in the wild on mainland Australia. * Pigs are also released into national parks and other lands to create future hunting opportunities. Such pigs can often be recognised by their torn ears, showing they have previously been held down by dogs.” “The NSW Government should end its experiment in using recreational shooters for feral animal control. Instead it must put in place real programs to control ferals and keep our public bushlands as safe and peaceful places,” concluded Mr Cox. Contact: Andrew Cox 9299 0000 (w); 0438 588 040

In regard to my redneck slur - obviously it didn't apply to hunters such as yourself, Locutius or FD.  After all Locutius explained that friends of his are all diligent hunters, but the same can't be said of other hunters, which led me to believe that redneck hunters are in the majority.


Quote:

I can positively guarantee that ALL shooters (I hesitate to call them hunters) are not as dilligent as that

I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly.

This was not sport but how we made money..ie: a job of work..
I did the job but didnt neccessarliy like it. I was told to "toughen up".. I did.

I did not a have a thirst for blood..and in fact I loved animals and still do. I still love animals and do occasionally eat meat ... but slowly cutting it out.

The cruelest handling of animals in this country is the meat production and export market. If I were PM I would close down/ drastically change this industry as my first job in office..


Redneck /reckless hunters are not in the majority..but they exist.

We humans have typically been 'hunter / gatherers' for a long time.

Then we supposedly morphed into 'hunter / gatherers', and cultivator's [farmers] of the land.

These days we humans have largely 'mechanised' our food production, whether the food be the product of,

• horticulture, or
  
• fish farming [where typically, factory ships are able to denude whole areas, of fish], or
  
• the product of animal lots/pens, where animals are raised, for processing in an abattoir [a 'death house'. the dictionary describes an abattoir, as a slaughter-house].
  

I would just like to ask, do those on this forum who are opposed to hunting, do they abstain meat, and shun the use of leather products?




I would recommend to all meat eaters on this forum [especially those who are opposed to hunting], if the occasion arises, have a go one day, at slaughtering your own meat, for your table.

Even if the 'victim' of your efforts is only a backyard chook.

The experience may disgust you, but it will certainly broaden your outlook and perspective.

And if the thought [of slaughtering a chook] is just too disgusting to you, to even consider, try approaching the task again, after eating nothing for a week [or more].

You may start to see that chook in a new light.      :o





Yadda - ex meat eater [but willing to let others decide, if they want to hunt, or not].

Quote:

And if the thought [of slaughtering a chook] is just too disgusting to you, to even consider, try approaching the task again, after eating nothing for a week [or more]. You may start to see that chook in a new light.

Yadda do you believe that those on this board who are pro-hunting are starving and have to do it out of necessity?


Quote:

I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly.

Oceans I have nothing against those who professionally shoot for a living, eradicating pests as in your case - and this is what the Greens and other anti-hunting organisations have proposed, but the State governments have allowed this unrestricted hunting without public consultation and disclosure of reports.

Ocean.

You write:

Quote.

"I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly."

End Quote.

That's very interesting Ocean.

I have never hunted professionally myself but I have met a number of people over the years who do.

All save two of these started out as sport hunters.

If you like hunting and have the ambition and the temprement to do it full time it can be a fairly lucrative gig.

You add:

Quote.

"This was not sport but how we made money..ie: a job of work..
I did the job but didnt neccessarliy like it. I was told to "toughen up".. I did."

End Quote.

It is true that professional hunting is a trade or business.

Where the business aspects are concerned, however, there is an area of profitable overlap with sport hunting.

You also write:

Quote.

"I did not a have a thirst for blood..and in fact I loved animals and still do. I still love animals and do occasionally eat meat ... but slowly cutting it out."

End Quote.

I also love animals and enjoy eating meat and fish.

I see no contradiction between having empathy with animals and hunting them for sport or for profit.

Except, of course, for those game species which are endangered and for that reason should not be shot.

You write:

Quote.

"The cruelest handling of animals in this country is the meat production and export market. If I were PM I would close down/ drastically change this industry as my first job in office.."

End Quote.

I know that there remains a serious animal cruelty issue concerning certain aspects of our meat production industry and live animal exports, although I was under the impression that these were being effectively addressed.

It is possible that I need to do more research on that one though.

You conclude:

Quote.

"Redneck /reckless hunters are not in the majority..but they exist."

End Quote.

"Reckless hunters" are indeed an extreme minority.

The problem that I see here is that not everybody who ventures into the bush with a rifle or bow is a hunter there with an agenda to hunt.

Illegally taking wild game constitutes a crime called "poaching."

It is NOT hunting it is a serious offence.    

Hi Yadda.

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.

You write:

Quote.

"These days we humans have largely 'mechanised' our food production, whether the food be the product of,

•horticulture, or
•fish farming [where typically, factory ships are able to denude whole areas, of fish], or
•the product of animal lots/pens, where animals are raised, for processing in an abattoir [a 'death house'. the dictionary describes an abattoir, as a slaughter-house]."

End Quote.

Very good points.

For a very long time now, "civilised" people have been able to buy their meat in such a sanitised form that they can delude themselves into the belief that they are so far removed from the death of the animal as to be morally superior to the butcher who killed the cow.

There are several reasons why a person may opt for a vegetarian or an even stricter vegan diet.

Sometimes this choice of diet is adopted for health reasons.

Sometimes it is out of a sense of moral and humanitarian conviction.

You conclude:

Quote.

"I would just like to ask, do those on this forum who are opposed to hunting, do they abstain meat, and shun the use of leather products?"

End Quote.

I think that is indeed a fair question.

oceanz wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 5:30pm:

I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly. This was not sport but how we made money..ie: a job of work.. I did the job but didnt neccessarliy like it. I was told to "toughen up".. I did. I did not a have a thirst for blood..and in fact I loved animals and still do. I still love animals and do occasionally eat meat ... but slowly cutting it out. The cruelest handling of animals in this country is the meat production and export market. If I were PM I would close down/ drastically change this industry as my first job in office.. Redneck /reckless hunters are not in the majority..but they exist.

Oceans, I found this particular comment quite telling. You have not specified but I assume that the animals you were hunting were Pigs? Goats? or kangaroos.

Now of course any professional shooter will reload his/her ammunition as do most sport shooters. Reloaded ammo has a couple of benefits

-such as tayloring a particular load to suit the rifle. As each rifle even of the same make and model have minute machining differences optimum accuracy is often only found through reloads.

-also there is the considerable cost factor. You can reload and save anywhere from $1-$4 a shot depending on the cartridge being used unless you use exmilitary ammo which is very cheap but it also performs very badly as a hunting round. Full metal jacket ammo does not expand and there for does not deliver all of its shock value nor create a wound channel that speeds the lethality of the shot.
My guess is that you would probably been using something along the lines of the .222, .223 (5.56) or 243. Very very common cartridges amongst professional shooters that do not take the larger type of game.

There would be no need to have underpowered rounds other than trying to save a few cents or by accident. Either case under appreciates the animal and would be considered careless for a enthusiast let alone a professional hunter.

I am very much an animal lover and have a sincere appreciation for the environment and the animals in it. I also am a dog person but have not owned a dog for many years, but if I were to own another it would be a tiny dog with a minimum footprint. I don't need some ferocious thing to protect me I only want it for their character, companionship and as a early warning device for trouble.

I remember at uni a girl who had everything. Dogs, cats, mice, fish, horses finding out I had NO PETS and based on that made the assumption that I did not like animals. I told her that considering the volume of animal flesh required to feed her pets, and being denied as a resource to starving humanity that she must be the one that actually does not like animals. Alas she missed the point completely.

There is a defence for commercial activity which is quite remarkable. Fishing is one of the few areas where food products are harvested commercially rather than farmed. At enormous cost to the environment. Indiscriminate catching, discarding and wasting. Sports fishermen cause a minute amout of damage in comparision, waste little, target specific species rather than haul 2 tonnes of living creatures on board only to throw 1.5 tonnes of it back dead.

You want to give up or cut back on meat? Good for you. I have reduced my consumption of meat for both health and ethical reasons so I understand where you are coming from. But it is only a reduction, I have no intention of giving up meat. I am a meat eater biologically and by choice. And I love meat. I believe that there are many standards that need reviewing for these industries not the least the quality of life of animals destined for the table.

Maybe farms should require that people go and kill and butcher and animal for their freezer, then Manra might understand what is being said by the word sobering. Along with FD, I suspect that she really knew what was being said, the red mist just had too much control on this subject matter. Now if she wants to have a dog that is a vegetarian get a guinea pig. And they are good to eat.

Quote:

FD believes I'm trying to inflict misery on people

Because you said you were.


Quote:

If we took a national referendum on this topic - hunters would not be the winners.

You keep saying that mantra, but you can't back it up. Last time I asked you to, all you could do was give an example of an anti hunting group within which the mojority of members were opposed to hunting.


Quote:

but surely you don't expect anyone to be elated by the fact that less toxic bullets are now being used to slaughter our wildlife

I think it's a good thing. You probably see it as a bad thing, because it undermines your argument, even though the environment benefits.


Quote:

The important part of my argument has been totally ignored

Mantra, shooting dear does not create new dear populations. Your argument does not make sense. Dear are perfectly capable of moving around on their own. Suggesting that we should ban hunting because dear were introduced is like saying we should ban farming because farmers introduced cane toads.


Quote:

but the same can't be said of other hunters, which led me to believe that redneck hunters are in the majority.

That doesn't make sense mantra. What is it about the fact that not all hunters aren't rednecks leads you to believe that the majority are?


Quote:

Yadda do you believe that those on this board who are pro-hunting are starving and have to do it out of necessity?

Mantra I have repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of this argument. You could get by without lettuce. Does that mean we should ban lettuce? Since when is the ability to ban something a reason to do it? You accused us of ignoring the most important point in your argument. Yet I have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy in your support for factopry farms and your opposition to hunting. You continually ignore it. Why?


Quote:

and this is what the Greens and other anti-hunting organisations have proposed

This doesn't make sense mantra - anti hunting organisations proposing that the government fund hunting trips. Unless it was a backdoor tool to reduce hunting, you would end up with more hunting and an enourmous cost to the community. It is a pie-in-the-sky idea that makes no economic or ethical sense.

Mantra, do you ever answer questions with FACTS?

Seems you, like so many others, want to impose your beliefs on others without bothering to stump up the independently verifiable facts.

Your language suggests you've never accompanied anyone on a shooting trip, or you'd know better about their behaviour.

Bushdoc wrote on May 17^th, 2009 at 11:50pm:

Mantra, do you ever answer questions with FACTS? Seems you, like so many others, want to impose your beliefs on others without bothering to stump up the independently verifiable facts. Your language suggests you've never accompanied anyone on a shooting trip, or you'd know better about their behaviour.

So far Bushdoc I've heard no facts from the pro-hunters, only that they love doing it and woe betide anyone who stands in their way.  If you had bothered to look at the information I supplied you would see that my references were totally ignored.

Most people express their beliefs on a forum and yes I provided links and other information to support my argument. Yes I have been on a couple of hunting trips on properties. They were terrible, but they were necessary and weren't done for pleasure.

You asked me if I was trying to inflict misery FD....sounded a bit silly, so I gave an answer to match.


Quote:

[quote]If we took a national referendum on this topic - hunters would not be the winners.

You keep saying that mantra, but you can't back it up. Last time I asked you to, all you could do was give an example of an anti hunting group within which the mojority of members were opposed to hunting.[/quote]

The public wasn't even given an opportunity to see crucial reports or given the opportunity to object. They were state government decisions taken out of our hands and consultation with the public has been kept to a minimum as to when & where hunting expeditions take place.


Quote:

[quote][quote]but surely you don't expect anyone to be elated by the fact that less toxic bullets are now being used to slaughter our wildlife

I think it's a good thing. You probably see it as a bad thing, because it undermines your argument, even though the environment benefits.[/quote][/quote]

It depends which way you look at it FD. I doubt any bullet is environmentally friendly. They're still wounding and killing animals.


Quote:

[quote]The important part of my argument has been totally ignored

Mantra, shooting dear does not create new dear populations. Your argument does not make sense. Dear are perfectly capable of moving around on their own. Suggesting that we should ban hunting because dear were introduced is like saying we should ban farming because farmers introduced cane toads.[/quote]

Hunters are continually introducing more feral animals into the environment so they don't run out of targets. This is causing serious concern. I provided a link - twice.


Quote:

[quote]but the same can't be said of other hunters, which led me to believe that redneck hunters are in the majority.

That doesn't make sense mantra. What is it about the fact that not all hunters aren't rednecks leads you to believe that the majority are?[/quote]

Because killing an animal for the fun of it is a redneck activity. We are not still living in the wilderness where animals are in over abundance. There is increasing destruction with 4WD's and idiots racing through the bush. Why do you think NPWS object to this so much? Hunters are hindering any good work, not helping it.


Quote:

[quote]Yadda do you believe that those on this board who are pro-hunting are starving and have to do it out of necessity?

Mantra I have repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of this argument. You could get by without lettuce. Does that mean we should ban lettuce? Since when is the ability to ban something a reason to do it? You accused us of ignoring the most important point in your argument. Yet I have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy in your support for factopry farms and your opposition to hunting. You continually ignore it. Why?[/quote]

I don't support factory farms - but they're the only alternative on offer. There are plenty of people who oppose the terrible conditions, but when they try to do something about it, outrage is screamed from the rooftops about how these people are trying to destroy livelihoods. Hunting for pleasure is no longer viable in this under-resourced planet and it's not a livelihood, it's a sport.


Quote:

[quote]and this is what the Greens and other anti-hunting organisations have proposed

This doesn't make sense mantra - anti hunting organisations proposing that the government fund hunting trips. Unless it was a backdoor tool to reduce hunting, you would end up with more hunting and an enourmous cost to the community. It is a pie-in-the-sky idea that makes no economic or ethical sense.[/quote]

There's a big difference. Those hunting for money are going to do a specific job for a price. They are not going to waste any extra bullets if they can help it. Unlike hunters they're not going to replenish the forests with more feral animals when they've finished their job so they can continue having fun. Hunting for pleasure to help the environment is a huge lie.

The Warrigal wrote on May 15^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

Ocean. You write: Quote. "I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly." End Quote. That's very interesting Ocean. I have never hunted professionally myself but I have met a number of people over the years who do. All save two of these started out as sport hunters. If you like hunting and have the ambition and the temprement to do it full time it can be a fairly lucrative gig. It was ..very You add: Quote. "This was not sport but how we made money..ie: a job of work.. I did the job but didnt neccessarliy like it. I was told to "toughen up".. I did." End Quote. It is true that professional hunting is a trade or business. Where the business aspects are concerned, however, there is an area of profitable overlap with sport hunting. quite possibly, but we used Government tags for Kangaroos [stringently recorded weights etc] and foxes were considered a feral pest..the upside to the fox shooting we were not required to pay taxes , so it was all profit You also write: Quote. "I did not a have a thirst for blood..and in fact I loved animals and still do. I still love animals and do occasionally eat meat ... but slowly cutting it out." End Quote. I also love animals and enjoy eating meat and fish. I see no contradiction between having empathy with animals and hunting them for sport or for profit. Except, of course, for those game species which are endangered and for that reason should not be shot. I am increasingly feeling compromised about eating meat knowing the industry methods thats are used to produce meat for our table...I am also aware that humans were not primarily designed to consume too much meat, if any..its bad for us.. You write: Quote. "The cruelest handling of animals in this country is the meat production and export market. If I were PM I would close down/ drastically change this industry as my first job in office.." End Quote. I know that there remains a serious animal cruelty issue concerning certain aspects of our meat production industry and live animal exports, although I was under the impression that these were being effectively addressed. It is possible that I need to do more research on that one though. research maybe..but what we see with our own eyes is enough for me.. You conclude: Quote. "Redneck /reckless hunters are not in the majority..but they exist." End Quote. "Reckless hunters" are indeed an extreme minority. The problem that I see here is that not everybody who ventures into the bush with a rifle or bow is a hunter there with an agenda to hunt. Illegally taking wild game constitutes a crime called "poaching." usually one must have permission to hunt game from a National Parks and Wildlife Authority , not to mention the cross referencing that goes on between Police and govt Depts also..to get a rifle license  is just a so much messing about...you must have permission from at least 3 land owners to build a genuine case for even needing a gun license..many hoops to jump thru It is NOT hunting it is a serious offence.

Manta.

You have been provided with ample facts from pro-hunting and fishing advocate on this and several other threads in this Sub-Forum.

Your now famous link from Andrew Cox, whom like Lee Rhiannon has a long history of anti-hunting activity, is at best, of dubious worth.

Now it is not my place to answer for others, however, when Freediver asked you the following:

Quote:

"Are you suggesting hunters should not be represented in parliament? Is this part of your strategy of spreading misery?"

End Quote.


You responded:

Quote.

"Yes FD – I’m out to create as much misery as I possibly can to those selfish, bloodthirsty individuals – and I’m not saying all of you are gungho – but many of you are."

End Quote.


You were asked if you were out to deny people whom you don't like Parliamentary representation and wanted to inflict misery on them Mantra.

You own words CONFIRM that this is your precise INTENT!


In your reply to Bushdoc you wrote:

Quote.

"Yes I have been on a couple of hunting trips on properties. They were terrible, but they were necessary and weren't done for pleasure"

End Quote.


They were terrible in what way Mantra?

Were the hunters mowing down animals through a veil of tears?


Mantra.

You say that you have been on hunting trips of the "necessary" kind.

(Necessary as defined by you anyway).

You also claim to have researched hunting and assert that it's conservation benifits are a lie.

Well I'm calling BS on that Mantra.

When I meet someone who claims to have done this sort of research and discover that:

1/ They don't know the difference between a shotgun pellet and a rifle bullet.

2/ Is unaware of, or chooses to ignore, the fact that hunting and fishing are INDUSTRIES which are not there to work themselves out of business.

3/ Is equally unaware, or again is choosing to ignore, the fact that many professional hunters and the owners of private hunting lodges derive their income in part or in full on the revenues they earn from providing venues and hunting guide services to amateur hunters.

4/ Is so ignorant of our laws and rural customs that they automaticaly assume that "only" Aboriginal hunters bowhunt.

5/ Rushes to the assumption that no "professional" shooter enjoys his/her occupation.

6/ Thinks that a bow is "just" a bow and an arrow is "just" an arrow.

No archer, let alone any bowhunter, is going to be so ignorant as to hunt game with target points and a bow insufficiently powered to achieve it's intended purpose.

A hunter has a lot to lose through enethical and inhumane, and ILLEGAL hunting practices.

And NOTHING to gain!

A vandal couldn't care less.

A FOAMING anti-hunter just MIGHT see some political gain in shooting a few roos with target points and blaming the incident on "hunters."

(The end justifies the means and all that).

I'm not saying that that is what happened, but if you truly must insist on calling hunters gung-ho rednecks and insinuate that we are criminals who will resort to anything to "defend our right to kill."

Then the tactics of certain anti-hunting zealots, - (sometimes associated with "eco-terrorist" groups), - must be open to examination as well.

Their record is far from pristine, I assure you.

Quote:

If you had bothered to look at the information I supplied you would see that my references were totally ignored.

No they weren't mantra. Every single one was addressed, including the ones you obviously made up. If you drown your real references in obvious fabrications you can't blame people for not giving an in depth response to every single one.


Quote:

Most people express their beliefs on a forum and yes I provided links and other information to support my argument.

Mantra you were asked on several occasions to back up specific statements you made. You did not back them up. Instead you changed the topic and gave something that was irrelevant to the question asked. That does not count.


Quote:

You asked me if I was trying to inflict misery FD....sounded a bit silly, so I gave an answer to match.

Why do you seek out the bits you find silly and ignore the bits you think are important? I have asked you several times to address the genuine suffering inflicted on factory farmed animals. For someone who appears to be motivated by animal welfare, you show remarkably little interest in the core issue. How is it better to ban the more ethical method in favour of the method with maximum suffering? Why do you ignore this issue? The fact that you think you can do it is not a valid explanation for why you want to do it.


Quote:

The public wasn't even given an opportunity to see crucial reports or given the opportunity to object.

Wrong mantra. You are deluded if you think one or two reports are going to change people's minds. Most people grasp the issue quite well without needing a report to tell them what happens on a hunting trip. On the other hand, I have rpeatedly asked you to back up your claims about income generated from hunting. You have failed to do so.


Quote:

They were state government decisions taken out of our hands and consultation with the public has been kept to a minimum as to when & where hunting expeditions take place.

You appear to mistake public consultation with getting what you want. You claim that the majority opposes hunting. This delusion is most likely the source of your misguided belief that the public wasn't consulted.


Quote:

Hunters are continually introducing more feral animals into the environment so they don't run out of targets.

Don't be silly mantra. Animals breed. Our country is over-run with feral animals, plus animals like Kangaroos that are far more numerous than pre-settlement.


Quote:

Because killing an animal for the fun of it is a redneck activity.

Surely it is how you go about it and what you do with the meat that matters, not whether you enjoy it. This is the major flaw in your argument mantra. You base everything on whether hunters have fun, not what they actually do or the amount of suffering inflicted on animals, or the environmental side. You are completely ignoring the real issues here. You claim that the public wasn't consulted, but it is clear that the public simply doesn't care about this issue you harp on about. You are motivated by a desire to deny people enjoyment because you object to them enjoying themselves. You place animal welfare, the environment etc second to this. Instead of constantly repeating yourself, why don't you address this issue? That's how a debate moves on mantra. Simply repeating yourself and ignoring the responses is not actually debating.


Quote:

There is increasing destruction with 4WD's and idiots racing through the bush.

The use of 4WD's and hunting are two completely separate issues mantra. They are easily separated legislatively. Banning hunting will have little impact on 4WD use. Likewise banning 4WD use would have little impact on hunting.


Quote:

I don't support factory farms - but they're the only alternative on offer.

So you do support them? You have supported them in this very thread mantra. You say you don;t support them, but then you turn around and support them. That doesn't make much sense.


Quote:

Hunting for pleasure is no longer viable in this under-resourced planet

But it is mantra. It merely has to be managed sustainably, not banned. This is an emotive argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is an appeal to blind ignorance.


Quote:

There's a big difference. Those hunting for money are going to do a specific job for a price. They are not going to waste any extra bullets if they can help it. Unlike hunters they're not going to replenish the forests with more feral animals when they've finished their job so they can continue having fun. Hunting for pleasure to help the environment is a huge lie.

You don't get it mantra. If they are getting paid, they would have far more motive to replenish the feral population, especially if their job is at risk. Getting paid to hunt does not mean it isn't fun. Furthermore, whether you kill a feral for fun or profit does not change whether the outcome helps the environment. This is that huge flaw in your argument that I describe in every single post, and that you ignore in every single reply. It is not whether people have fun that matters, but what they actually do. Why can't you address what actually goes on, instead of insisting that something should be banned merely because you dislike the idea of other people enjoying themselves?

Mantra perhaps we are confusing you by addressing all of your points in detail. If we simplified our response to only raising one or two important issues, would that make it easier for you to address the important issues, instead of getting sidetracked by your misinterpretation of minor details?

locutius wrote on May 15^th, 2009 at 4:31pm:

[quote author=oceansblue link=1242081351/15#21 date=1242286206]I spent a few years as a professional hunter. We were very professional about the way we went about this..taking care not to inflict suffering on animals any more than absoultely neccessary. We used hunting dogs for 2 reasons..first to catch any animals wounded by a stray bullet ( this happened in some cases due to uncontrolled variants, animals moves unexpectedly etc or high winds, shells loaded too low) either way without the dog animals would have been lost in the bush and die slowly. This was not sport but how we made money..ie: a job of work.. I did the job but didnt neccessarliy like it. I was told to "toughen up".. I did. I did not a have a thirst for blood..and in fact I loved animals and still do. I still love animals and do occasionally eat meat ... but slowly cutting it out. The cruelest handling of animals in this country is the meat production and export market. If I were PM I would close down/ drastically change this industry as my first job in office.. Redneck /reckless hunters are not in the majority..but they exist.

Oceans, I found this particular comment quite telling. You have not specified but I assume that the animals you were hunting were Pigs? Goats? or kangaroos.

Locutius..we hunted kangaroos and foxes predominantley, sometimes dingoes rabbits ...this is where the income came from..sometimes feral pigs/buffallo and crocodile for sport ( I never hunted buffallo my partner also hunted crocodile I never went on these trips..he now hunts deer in NZ)



Now of course any professional shooter will reload his/her ammunition as do most sport shooters. Reloaded ammo has a couple of benefits

-such as tayloring a particular load to suit the rifle. As each rifle even of the same make and model have minute machining differences optimum accuracy is often only found through reloads.

-also there is the considerable cost factor. You can reload and save anywhere from $1-$4 a shot depending on the cartridge being used unless you use exmilitary ammo which is very cheap but it also performs very badly as a hunting round. Full metal jacket ammo does not expand and there for does not deliver all of its shock value nor create a wound channel that speeds the lethality of the shot.
My guess is that you would probably been using something along the lines of the .222, .223 (5.56) or 243. Very very common cartridges amongst professional shooters that do not take the larger type of game.

222/250 250 303 17 222/17 ...I loaded ammunition at least once a week....someone who shoots for a living always loads theyre own..its too expensive to do otherwise and when in the bush its impossible to access rifle supplies when you need them...sometimes its possible to miscalculate esp if tired when shooting long hours as we did to get load percentages wrong and in windy conditions just dont perform as well..over filling can be   a problem too for the same reason, blows an animal too peices..the most dangerous thing about loading fatigued is putting in a primer upside down and blowing yourself up..ha ha..it never happened of course but i came close a couple of times.

locutius wrote-


There would be no need to have underpowered rounds other than trying to save a few cents or by accident. Either case under appreciates the animal and would be considered careless for a enthusiast let alone a professional hunter.

Noone aims for underpowered rounds..accident or error would be the only reason..and we never referred to ourselves hunters, but shooters.

I am very much an animal lover and have a sincere appreciation for the environment and the animals in it. I also am a dog person but have not owned a dog for many years, but if I were to own another it would be a tiny dog with a minimum footprint. I don't need some ferocious thing to protect me I only want it for their character, companionship and as a early warning device for trouble.

I remember at uni a girl who had everything. Dogs, cats, mice, fish, horses finding out I had NO PETS and based on that made the assumption that I did not like animals. I told her that considering the volume of animal flesh required to feed her pets, and being denied as a resource to starving humanity that she must be the one that actually does not like animals. Alas she missed the point completely.

There is a defence for commercial activity which is quite remarkable. Fishing is one of the few areas where food products are harvested commercially rather than farmed. At enormous cost to the environment. Indiscriminate catching, discarding and wasting. Sports fishermen cause a minute amout of damage in comparision, waste little, target specific species rather than haul 2 tonnes of living creatures on board only to throw 1.5 tonnes of it back dead.

You want to give up or cut back on meat? Good for you. I have reduced my consumption of meat for both health and ethical reasons so I understand where you are coming from. But it is only a reduction, I have no intention of giving up meat. I am a meat eater biologically and by choice. And I love meat. I believe that there are many standards that need reviewing for these industries not the least the quality of life of animals destined for the table.

Maybe farms should require that people go and kill and butcher and animal for their freezer, then Manra might understand what is being said by the word sobering. Along with FD, I suspect that she really knew what was being said, the red mist just had too much control on this subject matter. Now if she wants to have a dog that is a vegetarian get a guinea pig. And they are good to eat.

We need pple like mantra in the world..she cares for and fights for animals rights..so few in our world do...

I greatly admired Steve Irwin..I felt deep loss at his leaving our world..my one single fear was that animals had lost their strongest voice and they would be lost...and there was noone to replace him..but in small ways we have pple who love and care for them..these pple should be understood and valued for the  vitally important role they play for animals, even if we dont understand them, even if we think they may be a bit eccentric (and some do) because they are the total opposite to someone who shoots for sport or otherwise..this by defintion sets them completely apart- it has to..we dont have to understand, but we can try at the very least.

I used to shoot flies with 22 just for fun  :-[
But now I kill them with airguard, which is more effective but also can damage bees.

tallowood wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 11:01pm:

I used to shoot flies with 22 just for fun  :-[ But now I kill them with airguard, which is more effective but also can damage bees.

I'm disgusted Tallow - those poor little flies. And as far as the bees go - don't you know they are becoming extinct?

Quote:

You have been provided with ample facts from pro-hunting and fishing advocate on this and several other threads in this Sub-Forum.Your now famous link from Andrew Cox, whom like Lee Rhiannon has a long history of anti-hunting activity, is at best, of dubious worth.

Why is that Warrigal – because you say it is?  You are the one bad mouthing those who oppose hunting.


Quote:

You were asked if you were out to deny people whom you don't like Parliamentary representation and wanted to inflict misery on them Mantra.

Most minority groups don’t get parliamentary representation – but in actual fact hunters do, otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed into our national parks.

So what's your complaint?



Quote:

They were terrible in what way Mantra?Were the hunters mowing down animals through a veil of tears?

I used to spend a lot of time on my grandparent’s farm where dogs and foxes were shot. I also worked on a cattle station for a while where they shot goats and kangaroos. No the couple of trips I went on – they didn’t cry, although I did, but they were callous, rough and in my mind cruel, but it was a job that was necessary according to them to protect their livestock and crops.

If a necessary job is cruel - how could a sport be less cruel?


Quote:

You also claim to have researched hunting and assert that it's conservation benifits are a lie.Well I'm calling BS on that Mantra

.

I’ve done a little research on hunting, although obviously I haven’t got the same BS to add to my argument as a hunter who will find all sorts of BS to back up his argument.


Quote:

1/ They don't know the difference between a shotgun pellet and a rifle bullet

Is the difference in bullets the crux of your argument Warrigal?


Quote:

2/ Is unaware of, or chooses to ignore, the fact that hunting and fishing are INDUSTRIES which are not there to work themselves out of business.

I’m aware they are industries – in the same way football and cricket are. The difference is football & cricket bring pleasure to others - whereas hunting is a very selfish sport and only revelled in by the hunter himself.


Quote:

3/ Is equally unaware, or again is choosing to ignore, the fact that many professional hunters and the owners of private hunting lodges derive their income in part or in full on the revenues they earn from providing venues and hunting guide services to amateur hunters.

Yes - you've hit the nail on the head - hunting guide services to amateur hunters.


Quote:

4/ Is so ignorant of our laws and rural customs that they automaticaly assume that "only" Aboriginal hunters bowhunt.

No – not now. I told you I read up a little on crossbows & bows & arrows. Why would crossbows be illegal in some states if they weren’t considered dangerous and inhumane weapons? You said that in your first post.


Quote:

5/ Rushes to the assumption that no "professional" shooter enjoys his/her occupation.

Maybe they do – but unless they do a good & economical job – they’re not going to be re-employed.


Quote:

No archer, let alone any bowhunter, is going to be so ignorant as to hunt game with target points and a bow insufficiently powered to achieve it's intended purpose.

Your statement is a lie Warrigal. Why are there so many bow accidents where bow owners shoot animals inhumanely and even people for that matter?


Quote:

A FOAMING anti-hunter just MIGHT see some political gain in shooting a few roos with target points and blaming the incident on "hunters."(The end justifies the means and all that).

That is supposition only.


Quote:

Then the tactics of certain anti-hunting zealots, - (sometimes associated with "eco-terrorist" groups), - must be open to examination as well.Their record is far from pristine, I assure you.

The difference is they are trying to preserve life humanely - hunters are taking lives. I wouldn't mind being an eco-terrorist, although it would be dangerous - you would probably end up with a crossbow arrow through your heart by an irate hunter, but I will always sign or support a bill that restricts a hunter from having unrestricted freedom to stalk his prey.  >:(

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 7:59pm:

Mantra perhaps we are confusing you by addressing all of your points in detail. If we simplified our response to only raising one or two important issues, would that make it easier for you to address the important issues, instead of getting sidetracked by your misinterpretation of minor details?

You have had to resort to condescension FD - not a good look.


Quote:

Every single one was addressed, including the ones you obviously made up. If you drown your real references in obvious fabrications you can't blame people for not giving an in depth response to every single one.

I didn’t make any references up FD. I wouldn’t have the audacity to – unlike a “hunter” who will say anything to defend his sport. You haven't got a response so you are deflecting again.


Quote:

Mantra you were asked on several occasions to back up specific statements you made. You did not back them up. Instead you changed the topic and gave something that was irrelevant to the question asked. That does not count.

I backed up everything I was asked. If you believe I changed the topic – it’s because your questions were obtuse. I was careful with my responses.


Quote:

Why do you seek out the bits you find silly and ignore the bits you think are important? I have asked you several times to address the genuine suffering inflicted on factory farmed animals. For someone who appears to be motivated by animal welfare, you show remarkably little interest in the core issue. How is it better to ban the more ethical method in favour of the method with maximum suffering? Why do you ignore this issue? The fact that you think you can do it is not a valid explanation for why you want to do it.

That is a ridiculous statement. Suggest an alternative FD! Do hunters  want to breed livestock and poultry for the specific reason of hunting them? How would a hunter keep our population fed?  Answer that? You might supply some food for your friends and family, but stuff the rest of us. Your argument doesn’t make sense.

Or are you suggesting that hunters are given access to all our natural resources where you and your cronies can go out with your rifles and cross bows, slaughter your whales,wild birds and ancient fish and sell their rotting carcasses at street stalls. Would third world production suit your agenda?


Quote:

[quote]The public wasn't even given an opportunity to see crucial reports or given the opportunity to object.

Wrong mantra. You are deluded if you think one or two reports are going to change people's minds. Most people grasp the issue quite well without needing a report to tell them what happens on a hunting trip. On the other hand, I have rpeatedly asked you to back up your claims about income generated from hunting. You have failed to do so.[/quote]

No – I’m not wrong FD. No-one was given a chance to see the reports so they didn’t have an opportunity to decide whether hunting in our national parks was a viable option to eradicate feral animals.

The income generated from hunting in our parks are the subsidies the taxpayers are forced to give to the Game Council. This decision was made without public consultation. The public had no voice, which means that there is some dirty business being done between the Game Council, Shooter’s Party and the States.


Quote:

You appear to mistake public consultation with getting what you want. You claim that the majority opposes hunting. This delusion is most likely the source of your misguided belief that the public wasn't consulted.

How about you provide proof FD that this is a delusion? I supplied proof that the public wasn’t consulted – but you believe you can win your argument by telling me I am imagining it.


Quote:

[quote]Hunters are continually introducing more feral animals into the environment so they don't run out of targets.

Don't be silly mantra. Animals breed. Our country is over-run with feral animals, plus animals like Kangaroos that are far more numerous than pre-settlement.[/quote]

A couple of years ago they were saying that about koalas – now we’re finding that they are becoming endangered. I’m sure hunters said the same thing about the Tasmanian Tiger. There may be certain areas over-run with kangaroos – but they are sparse in other areas. Shoot everything that moves and one day our grandchildren will only see these animals stuffed in museums.

Be honest - some people just love hunting - an ugly sport.

What are the real issues here?  FD you haven’t mentioned any – only questioned and attacked me and distracted the argument away from any environmental or conservation issues, not to mention cruelty issues.

continued...

Quote:

You claim that the public wasn't consulted, but it is clear that the public simply doesn't care about this issue you harp on about. You are motivated by a desire to deny people enjoyment because you object to them enjoying themselves. You place animal welfare, the environment etc second to this. Instead of constantly repeating yourself, why don't you address this issue? That's how a debate moves on mantra. Simply repeating yourself and ignoring the responses is not actually debating.

You are the one being repetitive and dishonest FD. If you had bothered looking at both sides of the argument you would find there is plenty of anger and caring in the community about hunting. There are other ways for people to enjoy themselves without killing.

All you’ve done is made a couple of vague references  and denied my “evidence” without any back up. I have yet to see anything of substance in your argument except you hunters are like little kids whining to a parent as to why you can't play with your BB gun. You're allowed to play with your dangerous weapons - except people don't like it and they're going to try and stop you.


Quote:

There is increasing destruction with 4WD's and idiots racing through the bush. The use of 4WD's and hunting are two completely separate issues mantra. They are easily separated legislatively. Banning hunting will have little impact on 4WD use. Likewise banning 4WD use would have little impact on hunting.

Interesting...so how do hunters get into our national parks – do they walk with their dogs and all their ammunition? How do they retrieve their carcasses – sling them over their shoulders? Maybe they just leave them there to rot or perhaps you bury them?

So do you take backpacks and shovels as well as your guns and bows and arrows?


Quote:

[quote]I don't support factory farms - but they're the only alternative on offer.

So you do support them? You have supported them in this very thread mantra. You say you don;t support them, but then you turn around and support them. That doesn't make much sense.[/quote]

What’s the alternative FD? I’m well aware of the cruelty in animal farming – you just want to add to it, but under another name.


Quote:

[quote]Hunting for pleasure is no longer viable in this under-resourced planet

But it is mantra. It merely has to be managed sustainably, not banned. This is an emotive argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is an appeal to blind ignorance.[/quote]

How does hunting for food in 2009 benefit the rest of the population? It doesn’t – it’s taking from something the whole community shares, and giving the benefits to a selective few. The minority are the only ones to gain from hunting.


Quote:

You don't get it mantra. If they are getting paid, they would have far more motive to replenish the feral population, especially if their job is at risk. Getting paid to hunt does not mean it isn't fun. Furthermore, whether you kill a feral for fun or profit does not change whether the outcome helps the environment. This is that huge flaw in your argument that I describe in every single post, and that you ignore in every single reply. It is not whether people have fun that matters, but what they actually do. Why can't you address what actually goes on, instead of insisting that something should be banned merely because you dislike the idea of other people enjoying themselves?

Of course I don't care whether people enjoy themselves - just find a less brutal way to do it. Professional shooters would have their work cut out for them if hunting for pleasure in our national parks was prohibited.

We're going around in circles here FD and getting nowhere.

Yes it is going around in circles Mantra. Most of what you have said is just emotional BS. And there are a couple of places in your last few posts where you are nothing but a liar (if it is deliberate exaggeration it is still lying) and others where your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.

Sorry to be so harsh Mantra but most of what you have written in this topic is just made up crap including your claims to speak with authority and on behalf of "most" people.

Locutius - you have proved my point perfectly. You have not answered any questions, acknowledged any references I supplied and are using FD's tired old argument that I've made all this up.

I might have an imagination, but it's not that good. You and the other hunters here have just continually avoided giving a logical response - you've just used total deflection and attacks. Good try - but it's not working.

There are enormous problems with our indigenous people hunting - yet non-indigenous hunters want to exacerbate the problem.


Hunting towards oblivion

PETER Guivarra recalls how the sky would thicken at this time of the year with vast numbers of magpie geese that nested in swamps near his home settlement, Mapoon, on Cape York Peninsula's western side.

Indigenous hunting of sea turtles and dugongs in far north Queensland has led to a dramatic drop in the animal's populations.

With thousands of geese being shot annually by indigenous hunters, Guivarra, chairman of the Mapoon Aboriginal Shire Council, says the bird population is a fraction of what it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Says Guivarra: "There were hundreds of thousands, but now it's thousands and the numbers get smaller every season. I want my sons and grandsons to be able to hunt, but at this rate they won't be able to."

Across the Gulf of Carpentaria, in the wetlands of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, indigenous hunting of magpie geese with shotguns is so prolific that untargeted wildlife are suffering lead poisoning from spent lead shot ingested while foraging for food.

Guivarra is among a growing band of indigenous leaders that believes hunting by their people is excessive and no longer sustainable. The leaders argue that a combination of increased human populations and the use of firearms, vehicles and motorboats has distorted traditional notions of hunting.

"It is easy these days for too many animals to be killed," Guivarra says. He adds that hunting is jeopardising plans by the Mapoon people to emulate Kakadu's success as an ecotourism destination. "We have the same wetlands and waterbirds, but soon there won't be anything for people to come and see," he says.

Debate over indigenous hunting has been ignited by Japan's move to attack as hypocritical Canberra's support for the indigenous harvesting of dugongs in Australian waters. While Australia leads the charge against Japanese whaling, the number of minke whales killed annually by the Japanese - ostensibly for scientific research - is similar to the number of dugongs killed each year for food in the Torres Strait, about 1000. The Japanese point out that the world population of the minke whale is several times that of the dugong.

Dugongs and sea turtles are traditional mainstays of the diet of Torres Strait Islanders and coastal Aboriginal communities in northern Australia, but on Palm Island, off Townsville, indigenous elder De Nice Gaia says her family refuses to hunt or eat them. Gaia says numbers of dugongs and turtles in local waters have fallen sharply. As elsewhere, they can be hunted only with harpoons, but there are no bag limits, set hunting seasons or other restrictions.

"It's not traditional hunting when you're chasing an animal in a dinghy with a 40-horsepower motor, and there's no way it can escape." Gaia says the killing is cruel; for instance, turtle carapaces are removed while animals are alive in the mistaken belief the meat will be more tender using this process. It is also wasteful. "I find turtles dead on the beach with holes in their shells that have been used as target practice."

Gaia says hunting is culturally significant, but technology has reduced its relevance to the community's cultural fabric.

"There is plenty of other meat available these days. Hunting has become a status symbol. Everyone wants the biggest turtle. If someone comes in with a big turtle, three or four boats go out the next day trying to get a bigger one."

In the Torres Strait, Badu Island Council manager Manai Nona explains the cultural significance of hunting to islanders. Killing a dugong or turtle is part of the rite of passage to manhood for teenage boys. A feast of dugong and turtle is regarded as essential to the success of an important occasion, such as a wedding, funeral or tombstone unveiling. Hunting from boats is how islanders develop seamanship skills. Hunts and feasting ceremonies feature prominently in relationships between island communities. "Hunting is very important to our culture," Nona says.

Dugong and turtle are a leading source of protein and fresh meat in often isolated communities where frozen meat imports are expensive and unreliable. "One dugong can feed an extended family of 10 or 12 people for a fortnight," Nona says. "Dugong and turtle is the best meat. I'll have it any day if the choice is rump steak or lamb chops."

However, Nona agrees that too many dugongs and turtles are killed. "We know there shouldn't be so many taken. The last thing we want is to wipe them all out."

Central to the indigenous hunting debate is whether the harvesting of native animals is sustainable. Does it threaten the survival of species being targeted?

In the Iron Range area of eastern Cape York Peninsula, cassowaries - large, flightless birds found in the rainforests of north Queensland and New Guinea - have long been valued as food by the Lockhart River people. The wary cassowaries are difficult to stalk and kill by traditional means, but they are easily shot.

Large numbers of the once numerous birds were shot by indigenous hunters; today, cassowaries - an endangered species in Australia - are rarely seen and the future of the Iron Range population is uncertain.

continued...

Federal and state authorities are working to avoid a similar fate for dugongs and turtles. Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the Government is undertaking a strategic assessment of the Torres Strait turtle and dugong fisheries. Meanwhile, the available scientific evidence suggests that present levels of harvesting the sea animals are not sustainable.

Australia is home to 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the estimated world population of 100,000 dugongs. While the large sea mammals - listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as "vulnerable to extinction in the medium-term future" - range widely in the Indian and southwest Pacific oceans, their numbers have crashed due to hunting pressure and the loss of the seagrass meadows on which they feed. The species is especially vulnerable because it is slow-breeding; a female gives birth to a calf every five years on average.

A new study from James Cook University researchers, commissioned by the federal Environment Department's Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, reports that surveys in 2006 estimated a population of 23,500 dugongs in the Torres Strait and northern Great Barrier Reef, about 25 per cent of the world total. This is close to the number estimated in surveys in 2000 and 2001, but substantially lower than numbers noted in 1996.

Modelling for the study suggests that killing more than 100 to 200 dugongs annually in the Torres Strait and 56 in northern reef waters - a fraction of the present harvest - is not sustainable. The study also says climate change may be affecting dugong numbers by increasing the incidence of seagrass dieback.

JCU dugong expert Helene Marsh says it is difficult to accurately measure dugong numbers because the animals roam over large areas in search of seagrass, but there are concerns about the harvest level in the Torres Strait. Says Marsh: "Scientific evidence suggests dugongs may be over-harvested by some Cape York communities and in the Torres Strait. The important thing is to work with indigenous people to ensure the harvest is sustainable."

Surveys indicate that about 5000 green turtles are killed annually for food in the northern Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait and adjoining Indonesian and Papua New Guinean waters. Queensland turtle research program manager Colin Limpus, one of the world's leading turtle authorities, says the regional breeding population, concentrated on Raine Island, was estimated at 50,000 10 to 20 years ago. Limpus says numbers have fallen significantly since then, with hunting accounting for more than half the loss.

"When you can have a single village taking 100 to 200 turtles a year, it adds up to a lot of turtles," he says. "We have concerns for the population's viability."

Nonetheless, Marsh and Limpus are encouraged that indigenous leaders have begun to address the sustainability issue. Six Torres Strait communities are preparing management plans to limit dugong catches under a program funded by a $4.6 million commonwealth grant, although Marsh says more funds are needed to expand the program. Other communities are co-operating with authorities to control turtle harvesting. South of the Torres Strait, the Girringun people of the Cardwell area and the Woppaburra people of the Keppel islands have reached agreements with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to ban the hunting of dugongs and restrict turtle catches. Hunting critics want to go further.

Legal researcher Rebecca Smith, who was commissioned to prepare a review last year on laws affecting dugongs for the Torres Strait Regional Authority, believes hunting is cruel: "Harpooning, a hideous death for whales, is no less hideous for dugongs and turtles. An adult male dugong takes up to two hours to die. People know these things, but they're afraid to tackle the issue."

The conservation movement, always sensitive about its relationship with the indigenous community, finds itself in a quandary over the hunting row. The Wilderness Society's northern Australia campaigner Lyndon Schneiders says the society does not oppose indigenous hunting in national parks when it complies with park management plans. However, as most plans allow hunting, Schneiders contradicts himself when he says the society opposes the use of guns and vehicles for hunting in all national parks.

Indigenous hunting in national parks and other reserves is especially contentious, and management solutions are not easily recognisable when policies vary widely.

In the Karijini National Park in Western Australia, Aborigines can shoot wildlife for food "for themselves and their families". In Katherine Gorge National Park in the NT, the Jawyn people can hunt freely with guns as long as visitor safety is not compromised. In Queensland's Barron Gorge National Park, no firearms can be used without permission and no endangered or vulnerable species can be hunted.

Says Queensland National Parks Association president John Bristow: "National parks are special areas that should be recognised by everyone. Nobody, including indigenous people, should be able to kill wildlife with firearms in national parks."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597963-5013172,00.html

Mantra.

You write:

Quote.

"Why is that Warrigal – because you say it is?  You are the one bad mouthing those who oppose hunting."

End Quote.

I think that I have been civil and restrained in my criticisms of the anti-hunting idealogues Mantra.

Lee Rhiannon and Andrew Cox are not impartial players because "I" say they aren't, but because they publicaly nailed their trousers to the mast of uncompromising anti-hunting policy so many years ago that they couldn't be seen to climb down now even if they wanted to.

You add:

Quote.

"Most minority groups don’t get parliamentary representation – but in actual fact hunters do, otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed into our national parks.

So what's your complaint?"

End Quote.

So MOST minorities, don't have enough members to get Parliamentary representation?

Well I guess that hunters must be a rather substantial, - (according to you), - "redneck minority" if they actually won a degree of Parliamentary representation.

But what is YOUR complaint Mantra?

When you were asked wether you wanted to make life a hell for hunters you said that you did.

So what is your proposed solution to addressing the fact that hunters and fisherman enjoy Parliamentary representation?

Do you advocate stripping this "redneck minority" of political rights?

If so and you succsseed, which other minority group/s will be the next on your list for banning?

Further you write:

Quote.

"I used to spend a lot of time on my grandparent’s farm where dogs and foxes were shot. I also worked on a cattle station for a while where they shot goats and kangaroos. No the couple of trips I went on – they didn’t cry, although I did, but they were callous, rough and in my mind cruel, but it was a job that was necessary according to them to protect their livestock and crops.

If a necessary job is cruel - how could a sport be less cruel?"

End Quote.

Nature IS cruel Mantra.

Many necessary jobs contain a degree of inherent unpleasantness within them, however, hunting and fishing are only NEEDLESSLY cruel if the PERSON doing them is needlessly cruel.

And that applies to professionals as much as to anyone else!

There are multiple reasons why many people enjoy amateur hunting and fishing.

Fun is the most obvious.

Economy is probably the most practicle on the list, however, since one of the biggest incentives to hunt is obtain, - (relatively speaking), - inexpensive supplies of meat and fish for your household.

Hunt and/or fish seriously for most of your life and much of your food comes fairly cheap.

You add:

Quote.

"I’ve done a little research on hunting, although obviously I haven’t got the same BS to add to my argument as a hunter who will find all sorts of BS to back up his argument."

End Quote.

Mantra, you have done "a little research." - Please do a lot more.

You write:

Quote.

"Is the difference in bullets the crux of your argument Warrigal?"

End Quote.

No. - The crux of my argument is that you are out of your depth in this debate.

Further you add:

Quote.

"I’m aware they are industries – in the same way football and cricket are. The difference is football & cricket bring pleasure to others - whereas hunting is a very selfish sport and only revelled in by the hunter himself."

End Quote.

Hunting is a social sport Mantra which not only brings pleasure to many people but also creates demand for goods and services in associated industries thereby creating employment.

Next you write:

Quote.

"Yes - you've hit the nail on the head - hunting guide services to amateur hunters."

End Quote:

I don't know what nail I'm supposed to have hit on the head Mantra. - Please elaborate on this one.

You Further state:

Quote.

"No – not now. I told you I read up a little on crossbows & bows & arrows. Why would crossbows be illegal in some states if they weren’t considered dangerous and inhumane weapons? You said that in your first post."

End Quote.

Cross-bows were banned in some States it's true.

But the reasons remain obscure. - I would hazard a guess that legislaters thought that they some kind of uber-assassins weapon.

You write:

Quote.

"Maybe they do – but unless they do a good & economical job – they’re not going to be re-employed."

End Quote.

If they don't do an "economical" job they go broke.

If an amateur comes home empty handed once too often he changes his sport.

You now assert:

Quote.

"Your statement is a lie Warrigal. Why are there so many bow accidents where bow owners shoot animals inhumanely and even people for that matter?"

End Quote:

I have researched criminal misuse and negligence regarding bows and find no evidence of any widespread problem. - Neither do Police.

Once again I ask you to furnish proof of this rampant bow and arrow abuse.

You add:

Quote.

"That is supposition only."

End Quote.

You have an uncanny grasp of the obvious Mantra.

Don't you like having your own debate tactics used by an opponent?

Conerning the points about eco-terrorism Mantra writeS:

Quote.

"The difference is they are trying to preserve life humanely - hunters are taking lives. I wouldn't mind being an eco-terrorist, although it would be dangerous - you would probably end up with a crossbow arrow through your heart by an irate hunter, but I will always sign or support a bill that restricts a hunter from having unrestricted freedom to stalk his prey."

End Quote.

Eco-terrorism can have it's hazards.

Like having to be rescued in a bush search by a SES Volly who is a....gag! ....urrgh.....retch.....weekend ......HUNTER!! ;D

By all means excercise you Democratic freedoms to lobby politicians, sign petitions and vote for candidates whose policies appeal to you Mantra.

I shall support your right to political representation and freedom of speech even though you have contempt for mine.

If you don't like hunting or fishing, then neither I, nor anyone else here is advocating legislation forcing you to do so.

Quote:

I think that I have been civil and restrained in my criticisms of the anti-hunting idealogues Mantra.

Yes you have been quite civil and restrained Warrigal - more so than Locutius and FD and you have also offered some substantial responses, rather than just continually redirecting the argument back onto me.

I will also admit that I am a little out of my depth, because I'm not a hunter, and no matter what research I do or whatever "uncanny grasp of the obvious" I offer I will not deter you or any other hunter from this sport.

The article I last posted on this thread about indigenous hunting in our national parks indicated that this is creating some significant problems which does give support to my argument.  "Hunting and gathering" is creating a drastic reduction of wildlife, therefore non-indigenous hunting in our parks would be exacerbating it.

Unless FD has already started a thread somewhere on "sustainable hunting" which he probably has - I'll look a little deeper into this and not make the debate so personal. It doesn't really matter if I am right - I doubt anyone would admit it on principle - but your polite responses are appreciated Warrigal and I won't categorise all hunters as rednecks again.

OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels:

1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation.

2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this?

3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy.

4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument.

5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically.

6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing.

7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it.

8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this.

9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'.

I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.

3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy.

Thats what's happening here with marine parks, FD. Particularly with respect to recreational fishing. Real problems such as pollution and degradation are all a bit too hard so we are sold the lemon that marine parks will be the saviour of marine ecosystems. Marine parks are being declared without first determining they are benificial!

PJ:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1239324093

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 8:18am:

PJ: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1239324093

Yes, I dealt with that and all my replies disappeared for some reason. Even if your arguments are accepted all they do is make the case for fishing at somewhat less than maximum sustainable yield - not proving the case for marine parks. This lower fishing pressure is often termed as optimal sustainable yield. Ray Hilborn wrote a paper advocating this - he didn't say marine parks were the best way of achieving it (quite the contrary actually).  

We lost a lot of posts when the site went offline. Nothing personal. I don't recall reading your response. I had to repost that thread.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 9:35pm:

We lost a lot of posts when the site went offline. Nothing personal. I don't recall reading your response. I had to repost that thread.

Well are you going to reply to the points I just raised? You can move them over to the other thread if you like.

Most legislation hasn’t got anything to do with pleasure FD – it’s supposed to be put in place so that we can live in harmony and be protected, although often unethical groups have major influence over our politicians and bad decisions are made.

There are two sorts of animal production, factory and free range. We would all prefer free range, but no matter how much objection there is to factory farming, our voices are drowned out by the multinationals and elite shareholders. They have a voice in our parliament, so do the hunters – but the ordinary protestor doesn’t.

Most developed countries are far ahead of us in regard to hunting. How do you think the english aristocracy felt when fox hunting with hounds was banned? That was not only their pleasure, but a tradition.

A bill is going to be introduced shortly to have bear hunting banned in Canada and the banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year is also banned in Russia.  Hunting in the Caspian Hyrcanian forests and other protected forests and wetlands in Iran is also banned. Even South Africa has the strictest of hunting regulations and the European Court of Justice has issued  interim measures ordering Malta not to open the 2008 or 2009 spring hunting season.

These are only a few examples and these countries are far more primitive and in desperate need of food than hunters here in Australia - but we have always lagged so far behind other first world countries and are more equal to a third world country in many of our habits.

How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals?  You’ve already seen the examples of hunting by our indigenous people and even their leaders are beginning to say enough is enough as there aren’t enough animals and marine life to sustain this traditional way of life. Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.

I'll say this again FD - you are not living out in the great wilderness where there is an abundance of wild animals and even saying you only kill feral animals doesn't make sense because in the next breath you say you do it for food. And you didn't say how you transport the carcasses either - 4WD's maybe?

Oh - and these aren't my words - but they sounded relevant.

Throwbacks prefer stalking living animals with a bow and arrow for pleasure, as their Neanderthal ancestors did from necessity,

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk114/Mantra_2008/rooarrow.jpg     http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk114/Mantra_2008/arrow.jpg

Nope. Didn't work FD.

Hi Mantra.

You write:

Quote.

"Yes you have been quite civil and restrained Warrigal - more so than Locutius and FD and you have also offered some substantial responses, rather than just continually redirecting the argument back onto me."

End Quote.

Thank you Mantra.

I have found you to be a sincere, albeit, not dispassionate opponent.

You add:

Quote.

"I will also admit that I am a little out of my depth, because I'm not a hunter, and no matter what research I do or whatever "uncanny grasp of the obvious" I offer I will not deter you or any other hunter from this sport."

End Quote.

If you are out of your depth Mantra, I would respectfully submit that this has nothing to do with your being a non-hunter.

More likely it is result of confining your information gathering to what appear to be, exlusively anti-hunting "authorities."

To find out about hunting and the reasons why a strong body of non-hunting conservationists such as Dr. David Bellamy endorse sport hunting and why so many hunters and hunting associations have been so pro-active in the field of wildlife conservation long before it became trendy amongst the cafe-latte crowd, please research the literature and study the history of conservation hunting and the scientific papers of the pro-hunting scholars, such as, but by no means limited to, the works of the afore-mentioned Dr.Bellamy.

When you say:

"no matter what research I do or whatever "uncanny grasp of the obvious" I offer I will not deter you or any other hunter from this sport."

I think that you are not only selling "us" short, but just as pertinently, you are short changing yourself.

If your research is scientificaly validated, impartial and presented in an articulate and above all, non-judgemental fashion, you probably won't persuade hunters into abandoning their sport,but you might very easily persuade institutions such as the NSW Game Council to alter, or even reverse certain policies.

Major hunting associations might very well insist on ethics and policy changes, as they did with the lead shot issue, when they insisted that only non-toxic forms of birdshot be legal for waterfowling.

You also write:

Quote.

"The article I last posted on this thread about indigenous hunting in our national parks indicated that this is creating some significant problems which does give support to my argument.  "Hunting and gathering" is creating a drastic reduction of wildlife, therefore non-indigenous hunting in our parks would be exacerbating it."

End Quote.

The article concerning indigenous hunting is interesting.

Sports hunters are subject to a very wide range of legal restrictions governing what types of game they may legally take, how much may be taken and when and where it may be taken etc.

I must needs do more detailed research regarding what exceptions and excemptions apply to indigenous communities.

If there is a serious problem to be addressed there, then I would say that those excemptions need to be reviewed and if needs be revoked.

Other hunters are obliged to conform with hunting laws, so I don't think that there is any problem there.

But there could be a problem if indiginous hunters are not subject to laws such as bag limits, for example.

However, I must reserve judgement until I know more about this area of hunting law.

You conclude:

Quote.

"Unless FD has already started a thread somewhere on "sustainable hunting" which he probably has - I'll look a little deeper into this and not make the debate so personal. It doesn't really matter if I am right - I doubt anyone would admit it on principle - but your polite responses are appreciated Warrigal and I won't categorise all hunters as rednecks again."

End Quote.

I wish to address this section of your last paragraph Mantra.

You say:

"It doesn't really matter if I am right - I doubt anyone would admit it on principle"

Mantra. - Facts are facts. - Therefore, if you can prove that you are right on a particular matter then no reasonable hunter/fisherman or anyone else will disagree with you "on principle."

Warrigal

Quote:

Therefore, if you can prove that you are right on a particular matter then no reasonable hunter/fisherman or anyone else will disagree with you "on principle."

To do this Warrigal - I have to discredit some of your sources and this looks as though it will be easier than I first thought. I'll start on Dr. Bellamy first and go onto your other points a bit later, but I have to say I’m very disappointed in your reference to him.

Bellamy doesn’t know whether he’s Arthur or Martha. Not only did he change his whole outlook on climate change, like a few other professors and scientists, who have experienced the lure of some multinational and a pocketful of gold, but he contradicts himself in every sentence.

He is an ecologist – yet this is what he says.... I think all good ecologists have always understood that there just aren’t a lot of good ecologists around.

Meaning that the views of his peers are lacking or that he's not a good ecologist.....?

The dozen or so articles I accessed were all by advocates for hunters, hunting magazines & isolated articles and they all refer to  Dr. Bellamy and quote exactly the same thing “No hunting, no shooting, no countryside”.?????????

Again - meaning what?

He doesn’t elaborate anywhere – just makes that one mindless statement – no hunting, no shooting, no countryside.

Am I missing something here? He is being quoted as the big guru of the hunting world but a few of his associates have inferred he lacks credibility. Strange!

There are only two sides to this hunting argument and I have yet to see any information that sounds convincing from the pro-hunting advocates. I will keep looking though. There might be a teensy little reference somewhere from a credible source. :)

Although I did come across this little snippet – the only reference of more than a few words in regard to his opinion and they were quoted by someone else. I can see Bellamy is the founding father of the hunter’s slogan – “hunting is good for the environment” - yet he offers no back up or proof of this.

If this is the best International Fieldsports and Conservation magazine can come up with - they must be desperate and who are they to compare shooting pheasants in the UK to hunting in Australia's National Parks?


Quote:

Dr Bellamy's Case for Shooting Revised: 29/05/1998 Extracts taken from an interview published in International Fieldsports and Conservation magazine Dr David Bellamy, internationally renowned environmentalist and botanist, presented a focus on pheasant shooting in his British Television series Birds Eye View. Below are extracts from an interview he gave a few months later. Although the content of this interview relates to the relationship between hunting and conservation in the United Kingdom, it is equally appropriate to Australia where conservation through sustainable utilisation is now challenging the protectionist philosophy’s that have dominated Australian conservation policy for the last twenty years. Is there really a growing awareness among ecologists of the positive role that field sports play in conservation? Bellamy: I think all good ecologists have always understood that: there just aren’t a lot of good ecologists around. Unfortunately, that viewpoint hasn’t been taught in schools and universities. The result has been that among ecologists as well as others, reaction to field sports has been emotive rather than pragmatic. What about the actual death involved? Bellamy: You see, the thing I try to understand is, which is kindest? I’m a deer walking along and BANG, I’m dead. Or I’m a lamb, raised on those same hillsides, and I’m caught, loaded into a lorry and driven as far away as, say, Greece under the new EEC laws. Which is kinder? A grouse raised wild shot on the Glorious twelfth, or the death-in-life of a battery hen? Do you think that game is a better form of consumable meat? Bellamy: Sure I do. I think that it is a good form of organic meat. I think that if people were told the truth about it, then it would become economically viable. But you can expect a backlash from the extreme end of those people who don’t want the truth to be told. Really you should either be a vegetarian or eat game. What contributions do you feel that field sports make to general wildlifehabitats? Bellamy: (About  the shooters); THANK GOD they’re there, thank God. What else are you going to have? Men from the Ministry with bowler hats and poison, killing our game and our deer species as well. What do you think of propaganda that presents British sportsmen as the arrogant rich? Bellamy: That’s absolute rubbish. Most people that go shooting are working class. Who hunts a pack of hounds? Who are the wildfowlers? Field sports covers a wide social spectrum. But on the toffee nosed end, go and see the Duke of Buccleuch. I think he’s the best landowner in Britain today. He has his own shooting, his own pack of hounds and his own fishing. He pointed out that at the end of World War II, 74% of Britain was looked after by large landowners. Today it’s just 30%. And these are the only areas where the SSSIs and conservation areas are safe, and I do believe he’s absolutely right.

Is this bloke serious??????i

locutius wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 1:06pm:

Yes it is going around in circles Mantra. Most of what you have said is just emotional BS. And there are a couple of places in your last few posts where you are nothing but a liar (if it is deliberate exaggeration it is still lying) and others where your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you. Sorry to be so harsh Mantra but most of what you have written in this topic is just made up crap including your claims to speak with authority and on behalf of "most" people.

you should be embarrased about your little rave about rifles , the "finer points" of loading and shells, when its clear you get all your info from the movies/TV... Mr Wild Bill..this is an embarrassment Loc, and I didnt say so to make you feel inadequate, I just answered your post without the harsh put downs..be a nicer man.


Mantra is doing you the courtesy of conversing with you.. appreciate that.

oceanz wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 8:07pm:

locutius wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 1:06pm: Yes it is going around in circles Mantra. Most of what you have said is just emotional BS. And there are a couple of places in your last few posts where you are nothing but a liar (if it is deliberate exaggeration it is still lying) and others where your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you. Sorry to be so harsh Mantra but most of what you have written in this topic is just made up crap including your claims to speak with authority and on behalf of "most" people. you should be embarrased about your little rave about rifles , the "finer points" of loading and shells, when its clear you get all your onfo from the movies Mr Wild Bill..this is an embarrassment Loc, and I didnt say so to make you feel inadequate, I just answered your post without the harsh put downs..be a nicer man. Mantra is doing you the courtesy of conversing with you.. appreciate that.

Haha - I don't think Locutius can help it Oceans - he's a throwback (bow & arrow man).

Sorry to be so harsh Locutius!  ;)

Mantra?????


freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:

OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels: 1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation. 2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this? 3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy. 4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument. 5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically. 6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing. 7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it. 8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this. 9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'. I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.

Mantra, I notice that the closer I get to a simple question for you, the harder you try to ignore it and change the topic. Why could you not directly respond to a single one of those points? What's going on?


Quote:

Most legislation hasn’t got anything to do with pleasure FD

But your argument does. It all boils down to whether hunters enjoy themselves. You can't offer any rational justification for your absurd position apart from stopping them from having fun.


Quote:

There are two sorts of animal production, factory and free range. We would all prefer free range

Now you have come full circle. You would actually prefer the methods that are so obviously more ethical, but you still appear to be promoting the idea that we give in to corporate greed. But wait there's more. We should not merely give into corporate greed, we should roll over for them and actually ban their more ethical competitors. They are so good at doing the wrong thing, you think we should help them out. Can you explain Mantra? I have asked you countless times to. We will not suddenly understand your position just because you keep repeating it over and over.


Quote:

Most developed countries are far ahead of us in regard to hunting. How do you think the english aristocracy felt when fox hunting with hounds was banned? That was not only their pleasure, but a tradition.

Mantra, none of the arguments we have presented in favour of hunting hinge on either tradition or pleasure. You seem completely oblivious to this.


Quote:

the banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year

Sounds like minimum sizes for fisheries mantra.


Quote:

How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals?

Mantra, this has been explained countless times already, but I'll humour you. There are a couple of obvious ways. When you ban the hunting of introduced pests like goats and dear, you force people onto more unethical sources of meat, which involve more animal suffering. Ytou even admitted to this above. "We would all prefer free range". Now you ask me to explain your own statements to you? Also, the ecological damage these animals cause results in further suffering.


Quote:

You’ve already seen the examples of hunting by our indigenous people and even their leaders are beginning to say enough is enough as there aren’t enough animals and marine life to sustain this traditional way of life. Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.

You really should check your facts Mantra. The biggest threats to biodiversity in Australia are introduced pests and habitat destruction for farming. You would increase both of these. Again, you are pointing out a problem, yet can only give a solution that would make things worse. You have to think wholistically about this mantra. You cannot take a narrow minded approach of only considering one problem and one solution at a time. You have to consider all the impacts of your proposal. Otherwise you are just part of the problem that got us here in the first place.


Quote:

I'll say this again FD - you are not living out in the great wilderness where there is an abundance of wild animals and even saying you only kill feral animals doesn't make sense because in the next breath you say you do it for food.

Again mantra, it is people's actions that count, not their motivation. To suggest that people who hunt goats, pigs, dear etc can only be motivated by one or the other is absurd. To suggest that a benefit is not an actual benefit because it is not the sole motivation is absurd. They are still feral animals, even when you eat them mantra. It seems every single argument you make is logically flawed. If I didn't know your style so well I would say you are actually trying to come up with flawed arguments. Pure chance should at least let you be correct occasionally.


Quote:

but he contradicts himself in every sentence

LOL, nice try mantra. Interestingly, the only example you tried to give is not actually a self contradiction.


Quote:

There are only two sides to this hunting argument and I have yet to see any information that sounds convincing from the pro-hunting advocates.

Mantra, if you can't grasp the basic logic, no amount of evidence will change your mind, because you won't understand what it means.

Mantra.

You say that you are disappointed in my reference to David Bellamy.

I am most disappointed in you since NOTHING in my last reply to you could possibly have justified the waspish tone of your last reply to me.

You write:

Quote.

"To do this Warrigal - I have to discredit some of your sources and this looks as though it will be easier than I first thought. I'll start on Dr. Bellamy first and go onto your other points a bit later, but I have to say I’m very disappointed in your reference to him."

End Quote.

Before making a complete twit of yourself Mantra kindly wait until you know the full extent of my sources.

Bellamy was mentioned by me since he is a starting point and one of the most readily accessable on the net.

As for being a discredited authority, I have yet to hear ANY member of the environmental lobby distance themselves from Bellamy when his utterances supported their pet hobby horse.

Next you write:

Quote.

"Bellamy doesn’t know whether he’s Arthur or Martha. Not only did he change his whole outlook on climate change, like a few other professors and scientists, who have experienced the lure of some multinational and a pocketful of gold, but he contradicts himself in every sentence."

End Quote.

So Bellamy is a sell-out?

err....To whom?

Once again I ask, - (although not in much hope of an answer), - that you furnish proof of this assertion.

You further add:

Quote.

" He is an ecologist – yet this is what he says.... I think all good ecologists have always understood that there just aren’t a lot of good ecologists around.

Meaning that the views of his peers are lacking or that he's not a good ecologist.....? "

End Quote.

Your own scientific accomplishments and peer reviewed papers are WHAT....exactly?

You write:

"The dozen or so articles I accessed were all by advocates for hunters, hunting magazines & isolated articles and they all refer to  Dr. Bellamy and quote exactly the same thing “No hunting, no shooting, no countryside”.?????????

Again - meaning what?"

End Quote.

I'm not sure what you mean here Mantra.

If an anti-hunting magazine quoted Bellamy or anyone like him it would be fine with you?

You next assert:

"Am I missing something here? He is being quoted as the big guru of the hunting world but a few of his associates have inferred he lacks credibility. Strange!"

End Quote.

A few of his associates "have inferred he lacks credibility. Strange!"

Nothing strange about it all.

Inferrences are NOT facts Mantra.

Nor is there anything unusual about scientists disagreeing on matters of specific detail.

Not that it's my duty to defend David Bellamy from his peers, much less his ill informed lay critics. - He seems more than adequately qualified to do that himself.

However, I do find it very odd that someone such as yourself would attack Bellamy when he has been a target for so much vitriol from those political business interests who oppose conservationist policies.

You continue:

Quote.

"There are only two sides to this hunting argument and I have yet to see any information that sounds convincing from the pro-hunting advocates. I will keep looking though. There might be a teensy little reference somewhere from a credible source."

End Quote.

There are TWO sides to every debate Mantra. - However, when you say that have yet to hear anything that "sounds," credible from pro-hunting sources, I have to question wether ANY source of information which does not mindlessly march in a convict lock-step with your ideology would have credibility in your eyes.

Again you assert:

Quote.

"Although I did come across this little snippet – the only reference of more than a few words in regard to his opinion and they were quoted by someone else. I can see Bellamy is the founding father of the hunter’s slogan – “hunting is good for the environment” - yet he offers no back up or proof of this."

End Quote.

Your word against Bellamy's.

His and thousands of other scientists. - Going back many, many years.

Think you are up to debating them Mantra?

You write:

Quote.

"If this is the best International Fieldsports and Conservation magazine can come up with - they must be desperate and who are they to compare shooting pheasants in the UK to hunting in Australia's National Parks?"

End Quote.

Mantra. - You are at best a very lazy researcher and at worst an idealogical zealot who cannot see a tree for the twigs much less a forrest for the trees.

It has been explained to you here and it is in the written reports of NSW authorities that only feral game may be taken in National Parks subject to strict conditions.

In your critique of Bellamy you conclude:

Quote.

"Is this bloke serious??????"

End Quote.

Yes. - He is perfectly serious.

As are a great many others.

Mantra, do you consume meat, fish and other animal products?

Just curious.

I would just like to address this little jewel:

Quote.

"Throwbacks prefer stalking living animals with a bow and arrow for pleasure, as their Neanderthal ancestors did from necessity"

End Quote.

Cute headline. ::)

(You do seem much besotted by media rhetoric Mantra).

errr...."Throwbacks"?

Bows have been in daily use as standard hunting arms for millenia.

It took centuries after the gunpowder revolution before firearms came anywhere close to outperforming the longbow in terms of accuracy and range.

Modern target and hunting bows and arrows are very advanced arms which utilise the very finest of space-age design principles and materials.

Now as to the photographs which accompany your post Mantra, the picture of the poor kangaroo with an arrow through it's jaw does not reveal the tip of the arrow nor the exit wound, so I am unable to say what kind of arrow head was used.

The media reports I saw in relation to this animal cruelty case stated that two kangaroos had been wounded by arrow shot and left to die.

The same reports said that one animal had been shot through the jaw and the other in the rump.

This is hardly indicative of a practiced archer much less a bowhunter.

It is however, fully consistent with the conduct of a vandal and a sadist.

At last report police had made an arrest and the law shall now take it's course.

Now as to the mortuary photo of a human arrow shot victim, I have no knowledge of this case and as there is no text included with the picture it is unclear as to wether this was an accidental shooting or an act of murder.

However, the x-ray clearly shows thar the arrow is a target point.

Well not that that would be any less fatal with a brain shot, but nobody with the first clue of archery is going to use anything other than a broadhead arrow to take live game.

Bows have never been popular with the criminal element, so murder by arrow shot is rare enough to be "exotic."

Bows and cross-bows do not lend themselves to concealement and are rather slow to operate, so it's hardly surprising that they feature so rarely in violent crimes as to be barely worthy of notice.

Quote:

I am most disappointed in you since NOTHING in my last reply to you could possibly have justified the waspish tone of your last reply to me.

Waspish! Does that mean my language stung you?  Please forgive me Warrigal – I had no idea. It was obviously an unconscious aberration on my part but I have changed my mind about you being civil and restrained when I look at the insults you've resorted to in your last post.


Quote:

As for Bellamy being a discredited authority, I have yet to hear ANY member of the environmental lobby distance themselves from Bellamy when his utterances supported their pet hobby horse.

Why did he change his mind on such an important issue? Didn’t he research his work thoroughly first? It looks like you haven't researched him thoroughly Warrigal.


Quote:

Your own scientific accomplishments and peer reviewed papers are WHAT....exactly?

I wasn’t aware that I boasted about any scientific accomplishments – and you haven’t either – so perhaps we’re at the same starting point. This subject isn’t as complex as you infer.


Quote:

If an anti-hunting magazine quoted Bellamy or anyone like him it would be fine with you?

It wouldn’t matter who quoted him – in my opinion he is playing lip service only to a greater power. There are a few opponents to hunting in NSW although I haven’t looked Federally yet – but there is the Invasive Species Council which has reviewed evidence globally and found that recreational hunting is generally ineffective in feral animal control; the other - NPWS who are the greater authority being actively in the parks state that:

• There is no evidence it has a strategic approach to feral animal control;
• Professional hunters will achieve effective feral control outcomes, not sporting hunters;
• Areas of bushland used for recreation become unsafe;
• Recreational hunters have a history of deliberately introducing feral animals.

There is also Gun Control Australia (GCA) which says...

Our special concern with this Bill is the extraordinary power it gives to one of the most poorly behaved segments of our community, gratuitous hunters. In short this Bill takes away the responsibility of the parliament for shooter misbehaviour and greatly reduces the accountability of parliamentarians to the public. As such it is a deplorably irresponsible piece of potential legislation.

GCA spokesperson Mr Randy Marshall said "The Bill's political supporters do not seem to realise that the hunting fraternity acknowledge that their real reason for killing with a gun is precisely that - they love killing with bullets. There is no honour or good public purpose in gratuitous hunting yet this Bill, with its creation of a shooter dominated Game Council, seeks to give them a degree of legitimacy that rivals the most educated and sensitive of animal welfare experts".

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=16


Quote:

However, when you say that have yet to hear anything that "sounds," credible from pro-hunting sources, I have to question wether ANY source of information which does not mindlessly march in a convict lock-step with your ideology would have credibility in your eyes. Your word against Bellamy's. His and thousands of other scientists. - Going back many, many years. Think you are up to debating them Mantra?

Hmmmm. Convict lock-step – interesting. Two hundred years ago – there was no opposition to hunting because of necessity and ignorance. As far as debating – I’m giving it a go I assumed.

Could you please supply a few names of those THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS ?


Quote:

Mantra. - You are at best a very lazy researcher and at worst an idealogical zealot who cannot see a tree for the twigs much less a forrest for the trees.It has been explained to you here and it is in the written reports of NSW authorities that only feral game may be taken in National Parks subject to strict conditions.

Yes on paper there are strict conditions - in reality there are no conditions and no – Warrigal – I’m not a lazy researcher. You say that because you are comparing me to someone who researches for a living or a thesis, but you & the other hunters on this forum have offered very little of credibility to counteract my argument apart from insults and absolutely no research.  You, FD & Locutius are like programmed robots in the trivial questions you throw at me. Don't pretend there are only feral animals you are allowed to shoot.

The NSW Act says - Game animals for the purposes of the Bill are deer, hare, duck, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl and turkey and certain pest animals (namely, feral pigs, feral dogs, feral cats, feral goats, rabbits and foxes).

continued....

The following is an extract from the Blue Mountains Conservation society and there are many such societies. Those who are against hunting are in the majority – yet they have no voice thanks to this corrupt state government, amongst others and the Shooters Party.


The Society (comprising ~860 members), together with ~100 members of the Lithgow, Capertee Valley and Rylstone Environment Groups, remains opposed to hunting in State Forests in principle, and to State Forests in the Blue Mountains in particular.

Brian Boyle (op. cit.) states: “Game Council NSW has strong representation from the hunting fraternity along with representation from wildlife management scientists, Rural Lands Protection Boards, the Australian Veterinary Association and public land managers. This mix ensures all issues are properly identified and managed, from safe and humane hunting practices through to conservation and land access arrangements.”

Despite this, 7 of the 14 members of the Game Council must be nominees of hunting organisations and must include the Chair. The Chair has a deliberative vote and, should the votes be tied, he also exercises a casting vote. And only 8 of the 14 members comprise a quorum. The Society inevitably wonders how much influence is really exercised by the ‘non-hunting’ members of the Council.

How can anyone believe the effectiveness of risk-aversion measures in the context of the following statements by the Game Council?

The land will not be closed, “However signage will be placed at entry points to ensure the public is aware of hunting on declared public areas. Areas will also be posted on government agency websites.”

Hunters will be subject to “Exclusion zones and constraints … in forests where there are high concentrations of other users, for example in camping areas.”

Hunters will know where the boundaries to public lands are because they “…will be given information on boundaries with their booking where appropriate. This many include a map or, in some cases, conditions of the written permission may require the hunter to obtain topographical maps.”

None of this inspires confidence. Knowing that hunting is scheduled does not deflect stray bullets. Excluding hunting from heavily used portions of a State Forest does not necessarily exclude the hunter’s bullet; and those in less heavily used portions remain vulnerable. Finally, is it really believed that hunters will consult maps (even if they have maps/air photos of appropriate scale) when pursuing game, and will the bullet stop at the boundary? Were it not so serious, these ‘safety’ measures would be laughable.

http://www.bluemountains.org.au/Submissions/HuntingSFsMacDonaldLett060616.doc

AND

·      The Game Council has failed to properly consult the public who use the forests
·      The Game Council is biased, being governed by a majority of hunters (see list below)
·      Its methods undermine a strategic approach to feral animal control
·      Hunters have been proven to deliberately release ferals into areas they hunt

·http://www.npansw.org.au/web/news/media/060310_Labor_Hands_State_Forests_to_Hunters.htm

Quote:

Mantra, I notice that the closer I get to a simple question for you, the harder you try to ignore it and change the topic. Why could you not directly respond to a single one of those points?

Yes I am FD - you are just not bothering to read them because you are so one-eyed on this subject.


Quote:

But wait there's more. We should not merely give into corporate greed, we should roll over for them and actually ban their more ethical competitors.

How are you an ethical competitor FD? You are only hunting for yourself - no-one else.


Quote:

Mantra, none of the arguments we have presented in favour of hunting hinge on either tradition or pleasure. You seem completely oblivious to this.

That is such an untruth and this is where you contradict yourself again. All you talk about is me and likeminded people trying to stop your pleasure. Why do indigenous people hunt – because it is their “tradition” – useless as it is in 2009. So there are your arguments – tradition and pleasure.

You are not hunting for any ultruistic reasons - so don't pretend you are.


Quote:

The banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year Sounds like minimum sizes for fisheries mantra.

Yes – but we are talking about Russia – a starving country, not Australia with their well fed and wealthy hunters in comparison.


Quote:

How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals? There are a couple of obvious ways. When you ban the hunting of introduced pests like goats and dear, you force people onto more unethical sources of meat, which involve more animal suffering. Ytou even admitted to this above. "We would all prefer free range". Now you ask me to explain your own statements to you? Also, the ecological damage these animals cause results in further suffering.

FD - there is no-one monitoring the hunters' activities. Who's to say what animals are shot or wounded? The hunters are a law unto themselves. Yes – I agree with you – introduced pests do cause habitat destruction, but why can’t amateur hunters who only do it for pleasure be monitored by some law enforcement agency? Why are they allowed to take their great dirty 4WD’s, weapons & dogs into our parks, while visitors and tourists can’t?

If the hunters went out at night with spotlights under strict supervision there might be a little merit in your argument.


Quote:

[quote]Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.

You really should check your facts Mantra. [/quote]

I have FD - otherwise I wouldn't have made the statement.


Quote:

Again mantra, it is people's actions that count, not their motivation. To suggest that people who hunt goats, pigs, dear etc can only be motivated by one or the other is absurd. To suggest that a benefit is not an actual benefit because it is not the sole motivation is absurd. They are still feral animals, even when you eat them mantra. It seems every single argument you make is logically flawed. If I didn't know your style so well I would say you are actually trying to come up with flawed arguments. Pure chance should at least let you be correct occasionally.

It is not just feral animals you are allowed to shoot - that fact I've just discovered.

FD – I’ll try not to be as rude as you are being to me  – but your arguments are too simplistic.  You have learnt one basic doctrine and you keep repeating it.

Locutius was talking about feral animals having diseases.  Are you telling me FD that the hunters who go out and slaughter pigs, foxes and goats actually eat the meat and feed their starving neighbours?


Quote:

Mantra, if you can't grasp the basic logic, no amount of evidence will change your mind, because you won't understand what it means.

As far as this argument is concerned - we are both coming from parallel planets. You can't understand my reasoning and I can't understand yours.

Quote:

How are you an ethical competitor FD? You are only hunting for yourself - no-one else.

It is not personal Mantra. I am referring to the two competing methods for obtaining meat. Do you understand that by banning one method you  make the other more profitable?


Quote:

That is such an untruth and this is where you contradict yourself again. All you talk about is me and likeminded people trying to stop your pleasure.

I am merely pointing out that your argument seems to hinge on pleasure, and nothing else. No-one else's does. I bring up pleasure because you do. While it seems absurd, it is the only argument of yours without massive logical holes.


Quote:

Why do indigenous people hunt – because it is their “tradition” – useless as it is in 2009.

I can't exactly speak for them, but I would assume they hunt for food, just like me.


Quote:

You are not hunting for any ultruistic reasons - so don't pretend you are.

I never did make that claim mantra. I have gone to great lengths to point out the difference between motivation and justification. You are the only one who gets them confused.


Quote:

FD - there is no-one monitoring the hunters' activities. Who's to say what animals are shot or wounded? The hunters are a law unto themselves.

Mantra, not being able to monitor what people do is not a good enough reason to ban them from doing it. Are you seriously trying now to base your argument on the fact that you don't know what actually goes on?


Quote:

Yes – I agree with you – introduced pests do cause habitat destruction, but why can’t amateur hunters who only do it for pleasure be monitored by some law enforcement agency?

If you come up with a practical suggestion I would consider it, as would many hunters. So far all you have suggested is a ban.


Quote:

Why are they allowed to take their great dirty 4WD’s, weapons & dogs into our parks, while visitors and tourists can’t?

You seem confused Mantra. The vast majority of people driving 4WD's through national parks are tourists with no interest in hunting. I have no idea whether dogs may be used, but I am certainly not going to take your word for it.


Quote:

It is not just feral animals you are allowed to shoot - that fact I've just discovered.

You only just discovered it? What were you saying about checking your facts first?


Quote:

FD – I’ll try not to be as rude as you are being to me  – but your arguments are too simplistic.  You have learnt one basic doctrine and you keep repeating it.

Mantra, the only thing I am repeating are questions and criticisms that you fail to respond to. The simplicity of those questions is a reflection of your argument, not mine.


Quote:

Locutius was talking about feral animals having diseases.  Are you telling me FD that the hunters who go out and slaughter pigs, foxes and goats actually eat the meat and feed their starving neighbours?

Goats are often caught live in national parks and sold live. Foxes would not be eaten. Some pigs are left to rot, but some of them are worth a fortune overseas.


Quote:

As far as this argument is concerned - we are both coming from parallel planets. You can't understand my reasoning and I can't understand yours.

How about you start by answering those simple questions?


Quote:

Yes I am FD - you are just not bothering to read them because you are so one-eyed on this subject.

No you aren't mantra. Here they are for you again, for the third time:

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:

OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels: 1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation. 2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this? 3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy. 4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument. 5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically. 6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing. 7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it. 8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this. 9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'. I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.

An example of how hunters can hold a goverment to ransom.

How did they get the numbers to get into Parliament?  Preferences from some religious party no doubt. The don't give a stuff about NSW and selling off NSW State Lotteries - as long as they get to smell some blood - they'll sign off on anything.


The Rees Government is now facing a full-blown crisis to get any legislation through the Legislative Council.

The opposition claimed this morning that such a move to "collapse" the house had not occurred since the 1920s.

The crisis has risen because the Shooters Party has been voting against the Government all week after cabinet failed to back the Shooters Party's push to hunt in national parks.

With the opposition and Greens opposing the Lotteries privatisation, the Government needed the support of the two Shooters Party MPs.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/night-of-the-long-bell-rees-faces-new-crisis-20090625-cxg1.html

How did these selfish idiots get to be MP's?

An older article.....


Quote:

The NSW government is set to back a bill allowing hunters into national parks in order to gain key Shooters' Party MPs' support for its sale of NSW Lotteries, the state opposition says. The coalition has vowed to oppose the government's plans to grant a long-term, exclusive licence to the private sector to operate NSW Lotteries for at least the next 30 years. For the relevant enabling legislation to pass through the upper house, the government will need the support of crossbench MPs as Labor does not hold a majority in the Legislative Council. With the Greens opposed to the Lotteries sale, the government will need the backing of the two Shooters' Party MPs. Opposition environment spokeswoman Catherine Cusack said that in return for their support, the government would back a Shooters' Party bill allowing hunters into national parks that would also legalise the hunting of a number of native animals. "The government really needs the revenue from the privatisation of State Lotteries and the Shooters are basically putting this (their bill) up as their gambit claim in exchange for voting for lotteries," she said. "It is lotteries versus wildlife in NSW at the moment." Ms Cusack said the government had been negotiating with the Shooters' Party over their bill for two years http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=581165

mantra wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 2:36pm:

An example of how hunters can hold a goverment to ransom. How did they get the numbers to get into Parliament?

Democratically I suppose. Just like the Greens. Or do only the people you agree with have a right to representation?

[quote author=freediver link=1242081351/60#68 date=1243163259

Mantra, not being able to monitor what people do is not a good enough reason to ban them from doing it. Are you seriously trying now to base your argument on the fact that you don't know what actually goes on?

[/quote]

Now where have I heard that argument recently?