Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:
 

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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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.

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.

Warrigal

Quote:


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:


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:

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.      





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

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.    

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


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.

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.