Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
Blood sport (Read 8099 times)
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Blood sport
May 12th, 2009 at 8:35am
 
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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 18273
Re: Blood sport
Reply #1 - May 12th, 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!
..............
Back to top
 

Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #2 - May 12th, 2009 at 10:04am
 
Sprintcyclist wrote on May 12th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The Warrigal
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84
Re: Blood sport
Reply #3 - May 12th, 2009 at 10:45am
 

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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #4 - May 12th, 2009 at 11:10am
 
The Warrigal wrote on May 12th, 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-pig...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1813
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Blood sport
Reply #5 - May 12th, 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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 12th, 2009 at 1:44pm by locutius »  

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Blood sport
Reply #6 - May 12th, 2009 at 1:56pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #7 - May 12th, 2009 at 2:27pm
 
locutius wrote on May 12th, 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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 12th, 2009 at 4:54pm by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1813
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Blood sport
Reply #8 - May 12th, 2009 at 4:54pm
 
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.

Back to top
 

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25207
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #9 - May 12th, 2009 at 9:27pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25207
I like fish
Re: Blood sport
Reply #10 - May 12th, 2009 at 9:30pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #11 - May 13th, 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.  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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8552
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #12 - May 13th, 2009 at 8:21am
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1813
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Blood sport
Reply #13 - May 13th, 2009 at 2:13pm
 
mantra wrote on May 13th, 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 13th, 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 13th, 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 13th, 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 13th, 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 13th, 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 13th, 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.

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 13th, 2009 at 4:19pm by locutius »  

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1813
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Blood sport
Reply #14 - May 13th, 2009 at 2:34pm
 
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.



Back to top
 

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print