Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Blood sport (Read 7945 times)
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #30 - May 18th, 2009 at 2:35am
 
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.


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.


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.


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?


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?


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.


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.
Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
oceanz
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #31 - May 18th, 2009 at 3:05pm
 
The Warrigal wrote on May 15th, 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.    

Back to top
 

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"
 
IP Logged
 
The Warrigal
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84
Re: Blood sport
Reply #32 - May 18th, 2009 at 3:10pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 18th, 2009 at 5:35pm by The Warrigal »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24319
in front of a computer
Re: Blood sport
Reply #33 - May 18th, 2009 at 7:57pm
 
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?
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24319
in front of a computer
Re: Blood sport
Reply #34 - May 18th, 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?
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
 
oceanz
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #35 - May 18th, 2009 at 10:17pm
 
locutius wrote on May 15th, 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.






Back to top
« Last Edit: May 18th, 2009 at 11:08pm by oceanz »  

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"
 
IP Logged
 
oceanz
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #36 - May 18th, 2009 at 10:48pm
 
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.

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 18th, 2009 at 10:57pm by oceanz »  

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Blood sport
Reply #37 - May 18th, 2009 at 11:01pm
 
I used to shoot flies with 22 just for fun  Embarrassed
But now I kill them with airguard, which is more effective but also can damage bees.

Back to top
 

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


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #38 - May 19th, 2009 at 6:51am
 
tallowood wrote on May 18th, 2009 at 11:01pm:
I used to shoot flies with 22 just for fun  Embarrassed
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?

Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #39 - May 19th, 2009 at 11:12am
 
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.  Angry
Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #40 - May 19th, 2009 at 11:27am
 
freediver wrote on May 18th, 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.


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.


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...

Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #41 - May 19th, 2009 at 11:40am
 
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.


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.


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.
Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
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 #42 - 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.


Back to top
 

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


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #43 - May 19th, 2009 at 1:22pm
 
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.

Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8113
Gender: female
Re: Blood sport
Reply #44 - May 19th, 2009 at 1:52pm
 
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...
Back to top
 

We all live in glass houses, and that's why we have an unspoken social contract with each other not to indulge in gratuitous assassination of a member's character ~H.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print