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.