Hunter??Please read before posting!!!

It wasn't me!

My own view is that there should be no discussion of the sport aspect of hunting here; we have our own forum under shooting for that.

However, I definitely think there's a case for the discussion of humane killing as a solution to an animal-related problem.

Just as people are perfectly okay with someone having a dog with a painful and incurable cancer put to sleep, or trapping mice and rats who are causing problems, humans also deal with numerous other animals that cause problems, foxes and deer being probably the most emotive, but also rabbits, pigeons and various others. And in dealing with these problems, and for food, we kill other animals, and I say other animals, because at no stage in our evolution did we reach a point where we ceased to be animals. Foxes kill to eat; cats kill to eat; so do humans.

I find it very odd when people say that humans have no right to take an animal's life. There's no such thing as a right in that regard, only a necessity for reasons of expediency. When did we not become a part of nature and an animal just like a fox, a mink, an eagle or any other predatory animal? It is inherently strange to me when people seek to distance themselves from nature, under the guise of loving animals. We're predators, hunters. We evolved as such and if we truly want to respect and be part of nature we should remain such. Just my view, and not entirely relevant, but my point in relation to that has been made above. This is just in response to posters like kerrysgold, who I always find very odd; animal lover seeking to distance themselves from the natural order of things. I've said before that at some point I want to be entirely self-sufficient in terms of my own meat and fish, because that's my way of paying tribute to and showing my respect for nature, and I'll cultivate it in return and do what I can to ensure that there are game birds and rabbits and deer and fish for the next generation, so they can do the same.

kerrysgold

But we are more "intelligent" (supposedly) than other animals and can make conscious decisions. Yes, if I was a Lion I may have an instinctive urge to eat the first cow I saw but I can make a decision about what I eat, how I live my life etc. Other animals can't think like that but we can make the decision to avoid harming others for our own gain/convenience.

It wasn't me!

And a dolphin is more intelligent "supposedly" than a goldfish. My point is, you can't act like mankind is the only creature that doesn't belong in nature, and seek to distance the species from it. You can make those decisions, and that's fine, even if I find it odd, but what I find repugnant is the notion that mankind should exempt itself from the natural order of things. If we truly want to respect nature, we should involve ourselves most thoroughly.

BlackCat2008

Vegeta wrote: »

I love how you're an animal lover and we're hunters. Way to drive a wedge

Also considering you own "hunting cats" what does that make you as an animal lover?

How do you differ from a person who owns hunting dogs?

They differ in that I don't train them or send them out to do it it's just nature and yes if they bring one in alive I will set it free. I don't even kill flies or spiders and I don't care what other people care about that. My cat only ever went to some ones home that had mice more to leave a scent than to kill as even the best have to work out were the mice are coming from before they can catch it and a scent is usually good enough to scare them away.And if you had of checked properly you'll find I said they never really hunted in in homes they weren't familiar with.

What I was trying to say was even after it was acknowledged the lady didn't want them harmed the hunters just kept pushing the culling.

I'm not trying to drive a wedge just think there's a time and a place for each to have there say.

It wasn't me!

What I think Vegeta was getting at is that your use of the terms seems to be mutually exclusive. Most hunters love animals and nature. I say most because I haven't met them all, but all of the ones I have met have enormous respect for their natural world, their quarry and what they do, as well as a great love for their dogs, pets and animals.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm just coming to the end of a loooooooong night shift, so I hope I make sense.

I'm an ex-hunter. I loved hunting until I became a pet owner and very quickly I began to see animals as having a life I value (except rats) and now its been almost two year's since I shot anything.

Do I think hunting is cruel?.. Well it SHOULDN'T be cruel, but for the inexperienced hunter is can be very cruel and distressing on the animal.

Culling, I've never been involved in culling on any great scale, but like hunting if done properly and by professionals it shouldn't be cruel. These days I don't like to think of it. But I don't think thats a reason for me (at least) to look for an end of discussion on it -

As I've been on both sides of the fence I can see the argument in everyone's debate.

Once the discussion is level headed and calm I don't have a problem discussing hunting/culling or killing animals.

MsFifers

It will be extremely difficult to come up with a policy that would cover all the various angles and shades on this issue. What people define as hunting/pest control/sport/cruelty/"only natural" will never be agreed.

I think the current policy of not advocating the killing of nonfarmed animals should be kept as a (loose) rule here. It is an animal forum after all, and I do think that most posters here would prefer to discuss ways of helping and caring for animals, rather than more drastic actions.

I have seen people jump into discussions about for eg. stray cats - and advocate their destruction - as happened with the recent one about the foxes. Can we not take it on an assumption that when a poster has a question about dealing with an animal they consider a pest, non-lethal options should be suggested first? If a poster wants to know how to kill a "pest" then they should go to gardening or hunting/shooting forum.

(And I do take on board the point that people are less emotive about killing rats/mice/wasps etc. Which is indeed inconsistent.)

When people feel it is necessary to advocate culling/pest control, then the discussion should be taken elsewhere, so that the various methods that might be used can be discussed without upsetting people who feel differently.


(BTW- I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading - why it is only hunters that are being called to participate in this discussion?)

Vegeta

BlackCat2008 wrote: »

They differ in that I don't train them or send them out to do it it's just nature and yes if they bring one in alive I will set it free. I don't even kill flies or spiders and I don't care what other people care about that. My cat only ever went to some ones home that had mice more to leave a scent than to kill as even the best have to work out were the mice are coming from before they can catch it and a scent is usually good enough to scare them away.And if you had of checked properly you'll find I said they never really hunted in in homes they weren't familiar with.

So I see you've justified it to yourself then, because its "natural" and they only hunt in places they are familiar with.

Just for your info most dogs that hunt need no training to hunt, as you say its "natural" dogs have always hunted. Its mostly obdience and control training they get.

whitser

consumming passions on rte tonight is about a hawker, who hunts with birds of prey. which the reviewer rightly says falls under the radar of antis, she also says that if the progamme was abouy hunting with dogs there would be a whole debate on cruelty etc... why is that? a man who hunts with hawks an animal over and gets positive airtime and someone who hunts with dogs is a blood thirsty animal.
just for record, hunters were green long before there was a green party. we are animal lovers, we just dont humanise them. hunters probably know and understand more about animals then alot of so called animals lovers on here.

MsFifers

Is this thread a debate about the pros and cons of hunting/blood sports - or about the policy for the Animals & Pets forum?

Personally, I really don't see any value in rehashing the whole debate again - decrying the "other side" and proclamations about who understands animals the best. It always gets nasty and its not like anyone is going to change anyone else's mind!

Can the OP clarify the point of this thread before it all goes downhill as usual?

Vegeta

Is this not it

Depending on the outcome of the thread we may or may not change the policy to reflect the fact that sometimes culling of animals is a necessary evil for everyone involved once it is discussed in a humane and non-cruel way.

peasant

whitser wrote: »

just for record, hunters were green long before there was a green party. we are animal lovers, we just dont humanise them. hunters probably know and understand more about animals then alot of so called animals lovers on here.

If you qualified that statement with "most hunters" and "most of us", one might be more inclined to agree with you.

Because, let's face it, hunters are not a homogenous, animal friendly, green orientated conservationist group organisation...you have your own problems with inconsiderate, indiscriminate pocket-Rambos.

And even the ones that are doing things by the book have a few questions to ask themselves. Take the pheasants, for example.

Hunters drone on about how they breed and hatch pheasants, release them into the wild, so that they can shoot them for food later ...and how that's all "natural" and "conservationist" and all that.

What they fail to mention is that the pheasant is not an indigenous species for Europe, never mind Ireland. You might think so, looking at the numbers that are about, but t was imported from Asia by Victorian landlords for their shooting pleasure.

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Yet hunters keep rearing them so that they can shoot them later and condemn their natural predator to death...makes you think ...or at least it should.

togster

peasant wrote: »

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Are you really suggesting that pheasants are responsible for the reduction in indegenious birds? It's a combination of factors. Least of which i would expect are the fault of pheasants.

Most hunters are conservationists. It's hard for people to understand that, but it's the truth, whether you believe it or not.

whitser

MsFifers wrote: »

Is this thread a debate about the pros and cons of hunting/blood sports - or about the policy for the Animals & Pets forum?

Personally, I really don't see any value in rehashing the whole debate again - decrying the "other side" and proclamations about who understands animals the best. It always gets nasty and its not like anyone is going to change anyone else's mind!

Can the OP clarify the point of this thread before it all goes downhill as usual?

true. i wont change my mind and doubt i'll change others. so as far as policy goes leave it to the mods. im not getting dragged into a hunting deabte, your right it does always get nasty and slides downhill.

MsFifers

Vegeta wrote: »

Is this not it

Well then - a lot of posts then seem to be off topic as already people are talking about whether or not they are true conservationist/animal lovers etc.

I'm not telling the mods how to do their job (;)) but what are the criteria they are looking for to help with the decision?

Vegeta

peasant wrote: »

If you qualified that statement with "most hunters" and "most of us", one might be more inclined to agree with you.

Because, let's face it, hunters are not a homogenous, animal friendly, green orientated conservationist group organisation...you have your own problems with inconsiderate, indiscriminate pocket-Rambos.

This I agree with, they are a pain in the hole for the honest decent majority.

And even the ones that are doing things by the book have a few questions to ask themselves. Take the pheasants, for example.

Hunters drone on about how they breed and hatch pheasants, release them into the wild, so that they can shoot them for food later ...and how that's all "natural" and "conservationist" and all that.

Well firstly many many more pheasants are released than shot, in our club we might release 100 and shoot 10-15 every year. So we (and any other club I've spoken to) should be having a net gain.
Also shooting females birds or hens is illegal and the majority of the time the number of hens released is very high.

Surely if we were only interested in shooting them then cocks only would be released.

What they fail to mention is that the pheasant is not an indigenous species for Europe, never mind Ireland. You might think so, looking at the numbers that are about, but t was imported from Asia by Victorian landlords for their shooting pleasure.

A historical event, no one alive today is at fault, should we just let their numbers dwindle to nothing then. Hunt them to oblivion. So honestly I would like you to answer this question, should we wipe them out because they are not indigenous or try and keep them here now that they are?

On closer inspection, it is not the pheasant killing fox that is the "pest" or "vermin", but the artificially introduced pheasant that has pushed indigenous wildfowl out of their habitat and taken over the landscape.

Foxes don't just kill pheasants, name a ground bird and its on the menu

Would you care to list such bird species the pheasant is responsible for wiping out/negatively effecting?
Also ducks and geese are generally referred to as wildfowl not game birds (like pheasants)

Yet hunters keep rearing them so that they can shoot them later and condemn their natural predator to death...makes you think ...or at least it should.

Its still better than farming them isn't it and again with the high release rate of females (who are not shot) you can hardly claim it is a sinister act

EDIT: Clearly I have justified this to myself

bernard0368

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

whitser

rabbits arent indigenous either, they were brought by the normans, also i think the romans brought game birds to the britian and ireland long before victorians. could be wrong though.
yes think pet issues and animals issues should be seperat.

Vegeta

bernard0368 wrote: »

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

You should drop in to the hunting forum, you've never posted there and as a photographer I'd love to see some of the wildlife shots. One of the members John Griffin is into his photography too.

http://www.johngriffinphotography.ie/

whitser

bernard0368 wrote: »

I think the forum should be changed to just pet issues. I am a hunter and was brought up hunting. It was instilled in me from a young age that all hunting should be as humane as possible. However there is good and bad in all. Where I dont agree with the cull all idea in regards vermin. I can see that at times this may be essential. Vermin are as essential to the status quo if not more so than pets. Foxes are great predators and should be respected for same. This is the breeding season with young cubs to be fed, this will make these animals more active, is this an excuse to cull because they are taking someones duck chickens etc. definately not. Hell we as humans encroahed on there homes.

no one suggested we cull ALL vermin. just that they need to be culled.

bernard0368

Whitser I didnt mean ALL in that sense it was more of "got vermin? cull" attitude with some. I am a strong believer in conservation. eg 200 + trout caught this season all returned healty and I love fish.

stevoman

MODS

here's one to throw out there that might help the probloms the froum is having.

why not split the forum into two parts.

1 - pet issues

2 - animal issues.

you could have seperate charters for each.

the first one could deal with pet issues and advice on keeping pets and all the rest of it.

the second to deal with animals of a non pet nature and people could discuss more freely issues dealing with wild animals, problems they are havin with wild animals, differents aspects nature maintanance and problems on how to fix issues they are having with wild animals or advice they can offer to help wild animals, that say may be injured etc.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Does the Nature Forum not cover discussions on Wild Animals?

stevoman

Lara Purring Uniform wrote: »

Does the Nature Forum not cover discussions on Wild Animals?

but people do post on the animal and pet issues forums topics about foxes, rats, deer etc.

the mods could always change the charter to pets only if they thought that helped.

its a very shadey sticky area this subject so it is. i doubt they'l be able to please everyone.

Morganna

Good idea to put this post up/

ValerieR

Good idea indeed to put this post up. It might help to clear a few things out and limit some heated exchanges on the forum.

First of all, a discussion forum is for everyone to ask a question and everyone else to bring their thoughts, knowledge and experiences in order to offer a panel of solutions to the original poster.

Whatever the post's subject, IMO, it is peremptory that everyone respect each other.
Human history is made of people that are pro and against and their passionate opinions have always fueled major disputes, rows or even wars!

I would suggest to the Mods that the subject of bloodsport be discussed in other fora and that all subjects relating to pets/animals stay gathered in this particular category, as it is now.

Though it certainly makes it more difficult to handle, each thread should be assessed individually and objectively. Only an intervention/action would be required in the case of a poster lacking respect to another one.

In any case, everyone's opinion should be respected. It is the responsibility of the original poster to decide upon the best solution for their issue.

Without implying anything, I also think the Moderators should be totally neutral in their judgement (as much as humanely possible ) (I'm not attacking anyone, I think boards.ie is well moderated throughout, considering the volume of posts).

Also, a definition of humane "elimination" (for the lack of a better word) could be added to this forum's Charter ... Something like ... 'if required/necessary, the animal/pet's life should be terminated in all dignity, in a quick and clean manner and with a solution that brings no or least possible suffering.'

Regards,
ValerieR

togster

Good post Valerie.

This forum is for everyone as far as i am aware BUT we need to respect the fact that "most" of the regular posters do not regard culling/killing (call it what you will) as a viable alternative for "pest" control. Who are we (as hunters) to make them conform to the ideal which we believe is the correct one?

However, IF a poster has a problem with vermin we should be allowed to suggest the culling of that animal. This should be done in a sensitive way without using controversial language.

How in hell could you succesfully mod this though? I can see why a blanket ban is used in situations like this tbh.

Mods i don't envy your role in attempting to mod this but i comend you on attempting to reconcile the matter. Unfortunately there are idiots on both sides who destroy it for everyone else. And therin lies the problem. We are two sides of the same coin. All animal lovers, we just have different ways of doing things. But we will never agree on certain things. Thats just the way of the world.

I'm out now.

MsFifers

Well put Togster.

kowloon

I love animals, and I hunt, but I only hunt what I eat or vermin, nothing beyond that.
I eat rabbit, a lot of people here would find it detestable. I counter that a factory culled chicken will suffer vastly more distress than a rabbit living free and shot in the field to be eaten, I don't believe rabbits have more rights than a chicken, even if they are cuter (I personally prefer a chicken over a rabbit as a pet).
I will shoot rats around my chickens and ducks but prefer traps as they're more efficient, I won't use poison as other animals can eat it.
I will shoot mink on sight without hesistation, they have destroyed Irelands river banks and, ironically, animal rights activists are responsible for their release.

NoNameRanger

Lara Purring Uniform wrote: »

Does the Nature Forum not cover discussions on Wild Animals?

Yes you are right, but it seems to be a bit confusing, very few people use the Nature & Birdwatching forum.
Personally i would never check a forum on Pet Issues, but i do this one because it seems to cover all Animals including wild animals.
I appears to me that this forum needs re-naming to Pet issues as this is what it deals with 99% of the time. The Nature & Birdwatching forum needs re-naming to Animals and Nature or Animals and Nature Conservation.
I think this would serve people with animal problems or those looking for information on wildlife much better instead of splitting wildlife between 2 forums. There are conservationist on the nature forum that would be very helpful and more so than pet owners in wildlife situations.

Maybe this subject needs a new thread in both forums to see how people would feel about it.