Acceptable that a Minister takes part in blood sports?

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

All the research shows that even if you kill nine foxes they will be replaced. Nature abhors a vacuum. If there is a spare territory, with suitable food etc, then more foxes will move in.

Your nine foxes ate a lot of rats & rabbits. They will now increase until the foxes return. Nature will control the foxes. By killing them we upset the balance & make the problem worse.

Predator numbers for any species settle at the level of the food source. You can dramatically reduce urban foxes by not leaving out food waste.

Yeah. More foxes will move into that territory but if they are properly controlled there won't be.
As for nature controlling foxes. We are nature. We are apart of that cycle. Only difference is that we as humans can choose to be apart of it or not

walshb

Discodog wrote: »

But we have decided that cruelty to animals is illegal. If foxes need to be controlled, which they don't, then they should be killed humanely & not chased until they are utterly exhausted.

Even the old legislation deemed it illegal to "terrify or infuriate" an animal. However we decided that the law shouldn't apply to some animals even though they experience pain & terror.

The legislators didn't want to spoil their "sport".

This is just it. Who the fcuk gets pleasure/satisfaction from the way in which these animals are "controlled?" You really do have to be a little barbaric and sadistic to chase a terrified animal for hours on horseback with dozens of hounds and then watch that terrified animal being torn to shreds. No dressing up or excuses explains it. That is what happens. The animal is given a horrid time for the final hrs of its life. Disgusting that humans still engage in this. Any minister or TD of my country who can engage in this or in any way defend it stinks.

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Yeah. More foxes will move into that territory but if they are properly controlled there won't be.
As for nature controlling foxes. We are nature. We are apart of that cycle. Only difference is that we as humans can choose to be apart of it or not

We aren't really part of nature because we will kill purely for pleasure. We don't eat foxes.

The Dept of Agriculture run the national Animal Cruelty phone line. It's absurd that the Minister responsible also partakes in cruelty.

What chance does this give those who lobby for a hunting ban? The Minister is hardly likely to listen to anyone who wants to spoil his sport.

But also it makes it difficult to discuss whether there is a need to control foxes as the Minister is already decided.

walshb

I accept the we are part of nature bit. I get that. But, we are also the most advanced animal on the planet. If we are engaging in this kind of fox treatment for the purpose of control, then surely a more humane method of control is available? Now, if it's to do with activity and pleasure and recreation, as well as control of the animal (pest control), then it's a sick aspect of our nature. Sick and sadistic.

steddyeddy

Controlling animal populations does not go hand in hand with a desire to see them suffer. There's no reason to bring animal control into this.

Alun

steddyeddy wrote: »

Controlling animal populations does not go hand in hand with a desire to see them suffer. There's no reason to bring animal control into this.

Absolutely. I can see that there is sometimes a need to occasionally control populations of certain animals, although probably not as much as some would like. However to derive pleasure from it and call it a 'sport' is disgusting and uncivilized IMO.

blackwhite

Discodog wrote: »

We aren't really part of nature because we will kill purely for pleasure.

What are we then? A figment of the imagination?


BTW - you clearly have never had a cat if you think humans are the only creature that kill for pleasure.

OldNotWIse

Simon Coveney? What a surprise :rolleyes:

Discodog

blackwhite wrote: »

What are we then? A figment of the imagination?


BTW - you clearly have never had a cat if you think humans are the only creature that kill for pleasure.

We are animals & part of the ecosystem but we operate to rules that are hardly natural.

The cat doesn't kill purely for pleasure. It does so because it's a deeply embedded part of their evolution.

They don't have the powers of reasoning that we possess.

blackwhite

Discodog wrote: »

We are animals & part of the ecosystem but we operate to rules that are hardly natural.

How are they not natural? We are as much a part of nature as anything else on this planet.
Behaviours that have evolved and developed in humans (i.e. "rules") have evolved naturally from human development.
WTF is with this weird way of thinking that something isn't "natural" if humans are involved?

Discodog wrote: »

The cat doesn't kill purely for pleasure. It does so because it's a deeply embedded part of their evolution.

Cat's most certainly do kill for pleasure. The fact that it has evolved to do so doesn't make it any less so.

Equally well, the fact that some humans like to hunt and kill foxes is also a result of evolution.
But again, we come back to the mental block that some people seem to have around humans not really being "part of nature"

Discodog wrote: »

They don't have the powers of reasoning that we possess.

How exactly does that make them more or less part of nature than humans?

Does the power of reasoning suddenly make us an alien species?

blackwhite

BTW - I'd consider myself to be more anti-hunting than pro-hunting (although it's not something I get particularly exercised about).

I do, however, get mighty p*ssed off by the misguided souls who somehow have reached the conclusion that humans are not "part of nature", as if to imply our higher level of intellectual development means that we are less worthy of our place in the eco-systems of this planet.

steddyeddy

blackwhite wrote: »

What are we then? A figment of the imagination?


BTW - you clearly have never had a cat if you think humans are the only creature that kill for pleasure.

We developed a thing called civilisation. We can't justify some of our more primitive actions because less intelligent species do them too.

walshb

Humans are the most influential part of nature as regards animals.

Getting sidetracked. It's the nasty and abhorrent part of our nature that does these things. Hunting an animal to a horrible death. It's horrific, but it is part of nature. I am glad that I don't display this sadistic and cruel trait!

blackwhite

steddyeddy wrote: »

We developed a thing called civilisation. We can't justify some of our more primitive actions because less intelligent species do them too.

I never said that we could, or should.

I was merely disputing an inaccurate claim which stated that we are the only creatures that do so, and are somehow not "part of nature."


Can I take it that you believe that humans are not "part of nature", or are you just trying to provoke an argument for the sake of it?

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

shoot them if it's really about pop / pest control. quick easy kill, not a exhausting hours long sufferfest.

Have you ever fired a gun at an animal? Do you know how difficult it is to be certain you will kill (as opposed to injure) an animal running at 30 m.p.h. at maybe 70 , or 100 yards?

When a fox is taken by the hunt which is a rare event in most parts of the county, the outcome is black or white: death or escape.

When shooting foxes, they can escape and go about in misery for days or weeks, writhing in agony on the side of a bog, or wasting away for want of sufficient food, riddled with disease, "to be imprisoned in the viewless winds/ and blown with restless violence round about the pendant world"

Hunting is also an important industry in its own right. Nowhere else has the Irish sport horse built a reputation like that which he enjoys on the hunting field, and plenty of British people source their hunters in Ireland. Now I want to ask you, what do you suggest we do with all of these animals, and these dogs, whose lives depend on hunting?

It also plays a vital role in rural conservation i.e. the preservation of land and coverts by the hunts, who also preserve bogs (and don't urban-dwellers love the bogs after all??)

Not only is it "acceptable" that the minister for agriculture should partake in hunting, it is only right that he should support it. Good for him. I still don't really like him though.

walshb

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you ever fired a gun at an animal? Do you know how difficult it is to be certain you will kill (as opposed to injure) an animal running at 30 m.p.h. at maybe 70 , or 100 yards?

When a fox is taken by the hunt which is a rare event in most parts of the county, the outcome is black or white: death or escape.

When shooting foxes, they can escape and go about in misery for days or weeks, writhing in agony on the side of a bog, or wasting away for want of sufficient food, riddled with disease, "to be imprisoned in the viewless winds/ and blown with restless violence round about the pendant world"

Hunting is also an important industry in its own right. Nowhere else has the Irish sport horse built a reputation like that which he enjoys on the hunting field, and plenty of British people source their hunters in Ireland.

It also plays a vital role in rural conservation i.e. the preservation of land and coverts by the hunts, who also preserve bogs (and don't urban-dwellers love the bogs after all??)

Not only is it "acceptable" that the minister for agriculture should partake in hunting, it is only right that he should support it. Good for him. I still don't really like him though.

Paint it how you like. If we cannot in the 21st Century figure out ways to control animals without resorting to torturing them to death then we really are a nasty species. Foxes hunted are tortured to death.

You thinking it's acceptable for the minister to partake in this torture is wrong.

BoatMad

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Is a common practice for them to hunt across lands they have no rights to nor permission to be on. Hunting this time on year causes considerable damage to fields, scarring the land, breaking down fences, worrying sheep in lambing season. Not much benefit for a landowner to have these 'hunters' digging up their lands. Yet is ongoing. Have often seen the local guardians of the peace involved as well. I think it increased in popularity during the boom as people thought it was a sign of prosperity and class

This is a downright lie. I know several hunts that go to extraordinary lengths to get permission from landowners. If you examine many hunts you will see they are actually made up of many local landowners themselves.

Its convenient for you argument to present them as " toffs" this in Ireland is far from the truth and the bulwark of hunt is the local farmer or landowner that hunts.

Routes and permissions are sought in advance, damage is mended quickly where it sometime occurs and at no point is trespass considered.

I know it doesn't suit you argument, but the fact is local landowners are in support or they simply wouldn't allow such hunts to cross their land.

BoatMad

walshb wrote: »

Paint it how you like. If we cannot in the 21st Century figure out ways to control animals without resorting to torturing them to death then we really are a nasty species. Foxes hunted are tortured to death.

You thinking it's acceptable for the minister to partake in this torture is wrong.

perhaps so, but many more are killed by gun and road then by hunts.

BoatMad

Discodog wrote: »

The problem is the obvious conflict of interest. The Minister is responsible for Animal Welfare legislation, which includes animal cruelty law.

How can he be independent if he partakes in & therefore supports an inherently cruel pastime?

I see no obvious conflict of interest. He presumably supports certain " rural " sports , where is his conflict of interest.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

If we cannot in the 21st Century figure out ways to control animals without resorting to torturing them to death then we really are a nasty species.

Shoot more birds? At least then, the foxes would move to the cities, and then it would be city dwellers' problem.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-21406854

walshb

BoatMad wrote: »

perhaps so, but many more are killed by gun and road then by hunts.

I am not talking about deaths from guns or cars. I am talking about the intentional hounding of a fox to death. That is disgusting.

BoatMad

walshb wrote: »

I am not talking about deaths from guns or cars. I am talking about the intentional hounding of a fox to death. That is disgusting.

There are many " disgusting " things is this world, You and I may see different things as " very disgusting". Given the small number of foxes hunted as compared to other methods , I dont agree with your definition

Where the fox is killed in a hunt, no doubt it is not a pleasant experience for the fox. nor is it a pleasant experience for a hen killed by a fox either, I suspect,

if you are a complete non meat eater and against all animal killing wild and farmed , I can see your point. I dont agree with it

I dont agree with people who however just focus on hunts.

Scofflaw

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you ever fired a gun at an animal? Do you know how difficult it is to be certain you will kill (as opposed to injure) an animal running at 30 m.p.h. at maybe 70 , or 100 yards?

When a fox is taken by the hunt which is a rare event in most parts of the county, the outcome is black or white: death or escape.

Really? Foxes are never injured but escape? I'm impressed.

dubiously,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BoatMad wrote: »

There are many " disgusting " things is this world, You and I may see different things as " very disgusting". Given the small number of foxes hunted as compared to other methods , I dont agree with your definition

Where the fox is killed in a hunt, no doubt it is not a pleasant experience for the fox. nor is it a pleasant experience for a hen killed by a fox either, I suspect,

if you are a complete non meat eater and against all animal killing wild and farmed , I can see your point. I dont agree with it

I dont agree with people who however just focus on hunts.

To be honest your response, like several other such, suggests you don't really understand the issue raised. Killing animals is not the issue, cruelty is.

In countries where fox hunting with dogs is banned (across the water, for example), it's not because it results in the death of the animal, and arguments along the lines of "ooh, you can't comment unless you're a vegetarian" are pure whataboutery. Nor is how a fox kills a chicken relevant, unless you're really going to argue that we should live like foxes as some kind of general rule.

The issue is cruelty by civilised humans, not killing, or how wild animals kill - deal with the issue. This is a cruel practice, that's undeniable - the question is whether it's a defensible one, and so far no defence has been offered, just obfuscation.

regards,
Scofflaw

Discodog

blackwhite wrote: »

BTW - I'd consider myself to be more anti-hunting than pro-hunting (although it's not something I get particularly exercised about).

I do, however, get mighty p*ssed off by the misguided souls who somehow have reached the conclusion that humans are not "part of nature", as if to imply our higher level of intellectual development means that we are less worthy of our place in the eco-systems of this planet.

I never said that we aren't part of nature. We are the apex predator. But we also have the power to reason & empathise. We should have progressed beyond getting pleasure from killing.

BoatMad

Discodog wrote: »

We should have progressed beyond getting pleasure from killing.

why, thats like saying we should progress from physical reproduction , merely because we can invent AI.!!

We are predators ( ps try sailing the oceans as see if we are " apex" predators !!!!)

BoatMad

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest your response, like several other such, suggests you don't really understand the issue raised. Killing animals is not the issue, cruelty is.

In countries where fox hunting with dogs is banned (across the water, for example), it's not because it results in the death of the animal, and arguments along the lines of "ooh, you can't comment unless you're a vegetarian" are pure whataboutery. Nor is how a fox kills a chicken relevant, unless you're really going to argue that we should live like foxes as some kind of general rule.

The issue is cruelty by civilised humans, not killing, or how wild animals kill - deal with the issue. This is a cruel practice, that's undeniable - the question is whether it's a defensible one, and so far no defence has been offered, just obfuscation.

regards,
Scofflaw

Civilised humans, thats a laugh , you mean the veneer that we put over our basic animalistic instincts.

I see fox hunting not in absolutes but relative too lots of other activities. I dont support big game hunting or whaling, becuase these actions risk destroying a species, I dont object on the grounds that it causes the animal pain ( in varying degrees), where I to do that I would object to killing all animals and fish as all such deaths ( for whatever reason) cause pain ( of whatever level).

Its not whataboutery ( A most stupid term) There are few absolutes in this world. the death of a small number of foxes, a species not in danger of extinction , is not a big issue in comparison

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

We should have progressed beyond getting pleasure from killing.

should we have progressed beyond the consumption of cows' milk?

cruel business, isn't it? whipping and shouting and factory farming those handsome cows, and tearing their suckling calves babies from the teat just hours after birth, causing immense distress to all concerned.... sexist, too. do you take milk in your tea discodog, hmm? lovely, frothy, bubbly, cruel milk in your tea?

blackwhite

Discodog wrote: »

I never said that we aren't part of nature. We are the apex predator. But we also have the power to reason & empathise. We should have progressed beyond getting pleasure from killing.

Except for here.

Discodog wrote: »

We aren't really part of nature because we will kill purely for pleasure. We don't eat foxes.

I haven't posted anything in favour of hunting - I've taken issue with you claiming we aren't part of nature - glad you've backtracked on that now

Discodog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you ever fired a gun at an animal? Do you know how difficult it is to be certain you will kill (as opposed to injure) an animal running at 30 m.p.h. at maybe 70 , or 100 yards?

When a fox is taken by the hunt which is a rare event in most parts of the county, the outcome is black or white: death or escape.

When shooting foxes, they can escape and go about in misery for days or weeks, writhing in agony on the side of a bog, or wasting away for want of sufficient food, riddled with disease, "to be imprisoned in the viewless winds/ and blown with restless violence round about the pendant world"

Hunting is also an important industry in its own right. Nowhere else has the Irish sport horse built a reputation like that which he enjoys on the hunting field, and plenty of British people source their hunters in Ireland. Now I want to ask you, what do you suggest we do with all of these animals, and these dogs, whose lives depend on hunting?

It also plays a vital role in rural conservation i.e. the preservation of land and coverts by the hunts, who also preserve bogs (and don't urban-dwellers love the bogs after all??)

Not only is it "acceptable" that the minister for agriculture should partake in hunting, it is only right that he should support it. Good for him. I still don't really like him though.

If it is a rare even then how can the Hunts claim that they are vital to control fox numbers ? The Hunts say that it's a rare event or an effectual method depending on who is asking the question.

Hunts can equally cause suffering when animals escape. There are countless examples of Hounds killing domestic dogs, cats, pet rabbits etc. I have personally rescued foxes from drains, impaled on barbed wire etc where they were chased by the hunt. I also know of numerous cases where a lactating Vixen is caught & the Hunt either can't find the den or can't be bothered to dig. They let the cubs starve to death.

As for the horses & the industry, the answer is simple - drag hunt. All the fun but no cruelty.

There are a lot of farmers who oppose hunting & consider that it damages the countryside:

https://farmersagainstfoxhunting.wordpress.com

The chairman of Farmers Against Foxhunting & Trespass is former IFA county chairman, Philip Lynch. One might expect that he should be knowledgeable on the subject.

Discodog

BoatMad wrote: »

why, thats like saying we should progress from physical reproduction , merely because we can invent AI.!!

We are predators ( ps try sailing the oceans as see if we are " apex" predators !!!!)

We are apex predators because we have the ability to kill every other species.

Discodog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

should we have progressed beyond the consumption of cows' milk?

cruel business, isn't it? whipping and shouting and factory farming those handsome cows, and tearing their suckling calves babies from the teat just hours after birth, causing immense distress to all concerned.... sexist, too. do you take milk in your tea discodog, hmm? lovely, frothy, bubbly, cruel milk in your tea?

The old "why aren't you vegetarian argument". The subject is whether the Minister, responsible for the prevention of cruelty, should be causing cruelty for recreational purposes.

Discodog

blackwhite wrote: »

Except for here.



I haven't posted anything in favour of hunting - I've taken issue with you claiming we aren't part of nature - glad you've backtracked on that now

I haven't backtracked. I explained that we aren't really part of nature because we have intellect, empathy etc. We have the ability to avoid animal cruelty. Nature has to be cruel to survive. We don't.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

If it is a rare even then how can the Hunts claim that they are vital to control fox numbers ?

Well now I would never say that hunting to hounds is "vital" in controlling fox numbers. True, it isn't the most effective method of control, because most foxes escape.

Then you see, the population-control argument for preferring hunting to hounds is that it doesn't result in those devastating wounds I mentioned, and the fact that it is very selective (i.e. diseased foxes are more likely to be taken) and that it encourages population diversity and conservation (eg through cubbing and the preservation of land and bogs). It also has a preventative role ie if hounds are drawing too many foxes and capturing them, there is obviously overpopulation on that land.

Shooting and laying poison don't achieve the same results, and have worse spillover effects.

Hunts can equally cause suffering when animals escape.

Rarely, yes. Foxes cause a lot more damage.

As for the horses & the industry, the answer is simple - drag hunt. All the fun but no cruelty.

It isn't all the fun, it's boring, and it's too fast and it ends too soon. People don't like it, and it doesn't confer any agricultural benefits.

There are a lot of farmers who oppose hunting & consider that it damages the countryside:

There are a few. Usually more to it than animal welfare concerns though.

blackwhite

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't backtracked. I explained that we aren't really part of nature because we have intellect, empathy etc. We have the ability to avoid animal cruelty. Nature has to be cruel to survive. We don't.

So if we aren't part of nature then what exactly are we, aliens?

We have evolved, naturally, to have empathy (other creatures, such as Dolphins and other great apes have done so also). Our desire not to see other creatures suffer is as much a part of nature as a lion's natural urge to hunt, or a cat's urge to play with the mouse it catches.

I'm not sure why you want to claim humans are distinct from being part of nature - if it's some arrogance that humans are superior to every other creature, or some form of self-loathing and we are inferior to other creatures.

We behave differently to other animals. That doesn't mean we are somehow not part of nature.

tayto lover

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't backtracked. I explained that we aren't really part of nature because we have intellect, empathy etc. We have the ability to avoid animal cruelty. Nature has to be cruel to survive. We don't.

The common crow has empathy it seems.
If a crow has young and it dies or is sick then the other crows look after those young.
I saw a documentary on crows and it seems they look after each other and display empathy.

jackboy

Hundreds of years ago foxes were controlled by the other apex predator, the wolf. When humans eradicated wolves the fox population exploded. So, the natural way to control foxes would be to reintroduce wolves. I don't think that will be happening though.

Tar.Aldarion

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

should we have progressed beyond the consumption of cows' milk?

cruel business, isn't it? whipping and shouting and factory farming those handsome cows, and tearing their suckling calves babies from the teat just hours after birth, causing immense distress to all concerned.... sexist, too. do you take milk in your tea discodog, hmm? lovely, frothy, bubbly, cruel milk in your tea?

Yes, it is inherently cruel industry, some of us do think that. But whether we do or do not has no relevance here. You can't make an argument about one ethical topic by pointing out another ethical question. The answer to which the poster gives matters not in the ethics of the question at hand.

tayto lover wrote: »

The common crow has empathy it seems.
If a crow has young and it dies or is sick then the other crows look after those young.
I saw a documentary on crows and it seems they look after each other and display empathy.

Indeed. Of course they do, people act like we too are not animals, we are animals, they are not so different from us (this does not give us carte blanche to act like them, that is rather simplistic thinking). We breathe, eat, feel, think. Corvids are quite intelligent. We are merely more intelligent, I'm not sure that is a great trait by which to accredit different rights upon. Hunting is barbaric, and should be a relic of the past.

Karl Stein

No, it's not acceptable. I hate that these activities are erroneously described as 'sport', 'hunting' or (bull) 'fighting'.

Sand wrote: »

The natural world is inherently cruel.

There is nothing natural about a troop of well fed twats sitting atop domesticated horses, accompanied by a pack of domesticated hounds, chasing and killing an animal that they've no intention of eating.

The Rape of Lucretia

Most certainly OK that he does. Not only is it legal to do so, but it it werent, it should be. Its a traditional passtime, that while unfashionable these days, has a long history. And denying people who want to participate in it is very unfair. I dont like people stopping doing things just because they wouldnt do it themselves.

John_Rambo

BoatMad wrote: »

This is a downright lie. I know several hunts that go to extraordinary lengths to get permission from landowners. If you examine many hunts you will see they are actually made up of many local landowners themselves

Do a quick search on the farming and forestry you'll find plenty of evidence of bad and selfish practice from various hunt outfits around the country.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89062992

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77224859

www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70964205

Sorry if this doesn't suit you argument.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

We are apex predators because we have the ability to kill every other species.

So do a lot of animals.
We are the apex predator because we have the brain power and weapons to kill animals. But only in certain circumstances. A human cannot defend against a lion without a weapon. And even then chances are slim unless it's with a firearm.
We also have the ability to control animal populations. A lot of places humans have brought extinction to animals or near to it but we have also bred these near extinct animals and repopulated them.
Also in animal kingdom there are animals who kill needlessly same way humans do.
Lions will kill hyena, leopard and cheetahs to basically just assert their dominance but it's still done for pure killing.

Ave Sodalis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't all the fun, it's boring, and it's too fast and it ends too soon. People don't like it, and it doesn't confer any agricultural benefits.

This isn't strictly speaking true. I know an awful lot of people who enjoy them. Majority of people I know that go hunting on horses aren't there for the fox. They don't care whether the fox is there or not. They just want to go galloping across fields and jump.

dodderangler

sup_dude wrote: »

They just want to go galloping across fields and jump.

And make absolute Shiite of the fields and fences while they're at it and not give two fcuks about who's fields they're in either

Scofflaw

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Most certainly OK that he does. Not only is it legal to do so, but it it werent, it should be. Its a traditional passtime, that while unfashionable these days, has a long history. And denying people who want to participate in it is very unfair. I dont like people stopping doing things just because they wouldnt do it themselves.

People aren't suggesting it not be done "just because they wouldn't do it themselves" but because it's cruel.

There seems to be some kind of basic difficulty with this point on the pro side. This is cruel, so the question is whether it's proportionate to the intended outcome, and not a single pro poster seems to be able to offer such a defence - the only defence, basically, being offered, is that some people enjoy it.

And certainly some people do - but there are some people who enjoy cock-fighting, and some who enjoy torturing cats, or setting a dog on fire, all things which are illegal because they're cruel and fundamentally done just for fun. It's not a good argument - indeed, it's the opposite of one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't all the fun, it's boring, and it's too fast and it ends too soon. People don't like it, and it doesn't confer any agricultural benefits

sup_dude wrote: »

This isn't strictly speaking true. I know an awful lot of people who enjoy them.

Of course some people enjoy following a drag. Otherwise there would be no drag hunting, or real hunts wouldn't have drag days.

"People don't like it" = most people prefer a live quarry.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes, it is inherently cruel industry, some of us do think that. But whether we do or do not has no relevance here. You can't make an argument about one ethical topic by pointing out another ethical question. The answer to which the poster gives matters not in the ethics of the question at hand.

I am broaching milk consumption in order to ascertain why we find this apparently cruel & unnecessary behaviour so delicious & irresistible

We tolerate the inhumane practices of dairy farming because of a mixture of human habit and unabashed pleasure-seeking: I could easily get my calcium and vit. D from ethically pristine sources but do so love and am so deeply in the habit of eating Kerrygold butter, Cashel Blue & yoghurts made of cows' milk that I choose to stand firm and make animal cruelty my greedy feast. Same for almost everyone.

"Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure!"

I am not defending hunting by an assertion that we are all hypocrites.
I am defending hunting by identifying how it is we reconcile sin and pleasure in everyday life.

Since farming animals and hunting animals are one and the same ethical debate, I don't see why hunters should be answerable to different standards than the merciless & wicked ways of the dairy farmer who will breed & torment & slaughter his stock & grow fat with wealth to wide acclaim. Rightly so! Nature is not a democracy.

RichardAnd

Ah yes. Another "hunter" attempting to pass of his blood lust as a service to the greater good.

Why can such people not be honest. They engage in such practices because they enjoy inflicting pain on other living things. I hope the minister takes pleasure in the sight and sound of a helpless creature screaming in agony.

dodderangler

RichardAnd wrote: »

Ah yes. Another "hunter" attempting to pass of his blood lust as a service to the greater good.

Why can such people not be honest. They engage in such practices because they enjoy inflicting pain on other living things. I hope the minister takes pleasure in the sight and sound of a helpless creature screaming in agony.

Jesus that a ridiculous statement to make. Hunters do it because they like inflicting pain on living things?? Really?
I hunt because I enjoy it. A lot comes into hunting. It's not always about going out and killing things.
I enjoy going out on a nice morning or evening. The fresh air, the silence, native fauna that I see like buzzards, deer etc.
I eat all I shoot and never be greedy about it.
Crows and magpies are a nuisance so I don't eat them.
Foxes are pests to farmers and if I am to keep my permission il shoot em to keep farmer happy.
Yes I do enjoy the hunt so thanks for asking.

RichardAnd

dodderangler wrote: »

Jesus that a ridiculous statement to make. Hunters do it because they like inflicting pain on living things?? Really?
I hunt because I enjoy it. A lot comes into hunting. It's not always about going out and killing things.
I enjoy going out on a nice morning or evening. The fresh air, the silence, native fauna that I see like buzzards, deer etc.
I eat all I shoot and never be greedy about it.
Crows and magpies are a nuisance so I don't eat them.
Foxes are pests to farmers and if I am to keep my permission il shoot em to keep farmer happy.
Yes I do enjoy the hunt so thanks for asking.

I'm sorry, I was referring specificly to Fox hunters. That's why I put the name hunter in quotations. I don't consider the killing of an animal in a brutal manner for no reason other than sport to be true hunting.

There is indeed a time and a place to hunt, but one can enjoy being outdoor s without having to kill anything. I used to be a keen camper, so I can relate to the pleasure of being outdoors, but that can be enjoyed without killing.

I'm not a strung out hippie by any measure, but I just find it wrong to kill an animal for sport and not for food that is needed.

The Rape of Lucretia

Scofflaw wrote: »

People aren't suggesting it not be done "just because they wouldn't do it themselves" but because it's cruel.

It ia because they choose not to do it themselves. Cruelty is subjective. And some people like to impose their view of what is cruel on others. And deem that because they consider something cruel, others should not engage in it. This is gross arrogance