I hate hunters
-
phykell wrote: Yet more absolute rubbish Have you read the act? If a dog chases any wild animal apart from a rat or a rabbit then its owner is committing a criminal offense. The act does not differentiate between different mammals. phykell wrote: No-one is going to be charged with a criminal offence if their dog chases the odd squ I realise that people won't get prosecuted if their dogs chase squirrels but that's not the point. What they are doing will be illegal it's just that the authorities will only persecute specific groups. My dogs chase deer and I encourage them to do so as it clears them out of the land wwhere we are planting new trees. They also chase foxes, hares, rabbits rats and prtetty much any thing else they can find! They don't catch them, it's not cruel; but that is beside the point. I will be a criminal under the new act unless I either get rid of my dogs, chaion them up and don't take them for walks or kill all the wildlife on my farm. phykell wrote: Regarding your dogs' liking for postman's leg, have you ever heard of a "lead" or even "training"? They are trained to round up sheep but no they don't go on the lead nor will I chain them up. If I put them on a lead they attempt to strangle themselves. We need to have the dogs to keep the foxes away from our chickens, guard the house at night and to help us look after our sheep.
MOO!!
Giles Bradshaw wrote: keep the foxes away from our chickens I have one word for you: "fencing". Giles Bradshaw wrote: Have you read the act? If a dog chases any wild animal apart from a rat or a rabbit then its owner is committing a criminal offense. The act does not differentiate between different mammals. Have you? It says nothing of the sort and it's not as if there will ever be any cases of Fido having been accused of being used as a hunting dog whilst being walked on Hampstead Heath... Giles Bradshaw wrote:I realise that people won't get prosecuted if their dogs chase squirrels but that's not the point. What they are doing will be illegal it's just that the authorities will only persecute specific groups. Yes, the ones hunting. What's wrong with that? "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
-
benjymous wrote: We all know that an animal had to die so that we can have meat on our plates It's equally true to say that an animal had to live to put food on your plate. If we didn't eat meat and drink dairy products then there would be no cattle in the world. Don't they have a right to exist. An animal on a well tended livestock farm would never have suffered like that live rabbit as the farmer would either have treated it or have put it out of it's misery before it got so bad. The simple fact is that almost all animals are in the wild are killed by other animals ie hunted. Those that aren't (ie ones at the top of the food chain) die a long miserable and painfull death. If we can give animlas a good quality of life by farming them then that's a good thing.
MOO!!
Giles Bradshaw wrote:An animal on a well tended livestock farm would never have suffered like that live rabbit as the farmer would either have treated it or have put it out of it's misery before it got so bad. If only that was the general case for the meat industry. I fear your own example is in the very small minority. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
-
Giles Bradshaw wrote: keep the foxes away from our chickens I have one word for you: "fencing". Giles Bradshaw wrote: Have you read the act? If a dog chases any wild animal apart from a rat or a rabbit then its owner is committing a criminal offense. The act does not differentiate between different mammals. Have you? It says nothing of the sort and it's not as if there will ever be any cases of Fido having been accused of being used as a hunting dog whilst being walked on Hampstead Heath... Giles Bradshaw wrote:I realise that people won't get prosecuted if their dogs chase squirrels but that's not the point. What they are doing will be illegal it's just that the authorities will only persecute specific groups. Yes, the ones hunting. What's wrong with that? "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
phykell wrote: I have one word for you: "fencing". They're totally free range and live naturally in the farm yard - we like that because we feel it's more welfare freindly. It's almost impossible to keep a fox out with fencing. phykell wrote: Have you read the act? Yes I have - I can see that you haven't. phykell wrote: hunting Hunting is specifivcally defined in the bill as a dog chasing a wild mammal. Asd you keep saying they won't persecute every one engaged in hunting as defined by the bill. Read it then you might know what you're talking about.
MOO!!
-
David Stone wrote: Whoever voted you down and didn't comment on why is pathetic and obviously doesn't understand this thing called the ecosystem. Time to go back to bio class, kids. I hope your bio class explains how the ecosystem reacts when one species starts to hunt others for fun using a .30-30 Winchester or a .22 LR. Yes, even I am blogging now!
Well, a .22LR is only good for rabbits. Rabbits are called the bottom of the food chain for a reason - everything eats them. Rabbits also "bread like rabbits", meaning that everything can eat them, without serious affect on the population. There are strict limits on everything you can shoot with a .30-30 or more powerful gun. (there is some game that you don't want to shoot with a gun that weak) Those limits are set because we know what we can safely shoot. In fact we often need to shoot some of those animals because if we don't they will eat all their food and then starve to death. That is the entire herd will eat all the food before winter is over, and the entire herd dies! If we shoot 1/4th (number changes from year to year) of the herd, there is enough food and they will live. My bio class explained this. As for ecosystem, hunters are the ones supporting groups like Ducks Unlimited, that work to create ecosystems that work.
-
What people don't realise about the UK bill is that it doesn't ban fox hunting it bans any body going out with a dog from chasing any wild mammal except a rabbit or a rat whether or not they are in control of that dog. How can I teach my dogs the difference between a rabbit and a hare? They will chase anything from squirrels to postmen. The fact is that Almost all dog walkers will be criminalised by this absurd legislation, but it will only be used to attack the small minority that the government actually wants to persecute.
MOO!!
The government likes to keep everybody breaking the smaller laws, that way they can sneak the bigger ones in with less public opposition.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Thanks :-O It's the point for the "we all are animals"-people, who mean with that sentence "we all want to act like animals, but get treated better than animals". :cool:
Corinna John wrote: who mean with that sentence "we all want to act like animals, but get treated better than animals". Not exactly; more that we have already broken all the rules and can see how that messes things up, let alone with other animals.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Here's another point to think about, for all the hunters here on CP (not for you, Hockey, it's for the guys who don't understand your text). Imagine you had four children. They are playing outside. Now a big animal appears and eats two of your kids. I know what you would think in this situation: That's nature. Animals eat other animals, there's nothing to worry about. I still have two kids left, so my species won't die out. You don't feel it's natural to be eaten by animals? No?! Why not? If you say that hunting is okay, because all animals have natural enemies, you have to accept that you also have natural enemies. If you don't accept your natural enemies, how can you be a natural enemy to other animals? Please feel offended, this post is meant to offend... *g*
Almost every animal (apart from those like us at the top of the food chain) get killed and eaten by other animals that's a fact. It's not nice but it is a fact. Often it's the best death they could have as it is quick. Animals at the top of the food chain (including us) tend to have slow and lingering deaths. When we don't control deer their poulation explodes because they have no natural predators. This creates all sorts of problems both for us and for them. I don't hunt but I feel that hunters are unfairly targeted as a minority. Every years countless millions of rats are poisoned in a horrific way under our city streets - rats are as intelligent as dogs. They die a horrible death, the poison is deliberatly selected so that they don't die straight away but head down for water so that they don't cause so much of a health hazard. How would you feel if millions of people were being poisoned in this way? From my point of view I would support us causing the deaths of millions of rats but against killing millions of people. If that's hypocritical then so be it.
MOO!!
-
Well, a .22LR is only good for rabbits. Rabbits are called the bottom of the food chain for a reason - everything eats them. Rabbits also "bread like rabbits", meaning that everything can eat them, without serious affect on the population. There are strict limits on everything you can shoot with a .30-30 or more powerful gun. (there is some game that you don't want to shoot with a gun that weak) Those limits are set because we know what we can safely shoot. In fact we often need to shoot some of those animals because if we don't they will eat all their food and then starve to death. That is the entire herd will eat all the food before winter is over, and the entire herd dies! If we shoot 1/4th (number changes from year to year) of the herd, there is enough food and they will live. My bio class explained this. As for ecosystem, hunters are the ones supporting groups like Ducks Unlimited, that work to create ecosystems that work.
Henry miller wrote: In fact we often need to shoot some of those animals because if we don't they will eat all their food and then starve to death. Henry miller wrote: My bio class explained this. Bad bio class. That explains a lot. Actually, most of those species managed to survive a few thousand years even before the man appeared on Earth. So, somehow, they'll manage to not get extinct without us shooting them to help them. The same flawed reasoning can be applied to human beings. Some countries on Africa have children starving to death. So, let's start shooting them so they can make some progress. Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Here's another point to think about, for all the hunters here on CP (not for you, Hockey, it's for the guys who don't understand your text). Imagine you had four children. They are playing outside. Now a big animal appears and eats two of your kids. I know what you would think in this situation: That's nature. Animals eat other animals, there's nothing to worry about. I still have two kids left, so my species won't die out. You don't feel it's natural to be eaten by animals? No?! Why not? If you say that hunting is okay, because all animals have natural enemies, you have to accept that you also have natural enemies. If you don't accept your natural enemies, how can you be a natural enemy to other animals? Please feel offended, this post is meant to offend... *g*
Whats your point? Its natural for that big animal to eat. If they can get humans they well. However it is also natural to protect ones children, and when big animal goes after my children I will shoot it. Lets reverse it. Say big animal comes to eat your children. What are you going to do? You have already admitted you don't hunt, I'm presuming that means you don't have the ability to shoot it. Now, assuming you can come up with an answer that will save your children (and several exist), why would you assume that I wouldn't use the same myself? If they don't work I fall back to the gun.
-
Giles Bradshaw wrote:An animal on a well tended livestock farm would never have suffered like that live rabbit as the farmer would either have treated it or have put it out of it's misery before it got so bad. If only that was the general case for the meat industry. I fear your own example is in the very small minority. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
That's my point, eating welfare freindly meat promotes good animal welfare. There are a lot of farmers out there who care about the welfare of there stock to deny this and generalise about the meat industry is just prejudice.
MOO!!
-
The government likes to keep everybody breaking the smaller laws, that way they can sneak the bigger ones in with less public opposition.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
I think there should be a fixed quantity of laws - if they want to ban something they should have to legalise something else
MOO!!
-
Hockey wrote: If we still lived in the old west i'd challenge him to a...uhh...standoff...hi-noon gun fight thing... And that's how you shoot yourself in the foot: you wouldn't have a chance... :) PS: I shot rabbits for fun and, trust me, the meal tasted better...
"though nothing will keep us together we can beat them for ever and ever" rechi
Yeah, I shot rabbits for fun also when I was a teenager on my way to become a hunter just like most people out here. UNTIL, a friend of mine and I happen to just about fill this one rabbit with holes and spent several hours tracking it down to find it laying just outside a hole with its guts hanging out and just barely alive and it was making an awful noise. That was they last hunting for me! What fun.... Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com - Now with "Recommendation" postings www.MyQuickPoll.com - Now with Recent Poll List www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com - Again :)
-
Sick mofo[^] Especially the part where he says... My father John Charron Jr. grew up during the depression. He hunted out of necessity, but this quickly grew into a passion When I read this...I thought...man I would love to hunt the hunters. It'd be cool to hunt something that actually shot back, instead of some poor animal. My Dad hunted until I was about 3 and my mom talked him into stopping, thank god, cuz I wouldn't stand for it either. What a savage, stupid sport...pointless...and for any of those who may try and argue...unless your hunting out of necessity...your doing it for fun...either for the thrill of the kill or whatever reason, it's not required...and for any statistics that say...hunting is a required essential part of the ecosystem...blah blah blah... Humans are killing the planet faster than anything...so why not knock off a couple hunters instead. Man hunting makes me sick...although i'm not a vegetarian I feel it important to have a well balanced meal (fruits, vegs, meat, etc) but I stricly condemn hunting for pleasure. I feel we (as in N. Americans or Westerners) live in an advanced society and have plenty of pre-processed food readily available at grocery stores, which already probably gets wasted to some degree. There is simply no need to hunt. This message is not directed at anyone specifically...and I appologize if I sound irrational, but jesus...what that guy said really pissed me off...it's his passion to kill animals... :(( If we still lived in the old west i'd challenge him to a...uhh...standoff...hi-noon gun fight thing... :) Gees how depressing...I was feelin' fine til I read that...I just really hate to see any animal die...even though I know I consume certain meats, like chicken, beef, etc...i've often thought of going vegan, but i'm afraid i'd go postal or something...and seriously start hunting hunters...becuz of a protein defficiency or something weird. Appologies if I offended anyone, but for real quit hunting!!! If you do...of course were all advanced human beings whom rather program than take the life of an innocent animal, especially for fun...thats whats disturbing me. Cheers :) How do I print my voice mail?
I've never hunted (yet?). Though look at the lives of a typical farm raised beef cattle and that of a deer, tell me which way is more humane. Seems the deer had a much better go at life than the cattle. I don't undestand what's so wrong about hunting for dinner vs. having some farmer kill it for you. Do you feel the same about going fishing? As far as what's required. Few people with the means live strictly by what is necessary. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Whats your point? Its natural for that big animal to eat. If they can get humans they well. However it is also natural to protect ones children, and when big animal goes after my children I will shoot it. Lets reverse it. Say big animal comes to eat your children. What are you going to do? You have already admitted you don't hunt, I'm presuming that means you don't have the ability to shoot it. Now, assuming you can come up with an answer that will save your children (and several exist), why would you assume that I wouldn't use the same myself? If they don't work I fall back to the gun.
Exactly, that's why the fox runs away. Anthropomorphising like this is really stupid. We've got bigger brains so we're on the top of the pile - morality doesn;t come into it. We'll get our come uppance some time though if we all get wiped out by global warming, nuclear war, George Bush etc.
MOO!!
-
Here's another point to think about, for all the hunters here on CP (not for you, Hockey, it's for the guys who don't understand your text). Imagine you had four children. They are playing outside. Now a big animal appears and eats two of your kids. I know what you would think in this situation: That's nature. Animals eat other animals, there's nothing to worry about. I still have two kids left, so my species won't die out. You don't feel it's natural to be eaten by animals? No?! Why not? If you say that hunting is okay, because all animals have natural enemies, you have to accept that you also have natural enemies. If you don't accept your natural enemies, how can you be a natural enemy to other animals? Please feel offended, this post is meant to offend... *g*
Last I checked we were at the top of the food chain. We do have natural enemies, but we also have the ability(intellect) to protect ourselves against them, kill them for supper, or even take some of them as pets. It's good to be the king. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Yeah, I shot rabbits for fun also when I was a teenager on my way to become a hunter just like most people out here. UNTIL, a friend of mine and I happen to just about fill this one rabbit with holes and spent several hours tracking it down to find it laying just outside a hole with its guts hanging out and just barely alive and it was making an awful noise. That was they last hunting for me! What fun.... Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com - Now with "Recommendation" postings www.MyQuickPoll.com - Now with Recent Poll List www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com - Again :)
Rocky Moore wrote: just barely alive and it was making an awful noise I'm sorry to say it but you shoud have finished him as quickly as possible. A hunting dog is the best do the dirty job. Animals, IMO, were made by God to be at humans' disposal. I wouldn't mix the things up.
"though nothing will keep us together we can beat them for ever and ever" rechi
-
Henry miller wrote: In fact we often need to shoot some of those animals because if we don't they will eat all their food and then starve to death. Henry miller wrote: My bio class explained this. Bad bio class. That explains a lot. Actually, most of those species managed to survive a few thousand years even before the man appeared on Earth. So, somehow, they'll manage to not get extinct without us shooting them to help them. The same flawed reasoning can be applied to human beings. Some countries on Africa have children starving to death. So, let's start shooting them so they can make some progress. Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: Actually, most of those species managed to survive a few thousand years even before the man appeared on Earth. Yes because there were lions, bears and wolves eating them. You don't see many of those running around now... Neil Van Eps "Sweet liquor eases the pain" - Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Actually, most of those species managed to survive a few thousand years even before the man appeared on Earth. Yes because there were lions, bears and wolves eating them. You don't see many of those running around now... Neil Van Eps "Sweet liquor eases the pain" - Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons
Neil Van Eps wrote: Yes because there were lions, bears and wolves eating them. You don't see many of those running around now... Oh, those animals whose heads are often hanged on a wall? Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
I agree on the eating part. it's just that we've messed up our ecosystem so much that (at least where I live) hunting is still nessesary because we've first killed off all large predators :( Hunting 'just for fun' might be done by Orca's and cats but I hope I have an edge over these animals (called intelligence and self consciousness ) there are animals that will throw themselfes off cliffs if there's too many of them (we've all played lemmings). Pleas feel free to copy that also :) if you take animals as your holy example all the time you're doing yourself injustice (at least that's my opinion) Russell Morris wrote: What about the hunters that enjoy the hunt, and then eat their kill (all of the ones I know do)? With the overpoduction of meat that will just mean that somwhere else a piece of beef is going to go past it's expiry date, IMHO only hunting to keep the ecosystem a bit okay (after we've killed the big predators) is justifiable. (and no I dod NOT vote you down)
t's just that we've messed up our ecosystem so much that (at least where I live) hunting is still nessesary because we've first killed off all large predators This is true to a point. However, I'd argue a little bit about characterizing it as 'messed up' in this specific circumstance. We certainly have had a large impact on ecosystems by the very means you point out - we've displaced many predators (coyotes, wolves, large cats) because they had such a penchant for eating our farmed animals. So - as we have always had to - we must rely on our brains to carve out a successful place for ourselves. We do this by regulating hunting so that we can be reasonably sure we're not taking too many of a given species, and even ensuring that we don't throw off the male/female ratio to something which could endanger the herd itself. In some places (in the US at least - I'm not aware of similar programs in other parts of the world) we're even reintroducing predators into environments that we had removed them from previously. Technological advances have allowed us to keep these previously pesky predators out of our farmed animals without removing them from their ecosystem entirely. And why is this deserving of a frowny face? We're part of the ecosystem too. We cannot live without interacting with it. Your existence will cause pain, hardship, and stress on other organisms in the ecosystem - that's how ecosystems regulate what's in them. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
People have been hunting since before they were human. We're part of the environment too, you know. The whole "nature" thing is pretty much: A. Eat sunlight B. Eat A C. Eat A and/or B There are quite a few things that fall into C: lions, bears, eagles, rats, spiders, killer whales, etc..., and I have a really hard time calling them good, evil, guilty, innocent, or any other anthropomorphic attribute that we attach to them. And before you get into the 'not for pleasure' stuff - killer whales are known to kill seals for fun (i.e. kill and toy with, but not eat). My two cats used to torture moles in my garage - literally! They would get one of the helpless little bastards in between the two of them, and they'd pretty much play soccer with it until it died. They never ate it - only toyed with it. what that guy said really pissed me off...it's his passion to kill animals... But you're a better person, since your passion is to eat animals, choosing to instead leave the dirty work of actually killing them to someone else? That's like the pacifist Dali Lama employing body guards... What about the hunters that enjoy the hunt, and then eat their kill (all of the ones I know do)? and for any statistics that say...hunting is a required essential part of the ecosystem...blah blah blah... You can "blah blah blah" at facts all you want - it just means you're incorrect. No species lives in magic harmony with its environment. Living in harmony with your environment means that you fit into A, B, or C above. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: People have been hunting since before they were human. We're part of the environment too, you know Never said we weren't. I said were advanced enough that hunting for fun was not neccesary. There is already plenty of pre-processed food in NA, so hunting for sport seems cruel. Actually it is cruel!!! Russell Morris wrote: And before you get into the 'not for pleasure' stuff - killer whales are known to kill seals for fun (i.e. kill and toy with, but not eat). So...now your comparing humans to animals??? I hate when I see an animal kill another animal, really I do...but no matter how much I lecture an animal....itll never get the point... It's their animal instinct...which humans may have, but i've personally never felt compelled to kill for frills. Russell Morris wrote: What about the hunters that enjoy the hunt, and then eat their kill (all of the ones I know do)? Funny cuz I bet the hunting association or NRA or whatever says statistically speaking, hunting is good for the ecosystem, blah blah blah...at the same time Peta or similar animal rights organizations say the opposite...that hunting is NOT required...and as for any independant research firm that comes to it own conclusion...probably funded by the organization it favours. Anyways my point is...it's he said against she said...however one perspective is from a neanderthal hunter group who fights for their right to hunt and kill in a selfish matter and the other side is arguing from a perspective which does NOT benefit them at all...they do not profit financially or anything. My second point...as you said...people have hunted from before they were humans...exactlly...so you don't even know the outcome of what would "actually" happen if hunting seized to exist. If I was required to make an executive decision...hunting for pleasure would be banned. It serves no purpose...sorry... As for the arguments my father has used... What if I want to know exactly what I am eating, therefore I hunt and plant my own potatoes, etc... He grew up in the bush as a first generation Canadian I say this...get lost and don't take advantage of any kind of civilized lifestyle...no medical, no convienences, no nothing human made unless you made it, if your so set on being a primate go back way into the bush and start rubbing sticks and string togather, cuz you'll need fire. Cheers :) How do I prin