BS: Killing for pleasure

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 11:37 AM

I heard about that. Now we're into killing for art and science (not for long I hope - hard to take, and could go on forever.) Long ago there was a story about a university study where they put long eared and short eared bunnies in ovens to see which would die faster. There's also a famous very old story about an experimenter operating on a dog, strapped down without sedation, which dog licked the scientist's hand. (If memory serves, that story was reported by Darwin, as before his time, but it rings eternal.)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:54 AM

B.T.W. I was not referring to the legal status of the event, but to the bestiality of the participants, summed up perfectly for me by an e-mailed petition I received last year. It contained a film clip of a dog filmed in an art gallery (I think somewhere in South America) in various stages of starvation; the objective being to follow its 'progress' to its death. It was an 'exhibit' at the gallery for which the 'artist' had received an Arts Grant.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:00 AM

"Dog fighting - illegal!"
I was under the impression that hunting foxes with hounds was now illegal in Britain, yet is still goes on regularly - where do I go to report them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,Cliff
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:55 AM

Dog fighting - illegal!
If you know where & when you have a duty to report this to the police.
That activity has no bearing at all on legal shooting, fishing etc.
I work with shooters & fishermen & without exception they condemn this sort of activity (including the torture of the hare cited above).

You may as well blame old lady muggings on wildfowlers also.
(I am NOT a wildfowler BTW)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: KEVINOAF
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:47 AM

Hunting rights are taken for granted in my neck of the woods and my wishes as a landowner, for my land not to be hunted :have had to be reinforced by returning the fire of these imbeciles,The issues raised by this topic are complex,as a hunter -gatherer reformed I sympathise with the killing of game for food,but the argument of pest control is frequently over used (and abused ) by the hunting fraternity tho justify slaughter of predators. often to the detriment of balance of nature and causing a increase in the my number of true pests (rodents , etc ) that are their normal prey, Having an an endangered species on my land I seek to protect it and enjoy my status as their steward. the real pests however are the hunters! I am not a veggie and I do partake of meat (even game )so the needs of the farming community are also to be considered.The argument that man doesn't need meat would possibly lead to the extinction of a host of farm species if taken literally,- most people like to eat meat and veggies will always be a minority.Equally   absurd is the illusion that chickens are born in a cardboard box with bread-crumbs instead of feathers! both sides of this debate need to take a reality check

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 05:53 AM

Chris Marden,
Thanks for your thoughts, and I apologise if my earlier comments were intemperate.
My attitude on killing and torturing for sport were formed when I was a 16 year old apprentice on the Liverpool docks and I was taken to a coursing event by two workmates.
I can't remember if I enjoyed the main event, but as we were leaving we came across a small crowd gathered around two dogs who had a hare between them - the veterans referred to it as 'a string'. One dog had the creatures ears, the other had a hind leg, and they were slowly tearing the animal, which was screaming like a baby, apart. The crowd stood and cheered until somebody stepped over and stamped on the hare's head; it writhed on the ground for another few minutes before it finally died. Thugs and morons are the words that have sprung to mind ever since.
I share your hypocritical confusion over eating meat.
Guest from Sanity
You mean 'Live and Let Kill' - I understand there's a dog fight planned for this weekend a few miles from here - what do you suggest?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 12:40 AM

the Dave Bartle photoset, from d-bartz, above:

http://beagle.riflephoto.com/index/module/media/pId/102/id/6162/category/gallery%7Cthewhiteroebuck/start/0

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 10:11 PM

If you abhor hunting, then don't do it....and leave the others, who like to hunt, alone....mind your own business!

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 04:42 PM

Jim Caroll, Thank you for your reply to my question. Whilst I agree that wanton killers of wildlife are savages, they are not necessarily thugs or morons. Wanton being the operative verb.
It was the brevity and vehemence of your post that spurred me to ask for a definition.
It is, of course, hypocritical to abhor the killing of animals if you eat fish or meat, or wear leather, because almost all fish are taken from the wild by barberic methods which destroy other ecosystems, and farming for slaughter takes a mindset that I don't share. Though I do happily eat the end products of it.
I could advance arguments against the unnatural lives forced on creatures to produce eggs and milk, if I felt inclined to play Devil's Advocate. Or even against vegetable farming, and the harm that that does to the environment.
Morality is only a single view from a single perspective, and everyone has their own. Even someone who holds to the strictest Buddhist principles, arguably the most moral current, is allowed to eat meat provided someone gives it to them!   Chris Marden.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 07:20 AM

Liz,I am sure the shotgun brigade from where ever they come from couldn`t care less what comes into range, this `binning` of their prey has been going on for years, I listen to them on unguarded moments and they talk away about what they `bag`. I have talked to the local bird reserve many times and that has proved to be a useless exercise, it is not that they don`t care, it is sheer despair at anything ever going to be done.
The country lads in our area almost to a man seem to see this as part of their culture, not in the least perturbed about shooting birds, too bad if the odd rare bird is blasted along with the local Mallard, that is the impossible situation that confronts the conservationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:35 AM

"There are people in Northern Ireland who like to kill unarmed soldiers and pizza delivery men.Perhaps we should try and put a stop to that before worrying about the blood-lust of specimen-crazed "sporting" shooters ,however distasteful we might find the latter ??"

This view suggests that only humans and human affairs are relevant and all other living things, and the general environment, are irrelevant or of trivial importance. Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' suggests that this view has prevailed throughout history and many civilisations have come to a nasty end because of it - I'm pretty convinced that ours will too.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:31 AM

Thugs and morons = those who kill purely (wrong word) for pleasure
Boys (should have included girls I suppose) those who don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:17 AM

Ard - one would be tempted to sic the RSPCA or the RSPB onto them... or the local Garda, to check their shotgun licences...

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:04 AM

last week I photographed a Canada Goose on our large park lake, asking around as to anyone slse seeing this rare visitor I asked a local `wildfowler` [bird shooter] if he had ever come across the bird on near-by Lough Neagh, he replied it wouldn`t be around too long,"we shoot anything that flies".
This reply was greeted with loud laughter from our`wildfowler`, [what a strange term for a slaughterer of birds, and no, they don`t eat what they shoot they bin them, I have seen them.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Slag
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:41 AM

So Art, was there any progeny from the rabbit skunk union? And if so, what did you call them? Is this why the rabbits around here stink so bad? Are they out having their way with the black and white denizens of the forest?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:35 AM

You're right, Art. That is what the photo reminded me of. It's been years since I've seen a jackalope but I'll never forget them. Click on Number 4- the most familiar one to most of us, for one picture of a slightly older one than the one in the photo we've been discussing. This one obviously takes more after his daddy.

Pet Jackalope

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Art Thieme
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:11 AM

That thing in the photo is obviously a Jackalope!! Inbred jackrabbit and antelope mix. They are all over the U.P. of Michigan (Upper Peninsula) and parts of Minnesota to boot. I've seen several.

The last time I saw one was about twenty years ago. I was up in Ironwood for the North Country Folk Festival that Phil Kucera ran. I was in a bar in Ramsay, Michigan with Fritz Schuler and we'd been watching Spider John Koerner play pool. I went out for some cool air-----and there it was. I'll never forget it because that was the same day I saw a jackrabbit having intercourse with a skunk. (The rabbit didn't get all he wanted, but he did get about all he could stand!)

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 11:06 PM

I used to ride to work in a crummy driven by a hooktender who would go out of his way to run over wild rabbits, chipmonks, and squirrels. He would laugh when he did it, and then look over at the other guys who were riding in the front seat with him, at that point, they were expected to laugh too. If they didn't, they knew they would get some real shitty job for the day.
               It happened to me once; I got a shitty job. After that, I always rode in one of the back seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Slag
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:55 PM

A while back they succeeded in pecking their way through to an an attic. This allowed the bats in. When the bat urine began to soak through the ceiling and stinking up the place I discovered the hole and at no small cost, I had the bats removed and the hole patched.

Every morning shortly after sun up, there is a ratta tat tat tat somewhere on a side of the house. The really staccato racket is the red-shafted flickers. They are the most destructive. Both flickers and acorn woodpeckers are very intelligent birds and they hear the shotgun being chambered through the walls and are usually gone by the time I get outside. If I get a shot off the target is almost always too far away. If I'm am stealthy and get the jump on them I will get one or two every now and then. It helps keep the damage down. Most mornings (I'm NOT a morning person) I will just roll over with my deaf ear up. The redheads are just looking for bugs hiding in the overlaps. Their damage is minimal compared to the flickers.

I hope that answers your concerns. If not, I will let you come and replace my siding and put your heart at ease.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:18 PM

Did you misspeak, Slag? Why on earth would you shoot woodpeckers?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Slag
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:14 PM

Yes, gnu. I do all my hunting from behind the lens of a camera and have for the past umptydum years. I still shoot the wood rats and ground squirrels trying to undermine my house and the same for the flying termites (read: woodpeckers). Most all of my hunting friends have passed away. Were I to go on a hunt today, I'd take my camera, fishing pole and a couple of decks of cards.

re Jim Caroll: to quote Dogbert (of Dilbert comics fame)" I find that the intelligent ones always agree with me. The rest just say stupid things. This tends to keep the questions at a minimum." Yup Jim, with iron clad logic like that, how could you ever possibly be wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Gurney
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM

Can you be more specific, Jim Caroll? which are your 'Thugs and morons' and which are your 'Boys?' You have a fair range here, although no-one has advocated such extremes as "Kill it before they are all gone!" to "Oh, don't touch it, it's so sweet! I'll have my steak rare and pass the insect spray."

Or is anyone who disagrees with you wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: gnu
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 02:10 PM

I said I was leaving, but, earlier today, something was triggered in my brain, so I read back...

Slag.... "Having said that, killing for the pleasure of killing is just sick. It's wrong. The pleasure of hunting is not in the killing. The pleasure is the camaraderie of your companions and your dedication to the hunt as well as the satisfaction which comes from the actual hunting and stalking of the creature."

Agreed.

And, that is when I stopped "hunting". I did all of that and even pulled the trigger... of an unloaded gun. I "hunted" for a while with an unloaded gun. Unfortunately, I didn't have the coin to get into some good camera/camcorder equipment but I might after I sell my gun.

For someone who wasn't raised with it, it's hard to understand that part of it, but those who photograph "game" surely must understand it somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:57 AM

PS I was always more impressed with the collectivist anarchism than the rugged individualist variety, btw ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:51 AM

The freegans round my way tend to be bin pickers rather than sharpshooters. Can't imagine any of them would know one end of a gun from another, nor would want to. However that maybe comes from living near the middle of a big city where guns tend to be associated with gangsters, traps would catch small children and the only 'game' is rats, grey squirrels, the odd fox and domestic moggies.

No, my comment was really aimed at those who clearly enjoy hunting but for some strange reason seem to feel it necessary to pretend they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:05 AM

Spleen Cringe: "I disbelieve anyone living in a modern western economy who says they hunt for any reason other than sport or extreme poverty."

In which case I suspect you have not moved in the kinds of circles, where it actually does happen.
Never heard of Freeganism or Self-Sufficiency?

There are those who choose, neither for sporting reasons nor poverty but often as a reaction aginst Capitalist society, to 'drop-out' of the modern Western consumerist system, and persue an alternative self-sufficient lifestyle, which means they will hunt and gather whatever there is to be found in the world around them. A choice that is made to consume and waste less, and be far more personally responsible for what they do consume.

I can think of one friend of mine who, as an anarchist, has never paid tax, doesn't live in a house, is self-employed and is otherwise as self-sufficient as he can reasonably manage.

The reason his case is especially pertinant to this thread, is that he was vegetarian for twenty years. But took to shooting the odd pheasant or rabbit, or indeed fishing the odd trout to improve his diet - he was getting bloody underwieght at the time. He doesn't hunt for sport, anymore than he collects the dead wood with which he builds the musical instruments he barters or sells, for 'sport'.

His occasional hunting is completely purposive, and ethically congruent with his anti-consumerist and anarchist way of life.

There are more people out there living on the 'fringes' of our consumerist culture, than you might at first imagine.
But they don't usually make headlines for living their alternative lifestyles, unless they turn up in The Daily Mail as 'undesirables'.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:30 AM

You've got to hand it to the old redcoats, though, there are some bloody marvellous hunting songs out there...

Must admit I'm quite pleased I live in a modern western economy where someone else can rear, kill, prepare and sell me my organic free range meat. What with full-time work, picking the kids up, housework and all the rest there simply isn't the time to kill my own tea.

I disbelieve anyone living in a modern western economy who says they hunt for any reason other than sport or extreme poverty. Have the courage of your convictions! If you're going to do it, at least make it look like you're enjoying it, rather than turning it into some grim, manly chore!

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:56 AM

Bit better than to have been hit by a car/truck or whatever wouldn't you say.

The deaths were accidental - road-kill, as I say; in no way was I advocating motor vehicles as a means to humane animal slaughter.

If you eat meat "fresh from the butchers" and are not prepared to go out and kill it, clean it and butcher it yourself please do not hypocritically criticise those that can and do.

I wasn't criticising, hypocritically or otherwise, simply pointing out that, from a UK perspective, killing for trophy or freezer are both sporting indulgences - choices of lifestyle if you will, rather than the sort of noble survival necessity people seem to be implying here.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:25 AM

An issue like this certainly sorts out the thugs and morons from the boys, doesn't it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Gurney
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 03:28 AM

I can't see how the life of this animal is more valuable than any other roebuck. In a wild where there were wolves it would be one of the first to be taken, because nature abhors a 'sport' and that is what off-coloured animals are.
Taking it into a game-park is different, but in the wild it is likely to be low in the pecking-order, as many odd-coloured animals are, and perhaps not live a happy life.

I'm no longer a hunter, but I was, and I fish. It has been 50 years since I killed for anything but food. Never was a trophy hunter, why kill the best there is?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,LTS not even bothering to pretend to work
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 03:17 AM

I have a list of names of people I would like to tender in place of this roe deer (yes, I haven't bothered to read all the thread).

I disapprove of hunting except to eat, most definately disapprove of it as a "sport" but would be quite happy if we could substitute the deer with some of my alleged 'colleagues' who have totally screwed up my day already by leaving my desk inside out (I'm left handed and 5'2", they are righthanded and 6'5"), the Techies who have removed all my personal settings leaving me with a migraine-inducing teal screen - and all before it was even 7.00am!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM

Who were you responding too??? Doesn't look anything like what I wrote. I said we are hunters by nature. That's a pretty broad assessment. Hunting for our supper is the most primitive form. Include in that, hunting for a mate, hunting for the best buy, hunting for your keys...name your hunt; it's what we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 10:35 PM

No ideas but I see what you're saying (and it's relationship to the dimwit look on the deer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 10:21 PM

heric, I don't make out the 'Stuffed Wolf' to be anything like 'Canis Lupus Italicus.'

That entity is wolfish- its head is wolfish and even though the pelt is different from our Grey Wolf, the conformation is wolfish.

The Stuffed Wolf, on the other hand, lacks all of that. The 'bite' of the muzzle is the only part that looks wolfish at all; the cheek is more pitbull than wolf and the body appears all wrong.

Just a minute- I'm going to see if I can find a photo of the 'Red Wolf'.

Nope. It too looks wolfish:

The Red Wolf (Canis Rufus)

Any ideas? Maybe just a bad taxidermist?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:35 PM

Jesus, Slag.




(He "enjoyed" the hunt and you "need" the kill. . . . , but that makes him a dick?)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: gnu
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:23 PM

Well, Slag. I disagree. I always left everything for the ravens and the weasels among many others. Burying, unless it's six feet deep, makes no sense to me. And, burying at six feet deep makes no sense to me. Nature takes care of it...

We always returned the hide, antlers, whatever, back to where it was taken... said another prayer of thanks.

Anthrax? From offal above the ground? When it sits for longer than an ordinary kill or death? But, you said... "Most animals that sense they are dying go to a hidden place to die." Do these particular animals bury each other?

Sorry, but, it don't add up, bud.

I think it's time for me to leave again.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:04 PM

Killing for food, IMO, is *not* the only reason to kill certain animals...

We kill deer because they are destructive to our gardens and crops...

But we don't let them go to waste and have several folks who are very willing to come get them and eat them...

BTW, we had a part albino deer here before last hunting season and I never would have shot it but I think someone did becasue we haven't seen it in several months now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 08:04 PM

Plug Canis lupus italicus into google images and look at the second picture. I'll bet that's yer man.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:57 PM

If the only source of your reality is from the one-eyed god then I suggest you get out and take a close look at the "nature" you so dearly love. It is a kill-or-be-killed world. Most all of life depends on the death of some other life-form.

Having said that, killing for the pleasure of killing is just sick. It's wrong. The pleasure of hunting is not in the killing. The pleasure is the camaraderie of your companions and your dedication to the hunt as well as the satisfaction which comes from the actual hunting and stalking of the creature. We are programmed by nature to be hunters and hunting fulfills this need. We have the utmost respect for nature and the creature we hunt. We never take more than we are limited to by law and conscience, which ever comes first. We clean and prepare the take ourselves. We bury the immediate offal (guts) at the point of the take and do NOT return the unusable or unused portion to the site. Since this was not another predator's take it may sit for longer than an ordinary kill or death. Most animals that sense they are dying go to a hidden place to die. Offal above ground has the possibility of spreading disease, including anthrax, to the living.

I include in my personal ethic, never using alcohol while in the field and leaving the land as I found it. Proper game management insures that those animals will always be on hand for future generations to enjoy, whether just observing or hunting. Never eat what you aren't willing to kill and prepare yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:54 PM

It's just labeled 'Stuffed Wolf', heric.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:48 PM

That's one funky specimen of some European subsepecies you got there, Ebbie. Maybe a Canis lupus italicus. I doubt that's all the taxidermist's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:32 PM

Try this quiz

http://www.quizilla.com/tests/8754630/how-well-do-you-know-endangered-animals

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:32 PM

My first thought when I saw the photo was that the picture of the head of a hare was photoshopped onto a roe's body, but I guess not. Is the strangeness due to its youth, perhaps?

While I was at the site I checked other photos. It struck me how different the stuffed wolf (Red Wolf?) looks from the stereotypical wolf in the US.

Take a look:

Wolf in Scotland

Grey Wolf

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:57 PM

Gun laws in the UK are such now that our largest wild animal, the Red Deer, is just about to be classified in some areas as vermin because of their numbers, the damage that they do to the countryside and due to the accidents they cause.

In the UK deer have no natural predators outside of man and the motor vehicle. In Scotland there is talk of reintroducing the Wolf and the Lynx in an attempt to keep numbers down. The reintroduced wolves and lynx of course will go for sheep and cattle as they will be far easier prey.

The most humane way to control the populations is to cull them by shooting, but in the UK you do not have a sufficient number of hunters who are profficient enough with a rifle, and the end result is that the deer suffer, wild life habitat suffers and the land is permanently damaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: gnu
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:43 PM

All good arguements. But....

I was 12 years old when I put food on my family's table from hunting and fishing. I made money selling rabbits, and put that money in the bank alongside my paper delivery money, and my lawn mowing money, and...

I continued that "tradition" of hunting after I became Master Of Engineering and made a good living.

I still enjoyed going to the woods and taking game. I was first a Master at that. It's a skill. Yes, it's harsh, but is it a skill.

Yes, I enjoyed it. I actually enjoyed the hunt. It's not so easy as many would think.

But, therein lies the thoughts I ponder now.... why did I enjoy it? Even after I could pay someone else to kill, clean and deliver?

Some say "sport" and are disgusted. I am torn. I just don't know anymore. I haven't hunted for a long while.

But, I will never deny anyone the right to hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:17 PM

"there have been times when I've cooked & eaten fresh (i.e. witnessed) road-kill (to boot: several rabbits, a hare, a nice fat pheasant and a muntjack deer) and great bloody fun & feasting it was too, but generally speaking I like my meat fresh from the butchers." - SS

As opposed to:

"I will not go on trophy hunts anything I shoot goes in the freezer." - T

"I don't see the difference between sport for trophy or sport for freezer; either way it's an indulgence, a lifestyle choice if you will, to go out and kill a wild animal which might have been happier to be alive." - SS

Your road-kill might have been happier to have been alive no doubt - but what I have shot is killed instantly and does not suffer - a heart/lung shot and the animal is dead by the time it drops. If you can't guarantee that you do not shoot. Bit better than to have been hit by a car/truck or whatever wouldn't you say.

If you eat meat "fresh from the butchers" and are not prepared to go out and kill it, clean it and butcher it yourself please do not hypocritically criticise those that can and do. Unlike you I have no delusions about what has happened to the animal who supplied the meat you buy "fresh from the butchers".

Better to live as a wild animal for 18 months than exist three years as a domestic animal on a farm that's bred for slaughter.

Life style choice? Certainly wild game is far healthier to eat than domestically reared animals - alot less fat and far tastier.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,d-bartz
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM

For your information its not a hoax, if you go to riflephoto.com you will see all the photos taken over 45 minutes, my rifle was on the ground next to me but didn't want to shoot it.
Don't beleive all you read in the papers.
I agree that it shouldn't be shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 05:01 PM

No, I guess it didn't change. Just very different versions between Daily Mail and Sunday Times (and Telegraph.)

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 04:56 PM

Am I losing my marbles? Did the Daily Mail article change? Now it says:

Mr Stuart, however, says he will not allow anyone to hunt Pearl.

He said: 'This is quite a rare deer and we want to protect it. We would prefer people to come and shoot it with their cameras.

'At the moment it is a yearling and doesn't even have antlers. It is a beautiful animal and we are worried about poachers and people coming to shoot it.

'While it is on this estate it will be safe. I don't care how much anybody offers to kill it, I want to preserve it and make sure it has a long life.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160395/Rare-beautiful-white-deer-just-trophy-hunters.html

Subject: RE: BS: Killing for pleasure
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 03:06 PM

Kevinoaf: "hunting the hunters is much more entertaining than pursuing wild life!"

Gotta say, that's very funny!

How about auctioning up the hunter, rather than just the hunted?