[Off Topic] Who says hunting is... | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
dariusgriffin
belb
...and 646 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614087
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
[Off Topic] Who says hunting is...
 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 08:36 [#02049953]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



...the preserve of the upper classes?

Looks like the chavs are getting in on the action. Don't get
me wrong, Deer are a nuisance/danger in the southeast and
there should be a provision to ensure enough are
culled, but this ain't the way to do it, IMO.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2007-02-14 08:40 [#02049955]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



404 on that link.

How the fuck do you justify calling deer a nuisance or
danger?

Because they might interfere with your fucking motoring,
which is of paramount fucking importance?

Fucking fuck.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 08:48 [#02049960]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict



round my place at home they fuck up fences and scare sheep
too, but i still only seem to be a minor disturbance. i see
them by the road a lot, but never in it.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2007-02-14 08:51 [#02049961]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



they fuck up the fences, do they? and scare the sheep?

those fucking cunts


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 08:51 [#02049962]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02049953



airguns are a wee bit dodgy. definitely useful on a farm as
a cheap alternative to a proper rifle etc. but i think they
should be licensed. there's someone in my house with one who
wants to go out and kill foxes and squirrels with it - in
the middle of fucking Leicester. not a good idea.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 08:52 [#02049963]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to redrum: #02049961



which is why i said "they only seem to be a minor
disturbance"


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 09:11 [#02049973]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to redrum: #02049955 | Show recordbag



Yes, they kill dozens of motorists a year and injure
hundreds, not to mention thousands more incidents of damage
to vehicles. This is a particular problem around
September/November (dark nights and mating season, so they
run across the road all the time). A woman in a 4x4 was
killed by one about 5 miles from here 2 years back. Don't
think they're "green" either. Because they have no natural
predators here and hunting is out of fashion/largely
outlawed, they also knacker fences and eat crops, and
farmers hate 'em. The cost agriculture millions just in the
south east and also damage protected woodland (by feeding on
trees).

Most of the country, even in Northern Scotland, they're not
a big problem. In the south east there are absolutely loads
of the buggers. It's a recognised problem and they're
changing the law on it because it has gotten so bad
(see here).

As I say, I think we do need to cull them, but hunting them
with dogs and air rifles is incredibly cruel and not the way
to do it. I suppose the original article (link works for me
BTW) also illustrates that they're increasingly moving into
more urban areas (not unlike bears in bits of America) where
not only will the amount of incidents involving
traffic/fences and litter soar exponentially, but there's
the added danger to pedestrians. Bucks in mating season are
rather feisty to say the least and would wreck most humans
in a tussle.

Have you seen the damage done to communities when pikeys
graze their horses on urban areas? Deer aren't so different.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 09:15 [#02049983]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02049962 | Show recordbag



With the cost of shotgun cartridges these days, I can't see
a legit use for airguns for pest control, apart from places
where you need v. low penetration (like in buildings) or
where you need comparative silence (hunting rabbits). Hell,
a half decent double barrel shotgun is now cheaper than
serious pest control airgun anyway. I think using airguns on
larger animals (such as deer) is inherently cruel as you're
unlikely to kill the animal swiftly.

I'd be all for airgun licencing and I'm someone who shoots
and think gun laws for sport/hunting are a bit
over-restrictive in this country.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 09:23 [#02049991]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02049973



people actually get killed because of the buggers? didnt
realise.

redrum: i presume you don't drive?


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 09:25 [#02049992]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02049983



they use air rifles on the farm at home to kill foxes. they
lose a chicken every week to foxes, and so they just shoot
them on sight.


 

offline Morton from out (Netherlands, The) on 2007-02-14 09:26 [#02049995]
Points: 10000 Status: Addict



i like Hunting Bears


 

offline dog_belch from Netherlands, The on 2007-02-14 09:35 [#02050003]
Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



The other day I turned the corner into my road and walked
straight into a horse. I didn't think about killing them
all, but there is some rural type who lets his fucking mangy
steeds wander round our close eating the grass and crapping
everyone, chased everywhere by a pack of dogs. Oh the joys
of nature.

This hasn't got much to do with the thread. You can't shoot
Bambi, no matter how many there are, it won't be a problem
anyway on the road soon when all the mums in their SUVs and
4x4s upgrade to Urban Humvees and armoured cars.


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:35 [#02050004]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular



cars, humans and fences are better than deer :D

(my arse)

are deers the new wolf? (we exterminated tons of wolves
and it's made whole parks in the states die, trees and
grass , birds and herbivores all suffered from the
dissapearance of the wolf.)

i guess we like to control it all, and it's always gonna be
for our sake and fuck the rest.


 

offline The_Funkmaster from St. John's (Canada) on 2007-02-14 09:36 [#02050006]
Points: 16280 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #02049961



there we go, that's the redrum we've come to expect!


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:37 [#02050007]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular | Followup to dog_belch: #02050003



hahaha! hummer city


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 09:38 [#02050008]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to RussellDust: #02050004



well there's no problem with them being in parks, is there?
but the ones over here are wild and free to cause whatever
havoc they will e.g. causing motorists to swerve out of the
way and end up getting killed.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 09:39 [#02050009]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02049992 | Show recordbag



Yeah, it's not really common knowledge, most people think
it's really rare and in most of the country, it is. Round
here (near my work- not home in Wales!) everyone knows
someone who has been involved in an accident with one.

Thinking about it I have heard of people hunting foxes at
night with air rifles- it's because you can get ones that
are silent and it gives you a chance of a second shot if you
miss, isn't it?

I also think the majority of air rifles in urban areas are
used for less than savoury purposes. I suppose this is
changing a bit with the growing popularity of airsoft (not
something I'm into, but I know a few people who are big fans
and wouldn't like a blanket ban). I'm not sure of the
specifics of the legislation, but I'd hope some distinction
would be made between pellet airguns and plastic BB ones (if
there's not already) for this reason.


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:39 [#02050010]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular



"air rifles on packs of dogs and deer"

i could torture these kids.


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:41 [#02050011]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02050008



yeah i know mate, but i still think that way of seing things
is shit. loadsa of deer where i live, i dunno HOW WE DO IT!


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:42 [#02050012]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular



is this thread about 'survival' ?


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 09:46 [#02050016]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to RussellDust: #02050004 | Show recordbag



Ironically, they are currently talking about re-introducing
wolves to northern Scotland for ecological reasons. They're
already anticipating that within 150 years they'll reach the
stage where they're a significant pest and the benefits will
be outweighed by the disadvantages (and suggest we could
re-introduce wolf hunting to deal with it). A lot of people
are dead against it (the reintroduction) mind...


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 09:54 [#02050024]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #02050016



yeah was reading about it a few days ago. i had
fascination for the wolf/human thing a while ago and did a
bit of research and stuff and was quite amazed.

i'm not surprised some people are dead against it though,
'specially farmers.

i'll put the kettle on.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 09:54 [#02050026]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02050008 | Show recordbag



Oh, my dear Ezkerraldean, motorists are evil and deserve all
they get. Even if they swerve to avoid a buck and plough
into a line of kids waiting for a bus, killing dozens of
people, it's a price worth paying so we can have some nice
looking animals that are bad for our ecology and ruin
farming running about.

RussellDust: Recently they reintroduced otters near hear.
They've been nothing but trouble, daming rivers and
seriously depleting fish stocks. In the words of an old farm
hand I was chatting to about it, "It's these daft twats from
the city who don't know the ways of the country interfering
where they shouldn't. If an animal harms your crops or
livestock, it's a pest and should be destroyed."

Now, that's putting it a bit black and white; I agree
sometimes it can actually be better in the long run to
introduce something to the ecosystem. I think we should bear
in mind, however, that most past attempts at predicting what
effects introducing an animal will have, have been
inaccurate at best (Red Squirrels in English parkland and
American crayfish in UK waters, anyone?) and more often,
spectacularly inaccurate and overall a resoundingly bad
idea.


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 10:00 [#02050031]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #02050026



well sure, i understand what you're saying. i do feel
there's a difference between some rich twats putting new
species into rivers that end up eating everything else. or
these american catfish that carry a fungus that kills the Og
catfish in rivers. some species did belong in 'your' rivers
and forests though and we killed them all. re-introducing
something that was there before may cause trouble but you
know, it's not like introducing new 'exotic' species that
end up fucking up the ecosystem that was in place.

i do get your point of view, but in the end you still only
really think about humans.

as for the bit about the guy swerving to miss a deer but
who runs a line of kids over, that was hilarious. :)




 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 10:01 [#02050033]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular



fuck i meant crayfish and didn't finish reading your post
before i dug in. soz about that.


 

offline Chihiro from twins land on 2007-02-14 10:20 [#02050037]
Points: 4650 Status: Regular



whistlez to the jungle book soundtrack ...


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2007-02-14 10:28 [#02050042]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



i see like 65 deer a day around my house, but i have yet to
feel the desire to shoot one.

i do wanna throw a saddle on one and ride it around the
woods though.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-14 10:31 [#02050045]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to RussellDust: #02050031 | Show recordbag



I'm quite open about the fact that I care about humans more
than animals. I don't only care about animals when
it's directly in human's interests though, for example I'm
not keen on hunting for sport unless it is a form of pest
control. I do feel in cases where farmers' crops will be
affected in any sort of significant way, and especially when
people will be injured or killed, that I think humans have
priority. I know and respect the other side of the argument,
my last girlfriend was an active conservationist and indeed
I myself have helped with conservation projects that aren't
directly in human's interests (woodland preservation and
forestry management in the UK, Archelon in Greece, etc). I
think your earlier point about survival is accurate; I think
I ultimately consider myself a survivalist and my attitude
to animals stems from this.

No worries about the crayfish mistake. Crayfish are the
tastiest seafood though, IMO.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 11:10 [#02050063]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02050026



that's not what i said at all! i didnt know they were
responsible for people getting killed. if they are causing
problems like that, i am all up for getting rid of them. i
live on a farm and know that they can piss people off, but
not to any great degree in situations like that. i've never
been threatened by one in the road despite seeing them quite
often near roads. but if they are causing problems as
serious as road deaths then fuck 'em.

Redrum would probably say otherwise though.



 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 11:20 [#02050067]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02050045



its quite interesting how my views have changed actually.
when i was living in a town (albeit a tiny ural town) i was
quite pro-animal rights, and got really pissed off with my
farmer friends when they told me about when they went out
shooting rabbits. but now i've lived on a farm for a fair
while (outside of uni anyway) my mindset has changed a lot.
i've realised that various cute and cuddly little animals
are little more than pests to farmers. i no longer swerve to
avoid rabbits in the road. so many of the fucking cunts.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-14 11:22 [#02050069]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



Deer are vermin. I'm all for hunting them, especially if it
upsets weepy stupid hippies.

Reintroduce wolves, hunt the goddamn deer, and let men go
armed. That's my platform.


 

offline staz on 2007-02-14 11:53 [#02050074]
Points: 9844 Status: Regular



i'd rather see deer killed than human beings. more space for
us, less for them. fuck em.


 

offline RussellDust on 2007-02-14 13:30 [#02050136]
Points: 16078 Status: Regular | Followup to fleetmouse: #02050069



i bet you actively take part in the whole seal culling in
canada (baby seal season) and LOVE IT! :D


 

offline giginger from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-14 14:06 [#02050152]
Points: 26326 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Oh deer!


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-14 20:02 [#02050269]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker



I think Redrum is making the point that humans are so
egocentric and arrogant that because a certain animal is a
nuisance to them or their property/pets/lifestyle, they must
therefore be a nuisance/menace/danger full-stop, and
therefore killed by humans. I'd say it was a fair point: I
don't see many deer on the brink of nuclear meltdown or
committing genocidal atrocities on other type of deer. I
know the normal rebuttal to this is "Oh, but if they could
they would" or "well, they don't have the intelligence of
hand[to]eye co-ordination to press the button"; I don't buy
either of those arguments.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2007-02-14 20:36 [#02050278]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict | Followup to marlowe: #02050269



and also, "they cause accidents",

FUCK OFF

YOU'RE DRIVING A FUCKING CAR
PAY ATTENTION
IF YOU'RE CERI JC THEN YOU KNOW THE BRAKING DISTANCES IN WET
WEATHER AT 48MPH AND SO SHOULD BE DRIVING ACCORDINGLY,
INSTEAD OF MOANING ABOUT CULLING DEER.

it's the FUCKING DRIVER'S FAULT, not the deer's.

if this were a discussion in a pub, ceri, and i were drunk
enough, i tell you, the temptation to shove my pint glass in
your face would be immense.

you are something else, you know that? something fucking
else


 

offline Babaouo from Dolce (Monaco) on 2007-02-14 20:55 [#02050283]
Points: 787 Status: Regular



Yes they do interfere with our motoring.

But so do Kangaroo's and Elk.

Sometimes Ducks walk across our streets and slow us down...

I've also been inconvenienced by squirrels and the Amish..


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-02-14 20:57 [#02050284]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #02050278



your anger and threats to harm another person for their
viewpoint do not reflect your compassion for animals.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-02-14 21:16 [#02050287]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker



how can anyone validate the suffering caused for animals (or
humans) for the sake of something inanimate such as roads or
traffic, or because of any judgement?

or worse still, how can it be viewed as entertainment once
one is aware of the nature of that suffering?


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-15 02:23 [#02050322]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02050063 | Show recordbag



I know mate, I was taking the piss out of redrum. ;)


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-15 02:38 [#02050325]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to redrum: #02050278 | Show recordbag



I think you're the arrogant one. You know fuck-all about
driving and so far as I know, don't even drive, but seem to
feel you are the authority on the matter. You also seem to
think that because you don't drive personally,
everyone who does is somehow engaging in a selfish dangeorus
hobby and it is completely uneccessary. If you were some
hippy living out in the sticks and having bugger all to do
with modern life, I could at least understand and respect
your viewpoint.

As it is, from what I can gather, you live in a fairly built
up area and attend a university. Well, guess what feller,
you need cars to sustain your way of life just as much as
the people who drive. My "office" is at home, so I don't
drive every day- I could actually get by without a car for
personal use and in fact do often walk, rather than drive
when I can(case in point, I walked a mile and a half across
town this morning, rather than driving, to get to a job). I
do drive and ride an awful lot for work though- 95%+ of my
miles are done for business. Guess who my main clients are?
Universities. So, if I (and people who do my job) can't
drive, your happy little backwater student existance
wouldn't be possible (or at least, it would cost you a great
deal more).

You're incredibly ignorant. Saying "It's always the driver's
fault" when you know fuck-all on the subject is like me
making some wildly inaccurate sweeping comment like "All
plane crashes are the pilot's fault". In intrigued as to
where your irrational hatred of drivers comes from. Were
your parents killed by a dangerous driver or something? I've
been hit by a car as pedestrian. The driver stopped, waved
me across in front of him, then stalled the car and it
lurched forward into me. Made me pissed me of at him,
didn't alter my attitude to drivers as a whole.

Your comment about glassing was rather out of line too.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-15 02:53 [#02050329]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to redrum: #02050278



so what if a deer is startled and runs out in front of you?
nothing you can do then, is there?
its not as if they just stand static in the road


 

offline unabomber from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) on 2007-02-15 02:54 [#02050330]
Points: 3756 Status: Regular



I'm with the deers in this one...


 

offline Taxidermist from Black Grass on 2007-02-15 03:03 [#02050334]
Points: 9958 Status: Lurker



As soon as a species is removed from an ecosystem,
reintroducing it is the same as trying to introduce an
exotic species. There is no way you can fix what was done by
undoing it.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-15 03:10 [#02050337]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Just out of interest, what are the opinions of people who
'side with the deer' on the following (assuming they're not
vegatarians, of course!):

Breeding and keeping, say, cows for milk and meat, where the
animal's whole life is rather joyless and artificial (I'm
sure they can't be "happy" in this situation, if indeed
animals can feel happiness in any meaningful way). I think
hunting an animal is a bit more natural- it's what animals
do to one another in the wild.

It's often overlooked today, but rabbit used to be a staple
meat, far moreso than chicken or cow in Britain (especially
rural areas), up until the end of WW1. Would it be better to
encourage the hunting of certain animals for food that
currently are often just killed as "pests" by farmers, eg
rabbits and deer? Even among farmers, a lot of rabbits
killed are not eaten. If we ate more rabbit and deer, fewer
animals would be killed in total, not to mention the need
for fewer animals to be kept in captivity.


 

offline Ezkerraldean from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-15 03:18 [#02050342]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict | Followup to Ceri JC: #02050337



free-range farming presumably keeps cows etc. happy. i'm all
for that, and it's what they do at home.



 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-15 03:22 [#02050345]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #02050342 | Show recordbag



Yes, when I've kept chickens they've been free range and
seemed happy. I was talking more about intensive "rammed in
like cattle" farming where the animals really do have a poor
quality of life. Imagine we could replace that with
the hunting.


 

offline Raz0rBlade_uk on 2007-02-15 03:45 [#02050358]
Points: 12540 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



chavs should be the ones getting fucking culled. cunts


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-02-15 03:46 [#02050359]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Raz0rBlade_uk: #02050358 | Show recordbag



Agreed.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2007-02-15 03:55 [#02050364]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker



i just look at it from an ethical viewpoint, which has been
influenced by a few dozen buddhist dhamma talks.

but i have a problem taking the argument to a dietary level
because of my chef training. that makes it hard. i can say
that i dont want to drop any live lobsters in boiling water
:(


 


Messageboard index