Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Charlie Don't Surf

Britain's Biggest Wild Animal Shot

Recommended Posts

Apparently the Emperor of Exmoor, a large red deer, has been shot by a hunter as the ultimate trophy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11624253

I am by no means into animal rights and am not completely against hunting per se. However this strikes me as the most retarded, small ***** behaviour imaginable. I thought this kind of thing went out of fashion in the 1940s.

What kind of Fu*ktard needs to go out and shoot something because it is big. It's not even like it would be dangerous or difficult (judging by the size it'd be pretty hard to miss!)

The tw@t also shot it right in the middle of rutting season meaning the emperor won't be passing on his genes this year - so bang goes the conservationist excuse often used by hunters.

Well, I hope the 'sportsman' responsible for this gets all the glory thta is heading his way (i.e. named in the media) for his imbecilic act of fu*kery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know the precise circumstances here. Was it diseased or injured? How old was it as deer need to be culled eventually as they just tend to starve to death after a certain age anyway.

Bottom line though is that deer are so numerous as to be essentially vermin these days. They absolutely destroy woodland in very short order so they need to be culled. Why would you not cull a particular animal simply on the basis that it's big?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know the precise circumstances here. Was it diseased or injured? How old was it as deer need to be culled eventually as they just tend to starve to death after a certain age anyway.

Bottom line though is that deer are so numerous as to be essentially vermin these days. They absolutely destroy woodland in very short order so they need to be culled. Why would you not cull a particular animal simply on the basis that it's big?

Find a definition of vermin that couldn't equally be applied to humans. Could better argue too many humans than too few deer.

That aside, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers under control or pest control, but I can't imagine an organised cull leaving the body lying around. The report suggests that the deer was in good health. Nope, it all sounds like someone killing it because they wanted to, an attitude I've always found utterly disgusting (as opposed for pest control, food, or humane reasons, which I don't have a problem with).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know the precise circumstances here. Was it diseased or injured? How old was it as deer need to be culled eventually as they just tend to starve to death after a certain age anyway.

Bottom line though is that deer are so numerous as to be essentially vermin these days. They absolutely destroy woodland in very short order so they need to be culled. Why would you not cull a particular animal simply on the basis that it's big?

From the articles I have seen it appears the deer was shot by a hunter as a trophy on the merit of it's size. I'm not arguing against any of the reasons for shooting deer generally, just questioning what kind of evolutionary throwback wants to shoot an animal as it is the biggest. Maybe the halfwit actually believes it will confer giant stag like powers on him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the articles I have seen it appears the deer was shot by a hunter as a trophy on the merit of it's size. I'm not arguing against any of the reasons for shooting deer generally, just questioning what kind of evolutionary throwback wants to shoot an animal as it is the biggest. Maybe the halfwit actually believes it will confer giant stag like powers on him

Well the evolutionary reason seems simple; the bigger one you kill means you and your tribe get more to eat.

Like I said above, we don't know the actual reason it was shot. Yes, probably simply as a trophy but there may have been other reasons. Also, even though stags are shot as trophies the main reason to cull them is still to control the numbers. Not very many deer can destroy huge amounts of woodland very quickly. In addition, if the numbers get to large then they just start dying of starvation and that potentially affects all of them not just the few that get shot. Indeed, people like the forestry commission actually require you to cull so many annually before they will lease you the sporting rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find a definition of vermin that couldn't equally be applied to humans. Could better argue too many humans than too few deer.

That aside, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers under control or pest control, but I can't imagine an organised cull leaving the body lying around. The report suggests that the deer was in good health. Nope, it all sounds like someone killing it because they wanted to, an attitude I've always found utterly disgusting (as opposed for pest control, food, or humane reasons, which I don't have a problem with).

The article said the body was removed. I doubt it was there very long, it could only have been a matter of minutes. If it was actually left just lying about then that would suggest poaching as anyone legitimately shooting it wouldn't do that. Land owners don't just leave animal carcases lying about and if it's forestry commission land (or similar) they will require them to be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about hunting, but I doubt whether you go up to these animals with a tape measure before you shoot them. They are probably shot from a fair distance away as well.

Seems to me either you are against hunting full stop, or not. Seems to me to be a bit illogical to have problems with shooting only the biggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article said the body was removed. I doubt it was there very long, it could only have been a matter of minutes. If it was actually left just lying about then that would suggest poaching as anyone legitimately shooting it wouldn't do that. Land owners don't just leave animal carcases lying about and if it's forestry commission land (or similar) they will require them to be removed.

They could take the head and leave the rest. The story implied that it's all a bit of a mystery who shot the animal - but how do they even know it was shot then? All sounds a bit odd to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me either you are against hunting full stop, or not. Seems to me to be a bit illogical to have problems with shooting only the biggest.

Biggest, rarest, best... of course I am more against shooting the finest, most magnificent example.

My main point though, which barely seems to be getting across is what kind of freak feels the need to shoot something for the simple reason it is the biggest. Also I'm sure this animal would have been a pretty big attraction, so this muppet has deprived many people of the possibility of seeing the biggest stag in Britain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling today are we 6538? <_<

Not one of your greatest posts, admittedly.

On the subject, it's a shame it was shot, if there had been a good reason, we'd know it by now surely?

And just how much woodland have us humans destroyed?

Let's hope the mindless tw@t (who shot it) gets cancer of the testicles or something equally unpleasant.

I'm just putting forward some facts. Deer destroy woodland very quickly which is why they need to be culled. They eat the bark of trees which kills the tree.

There isn't any particular reason why we'd know why it was shot. In all probability it was because they were culling the numbers and whoever did it decided he wanted to shoot a large one. I don't see the problem with it. The more large deer there are the more damage they will do that smaller ones. Also, the larger they are the more they need to eat so that puts pressure on food supply so more likelihood of deer starving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could take the head and leave the rest. The story implied that it's all a bit of a mystery who shot the animal - but how do they even know it was shot then? All sounds a bit odd to be honest.

If it was killed legitimately then whoever shot it - or allowed it to be shot - is whomever owns the land or the sporting rights on the land. Again, if it were legitimate they would take it all as it's worth something for meat and landowners don't go leaving dead animals on their property. As I say, if it's FC land then it certainly wouldn't just be left as you aren't allowed to do that sort of thing. If you gralloch it at the site then you are even required to bury the entrails, feet, etc, to save upsetting any passing tree hugger types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest, rarest, best... of course I am more against shooting the finest, most magnificent example.

My main point though, which barely seems to be getting across is what kind of freak feels the need to shoot something for the simple reason it is the biggest. Also I'm sure this animal would have been a pretty big attraction, so this muppet has deprived many people of the possibility of seeing the biggest stag in Britain

Like I said, there are probably some good evolutionary reasons as to why people feel the need to hunt the biggest. Doesn't make them a freak - in fact quite the opposite if you think about it rationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, there are probably some good evolutionary reasons as to why people feel the need to hunt the biggest. Doesn't make them a freak - in fact quite the opposite if you think about it rationally.

Would those be the same evolutionary reasons that make someone want to punch someone who annoys them, and screw any woman they fancied shagging? Fortunately most human beings have grown up past the point of just following instincts. And even going back to when the type of hunting behaviour you describe was useful for survival killing more when you've already got food is a damaging behaviour - the extra rots before you eat it, and you increase the odds of there not being anything there when you do need it. Being able to place rational thought over instincts is why humans have been so succesful. Instinct and result can often just go together by chance. A cat with its prey behaves differently to a cat with a bowl of food, for example, it's just that the behaviour has survived because in the wild one happens to produce the other. Similarly the urge to have sex has very little to do with the urge to procreate. Being capable of drawing the link and controlling when you follow those instincts is advanced behaviour leading to greater evolutionary success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time you grabbed a gun and went out and brought home a deer for supper then?

Why does it matter? If it's something we have evolved to do then that isn't going to evolve its self away in a mere few generations.

Besides, lots of people do still do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of someone doing this when there are things called supermarkets in the modern age.

As for 'lots of people' doing it, compare that to the total populous which don't, I'd suggest the number is currently, infinitesimal.

I would argue that hunting like this doesn't make you a man, now going up against a lion without a gun and winning would (in it's most basic primaeval state). :)

Why is it absurd simply because you choose to source your food, or at least some of it, from a less popular method? There are probably lots of environmental reasons for not using supermarkets as well. The deer need to be culled, this is beyond question, so what's wrong with some people wanting to do that job and eat the results? The alternative is to cull them and then chuck them away with is way beyond absurd.

True, there aren't many people doing it in relation to the population of the UK but the world over many people live like this. That again though isn't a reason for some people not to do it if they chose to.

Who's saying that doing any of this "makes you a man"? Surely, if you want to argue the moral or ethical side to it then shooting the odd deer in a field is orders of magnitude better than killing hundreds of lambs in an slaughter house every day. I mean, I find it difficult to believe that slaughtermen are repulsed by their jobs day in, day out. And, surely, doing it your self is morally more acceptable than simply eating the shrink-wrapped result of someone elses industrial slaughter machine? Lots of people who decry the fact that others like to hunt their own food are quite happy to do the latter without any criticism at all. They'll eat the results but won't take the moral responsibility for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it absurd simply because you choose to source your food, or at least some of it, from a less popular method? There are probably lots of environmental reasons for not using supermarkets as well. The deer need to be culled, this is beyond question, so what's wrong with some people wanting to do that job and eat the results? The alternative is to cull them and then chuck them away with is way beyond absurd.

Well, fine, if you like tough old venison. Besides, we're talking about people hunting for trophies, not for food. People who do it mostly because they enjoy killing things and want a trophy. To me, that's reprehensible, and quite different from someone who doesn't like supermarkets and just wants to get their own food and is prepared to do what's necessary to get it. To want to eat is fine. To want to kill is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many will be getting quite upset about this article.. while tucking into a nice bacon sandwich :rolleyes:

I can't get upset about hunting when animal's raised for consumption clearly have a much lower standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling today are we 6538? dry.gif

Not one of your greatest posts, admittedly.

On the subject, it's a shame it was shot, if there had been a good reason, we'd know it by now surely?

And just how much woodland have us humans destroyed?

Let's hope the mindless tw@t (who shot it) gets cancer of the testicles or something equally unpleasant.

+ 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get upset about hunting when animal's raised for consumption clearly have a much lower standard of living.

Those are two separate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, fine, if you like tough old venison. Besides, we're talking about people hunting for trophies, not for food. People who do it mostly because they enjoy killing things and want a trophy. To me, that's reprehensible, and quite different from someone who doesn't like supermarkets and just wants to get their own food and is prepared to do what's necessary to get it. To want to eat is fine. To want to kill is not.

That's not quite true and is the mistake commonly made by anti-hunting types. What these people actually enjoy is hunting not killing for the sake of killing. That's pefectly understanable from an evolutionary poing of view. If they just wanted to kill things for the sake of killing them then slaughter houses would have people queing round the block for jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite true and is the mistake commonly made by anti-hunting types. What these people actually enjoy is hunting not killing for the sake of killing. That's pefectly understanable from an evolutionary poing of view. If they just wanted to kill things for the sake of killing them then slaughter houses would have people queing round the block for jobs.

They enjoy an activity that has the killing as an inehrent part of it. of the action. That's different from eating IMO, where it's just a means to the end. If the hunter didn't want to kill he could shoot the animal with a paintball gun.

You may as well defend a rapist by saying that he only likes the sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1

And this is another thing common among anti-hunt types. They seem to wish things upon humans that they wouldn't wish on animals. Do you also wish that the bloke who slaughtered your lamb (assumuming you aren't vegan) gets cancer?

Anyone who is not 100% vegan is no different at all from anyone who chooses to hunt their own food. Sorry but they just aren't. It's just peoples little prejudices coming out. If the situation were reversed and hunting your own food were as common as industrially produced meat is then we would see the people who are making comments about hunters making exactly the same ones in respect of slaughtermen. Too many people like to wallow in a bit of righteous indignation too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are two separate issues.

No, they are both two sides of the same argument. The bottom line is that some bloke blows an animals brains out so that humans can eat it. If it were the case that all slaughtermen hated their jobs and could barely face going to work on a mornign then you might have a case. I very much doubt that's true though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 246 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.