Britain's Biggest Wild Animal Shot

[6538]

They are scum.

More magnificent animals reduced to headless corpses by these human retards.

I assume then that you feel the same way about pork and chicken production? Do you make similar comments regarding butchers?

[6538]

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.

I'm sure the slaughterman enjoys his job to some extent too. People enjoy their bacon sandwiches and roast dinners, there is no difference when you get right down to it. We eat meat because we derive pleasure from it rather than it actually being essential to us. People eat meat because they find it pleasurable, therefore, there is no difference between killing an animal to sick its head on the wall and killing it to eat.

[Charlie Don't Surf]

[quote name=Oh Well ' timestamp='1288106892' post='2762159]

Look at this

Sheep hunting in Mongolia!

What a load of small penises!

Small Men

What a load of small penises!

I rest my case! Grinning over corpses cos they bagged a big un. Hunting prime animals that the rest of us might enjoy seeing in the wild is vandalism. The deer that got shot was shot for the sole reason that it had acquired some fame.

And this is another thing common among anti-hunt types. They seem to wish things upon humans that they wouldn't wish on animals.

Like I said I'm not out and out opposed to hunting. However, I find most of the people who get dressed up at the weekend to do so need culling themselves. They have no reason except some sort of primitive drive.

[6538]

So, you seem to be suggesting (or the logical conclusion would be) there is skill in hunting with a telescopic rifle which can kill from a mile plus than with an evolutionary weapon like a bow and arrow then?

I think you are crediting these so called 'hunters' with too much upstairs, when really they are probably trying to make up for what they haven't got in their nether regions.

Edit: Typo.

Of course there is skill to it. Have a go at seeing how easy it is to hit something a mile away, or even a couple of hundred yards away. Different skills to using a bow but not that much.

[Daft Boy]

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.

But you moaned about Roul Moat hunting down and shooting coppers. At least Moat never killed for the head and helmet trophy.

[Riedquat]

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.

No, that is not the bottom line at all. It would be if hunters only hunted for food, and didn't get any pleasure (as opposed to perhaps some satisfaction) from the hunting. You're trying to defend hunting by equating it with something else. I don't have a problem with hunting for food; I've already said as much, but I have a massive problem with hunting for sport, the whole purpose of which is to simply kill an animal. If the killing wasn't a fundamental part of it would the sport hunter be dissapointed if he didn't make a kill? Why wouldn't the paintball gun be just as good? Did whoever shoot this stag merely think "I fancy venison for dinner tonight"? If that was all it was it would be fine, but if the suggestions that he paid a large amount of money to shoot this particular animal are true then that's a load of nonsense.`

[Riedquat]

I'm sure the slaughterman enjoys his job to some extent too. People enjoy their bacon sandwiches and roast dinners, there is no difference when you get right down to it. We eat meat because we derive pleasure from it rather than it actually being essential to us. People eat meat because they find it pleasurable, therefore, there is no difference between killing an animal to sick its head on the wall and killing it to eat.

And because our insides aren't very well adapted to a diet without meat.

Quite honestly if you can't see the difference between taking a trophy - that's celebrating the kill, and eating, where the killing is merely a means to an end, then you're not thinking about this very hard. The food requirement could be entirely satisfied with some Star Trek-style replicator. Would a hunter be happy with the same sort of thing?

[northwestsmith2]

Britain's Biggest Wild Animal Shot

Not a very big stag , the average is about 260lbs for a carcass, missing it's head and guts.

We have so many deer you have to cull them, or get a predator in to do it.

[libspero]

And because our insides aren't very well adapted to a diet without meat.

Quite honestly if you can't see the difference between taking a trophy - that's celebrating the kill, and eating, where the killing is merely a means to an end, then you're not thinking about this very hard. The food requirement could be entirely satisfied with some Star Trek-style replicator. Would a hunter be happy with the same sort of thing?

Perhaps you should ask the animal you're killing whether he prefers to be shot for game or food..

I'm sure he couldn't care less!

(He might, however, prefer life in the wild over life in an intensive farm before hand).

[Riedquat]

Perhaps you should ask the animal you're killing whether he prefers to be shot for game or food..

I'm sure he couldn't care less!

Quite, due to being unable to care, due to being unable to formulate the thought. It's not a relevent consideration. Motivation and reason is everything, otherwise it's either only right to never kill anything at all, or fine to go and blow the hell out of everything that you can find.

(He might, however, prefer life in the wild over life in an intensive farm before hand).

Which is of course an issue, but not the one under discussion here.

[libspero]

Quite, due to being unable to care, due to being unable to formulate the thought. It's not a relevent consideration. Motivation and reason is everything, otherwise it's either only right to never kill anything at all, or fine to go and blow the hell out of everything that you can find.

That's my point though. Your position doesn't focus around animal welfare or the suffering of the creature in question.. you are simply interested in vilifying somebody who derives pleasure/satisfaction from something you disagree with.

[libspero]

Or course it does!

We don't know if this animal suffered whether it was chased or what do we?

What's wrong with vilifying the shooter?

Nothing, except you have to reconcile that animals raised for consumption have a far worse existence than this creature has had.

I'm just saying that your vilification of hunters should perhaps be proportional to that of meat eaters / people involved with animal husbandry.

[Danny Deflation]

Can't understand the pleasure that anyone gets out of killing animals. Sick b4stard, whoever it was.

[ccc]

RIP

[Charlie Don't Surf]

.. you are simply interested in vilifying somebody who derives pleasure/satisfaction from something you disagree with.

Yep, more or less. Just trying to work out what kind of deviant thinks 'hmm, biggest stag in Britain. Remarkable, must get down there and kill it'. No great skill involved, just drive down, load up, pop! Job done go home. That is just weird displacement behavior for some kind of even more socio-pathic behaviour

[Number79]

I listened to the report on radio 4 this morning. Initially I was disgusted that the largest animal in the country was shot by a hunter that paid for it.

Having thought about it I do not see it in quite the same light now. The animal was old and wild. He may have had a few years yet but what then? Deer tend not to die a quick or pleasant death in old age. It may be early but a quick death from being shot may have been the most human thing rather than him starving to death one winter or suffering disease or from a wound going bad.

The timing borders on stupidity though imo. Killing the animal in rutting season seems an obvious waste but then maybe the estate manager allowed it deliberately? Maybe they don't want too many genes passed on from this 9ft beast. Can't say that I agree though.

As much as I think that the hunter is a to55er and would like to take his rifle from him and put a hole in his foot he may well not have done such a terrible thing. Had this been done by someone involved in animal husbandry or conservation rather than some rich tory boy to55er then I doubt that the outrage would have been anywhere near the same.

[ccc]

Yep, more or less. Just trying to work out what kind of deviant thinks 'hmm, biggest stag in Britain. Remarkable, must get down there and kill it'. No great skill involved, just drive down, load up, pop! Job done go home. That is just weird displacement behavior for some kind of even more socio-pathic behaviour

Maybe that didn't happen ? Not sure myself as I wasn't there but neither were you - I presume.

Maybe from a distance a 9ft stag looks preyy similar to a 6ft stag and the person shooting had no idea.

Maybe not. Neither of us know for sure.

[libspero]

As much as I think that the hunter is a to55er and would like to take his rifle from him and put a hole in his foot he may well not have done such a terrible thing. Had this been done by someone involved in animal husbandry or conservation rather than some rich tory boy to55er then I doubt that the outrage would have been anywhere near the same.

This has been an interesting thread on many levels.

I always imagined the majority of people involved in shooting as being young working class lads in rural areas shooting rabbits / pigeons with a shotgun/air rifle.

My mother was from farming stock at a time when it was not unusual to decapitate a chicken for dinner. Shooting a rabbit was no bad thing either.. or probably a fox for that matter.

When it is part of your upbringing it's no big deal.. you don't think much more about the animal you just shot than the bacon sandwich you had for lunch. It certainly wasn't that they wanted to drink it's blood and revel in it's torture. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Riedquat]

This has been an interesting thread on many levels.

I always imagined the majority of people involved in shooting as being young working class lads in rural areas shooting rabbits / pigeons with a shotgun/air rifle.

My mother was from farming stock at a time when it was not unusual to decapitate a chicken for dinner. Shooting a rabbit was no bad thing either.. or probably a fox for that matter.

When it is part of your upbringing it's no big deal.. you don't think much more about the animal you just shot than the bacon sandwich you had for lunch. It certainly wasn't that they wanted to drink it's blood and revel in it's torture. Quite the opposite in fact.

If the shooting is just a means to an end, to get something to eat, or to get rid of a pest, or to stop the animal from starving to death once it's unable to feed itself, I would agree. What I can't understand is anyone who actually wants to go out and shoot at a living creature as something to do in its own right.

That's my point though. Your position doesn't focus around animal welfare or the suffering of the creature in question.. you are simply interested in vilifying somebody who derives pleasure/satisfaction from something you disagree with.

It's not simply a question of vilifying something I disagree with, or at least no more than I would vilify someone who does anything else that I think is unethical. Anyone who does anything unethical should be vilified, so the debate should merely concentrate on what is ethical and what isn't. It's not hard to find plenty of examples of things that are fine or not depending upon the context they're done in, even if the end results to someone or something are the same. Take, for example, building a much-needed new road. You might ultimately have to force someone out of their home in order to build it. Needs to be done, get on with the job, and it's ultimately fine as long as your motivations are good enough. I'd be seriously worried about anyone who would set out wanting to have to do a job like that though.

If the animal is killed instantly there is no suffering anyway. I've never shot anything but I've set mousetraps with no qualms. If I saw a mouse in the middle of nowhere I'd have no urge to do it any harm, and would be rather disgusted with anyone who did.

[profitofdoom]

If the shooting is just a means to an end, to get something to eat, or to get rid of a pest, or to stop the animal from starving to death once it's unable to feed itself, I would agree. What I can't understand is anyone who actually wants to go out and shoot at a living creature as something to do in its own right.

It's not simply a question of vilifying something I disagree with, or at least no more than I would vilify someone who does anything else that I think is unethical. Anyone who does anything unethical should be vilified, so the debate should merely concentrate on what is ethical and what isn't. It's not hard to find plenty of examples of things that are fine or not depending upon the context they're done in, even if the end results to someone or something are the same. Take, for example, building a much-needed new road. You might ultimately have to force someone out of their home in order to build it. Needs to be done, get on with the job, and it's ultimately fine as long as your motivations are good enough. I'd be seriously worried about anyone who would set out wanting to have to do a job like that though.

If the animal is killed instantly there is no suffering anyway. I've never shot anything but I've set mousetraps with no qualms. If I saw a mouse in the middle of nowhere I'd have no urge to do it any harm, and would be rather disgusted with anyone who did.

It's quite interesting to me the way opinions have gone on this.Some of those who are anti are not the ones that I would have expected to have been.As a meat eater I cannot really criticise too much,although I always buy free range for welfare reasons.

It does seem however that many of those who indulge in shooting animals for fun are motivated at best by the same kind of reasons that cause yobbos to smash things up.At worst I think many of them would have herded the inmates in the SS death camps to their doom,it takes that kind of lacking in empathy mindset.I see the Kharma got Prince Charle's pal at the weekend.

[Freeholder]

Interesting that all the anger, spite, hatred and general ill will on this thread has come from the anti hunting types. This matches with my personal experience of such people. A nasty bunch to whom hating comes naturally.

Somebody has shot an old stag that was quite big, although not as the news stated the biggest. So what, happen lots of times every season. Probably the proprieter decided to include it in this years cull because it was old and getting a bit past it. There are more deer in Britain than at any time for the last thousand years and large numbers are shot annually to keep the numbers down to a level the land can support. Many are eaten and jolly tasty they are too especially the younger ones. This old beast is more likely to be feeding somebodys dogs.

Nothing much to see here just a very mundane and common event built up into a story by the press providing some people so inclined with a doubtless welcome opportunity to express their hatred for some of their fellow men.

[Riedquat]

Interesting that all the anger, spite, hatred and general ill will on this thread has come from the anti hunting types. This matches with my personal experience of such people. A nasty bunch to whom hating comes naturally.

That's a rather pathetic attempt at turning it on its head. Tell me, how do you feel towards people who engage in actions that you find vile and abhorrent?

[ccc]

They do get their own back sometimes.

Foxes eat people. Beware.

Fox eats man

[Freeholder]

That's a rather pathetic attempt at turning it on its head. Tell me, how do you feel towards people who engage in actions that you find vile and abhorrent?

''Pathetic...vile...abhorrent..'' You do make one of my points rather well for me.

Lots of deer need to be shot every year. Some people enjoy doing it. Get used to it.

[Riedquat]

''Pathetic...vile...abhorrent..'' You do make one of my points rather well for me.

Lots of deer need to be shot every year. Some people enjoy doing it. Get used to it.

That's your idea of making your point? You find absolutely nothing vile or abhorrent? That's very strange. Or is it simply because I find something vile and abhorrent that you do not?

If you've read my posts you'll see that I accept that sometimes deer need shooting. Saying get used to the fact that some people enjoy doing it, though, is an appalling response. It's not even trying to defend the behaviour, and without that you could apply the same statement to any behaviour no matter how unpleasant it is. How would you regard a person who actually enjoyed forcing people out of their home so that it can be bulldozed to make a road? Sometimes that may need doing, and "get used to it" could fair enough be applied to that, but to say the same about someone who would actually enjoy doing that...