Do you know what though? They'd have an even better life if some pr!ck with a gun didn't take it upon himself to end it!

Tell you what. You're going to die someday and other people have it far worse anyway, so I'll take it you'll have no objection if I come and slaughter you while you innocently go about your business.

No, I'll bother answering it if you don't mind. It's simple really. Do 2 wrongs make a right in your book?

do you eat meat? or have any leather clothes or furniture or car interior?

Indeed I do. Are you going to make the point that the animals suffer in production? I'm well aware of that and take no pleasure from it. Therin lies the difference.

Believe it or not Keiron won't starve if he stops killing animals for fun. Nowhere on that video did he even pretend that survivial is the reason he does it. Rather, it's because he likes the "thrill" of killing something defenceless. Do you think he would be so keen if they offered him the chance to enter an enclosure with a starving Lion armed with just a club? I think we know the answer...

Mate, whatever your views on violence, for comparison, I think you'll agree that there's a world of difference between entering a cage or ring to take on someone in an evenly matched contest and beating up an old Lady for fun. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

Or to relate it to the "do you eat meat" statement. There's a world of difference between killing a man in War in order to survive and killing one that is no threat to you for the "thrill of it". Or, again, do you not think so?

Its not my bag, but i don't have anytime for people who don't want animals to be hunted or hurt, but then happily use the produce from it, it is very hypocritical, however you choose to sugarcoat it

The animal might never have even come into existance in the first place, if it wasn't for the hunting area.

Are you going to eat him afterwards?

I notice you haven't responded to my examples. Are those choices as black and white as you would like to make this one? If not, why not?

The fact is you can't make the need to survive a black and white issue when comparing it with the "need" to hunt for fun (or sport, if you consider it such). Whichever way you look at it there is a moral aspect to any choice we make. And for your information this isn't hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I condemned KC for hunting but thought it was ok for me to do it. The two examples you quote are not comparable but are seperate choices, one made in order to survive the other to enjoy the "thrill" of killing something. The only people who consider two seperate arguments as hypocritical are those that don't properly understand the meaning of the word.

I would be interested to hear your responses to the examples I gave in the previous post though, nevertheless.

And you might never have come into existance had your Mum and Dad not conceived you. Does this give them the right to kill you too? The animal exists. Once it does the choice is quite simply whether it is ok to end it's life for the sole entertainment of one individual. It's a moral choice for each person to make. I think he's a pr!ck as I said earlier.

Eat the lion, the poster or Keiron? I might just be able to stomach the Lion!



Joking aside, the issue is not about food. It's about a moral choice on whether entertainment or "the thrill" is sufficient reason to justify killing something.

I dont see the difference of killing something for a thrill or killing it so you can have a nice sofa, both are basically the same, and ignoring one while saying the other is a moral choice is as mr brown would say biggotted

He's been playing Rugby for years and struggles to pass a ball backwards. What on earth makes you think he might be able to shoot straight?

To achieve his DSC licence he needs to be a top marksmen, for example:

Able to shoot from any position, over a distance of 100 yards into 4 " inch inner target area.

In rugby terms he crouches under the sticks at the Edington End and shoots into a 4" beer mat stuck onto the sticks at the clubhouse end of the ground.

He has to achieve this feat................3 times in succession.

Well I don't have a leather sofa so I'm not sure of your analogy as it supposedly pertains to me. However, that aside, you still haven't responded to the examples I gave, so I can only assume it's because you can't. I suggest you study your own stance before condeming someone else as a bigot.

4 inches is a huge target.

Now if it had been 8mm targets I'd have been impressed.

Nice insult towards Cunningham, though. "Marksmen", insinuating there's enough of him to be more than one.

Fishsta................We at the working group at Haybridge Nature Reserve up here in Cumbria laughed at this particular paragraph the most............this is TOTAL GARBAGE.

Really?

You know what I find funny, you don't even know where you work. Bouth is in LANCASHIRE, not Cumbria.

See the signature.

[codePLACE NAME GRID COUNTY

Bouth SD3285 Lancashire[/code

In answer to your original question, killing is killing, just society determines which is morally acceptable. You may not have a leather sofa, but you will almost certainly have some animal based product in you daily life. It's all about choice, I don't hunt and I personally don't see how someone gets pleasure from it, but if thatsxwhat he does, it's not illegal, so go for it. My personal thoughts are that it's the same as fishing, but less painfull for the deer

Well, I don't [ithink[/i i was bred in order to help stock a game reserve, but now that you mention in, I better watch my back.



You're right, this argument isn't solely about food.

If people don't like this sort of thing, then fair enough, I can understand why they wouldn't want to see or get involved in such and activity. However, the way people are posting is like they have visions of KC tearing round the countryside on the back of a pick up truck shooting up anything that moves like a bunch of druken ockers on a kangaroo shoot.
I urge you to watch the programme with Monty Halls back on the iPlayer and see the deer stalking bit - there's nothing cruel or blood thirsty about it. Its respectfully taking a piece of livestock for food and its part of rural life.

Posters have actually called him "Scum" on this notice board - for doing something he has a legallay designated licence for. You can't get a special licence for drunken driving, selling cocaine or molesting children, but yet people apparently think KC should be thrown in with those kind of people.

I don't particulary hold with the "how would [iyou[/i like it?" argument. I am not a deer, I am a person. I consider the two to be different - one difference is that I would eat a deer. I would not eat a person.

The "Getting your jollies from killing another living thing" side? Well, people go to work everyday in slaughter houses to provide food for the shop selves. If one would dare come home to his wife and say he's had a good day at work, is he also scum? Or do we expect these people to come home wracked with guild for taking the life of innocents?

As I touched upon earlier, fishing is one of the most popular past times in the country and I bet people wouldn't make such a fuss if he'd of been on telly doing that, but what's the difference?

Excellent post.

Very well composed reply over the matter.

A well reasoned post. I could, of course, pick holes in it as it's just your opinion and things like going to work could hardly be compared to "getting your jollies" for example, but to do so wouldn't be giving respect to a well reasoned reply, even if I don't agree with it, so I won't.

At the risk of slightly contradicting the above could I just ask about your distinction that them being bred as hunting stock (wheras you weren't) as being important to the argument. The French, for example, eat horse meat. Would you equally be happy if they bred horses for people to hunt? Many nationalities are more than happy to eat dog meat. Would it be ok to breed puppies for them to hunt? It goes without saying that I, personally, think not, but I'm interested to know where you would draw the line and for what reasons.

So, should it be deemed by society to be unacceptable in the same way as it has fox hunting then you too would find it morally wrong? Are you saying you aren't able to make moral choices about what is right or wrong for yourself? Interesting standpoint. Your entitled to make it, I suppose, but it's a bizzare thing to admit to. Nevertheless...

Do you honestly think that being hunted and shot (if you think all shots are clean kills by the way you're being very naive!) isn't painful or distressing for the animal? This is your reasoned view is it? Based on what exactly; personal experience?

my point is that the deer will have had a good life upto the second it died, yes some shots dont kill, but the animal will be killed very quickly, whereas an animal in an slaughter house has been farmed and probably has at least some knowedge of whats coming, so which is worse? This comes from someone whose Dad owned a slaughterhouse, and yes everything possible is done to prevent suffering, but in my veiw, using personal experience, that what little suffering the animal does have is greater in a slaughterhouse than being shot in the wild.

Pretty much bang on there with your comments. Deer are free roaming animals, they go across rivers, jump dry stone walls run across roads etc etc. So trying to catch a couple to take to the slaughter house will be almost impossible.
If you did manage to capture a few and transport them they would be highly stressed and probably injure each other looking for a way to escape. Deer have an astute sense of sound and smell once they enter the area of the slaughterhouse they will smell blood and become terrified with a good chance of having a heart attack before the slaughter man gets his bolt gun.

I shoot wildlife photography and one of the most difficult is "shooting" deer, you have to stalk the deer knowing there grazing patterns, herd behaviour, some of the herd on the outer fringes tend to have a perception of man or predator when approaching under cover roughly about 60 metres, So Kieron Cunninghams "buzz and thrill" so to speak would be the ability of getting within this perception distance, which could take hours, the actual kill will be a controlled one with no room for error, his total relief or "enjoyment" as the tabloid papers say is that he has completed an instant kill.
If KC has a DMQ license then he will have to prepare and register the carcass, this involves testing the liver for any signs or presence of disease, very much similar to a slaughter man, this is a requirement by law prior to human consumption.

So why do we kill deer...........this is a man made problem, by introducing deer stock into areas that cannot sustain them. Eventually the herd gets too large and they destroy the ECO system, as they are free roaming they eventually destroy saplings and other wild life habitats. Centuries ago they would have reduced in numbers by predators like wolves and man.
I,m not aware of actually breeding deer for a sport shoot, as some people may have suggested.......if this is so, I should imagine the wildlife management authority would come down hard on them, as deer hunting has to carried out, without suffering and with the upmost discipline..........and not as a "shoot em up" as the newspaper media portray.

Thanks, I have no intention of telling people they should approve of hunting in all its forms and if they don't they're all pussies, hippies or niave city folk. It just really gets my back up when people react [iso[/i negetively as if the people taking part are (or should be) criminals.

From my standpoint, i'd probably reason that deer (even when owned) are traditionally and naturally wild roaming animals, whereas the other animals you mentioned aren't (on the whole). That would affect the startpoint point of my reasoning, i think, but if you were to then inform me that people that people in say Australia or America (where they do have wild roaming horses) are indeed doing it, then I'd say fair enough.
I also have a pet dog, so that would give me an emotional bias on that subject. Although I really wouldn't worry about people eating a bit of trapped wolf or fox.

As for the actual eating of horse and dog? I find it strange, but not offensive. I went to Vietnam a year ago and you'd see market stands with cooked dogs on, roughly quartered but with the head still on show. As a [idog person[/i, it didn't exactly sit well with me, but I'm sensible enough to realise that half the population of asia aren't evil just because they have slightly different take on food.

I think perhaps the difference between you and I is that I think its possible to hunt and still be respectful to nature and and eco system. I'm not someone who just doesn't care about animals.
Now, over in the seas of asia, certain shark populations have been decimated by over fishing for [ishark fin[/i to go in shark fin soup. The shark is caught, not killed, but the dorsel fin is chopped off and the shark dumped back into the water to bleed to death. This is a cruel death for the animal, its extremely wasteful as the rest of the shark is dumped (all the fisherman is worried about is the very high valued fin) and is also done without the consideration of the species population or ecosystem. For all these reasons I object to this, although you may think me hypocritical.