RSPCA article on hunting...

[robmoore]

A paper titled RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar 2012 can be found via the link below.

I would guess that the article:
Recreational, conservation and traditional hunting – The ethical
dimensions by Dominique Thiriet, Lecturer – Law, James Cook University on page 12 might provoke some comments from our members.

http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files/Sc ... edings.pdf

Bob

[Bent Stick]

The very essence of freedom: we send our best and brightest into harms way and let meatsocks like this shape the world we live in.
In my line of work if i presented such one sided drivel I'd be a laughing stock (and on the dole).
Perception is more powerful than fact I'm afraid, the bias was pretty clear and if you didn't get it, "there is no justification for hunting" is the theme.
Currently i thik the best combat for emotional fanaticism (look up jihadi or PETA) is actual data, how many in australia have a n easy avenue of claiming or recording game for the purposes of statistical evidence / Proff of the effectiveness of hunting. I think all the hunting communities need to get their heads together sooner rather than later, it's easier to discount rubbish with factual data if you have before rather than trying to justify and save yourself after.


I'm going to find a cat.

[TomMcDonald]

the whole thing was generally quite boring and simplistic.

This was interesting though.
'Some argue that hunting is like rape, because it is designed to establish men’s dominance and control'.

Come on!!!

[TomMcDonald]

Just read the last paragraph:

Finally, since ethics are generally a basis for the development of the law, there is a chance that
laws will change to reflect the evolution of ethics. I am hopeful that in due course the regulation of
hunting will be strengthened through animal protection laws, and that perhaps even one day, this
practice will be banned.

[robmoore]

SSAA circulated the link to their members. I've just posted it on the ABA site as well - as that may reach some hunters who are not members of Ozbow.

Bob

[Stickbow Hunter]

Just another load of absolute Animal Libber propaganda . I wouldn't expect anything less from the RSPCA .

The writer certainly didn't let the truth get in the way of her obvious anti hunting and killing agenda.

Jeff

[Bent Stick]

Yep Meatsock with an agenda

[looseplucker]

OK - I read the material, particularly the article in question. One thing: be smart about this, not smart arses.

Countering a person's argument with insult does little to advance our own arguments. Reading the article myself I found myself more annoyed by the raising of an issue and then it being dismissed with a simplistic statement. In many respects the article did not contain argument, but a series of assertions or propositions, with the references cited being of only one type - or indeed ones previously published by the writer.

On that wise I propose to actually write a counter article to send to my colleague in the law in a polite way to inform further debate. Suggestions of a constructive nature can be sent to me via pm or email.

[jindydiver]

In many respects the article did not contain argument, but a series of assertions or propositions, with the references cited being of only one type - or indeed ones previously published by the writer.

This is how I saw the article too, just an opinion piece with some cherry picks references to attempt to lend weight to that opinion. The article fails miserably as a paper suitable for a "scientific seminar"

[looseplucker]

In many respects the article did not contain argument, but a series of assertions or propositions, with the references cited being of only one type - or indeed ones previously published by the writer.

This is how I saw the article too, just an opinion piece with some cherry picks references to attempt to lend weight to that opinion. The article fails miserably as a paper suitable for a "scientific seminar"

Given some of the seminars I attend where it is death by powerpoint and everything is read in a drab monotone this one actually kept my attention!

[Chase N. Nocks]

Is the article overall anti hunting?

Sure, I'd say so even though the author may genuinely feel that they have made an attempt at impartiallity.

From an anti-hunter's point of view it might very well seem even handed.

There are reasonable AND unreasonable points made in the article. Like you said data is the only way to combat emotional diatribe.

I have a few friends that are pro-hunting for harvesting or pest control. But certainly anti-hunting if hunting for pleasure or certain types of hunting are involved especially the use of dogs. There are a number of points that we agree on and disagree on. There is very good consistancy in their thinking.

These are considerate people that very strongly believe in personal freedom but equally strongly marry that ideal to responsibility. They are critical thinkers and readers with considered opinions that only coincidentally align with "popular" opinion rather than being influenced by it.

A critical reader may (not unreasonably) agree that causing pain and/or death for pleasure is abhorrant but question the value of a statement that "...hunting lacks an essential element: the consent of all participants" as rather a nonsense. Nature is essentially red of tooth and claw, permission's not a component.

So when we attack the article as a whole without an honest dissection of the article we are playing the same loose game with the truth. I know it is not likely to happen. Closed rank mentality can be found in equal measure in both camps from what I have found over the years.

Cheers
Troy

[woodie]

I have not read the article yet but knowing how these people think I know how it would most likly read, I will be reading it later though.
I think the "greens" should have a look at how real hunters hunt and have a look at how the poisions that are used to control the ferrals work.Than they might, I hope, change there minds.
woodie

[Stickbow Hunter]

Countering a person's argument with insult does little to advance our own arguments.

In my reply I was not trying to counter any persons argument I was just making observations.

That whole paper was just insult after insult and lies. IMO trying to counter the points raised by the author of that paper with facts, scientific or otherwise, is simply a waste of time. The author and the RSPCA in general aren't the slightest bit interested in your opinions if they differ to theirs as they just want the killing of animals banned.

The article fails miserably as a paper suitable for a "scientific seminar"

I gave it a big fail on that front also.

Jeff

[looseplucker]

Countering a person's argument with insult does little to advance our own arguments.

In my reply I was not trying to counter any persons argument I was just making observations.

That whole paper was just insult after insult and lies. IMO trying to counter the points raised by the author of that paper with facts, scientific or otherwise, is simply a waste of time. The author and the RSPCA in general aren't the slightest bit interested in your opinions if they differ to theirs as they just want the killing of animals banned.

The article fails miserably as a paper suitable for a "scientific seminar"

I gave it a big fail on that front also.

Jeff

Might have to agree to differ on this one, Bossman. No matter what is thrown up (and lets face it this was a bunch of the converted preaching to each other) I am happy to debate on points of fact and challenge arguments that are flimsy. I am more than happy to write a response to the author of the paper with an alternative view, as a lawyer, like her, interested in the issues of ethics and challenging her arguments. I would be genuinely interested in the response.

[Stickbow Hunter]

Might have to agree to differ on this one, Bossman. No matter what is thrown up (and lets face it this was a bunch of the converted preaching to each other) I am happy to debate on points of fact and challenge arguments that are flimsy. I am more than happy to write a response to the author of the paper with an alternative view, as a lawyer, like her, interested in the issues of ethics and challenging her arguments. I would be genuinely interested in the response.

Fair enough John and perhaps her response could be interesting but I would think it would just contain more of the same. I guess we will see though.

If she is a lawyer as you say then she should know better than writing an article such as that IMO.

Jeff

[dan76]

I would be very interested in reading her response to your reply too. I have a feeling that she would just ignore you unfortunately as people with ideas that strong tend to ignore any alternative even if it is well thought out and backed with hard evidence.
Just see how you go i guess

[jindydiver]

A critical reader may (not unreasonably) agree that causing pain and/or death for pleasure is abhorrant but question the value of a statement that "(Note that I do not use the term ‘sport hunting’. While there may be an element of physical prowess involved in hunting,)...hunting lacks an essential element: the consent of all participants" as rather a nonsense. Nature is essentially red of tooth and claw, permission's not a component.

So when we attack the article as a whole without an honest dissection of the article we are playing the same loose game with the truth. I know it is not likely to happen. Closed rank mentality can be found in equal measure in both camps from what I have found over the years.

You are critical of hunters responses to this work, and yet paraphrase a statement from the article so you can be critical of it and leave out the important context in doing so. An "honest dissection" indeed LOL The irony is thick enough to slice.

The important thing about the part your misquote though is who the original critique against hunting was quoted from, Marti Kheel, founder of "Feminists for Animal Rights". It is a good example of what I was talking about in my first post, this supporting paper is a discourse on the philosophy of hunting and not a scientific paper. The RSPCA are being academically dishonest claiming there get-together was about science, it was about the philosophy of animal rights, plain and simple.

The author of this article (Dominique Thiriet) shows us she is not going to engage in an honest discourse when on the first page she describes Jose Ortega Y Gasset as a "one of the most influential writers on hunting" rather than as one of the most quoted and respected philosophers of the 20th century. His hunting paper was one of over 30 other works

Anyway, have to go serve our dinner, french casserol made from fallow doe, hunted of course

[looseplucker]

Might have to agree to differ on this one, Bossman. No matter what is thrown up (and lets face it this was a bunch of the converted preaching to each other) I am happy to debate on points of fact and challenge arguments that are flimsy. I am more than happy to write a response to the author of the paper with an alternative view, as a lawyer, like her, interested in the issues of ethics and challenging her arguments. I would be genuinely interested in the response.

Fair enough John and perhaps her response could be interesting but I would think it would just contain more of the same. I guess we will see though.

If she is a lawyer as you say then she should know better than writing an article such as that IMO.

Jeff

Mate - in 21 years in this profession I have seen some crap and that was pretty mild in comparison!

OK - here is the deal - if people do want to send data and stuff to specifically rebut the "arguments" I am happy to craft it into something I can send off. I particularly want to address her on the issue where she says that calling opponents of traditional hunting racist does not help informed debate. Actually I think it is a very valid issue to raise - what is the difference between wanting to phase out traditional hunting on the pretext of cruelty to animals than phasing out traditional tribal life and forcible removal and assimilation? Her problem is that this issue is a burning problem because on the one hand she would be a major advocate for Indigenous Australian rights (I am too) but on the other, doesnt like exactly all that it means. Typical socialist - wants her cake, eat it, save a slice for later and nick yours into the bargain.

Anyhow, get the material to me if you wish - or I will write a draft and post it up and we can all have a crack at it.

And could I ask now that no-one is to call her a loonie old lezzo with a face like a half sucked mango. We'll take that as read.

[jindydiver]

The effort required to parse her paper to death is beyond my energy ATM but I have one thing to say in defence of hunting.

All too often I see people seperate out the various parts of hunting and attack each part from the perspective drawn from another part. When a hunter says "I hunt for food" anti-hunters attack from the position that it can't be true because we don't eat foxes, or when a hunter says "I hunt to relieve predation pressure on endangered species" the anti-hunters point to rabbits or deer (always baby pictures) and ask how many endangered species they kill, or when a hunter points at a pig and says "I hunt to control numbers of destructive disease bearing feral animals" the anti-hunter cries that he is lying because he enjoys his hunt and "hunters release pigs in new areas to hunt".
All these arguments are dishonest and an exercise in sophistry. We as hunters know that each hunt is a separate endeavour and our motivations, desires and pleasures come from different places depending on the entire circumstances of that hunt and that hunt alone.

For instance. This w/e I went hunting. I shot 3 young deer from my camp with my 7.08, all were "dead right there" (2 were head shots), and all were because I,
a) am human and hard wired to enjoy the hunt and the spoils of the hunts success,
b) need some meat,
c) enjoy collecting my own in organic and ethical circumstances, and
d) because the herd needs to be controlled lest it impact the natural and economic values of the land where they range.

I then spent 2 full days chasing mature male deer with my bow because I
a) am human and hard wired to enjoy the hunt whether successful or not,
b) enjoy the chase and the challenge of the hunt,
c) understand my limitations and are self regulating my take through increasing the difficulty, and
d) because I want to eat bucks just as much as does but have aesthetic expectations of what I want from a dead buck giving it's life in the hunt (ie. I see no emotional fulfilment in killing rutting bucks with my rifle)

With this example of a "hunting weekend" I am hoping to demonstrate that hunting is many things, to many people, all at the same time.

My wife and kids support my hunting 100%, not just from the aspect of their understanding of what I need to ensure my mental and physical health, but because they also enjoy the meals of organic and ethically hunted meat.

[slvrslngr]

It won't be long before the anti's get a total ban on hunting and fishing because they know it's easier to get it banned then to have it regulated. A well thought out response to this article, based in fact not on emotion, is sorely needed.

And Mick, posting pictures like that is cruel, now I'm flipping hungry!

[longbowinfected]

many of the animals we hunt in Australia are cruel predators that kill for fun or kill natives. Not many if any of the introduced pest species are controlled naturally by predators and so their numbers proliferate allowing the development of unhealthy populations that could contract diseases and spread them to those species normally farmed, placing the health of consumers at risk and their ability to get access to protein sources of their choosing at reasonable costs. Having said that introduced farmed species from overseas cause great harm to the environment due to their hard hooves. It would be better to allow the farming of species like kangaroos.
The use of poison baits is far more indiscriminate and crueler than any control measure and these people sanction these control measures which kill important native species and do not make use of resources which could be better managed.

just a few thoughts that I know would not be considered at their conference but which should to even out their horizons.

Kevin

[jindydiver]

The use of poison baits is far more indiscriminate and crueler than any control measure and these people sanction these control measures which kill important native species and do not make use of resources which could be better managed.

The Animal Liberation position on feral animals is that we should not poison, we should not interfere at all but let the animals sort it out for themselves, it being the animals "right" to live there life (or not as the case may be) without interference from humans. Obviously any AL supporter who also claims to be a conservationist is just flat out confused or a bald faced liar. There is hardly a terrestrial ecosystem on earth that hasn't been changed through the previous activities (and perhaps ignorance) of man and that doesn't need assistance from humans to preserve what biodiversity it has left. There are the pragmatic AL types who haven't really thought it through who support poisoning programs (AL Lite if you will), just as there are sly dog AL types who are behind poisoning programs as long as it excludes hands on intervention from us (this meaning that one day down the track we will no longer exist and they can just switch to outright opposition to poisons, on the many grounds we as thinking conservationists oppose them, and see animals free from any controls by humans at all).
My point being that you can't just lump all who oppose hunting into a box called "these people" and think of them as homogeneous and easily labelled, just as we know that all people who kill animals are not the same. To think of them as all the same and then compare one individuals slant on it to another's and call them all hypocrites is just committing the same sort of sophistry I pointed out earlier in the thread that some AL guys often do to hunters.

many of the animals we hunt in Australia are cruel predators that kill for fun or kill natives

Many?
How can an animal be cruel? You can see it's activities as cruel but that doesn't mean the animal is being cruel.
Animals do not think as such and so cannot possess the theory of mind necessary to recognise another animal as anything but friend or foe. They have no concept of the pain their activities cause so they can't be indifferent to the distress of others (they can't know what distress is), nor do they seek pleasure from the distress of others. Everything that animals do is based on instinct and what has worked for their species in the past (and has allowed their continuation as a species). That humans see it as cruel is another issue altogether and we should not ever confuse the two.
Consider this. If you can look at what a fox does and call him cruel, then use that label to impose your ideals on that fox (in our case killing him) then how is it not right for an AL supporter to look at what we do to animals, call it cruel, and then do what they do to stop it (campaign to have hunting banned)? It is after all more morally beholden upon us as thinking human beings (as opposed to simpler lower order animals) to "do the right thing", isn't it?
Cruelty is not a reason for (in the case of us killing foxes) or against (in the case of the AL decrying hunters activities) hunting, it having nothing to do with why animals hunt, nor anything to do with why we hunt.

[Outbackdad]

I hope they will ban this kind of hunting!
It is just wrong.

[ole_silver]

Right on Jindy,

and i can almost taste the feed in the pot, looks very nice mate,

regards,

Steve,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Dennis La Varenne]

Mick,

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you (and Troy above), but you and I are on pretty much the same page here. We hunters can be just as irrational in our defence of our pursuit as the AL people can be in theirs.

One thing about many/most of them (and I have had many head to head debates with these people) is that they are often more consistent in their arguments than we are and often (dare I say it) less hypocritical against their own standards of behaviour.

That last paragraph quoted by Tom McDonald -

Finally, since ethics are generally a basis for the development of the law, there is a chance that laws will change to reflect the evolution of ethics.

is at the heart of the AL long term strategy. They will not change the laws to accord with their philosophical standpoint overnight, but they intend to change the public perception of hunting and its validity to one which sees hunting as inhumane . . . and they are succeeding in huge measure.

Hunting is completely irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of the Australian population and it is being practised by fewer and fewer of us in each generation.

It is becoming harder and harder to influence our children to take it up, and those who do, very often drop it when they reach early teenage and are hugely subject to the influence of peers and hormonal adolescent rebelliousness against parental interests. The AL philosophy is moving into the ranks of our teachers where, at that age, adolescents are far more able to be recruited against the beliefs of their parents.

While I worked for the Shooting Sports Council of Victoria, I used to gather a bunch of ABA people to assist Field & Game on the first weekend of the duck season by monitoring the behaviour of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting (an offshoot of the AL movement). I saw some pretty deceitful behaviour by Laurie Levy their leader and his hard core inner group. I also saw some dreadful behaviour from hunters towards young teenagers recruited to the CADS campaign. Hunters' common attitude and language towards mostly young women was lower than lowest gutter language - young people whom they could just as easily have spoken to decently and asked why they took up the CADS call for assistance and put their own beliefs to.

In my first ever duck opening at Buloke in Western Victoria, I fully expected to see ducks raining from the sky as the public media portrayed the event. Nothing of the sort happened. I did not see one hunter shoot at a protected specie and all of them in the part of the lake I patrolled called to each other when a protected bird was within gunshot, identifying it and lowering their guns until it/they passed. It was impressive good behaviour which deteriorated apallingly when confronted by these often very young women trying to do what to them was an act of decency. On the few occasions where I was able to talk to some of them, I found them surprisingly amenable to discussion albeit warily at first.

Firstly, I found that mostly they felt a bit cheated by what they were told was about to happen to the ducks by Laurie Levy and his clique and clearly did not, and the he told them that he would pick up the tab for when they were issued with a PIN notice by Police for entering the water before the prescribed hours without a Game Licence and did not. Mostly they also found that the hunters did not shoot protected birds and they always (their opinion to me) dispatched any birds thought to be wounded in a humane fashion. All this was their observation to me at the time. It could have been built upon but the chance was callously frittered away by the duck hunters themselves towards these kids.

We (the ABA cohort) put this to F&G in the follow-up debriefs and clearly it was taken notice of. In later years, some of the shooters started to talk to these kids and Laurie Levy had to resort to putting squads of kids under the direct supervision of members of his clique to shepherd them away from the influence of any shooters who tried to talk to them. It has started to work.

Sadly, this same pattern of good behaviour toward ducks and bad behaviour toward teenagers repeated in the following seven years I went out with Field & Game.

Rather than engage them in a conversation about what they do, how and why they do it, the effect of hunting on populations of ducks, the issue of percieved cruelty, their own codes of ethical behaviour, etc., these children were met usually with apalling diatribe. We used to go around the camps on the Friday afternoon exhorting the shooters to behave and not get stuck into the CADS kids, many of whom were the same ages as their own children. Sometimes it worked, often it did not.

With that kind of behaviour from our own people (I am disinterested in duck hunting by the way) AL will have absolutely no problem with changing the public perception of hunting as based on 'bloodlust' with little regard for humanely killing animals. They are succeeding in changing the public morality about hunting because WE so often give them the philosophical reasons and evidence they need to justify their stand.

Whether we like it or not, AL is winning the battle for the position of arbiter of the public decency, and we are not.

Future generations require the answer to 'WHY?' from us and we are not giving it to them. Our argument that it is traditional, part of our heritage, in our genes, etc. doesn't wash any more. The reason is because those reasons are devoid of moral value and sound like little more than excuses.

If our reasons had any real veracity, most of the human population would still hunt. That they do not is patently clear and clearly a choice, having little or nothing to do with being hard-wired to hunt.

So far as I can see our future, our continued existence relies upon demonstrating a moral rationale behind hunting which is cognisant of cruelty and can show that what we do as having a moral benefit to human culture as well as for the long term benefit of species in ecological terms.

It is up to us to show that the AL philosophy is not about benefit to either animals or humans. Such beliefs have nothing to do with conservation of species or benefit to individual animals. They are merely a pretext trying to persuade that if humans separated themselves from animals, they would thrive without us.

It is entirely about making some humans feel good about themselves and nothing more.

The idea arose out of the 19th century anti-vivisection movement when experiments on animals were undertaken with a lot more recklessness and inhumanity than now. There are exceptions today as we all know, but it is not the norm and none of us condone callous behaviour toward animals which sometimes give their lives to help with human AND veterinary medicine.

The AL idea that animals have innate rights is a patent nonsense. Rights are a human concept. If humans did not exist, not a single animal would have any concept of the rights of another animal. These so-called animal rights are nothing more than an agreement between humans to limit how we humans treat animals. It is recognisable only among ourselves and is entirely anthropocentric in nature.

The reasons we all hunt are in fact a complex to do with heredity, culture and ecology. So far as I can see, so long as our practices do not threaten species and their viability and that when we kill them that they do not suffer unnecessary or avoidable pain and suffering as we ourselves would not want to suffer, then the moral argument is restricted to the narrow argument of pain and suffering at the individual animal level and the abhorrence of one person and their beliefs compared to those of another.

AL place a supremacy on individual animal suffering and their case rests upon that concept alone it seems to me. Their cruelty thesis only concerns cruelty inflicted by humans but sees nothing wrong with the same kind of injury and suffering inflicted by another animal.

I am quite cognisant of the fact that there is no concept of cruelty among animals. But I ask AL how do they justify the same level of injury and suffering caused by one animal to another as being acceptable but not if it is caused by a human being when from the point of view of the wounded animal, the distress is the same. I have not gotten an answer to this one yet.

It seems to me that the anthropocentrism of the AL position is just that - something to make some humans feel good about themselves, but not the animals they profess concern about. Suffering is suffering no matter the cause. No animal has the capacity to discern the cause of its suffering and make a distinction about how much more tolerable it is because it was caused by another animal and not a human. And that is where the AL argument falls down badly. Pain and suffering is pain and suffering. How can one method of infliction be right and another wrong?

That any hunter tries their utmost to avoid unnecessary and avoidable pain and suffering to a hunted animal is likewise an anthropocentric view. It has as its core the idea that it is/should be beneath human decency to do so; that animals have an intrinsic value which we accept. But that acceptance does not confer inviolability of life upon any specie when nature itself has programmed death into the process of life as an absolute necessity.

It seems to me than that the argument becomes one of what is acceptable necessary levels of death.

That is an ecological argument. The morality of the decision revolves upon how that death is inflicted (ie. avoidable levels of pain and suffering) and whether or not the levels inflicted by us or nature exceed the ability of populations to sustain themselves. Basing a morality entirely upon the anthropocentric premise of how the infliction of that death makes us feel emotionally, is weak indeed. If that becomes the primary purpose of that morality then the ecological argument is pointless. The consequences for animal populations in this human altered world then becomes dangerous.

I have made the point in many submissions to the Victorian Government whilst working for the SSCV that if hunting were to be banned outright tomorrow, not a single ecological benefit would come from it. We simply do not have the adverse ecological impacts attributed to us by our opponents and there is no proof to the contrary. I read on one Vic government discussion paper back then that not a single animal specie in this country has become extinct or in danger of extinction from non-professional hunting since colonization. Koalas were under threat up until the early 1920s from the felt fur trade, but that was stopped almost 100 years ago and threats to that animal are from lack of habitat and overbreeding within those habitats. Loss of habitat is the biggest cause in this country and always has been.

The AL argument does not address this issue. It is merely concerned about the human impact upon individual animals. Their definition of cruelty which has become that of the RSPCA and, at least in Victoria where it has largely been written into law, is so broad that it encompasses almost anything at all which brings any stress to an animal in an way whatsoever. The definition has become so ridiculous and all-encompassing that the Victorian PoCTA Act has had to resort to Codes of Practice to exclude otherwise normally acceptable behaviour which stood to be caught up in its tentacles.

The whole problem with the Victorian Legislation seems to me to leave out one important facet of a cruelty definition which is 'intent'.

In ordinary life, it is apparent to anybody that an act of cruelty involves an intention to inflict unnecessary or avoidable pain or suffering irrespective of whether or not that act would result in the death of an animal. That is also the problem with the AL concept so far as I understand it. It completely lacks any ability to differentiate about whether the infliction of pain or suffering was intentional or not. It simply holds that such infliction is cruel.

The crux of the argument against cruelty should have ‘intent’ at its core. Without intent, either deliberately or by negligence, how is it different to an animal whether it suffers from human hand or from the actions of another animal. The answer is that it does not in the least. It is only human perception which sees the difference. The consequences are the same to the animal being harmed.

If human intervention with animals ceases tomorrow, who benefits – the animals themselves or the humans who succeed in imposing the ban?

If it is argued that the animals benefit, how can they appreciate that difference? One can only benefit if one understands that possible harm has been prevented following an understanding of the consequences of harm. Clearly no animal can have this level of understanding. Only humans can, and it is only they who benefit therefore. Meanwhile all the harms generated upon prey species continue unabated by predator species.

What a relief it must therefore be to those prey species to know that they will henceforth only be mauled and killed by non-human predator animals. So continues the irrationality of the AL argument.

We are now faced with a variety of ‘religious’ fundamentalism not unlike that of the Taliban in Afghanistan – it is our way or no way at all. AL is not about compromise.

[Rock Steady]

Dennis

Well said.

Education is the key, the general population will believe what they are told as truth, and the problem is all they hear is the AL version of the truth and nothing else.

I had a WIRES lady write to the local paper complaining that our club was shooting 3D animals and somehow this was animal cruelty and impacted on native animals negatively. I could have attacked her and called her an idiot etc but instead I politely explained what we did and how we educated every new member of the club from children to adults that shooting native animals is illegal.

The local paper sent out a reporter to the club to discuss the issue, agreeing to talk to a reporter can be a very dangerous thing, I kept it simple with a written response (that ABA cleared).

I also asked the young female reporter if she could explain to me how an animal died naturally in the bush and then decide which form of death would involve the most suffering and pain for the animal. Once she started to think about it she realised that nature is not such a warm fuzzy place.

Most animals start to die and are being eaten well before actual death. When a major predator is not involved insects are normally the first on the scene followed by the smaller scavengers and birds, it can take days to weeks for an animal to slowly starve to death whilst being chewed on by nature.

Maybe the major hunting orgs could fund a warts and all doco or study on the natural death cycle of native and non-native animals.

The LA try an use human standards to justify their attack, but we should be comparing apples with apples. IE is what we do cruel compared to how an animal dies naturally in the bush?

The strange thing is if we stopped all forms of animal control today the native and non-native animal populations would grow at an exponential rate and with no major predators for the larger species we would face economic ruin as a country. Not to mention a lot of native animals would face extinction.

Michael

[jindydiver]

Mick,

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you (and Troy above), but you and I are on pretty much the same page here. We hunters can be just as irrational in our defence of our pursuit as the AL people can be in theirs.

One thing about many/most of them (and I have had many head to head debates with these people) is that they are often more consistent in their arguments than we are and often (dare I say it) less hypocritical against their own standards of behaviour.

.

Thanks Dennis

I don't think most hunters are irrational, just passionate, and when people attack our way of life there is a reaction. I find I often have to pull myself up in my thinking for fear I will fall in to the easy and familiar (being an ex-truckdriver for years my default was "F<(& you too a%$&hole", it saved a lot of energy I would rather devote to something else LOL ).

I don't see hunters as inconsistent in their arguments either. There is no reason why the reason we wish to do one thing should hold true when we want to do another. If I want to hunt I might do it for all sorts of reasons, and not all at the same time (as explained earlier) it doesn't make me inconsistent or irrational, it just makes me complex and full of nuance, something common to the majority of humans.
I do often see a glaring inconsistency in the argument of the vegan animal liberationists. When it is pointed out that free range beef is grown on land that supports a basically unaltered ecosystem supporting a wide biodiversity I hear the argument that the cows have a right to life and so I should not kill them to eat them, and when the same vegans are told that the wheat field they get their nourishment from is a wasteland in terms of biodiversity and that tens of thousands of animals die (mice and rats) in the industry that provides that wheat I am told that the incidental deaths of those animals are unfortunate and necessary to provide the grain, that the direct killing of cattle is still less ethical than the indirect killing of the mice. I am sorry but I just can't reconcile the argument that all animals are sentient beings and deserving of rights with the argument that allows every loaf of bread to be worth the lives of at least 2 animals to be morally superior to my steak that is worth < .05 of one life just because the people not eating the steak say so.

Obviously the vegans are making a moral judgement that they accept one form of animal death over another, and they are good at formulating arguments that make them feel comfortable with their choice, but their choice doesn't hold me to the same moral choice just because they are convinced it should. I am my own moral agent and I can decide where I want to interact with the natural world and I don't accept that their beliefs should trump mine just because they have passion in their argument. Why shouldn't I be able to interact with other animals in a way that is consistent with how other animals interact together? Why must I limit myself to the concept of "do unto others" when I engage as a hunter with other animals (just as other predators do)?

[rmcpb]

The trouble is that no matter how well we put our case the emotive, PC "arguments" presented in the article get the air time not the rational arguments.

[jindydiver]

The trouble is that no matter how well we put our case the emotive, PC "arguments" presented in the article get the air time not the rational arguments.

Here in Canberra we see plenty of hunting in the papers, and it seems to be well received by the wider public.

[Sinners121]

I must agree to those that are saying education is the key because most people that i have been trying to educate do not understand the process and ethicalness (is that a word?) of hunting. I truly believe that if you want to educate more people merely talking to them is a waste of your time. Instead i would suggest trying to get them involved and offer as many opportunities for them to join you on a hunt. I realise this is impractical however if you truly want to save this lifestyle than i believe it is the only way. I am currently 17 and am going on my first participating (i have been on a hunt and helped but did not actually shoot) hunt this june. however in the last 6 months only due to pushing this want of mine have i gotten this and in that time i have managed to show 4 other people (all girls i might add) archery and of those 3 now want to go hunting. i believe if everyone that is currently involved in hunting and especially bow hunting managed to convince a few people (especially the younger generation) to come on a hunt the jeopardy of this sport would be non-existant. ( Bowhunting i would argue is not an easy lifestyle to get into especially with the technical importances to ensure a clean human kill)
I believe people dont understand hunting and therefore adopt the no attitude.
i understand that many of you may have gotten your kids involved and others however i think that if it was easier to get hunting and there people offering to take others hunting it would not be in need to fear organisations such as PETA or RSPCA and the other organisations that are similar.

Please note that im not trying to have a dig at anyone im merely showing how i think this lifestyle could spread and thus protected better.
(i have tried to avoid referring to it as a sport because i believe it to be more than that)

anyway thats my thoughts and thats how i hope to save this lifestyle

Cheers
Synjon