Leave Cunningham's weight problem out of this.

He's been killing for food since he was a kid. Didn't you read the article? I'd hardly call him an amateur! I would have thought by now he was quite the expert.

He can come and cull the damn pigeons around my house. They crap all over the place.

And he has a professional licence under strict laws to hunt.

We are in a rural group in the lake district and most of us are having a really good laugh at the attention and reactions from a few on this board.
Most of our wildlife group are assuming that some of the protesters don,t have a clue about wildlife and the nearest they have been to it is perhaps a joint of beef or a fish fillet at the supermarket counter.
Maybe people should investigate the processes of animal stock going to the cattle market then to the slaughterhouse and the stresses to the animal concluding in terror.
Perhaps we should not eat animal at all, and just kill and eat one another......using our bare hands.

Did any one watch "Monty Halls's Hebridian Escape" Last night?

He was deer stalking with the area Laird and game keeper. They shot a stag and it didn't seem particulary cruel to me.

However, in another scene he went fishing. Sicko.

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.