The case against hunting: well worth taking a step back and thinking about.

[TTT]

And moving to non-toxic, not killing raptors, not releasing more birds than you can eat, not calling it, "sport" will not reduce anyone's enjoyment of a day's shooting.

This is the kind of presentation that will win this argument in the long run. I also see a significant distinction between wild animals (rabbits, pigeons, deer, wildfowl) and those raised for game shooting, from the point of view of how the arguments play out about land use and food production. I appreciate that managing, for example, a Scottish stalking estate blurs this boundary.

 

[enfieldspares]

People get shot, killed and injured. Mostly hunters but also non-hunters. This is partly because of competing uses of the same land. Safety is now much improved, but any accidents are unacceptable. Hard to disagree with that, frankly.

More people have been killed, nay unlawfully killed, attending football matches in the UK in the last four decades than have been killed, let alone unlawfully killed, when out "hunting" where guns are being used by the "hunters".

Hunting isn’t a sport. The act of shooting has no quantifiable physical benefit, and you can’t compare shooting at live animals to football or jogging.

Watching football has little physical benefit either. Be that sat at home on the couch, in a pub or club or even at a stadium, ground or park.

The main non-human victims are 30 million animals a year, of which two-thirds are bred and released for the purpose. I’m not sure the numbers are right, but the practice is certainly very relevant in the UK.

I am sure that then environmental impact of the travelling on roads to matches and the pollution caused to say nothing of the paper used on programmes and the plastic waste from packaging of snacks and or cans of drinks consumed by all those who watch football is also quite considerable.

Accidental or deliberate killing of non-target species, in particular they cite the case of a golden eagle being shot. Rings some bells, I think….

Pollution from lead and plastics in ammunition. No additional comment necessary I believe.

Already addressed.

The economic arguments in favour are weak. Personally I think they always are, you can always argue against stats or turn them whichever way you like. In France, hunters have to indemnify farmers for damage caused to crops by big game if they don’t meet cull targets, which they pretty much never do and the whole system is a perverse basket case.

Ditto the economic benefits to me, to you, of paying Ronaldo £XX Million when I assume he is classed as "non-domiciled" for tax purposes. Let alone the actual cost to the taxpayer of police outside the ground on matchdays and the injuries sustained by amateur footballers tripping and pulling tendons in Sunday morning matches played on the park.

Finally, tradition is no argument at all in favour. Plenty of past traditions have been lost or abolished because people realised they were appalling or just undesirable.

Ditto.

 

[tmac]

Thought provoking read. To me, hunting is in my human DNA. As is being outdoors, in all weathers, trying to outwit a very smart wild animal to eat.

I feel completely connected to the land and also the animal I hunt when hunting. Date I say it, I feel a deep emotional connection with that animal.

There is something that society misses quite often nowadays, that is that humans are just animals with very animalistic drives and needs that are mostly very suppressed by our current societal make up. Hunting is one thing that has survived.

I do agree there are definitely things the hunting community can improve upon.

 

[Apthorpe]

A huge problem is that countryside hunter, gatherer activities, whether 'one-for-the-pot' or to feed the populous with nature's surplus, has been defined as/degenerated into a 'sport'.
Wildfowling is a prime example. The motor car has not helped.

Well, we can't go back more than 900 years to change that.

Additionally on the lead point - wonder how much lead is in certain parts of france due to events of 1914 -1918 and 1939-1945…..I’m thinking that amount will overshadow recreational shooting until the end of time! I doubt it’s an additional 1/2% so far!

It may be coincidence but actually the French do have lower IQs.

 

[Apthorpe]

Interesting. I'll have to rely on your summary, my French not being up to reading it. I've posted before that the majority of the UK population is not comfortable with guns and gun ownership, so any reasons for ownership have to be good, more than good in fact. And the shooting community isn't in a good place regarding a positive image as much of shooting is to kill animals, which the UK don't like; it's arguably ecologically unsound (the release of 30m birds) which increasingly the UK doesn't like; it leads to killing of raptors and eg stoats/pine martens, which the UK don't like; it not only uses guns, it refuses to adopt non-toxic ammunition, which isn't liked. And all of this is wrapped up by calling the act of killing those animals, "sport". So I'd agree that those arguments in those arguments in the article are good ones.

In fact, the majority of the UK population couldn't care less about any of the above. However, if you stop a random sample in the street and ask them a series of loaded questions you can get any opinion you want on the spur of the moment. It is It is a big mistake to accept these falsehoods put about by the sub-3% of people who are antis. You're accepting the validity of entirely specious arguments. Stop reading the Guardian and dismiss these people as the moronic crackpotd they are.

Most people don't see anything wrong with guns, that's why they select film and computer entertainment disproportionately loaded with guns. They don't care much about animal welfare which is why they eat billions of low welfare animals.They don't really care two hoots about ecology either.
They're less interested in listening to extremist anti bores than we are. It simply doesn't feature in their lives.

One can give reasons why these things are the way they are, but the shooting community will continue to be under pressure, so must adapt or fold. To help, I'd be removing all reference to shooting being sport and accepting non-toxic ammunition. I'd also be loooking at ways to make shoots less wasteful ( no more buried birds) and more ecologically sound, lets aim for 2023 being a "no raptors shot or poisoned year" for instance. Carrying on as we have done in the past is not a reason to continue in the same manner.

 

[Buchan]

f you stop a random sample in the street and ask them a series of loaded questions you can get any opinion you want on the spur of the moment.

Absolutely true, which is how those vehemently oppossed to shooting will manipulate the argument. And it's why those of us who do shoot need to look hard at what we do and to adjust, with very little inconvenience, to refute some of these arguments.

I read the Guardian to balance up the TImes...

 

[Cootmeurer]

Interesting read, it one significant positive aspect is left out, and that is the positive increase in land value due to hunting. This comes from two directions

First, is the direct increase in value from leasing of sporting rights or the increased land value for hunting. Two nearly identical pieces of land, one with game and fish in abundance and the other with no game or fish will hold very different values.

Secondly, when that land has increased value due to sporting rights, it is much less likely to be irrevocably developed into commercial or housing purposes. A bit of hunting land needs to have a critical mass of acreage to be of value and that precludes it being an industrial park or high rise or something else similar

 

[Heym SR20]

I hunt because I enjoy it. I enjoy the exercise from getting out into the woods, the mountains or the marsh - I usually cover several miles in a day and there is certainly plenty of physical exercise involved. I enjoy the challenge of using my skills to get close to an animal or bird. I don’t actually enjoy the kill, but I am confident that done properly I am taking a surplus off the land. And I thoroughly enjoy the end result on my plate - a free ranging source of food that has had very little human input.

 

[gixer1]

Absolutely true, which is how those vehemently oppossed to shooting will manipulate the argument. And it's why those of us who do shoot need to look hard at what we do and to adjust, with very little inconvenience, to refute some of these arguments.

I read the Guardian to balance up the TImes...

The only issue here is no matter how softly we tread, the antis will always push and lean…I now am not one for hiding or trying to justify what I do as it will not change the anti’s views…The non-toxic thing is a farce - we all know there are far more damaging processes out there but because the lead thing is related to guns it’s low hanging fruit and easy to grab.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[Rasputin]

Anything French should be almost instantly disregarded as they are idiots, proof enough given how often they shoot each other. Particularly that rag however few decent points tbf.

 

[Pine Marten]

Anything French should be almost instantly disregarded as they are idiots, proof enough given how often they shoot each other. Particularly that rag however few decent points tbf.

Thank you very much, very gracious answer. I am I fact a dangerous halfwit as are my 60 million compatriots. As for Le Monde, you're right. Give me the high journalistic standards of the UK tabloid press any day. Far more entertaining.

 

[pitnie]

Hunting, the act of finding and killing your own food? If look at how the super market eaters provide their food. I think you might have more arguments against how that is derived than a person wandering around a field with a gun.

 

[Rasputin]

Thank you very much, very gracious answer. I am I fact a dangerous halfwit as are my 60 million compatriots. As for Le Monde, you're right. Give me the high journalistic standards of the UK tabloid press any day. Far more entertaining.

Happy to help.

 

[Erik Hamburger]

(Context: this anti-hunting opinion piece was published in the respected French daily Le Monde yesterday as part of a series of reports on hunting, one topic being explored in the run up to the presidential election in the Spring. It is openly presented as a partisan appeal, and hunting organisations were also invited to contribute but didn’t. In particular one environmental organisation, broadly opposed to hunting, provided a full dossier of coherent and credible statistics which were published in a separate article. As far as I can tell, hunting organisations didn’t.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first my reaction was not to read all of this, but then I thought better of it and made a conscious effort to stand back and try and judge the arguments made for the abolition of hunting in France on its merits and see what I could learn. The article has the merit of being clear: the authors are the founders of a small party called Ecological Revolution for the Living, which is clearly antispeciesist. As such they have no need to pay any lip service to a balanced position, so it actually makes for a very clear set of arguments. It’s worth summarising them and thinking about their merits. Obviously they’re specific to the French situation but not any less fundamentally applicable elsewhere.

1. People get shot, killed and injured. Mostly hunters but also non-hunters. This is partly because of competing uses of the same land. Safety is now much improved, but any accidents are unacceptable. Hard to disagree with that, frankly.
2. Hunting isn’t a sport. The act of shooting has no quantifiable physical benefit, and you can’t compare shooting at live animals to football or jogging.
3. The main non-human victims are 30 million animals a year, of which two-thirds are bred and released for the purpose. I’m not sure the numbers are right, but the practice is certainly very relevant in the UK.
4. Accidental or deliberate killing of non-target species, in particular they cite the case of a golden eagle being shot. Rings some bells, I think….
5. Pollution from lead and plastics in ammunition. No additional comment necessary I believe.
6. The economic arguments in favour are weak. Personally I think they always are, you can always argue against stats or turn them whichever way you like. In France, hunters have to indemnify farmers for damage caused to crops by big game if they don’t meet cull targets, which they pretty much never do and the whole system is a perverse basket case.
7. Finally, tradition is no argument at all in favour. Plenty of past traditions have been lost or abolished because people realised they were appalling or just undesirable.

I’m not suggesting arguing each of these points individually, but to be lucid on how this case is going to be debated can only be useful.

Hope this sparks some constructive discussions. I can see many flaws and gaps in this, as well as some valid points that must be addressed.

I think they have some very good points.

 

[angusb1]

Thought provoking read. To me, hunting is in my human DNA. As is being outdoors, in all weathers, trying to outwit a very smart wild animal to eat.

I feel completely connected to the land and also the animal I hunt when hunting. Date I say it, I feel a deep emotional connection with that animal.

There is something that society misses quite often nowadays, that is that humans are just animals with very animalistic drives and needs that are mostly very suppressed by our current societal make up. Hunting is one thing that has survived.

This is what makes hunting one of the oldest traditions there is in almost every society and why someone who's never done it can never understand it.

 

[catzrob]

Some good points in here. One thing I find unconscionable is killing an animal other than to eat or as part of land management.

Birds that are eaten - great! I’d sooner be a released pheasant than a factory farmed chicken, and I’d sooner be shot than killed in a slaughterhouse. Likewise I’d prefer to eat such a bird. And shooting wild birds that’s arent endangered to eat - fine.

Controlling foxes and forbids - it’s necessary. Shooting is no worse than any other way.

Pigeons and deer are the best of both worlds (though deer should be managed as right for the land, not the value of the sporting rights).

But shooting birds that get buried is indefensible and unconscionable. It’s killing for fun and I have no time for it.

 

[Franchi Matt]

French types
As if they dont have more important issues to worry about...

 

[Klenchblaize]

And Ortolan?

How to eat an ortolan - we discuss this controversial French delicacy

Did you know the French eat songbirds? The ortolan is a traditional, delicious - but now outlawed - dish. We discuss this controversial French delicacy.

www.myfrenchlife.org

Trying to think of a UK legal substitute for the Ortolan as the bit where the tiny lungs explode and release the warmed Armagnac from its drowning does indeed sound nothing less than orgasmic!

K

 

[Woodsmoke]

Trying to think of a UK legal substitute for the Ortolan as the bit where the tiny lungs explode and release the warmed Armagnac from its drowning does indeed sound nothing less than orgasmic!

K

Yes, the French really do bring a touch of class to everything, don't they?

 

[Colonel Rimfire]

Basically it boils down to this,

Hunters are baddies, we all know this after watching Bambi

People who don't hunt are goodies, even though they eat KFC