Top man. A very rigorous nailing of all the points Apthorpe!
I hereby propose Apthorpe to write our pro-hunting argument. Anyone second that?
The case against hunting: well worth taking a step back and thinking about.
- Thread starter Pine Marten
- Start date
I hereby propose Apthorpe to write our pro-hunting argument. Anyone second that?
I am with you. Bearing in mind Darts is now classed as a sport, hunting is surely more energetic than that and there have been studies done that outdoor hunting/shooting is good for your mental health
J@son
Well-Known Member
I think @Pine Marten offers a good summary in consise and neutral terms of the "case against hunting" put within this article. Each of these points can be debated and disputed. But there's also another point that I think is relevent and worth considering. And that is this: regardless of the validity of each of these individual points do they amount to a case for banning something?
We benefit from a long tradition of NOT banning stuff just because there are (good) arguments against it. Like alcohol for instance! Things should only be banned when doing so is clearly in the general public interest. That is not to say that there are not (well founded) objections to these things. Just that these objections don't justify banning them.
At the moment hunting is legal not because the majority of people enjoy doing it or think its a brilliant idea. Rather it is legal because lots of people don't mind other people (that would be us!) doing something that they don't particularly approve or disapprove of.
Lots of people think hunting is cruel or weird. But even though they hold these views they accept that other people should be allowed to hunt. We need to nurture this tolerance. If we take it for granted, we will surely pay the price.
As @VSS points out - there is no point in arguing with those who are vehmently opposed to hunting. Their minds are already made up. Rather we need to persuade (or at the very least not go out of our way to offend!) those who aren't all that bothered either way.
We need to encourage other people's tolerance. And the best way of doing that is by not appearing intolerant ourselves.
We benefit from a long tradition of NOT banning stuff just because there are (good) arguments against it. Like alcohol for instance! Things should only be banned when doing so is clearly in the general public interest. That is not to say that there are not (well founded) objections to these things. Just that these objections don't justify banning them.
At the moment hunting is legal not because the majority of people enjoy doing it or think its a brilliant idea. Rather it is legal because lots of people don't mind other people (that would be us!) doing something that they don't particularly approve or disapprove of.
Lots of people think hunting is cruel or weird. But even though they hold these views they accept that other people should be allowed to hunt. We need to nurture this tolerance. If we take it for granted, we will surely pay the price.
As @VSS points out - there is no point in arguing with those who are vehmently opposed to hunting. Their minds are already made up. Rather we need to persuade (or at the very least not go out of our way to offend!) those who aren't all that bothered either way.
We need to encourage other people's tolerance. And the best way of doing that is by not appearing intolerant ourselves.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
This is the basis of the majority of people's existence and decision making process.
As has already been pointed out by many replies to your post, the anti Arguments are all extremely easy to put into context and dismiss as we know the true realities and positive benefits and necessity of hunting and conservation of wildlife.
I try never use the Term Sport in relation to hunting, because it’s a misleading and very Limited description of hunting which is a hugely varied and broad activity .
If you refer to the killing of animals as a sport I can guarantee you ( true or not, like it or not) 9 out of 10 People will find this highly unacceptable. Hunting is hunting, and that is what it should be called.
In a country such as france , where Gastronomie is one of its proudest glories, the peasant farmer or food producer is seen as a national hero, and it’s beautiful landscapes are loved. hunting is on safer ground when it is correctly presented as a essential act and Part , of of producing sustainable , healthy , and delicious food, and an integral part of the conservation of Flora and Fauna .
if a vote for or against hunting is given to the public based on an emotive approach - it’s cruel, unnecessary, it’s an elitist rich persons pastime or sport, the public will vote against it in outstanding numbers; even though it’s simply not true.
Kindest regards, Olaf
For me, I have two primary reasons for hunting. 1. I feel that we have more respect for animals that we ourselves have taken, rather than buying something from the supermarket (they enjoy a better quality of life as well). 2. If I ever found myself in a situation where food was scarce, I would be able to provide for myself and others. I'm no prepper, but society cannot always be guaranteed to continue as is.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
I’d recommend the French translation of Meditations on Hunting by Jose Ortega Y Gasset, which may at least educate the authors of le Monde’s piece.
Dhindes
Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting Pine Martin - key here is that it may have come from a French publication but could have been said anywhere in the world ( France is one of the most hunter friendly places I know in terms of access and cost).
To me the arguments on sport, or not, is irrelevant ( just because something is a sport does not mean it should be allowed - dog fighting, bare knuckle boxing etc).
Stalking's key point should be the harvesting of a sustainable wild resource. This is meat which is natural and has not "suffered" from some of the less humane farming practices and has led a natural life until the moment it is killed. Limited or no suffering. Control of these animals is needed to protect the rest of the environment, in the absence of large predators we fill that roll. If someone is against all killing of animals, and does not eat meat etc the environmental protection argument still works. WAY less environmental impact from lead and plastic ( which is on the way out) from shooting vs modern farming ( before you react I work as a farming advisor).
The fact that people are willing to undertake this "work" for free is an added benefit. For the individuals involved it gives time out doors and an amount of exercise which has been proven to be good for physical and mental health. Added benefit around community and traditions and local income etc.
We should be proud of what we do and be prepared to "sell" our story to the public - in any country.
The one which I enjoy, but find harder to defend, is driven shooting using stocked birds - but this is probably a greater economic argument and why much different from raising chickens and then slaughtering them ?
Happy to argue stalking with many people - even have some vegetarian friend agreeing to eat wild meat !
To me the arguments on sport, or not, is irrelevant ( just because something is a sport does not mean it should be allowed - dog fighting, bare knuckle boxing etc).
Stalking's key point should be the harvesting of a sustainable wild resource. This is meat which is natural and has not "suffered" from some of the less humane farming practices and has led a natural life until the moment it is killed. Limited or no suffering. Control of these animals is needed to protect the rest of the environment, in the absence of large predators we fill that roll. If someone is against all killing of animals, and does not eat meat etc the environmental protection argument still works. WAY less environmental impact from lead and plastic ( which is on the way out) from shooting vs modern farming ( before you react I work as a farming advisor).
The fact that people are willing to undertake this "work" for free is an added benefit. For the individuals involved it gives time out doors and an amount of exercise which has been proven to be good for physical and mental health. Added benefit around community and traditions and local income etc.
We should be proud of what we do and be prepared to "sell" our story to the public - in any country.
The one which I enjoy, but find harder to defend, is driven shooting using stocked birds - but this is probably a greater economic argument and why much different from raising chickens and then slaughtering them ?
Happy to argue stalking with many people - even have some vegetarian friend agreeing to eat wild meat !
I have been very fortunate in being able to hunt in France and what I saw was hugely respectful individuals, many of whom were city based but clearly took a lot of time and effort in understanding the whole countryside (to a much greater extent than most here) and wildlife and operating in a very ethical and thoughtful way, treating their quarry with huge respect and treating us visitors with equal good humour and respect. The tradition and understanding that went in to it was far more than I have seen elsewhere. I really hope they can communicate this to thier fellow countrymen and that my experience wasn't isolated.
For your information, the French were among the first people to recognise animal sentience in law (1976) we just got round to it this year (2021). They also have a very active animal rights organisation, "L214" which protests against Foie Gras production by force feeding, Gavage and inhumane treatment of farm animals.
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
And Ortolan?
www.myfrenchlife.org
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
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.
I tend to agree with some above that the word “sport” is not helpful.
I think the argument can be made but I don’t think it takes us anywhere. If anything, it plays to a certain stereotype of shooters killing for fun and trivialises (in my mind) the far better reasons for heading out with a gun.
I’d much prefer to discuss with an undecided person the benefits of wild and free range meat, the freedom of being out and about etc than get into a semantic argument about whether it is sport. Continuing to call forms of shooting that allows antis to sidestep these issues which will be harder for them to argue by saying that you think shooting a deer is like kicking a football.
I think the argument can be made but I don’t think it takes us anywhere. If anything, it plays to a certain stereotype of shooters killing for fun and trivialises (in my mind) the far better reasons for heading out with a gun.
I’d much prefer to discuss with an undecided person the benefits of wild and free range meat, the freedom of being out and about etc than get into a semantic argument about whether it is sport. Continuing to call forms of shooting that allows antis to sidestep these issues which will be harder for them to argue by saying that you think shooting a deer is like kicking a football.
geoffw
Well-Known Member
Have you seen the list of Olympic "sports" these days?! Isn't "Bridge" one?
geoffw
Well-Known Member
Not just by members of the public... by increasing numbers of guns, myself incl.
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.
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.
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.
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
Never give an inch is best,no pandering,no allowances,nothing!
This is because for every allowance given it then erodes little by little what is left...the germs that we label 'antis' are a rabib foaming mouthed lot that want their way....
The only thing I would add in addition to some of the retorts given is the net positive effect of game shooting as I see it which is the management of the countryside. I wonder how much an average shoot compensates the landowner to set aside and properly stock fence woodland, and provide winter long cover crops (and wheat!), and the associated benefits to numerous species this must generate. Put this into context with predator/corvid control and you’ve a powerful argument in my book.
If you can get a potential anti (a neutral-antis will never agree) to understand that what they see out of the window isn’t remotely wild it’s intensively managed land you are some way to making them understand that someone needs to come up the the £ to encourage landowners to act as described.
If you can get a potential anti (a neutral-antis will never agree) to understand that what they see out of the window isn’t remotely wild it’s intensively managed land you are some way to making them understand that someone needs to come up the the £ to encourage landowners to act as described.
You are right, nothing will satisfy the more extreme antis, but it's not them that need persuading. As someone else has posted, it's the normal people who have no understanding of hunting and are asking perfectly valid questions that need "culturing". I occasionally comment on anti-vaccine posts or anti-badger culling posts, because I know there are a significant number of reasonable people asking reasonable questions.
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.
Similar threads
