Forum home Wildlife gardening

Pheasants

12357

Posts

  • HeliosHelios Posts: 87
    After reading all this I’m left wondering how some posters, who have apparently had considerable experience in the art and organisation of shooting pheasants, seem to think that this qualifies them as being the arbiters of what is an acceptable, well organised activity  (which involves killing for pleasure) versus a non acceptable leisure activity (which also involves killing for pleasure).
  • PosyPosy Isle of Wight.Posts: 2,286
    I don't understand: the law aside, we are ALL arbiters of what is acceptable. In our relations to each other, our community,  our country or the planet, we each of us make decisions from moment to moment. 
  • strelitzia32strelitzia32 Posts: 767
    Posy said:
    I don't understand: the law aside, we are ALL arbiters of what is acceptable. In our relations to each other, our community,  our country or the planet, we each of us make decisions from moment to moment. 
    Unfortunately we're not. Society is constructed in such a way that "acceptable" is defined by politicians and the judiciary. The judiciary are unelected, and their decisions set precedents that affect us all. Politicians are elected, mostly via a popularity contest, and so mostly make decisions based on what benefits them (I.e.: will get them reelected, or otherwise).

    I don't want to start a politics argument though.

    @FlyDragon I agree that, thanks to modern technology, it's possible for humans to live without eating animal-sourced meat without measurable side effects. We also have the technology to create vat-grown meat etc. But my point is that genetically, evolution-wise and ecologically, humans are omnivores. Denying that may be argued as ethical behavior, but it's also unnatural. There is a reason we have incisor and canine teeth, and not a mouth full of molars.

    So perhaps we should ban veganism and enforce a weekly meat consumption quota for everyone. It's a new political movement - avoid unnatural behavior ;)
  • HeliosHelios Posts: 87
    We may be evolved to eat meat however there is a world of difference to me between killing for pleasure, however well organised the occasion or event may be, and killing due to necessity.
  • strelitzia32strelitzia32 Posts: 767
    Helios said:
    We may be evolved to eat meat however there is a world of difference to me between killing for pleasure, however well organised the occasion or event may be, and killing due to necessity.
    I agree with you completely.
  • FlyDragonFlyDragon Greater ManchesterPosts: 649
    Posy said:
    I don't understand: the law aside, we are ALL arbiters of what is acceptable. In our relations to each other, our community,  our country or the planet, we each of us make decisions from moment to moment. 

    @FlyDragon I agree that, thanks to modern technology, it's possible for humans to live without eating animal-sourced meat without measurable side effects. We also have the technology to create vat-grown meat etc. But my point is that genetically, evolution-wise and ecologically, humans are omnivores. Denying that may be argued as ethical behavior, but it's also unnatural. There is a reason we have incisor and canine teeth, and not a mouth full of molars.

    Cars, planes, central heating, surgery, MRI scanners, toasters, freezers, contact lenses, chairs, canals, ponds, gardens...

    The list of unnatural stuff we are happy to accept is endless. 
  • wild edgeswild edges The north west of south east WalesPosts: 5,627
    Helios said:
    After reading all this I’m left wondering how some posters, who have apparently had considerable experience in the art and organisation of shooting pheasants, seem to think that this qualifies them as being the arbiters of what is an acceptable, well organised activity  (which involves killing for pleasure) versus a non acceptable leisure activity (which also involves killing for pleasure).
    It's all personal opinion but informed opinions and experience always have more value than misinformed ones based on guesswork. It's an odd argument to make when people say if you kill an animal for food yourself you're a bad person but buying meat wrapped in plastic is guilt free because someone else did the killing and promised not to enjoy it. If you enjoy eating your steak doesn't that mean you've killed for that pleasure even if you didn't pull the trigger? Eating fish from the supermarket caught by mega-trawlers that wipe out fish stocks is ok but going fishing and eating the fish yourself makes you a psychopath? Letting a cat go outside to torture wildlife for fun is fine and makes you an animal lover apparently but hunting with dogs is, quite rightfully, a crime. How necessary does killing an animal need to be before it's acceptable? Let he who is without sin shoot the first pheasant?



  • PosyPosy Isle of Wight.Posts: 2,286
    I disagree. Of course we have laws: I referred to them, and we have social norms. It is perfectly legal for me to shoot pheasants or catch fish, just as I may neglect those in need, consume goods which harm the environment and live a thoroughly selfish life. It is up to me to decide what is ACCEPTABLE   however. I can change my ways or not, according to my whims. Personally, I do not choose to kill for sport, but it is not illegal to do so and many regard it as wholly moral.
  • HeliosHelios Posts: 87
    edited July 2020
    Helios said:
    After reading all this I’m left wondering how some posters, who have apparently had considerable experience in the art and organisation of shooting pheasants, seem to think that this qualifies them as being the arbiters of what is an acceptable, well organised activity  (which involves killing for pleasure) versus a non acceptable leisure activity (which also involves killing for pleasure).
    It's all personal opinion but informed opinions and experience always have more value than misinformed ones based on guesswork. It's an odd argument to make when people say if you kill an animal for food yourself you're a bad person but buying meat wrapped in plastic is guilt free because someone else did the killing and promised not to enjoy it. If you enjoy eating your steak doesn't that mean you've killed for that pleasure even if you didn't pull the trigger? Eating fish from the supermarket caught by mega-trawlers that wipe out fish stocks is ok but going fishing and eating the fish yourself makes you a psychopath? Letting a cat go outside to torture wildlife for fun is fine and makes you an animal lover apparently but hunting with dogs is, quite rightfully, a crime. How necessary does killing an animal need to be before it's acceptable? Let he who is without sin shoot the first pheasant?



    Buying meat from the supermarket makes it guilt free and hoping the person who killed it didn’t enjoy it? Eating fish from super trawlers etc versus hobby fishing?? Really??? An extreme example to illustrate your point however my point is that I can’t personally condone killing as a leisure sport and by the way, in answer to your above arguments, I don’t eat meat.
  • wild edgeswild edges The north west of south east WalesPosts: 5,627
    Helios said:
    Buying meat from the supermarket makes it guilt free and hoping the person who killed it didn’t enjoy it? Eating fish from super trawlers etc versus hobby fishing?? Really??? An extreme example to illustrate your point however my point is that I can’t personally condone killing as a leisure sport and by the way, in answer to your above arguments, I don’t eat meat.
    The Marine Stewardship Council say "Yes, many MSC certified fisheries involve the use of “super trawlers” or factory trawlers.". Is it really 'extreme' that someone who buys a fish marked as MSC certified sustainable catch can think they're guilt free? Hobby fishing doesn't kill over 1000 porpoises each year... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/11/supertrawlers-making-a-mockery-of-uks-protected-seas



Sign In or Register to comment.