Hasbeen, I quite agree.
I certainly have no problem with mercy killing, nor -in theory, at least- with killing to eat. I also despise those who abhor killing but have no objections to meat once it's 'plastic wrapped'.
As I understand the law, a person who contracts another person to do their killing for them, is just as culpable as the killer.
I agree with the ethical basis of that law, and that's why I'm a vegetarian. As I said, I have killed to put meat on the table, and I didn't enjoy it. Now I don't have to, so I don't.

But this article is about hunting as 'sport'. This is about people who do enjoy killing.

The simple fact that we as Humans can witness and judge nature -as you just have- and see it as amoral and cruel, proves conclusively that we are capable of being something more; dare I say something finer, than just being the world's top predator.
As a Human capable of making ethical and moral judgements -as you have-, I can see a world of difference between killing as an act of mercy, and killing in the name of 'fun'.
We of English speaking backgrounds can look back a century or two and marvel at how barbarous our ancestors were; slavery, genocide, massive and egregious exploitation of the less fortunate...
Yes, people like that still exist today.
And so do hunters.
The question I pose is: If we look back from the 21st century at people in the 18th, and judge them as uncivilised, how will people in the 23rd century judge us?
I believe the first step in making the world a better place must be trying to make myself a better person.
In that light, I would aspire to be a 23rd century man, rather than an 18th century one.

Anyone who tells you that man is less kind than nature is a bl00dy idiot.
Hasbeen,
You'll get no argument from me on this one. However, aren't we constantly accused or talk ourselves into somehow being "above" other animals ? I'd say Yes & No & I'd also say that this is in fact nature doing what it does best. We must accept that although we go successfully against nature in many ways i.e. medicine, construction etc., in the end nature always comes out standing on the centre podium.
It just gets my heckles up when I witness cruelty to animals by people who claim to be in tune with the land yet when they receive a tiny cut they line up at the hospital to get those nice looking white bandages plus the added benefit of being away from work for several hours.

...Garry Mallard writes from the point of view of the victor. Shooting in National parks is an obvious pay-back to the gun lobby, of that there is no doubt.

...I also believe shooting in national parks is the sole responsibility of park rangers, to be overseen by park management in its strictest form. On this debate I 100% concur with the sentiments of Tony Lavis! My extensive experience in weaponry over the years leads me to the conclusion of the impossible nature of success in sharing the confines of a national park, with shooters

Can't agree with you there diver, it just needs organising.

Sure it is not a great idea to have bush walkers & shooters wandering around parks at the same time, but restricting culling of feral animals to rangers makes even less sense. Most rangers I knew were not great shots, & bringing a bunch in to do a job of culling is hugely expensive.

Organised shooting weekends, run by rangers, but with private shooters doing the work would not only be much cheaper, but would be more successful in achieving the objective.

All too many of our so called National Parks, in less populated areas, such as those declared by Goss, but never funded, simply degenerated into Lantana choked vermin reserves, rarely if ever visited by rangers or tourists.

The thousands of pigs in these were dangerous to eat, due to high levels of TB infection, but many passing yachties & fisherman would cull any pigs they saw, & take the odd cow.

The number of goats on of shore islands got so high they were altering the vegetation. To complain if a passing boaty took one of them is ridiculous.

I'm all for intelligent order, but stopping a passing boaty from helping keep these populations in check, for free is just bloody mindedness prevailing among the bureaucracy, pandering to ratbag greenies.

Hasbeen:

...I understand the necessity to cull feral animals from national parks and this point is undisputed. The examples you used to describe the slaughter of animals in remote parks makes sense and I also agree with them. What worries me is the propensity of the hunting and shooting element towards the “gung-ho”. Mostly this group are confined within the boundaries of a private property, and as a consequence, any miss-behaviour is quickly identified and dealt with on a local level: But the same activity is now (apparently), about to migrate to national parks.

...It’s one thing for politicians to mouth assurances of safety and control; but who believes in those expedient promises?
I liken the aspects of shooting in parks to logging: If logging can be likened to licenced professional shooters and thus agreeable; and clear-felling likened to the entry of the free-for-all shooters and unacceptable, then there is my stand on the issue.

>>Organised shooting weekends, run by rangers, but with private shooters doing the work would not only be much cheaper, but would be more successful in achieving the objective.<<

I like this idea. As long as I have advance warning that there will be men with guns on a particular weekend I can stay home and as long as it's not every weekend I can't see a problem.

Cheers,

Tony