The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The gaping wound in the cruelty argument > Comments

The gaping wound in the cruelty argument : Comments

By Garry Mallard, published 14/9/2012

When it comes to the end of life for wildlife, a bullet to the head is more humane than most.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Anthropomorphising our emotions on animals is asinine but it occurs unilaterally.

I have no countenance with anyone who eats meat but is against hunting for food, that's a ludicrous point of view to take I just ignore them. That animal has had a great life accept for the last couple minutes, rather then some chicken jammed in a cage for you or your dogs Sunday roast pleasure.

Obviously hunting needs to be sustainable, other than that where's the issue ? Vegetarians bring a different moral code to the table and one with listening to but I am not vegetarian. I also despair of the vegetarians who keeps a dog/cat and feed them meat, I am not sure what level of cognitive dissonance allows the drive that square peg in a round hole.

I do have an issue with hunting for feral animals because I am not sure who made us God and allowed us to decide one animals life is worth more that anothers but acknowledge this is a heterodox point of view and most have placed a ranking on animal life. A dog rates above a cane toad based and one animal above another based on "cuteness" or geography or size (bigger animals like a Whale are worth more than say an endangered spider). I also despair at the endless resources thrown at this task. Can anyone present me with evidence of a forest in NSW for example that's successfully been cleared of Lantana ? I think not... I can see some sense in nipping something in the bud if it's caught early but after that ?

I think hunters will struggle and die away, most people don't care an iota as they are too far removed from the land these days, ensconced in suburbia. Occasionally going camping in manicured National Park camp grounds, bringing with them meat on a Styrofoam tray wrapped in cling film rather then hunting a fish/bird/possum/rabbit and eating it, which would be MUCH less environmentally intensive than said meat.
Posted by Valley Guy, Monday, 17 September 2012 1:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many people quite rightly concerned that hunters will have access to National Parks as well as State Forests.
Many lucrative 'farming' areas have been affected by the rambling hunters, who, with their Sat Nav systems, are able to pin-point 'interesting' crops and thus make continued production problematical.

Those 'farmers' who have had to move into National Parks don't want this last bastion of tax-free private enterprise invaded by hunters and neither do those with long established 'cropping rights'.

It's getting hard for the enterprising to make a decent living, think of this as a form of cruelty also.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 20 September 2012 10:04:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy